The Invisible Hand

Global News has uncovered a serious problem with the Liberals' "Do Not Call" program, passed in 2005:

Thousands of Canadians tell us that signing up for the list has left their phones ringing off the hook. Home phones and for the first time, cellphones, are being bombarded with sales pitches.

The "Do Not Call" list is managed by Canada's telecommunications regulator, the CRTC. The list has to be given to the telemarketers so they know who not to call. But a Global News investigation shows it's easy for anyone to get their hands on the list and use it for the wrong reasons.

It took Global News less than 10 minutes on the CRTC's website to register as a telemarketer using fake information and a $50 service fee. The fee gave us access to the list for the 416 area code and 600,000 numbers.

It is so easy to access that offshore telemarketers are believed to be using it as a database of people to call. They can get away with it because they're not bound by Canadian laws.

I probably shouldn't say this, but... Hah! That's what happens when people decide that they need the power of the state (and a new government bureaucracy) to protect them from minor annoyances.

Personally, I'll stick to my tried-and-true method for getting rid of telemarketers:

Them: "Hello, I'm calling to offer you a low-interest credit card--"
Me: "Sorry, I'm not interested." *click*

No government intervention required.

Labels: government failure, Liberal Party, statism

Many on the left are disputing the idea that the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are trying to form a coalition government. They claim that the Bloc Quebecois are not actually part of the coalition, because... uh, because they say so.

So what is the proper way to answer this question? Fortunately, I have discovered a simple and effective test:

If your leader's signature is on this document, then your party is part of the coalition.

Labels: Bloc Quebecois, coup-alition, Liberal Party, New Democratic Party

So the Conservatives want to axe the $1.95-per-vote subsidy given to the various political parties, at a cost of $27 million each year.

I support this for multiple reasons:

1. It's the right thing to do. Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize political campaigns in the first place? Leave it to those Canadians who care enough about a party to send their own money.
   
2. It's ideologically consistent. Stephen Harper was opposed to the subsidy when it was first proposed in 2003.
   
3. It shows that politicians are willing to include themselves in the upcoming belt-tightening.
   
4. As a bonus, it completely screws the Bloc, and to a lesser extent the Liberals. :)

Two thumbs up!

Update: This post has apparently caused Canadian Cynic to call me an "asshole." I will wear it as a badge of honour.

Labels: Bloc Quebecois, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, welfare

I'm too tired to write a decent review of the election right now, so here's something completely trivial. The popular vote totals were:

CPC 37.6, LPC 26.2, NDP 18.2, BQ 10.0, Grn 6.8, Other 1.2

If you plug that into the Hill & Knowlton Predictor, you get the following seat count:

CPC 143, LPC 74, NDP 38, BQ 52, Grn 0, Other 1

And the actual results (pending recounts)?

CPC 143, LPC 76, NDP 37, BQ 50, Grn 0, Other 2

Not bad, especially considering that their formula completely ignores local dynamics.

Labels: Bloc Quebecois, Conservative Party, Green Party, Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, Parliament

I see Stephane Dion is being his usual deep-thinking self:

"We need to win against the most right-wing prime minister in the history of our country."

Wank.

"Stephen Harper wants to give George W. Bush a third term in Ottawa."

Double wank. And plagiarism, to boot.

One wonders how the Liberals are going to get their self-pleasuring fix after November. The day Obama -- or even McCain -- wins the election, is the day they lose the bogeyman they've been addicted to for the past six years.

Labels: Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, US politics

Well, the Liberals sure are going after the Conservatives on the Chuck Cadman controversy. Unfortunately for them, they missed their chance to vote down the government over the budget...

But wait, they've got an opposition day coming up! They can use it to bring down the government! After all, if their claims about Cadman are true, it would definitely help them in the resulting election campaign.

So, how much do Stephane Dion and the Liberals believe their own claims about Conservative bribery?

...oh.

(h/t: Paul Wells)

Labels: Liberal Party, partisan snarkery, Stephane Dion

I realize that it's several months old, but I just came across this:



So Ruby Dhalla argues that stopping corporations and unions from giving huge loans to politicians which never have to be paid back will create "roadblocks" which prevent women, visible minorities, and "ordinary people" from getting involved in the political process.

...

Because there are lots of corporate/union bigwigs who would otherwise be falling all over themselves to give huge political loans to "ordinary people" (women, visible minority, or otherwise), of course.

Labels: general stupidity, Liberal Party

The Liberal Party has released a new TV ad to counter the ones being run by the Conservatives. It touts Stephane Dion's work at the Montreal climate change conference in December 2005. The conference was attended by over 10,000 delegates from around the world, a feat which I'm sure didn't create any extra CO2 emissions. (But I digress...)

Anyway, the ad's narrator proclaims "They said he couldn't do it." (Who "they" are and the "it" he allegedly couldn't do is never specified.) We are then treated to a dramatic shot of "President" Dion banging his gavel, pumping his fists in the air, and declaring "Decided!"

So, what exactly was "decided" under Dion's leadership? Turning to the conference's press release, we find the following (emphasis mine):

• "...a dialogue about the future action has begun..." (Dion's words)
• "Key decisions were made that outline the path to future international action..."
• "A new working group was established to discuss future commitments..."
• "...a dialogue on strategic approaches... was also launched."
• "A series of workshops is planned..."

And so on. The main thing that they "decided" appears to be that they'd continue to get together like this every year to "decide" even more things. Good work, Stephane.

Labels: global warming, Liberal Party, Stephane Dion

...by not running a Green Party candidate against him.

Labels: Green Party, Liberal Party, partisan snarkery

Hey, that's what the headline would be like if the Conservatives were doing this.

Labels: Liberal Party, media

Dr. Strangelove over at Political Staples tipped me off to this:

During a closed door caucus meeting Wednesday, insiders say several MPs politely encouraged Dion to broaden his attack on the Conservative government and demonstrate to Canadians that he has a firm grasp on a wide range of issues.

...

Indeed, during the caucus meeting, insiders said there were some complaints that only a small group of MPs are being allowed to perform during question period.

Hmm... suddenly, there's a leak in the Liberal caucus, spilling embarrasing details of their meetings to the media. I wonder who that could be... :)

Labels: Liberal Party, Look at me - I'm GARTH TURNER

(I wrote most of this post a couple weeks ago, and figured I'd better post it before the convention is over and done with...)

A fun exerpt from the SES poll results on how the different candidates would affect votes

A victory by Michael Ignatieff would make me:
...more likely to vote Liberal: 16%
...less likely to vote Liberal: 20%

A victory by Bob Rae would make me:
...more likely to vote Liberal: 20%
...less likely to vote Liberal: 24%

A victory by Stephane Dion would make me:
...more likely to vote Liberal: 14%
...less likely to vote Liberal: 23%

A victory by Gerard Kennedy would make me:
...more likely to vote Liberal: 12%
...less likely to vote Liberal: 21%

Note that every candidate has a higher negative effect than his positive one. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the Liberal Party will be better off if they never choose a leader at all. :)

Seriously though, this is a good example of how an leadership race tends to boost a party's poll numbers above what any individual candidate could receive. The supporters of each party each believe their guy can/will win, so their support for the party overall is firm. After a winner is declared, however, many supporters of the losing candidates are likely to leave. For example, a win by Ignatieff would drive the most left-wing Liberals to the NDP, while a Rae victory would drive away... well, pretty much anyone who set foot in Ontario between 1990 and 1995.

The artificial boost from having multiple potential leaders, combined with the extra media attention from the race and upcoming convention, have boosted the Liberals' poll numbers over the past few months. Once the reality of leading the Opposition sets in, I suspect those support levels will drop.

Labels: Liberal Party, partisan snarkery

Something from the latest Liberal Party newsletter which made me chuckle:

Geoff Regan, Liberal critic for Human Resources and Skills, oversaw opposition MPs as they overwhelming passed a motion calling for focused and immediate investment to address Canada’s economic future. He noted as the motion was passed that a recent survey of 150 senior CEOs found the Conservative budget has done little to boost productivity in Canada.

Apparently, the Liberal attack machine didn't stop to consider that the Conservative budget hasn't even been passed yet.

Labels: general stupidity, Liberal Party

CalgaryGrit reports that David Orchard is sending signals that he will be entering the Liberal leadership race.

Personally, I'm going to predict that Orchard finishes third, and either Michael Ignatieff or Gerard Kennedy will win his delegates' support, in exchange for signing an agreement to ban all cross-border commerce with the United States ("no trucks nor trade with Jesusland") and creating a Red Ribbon commission to review the British North America Act.

Labels: attempted humour, Liberal Party

All you need to know...

Labels: Liberal Party

Here's a little experiment to try. Go to the Google News Advanced Search page, put "liberal.ca" in the News Source field, and a common search term (eg. "election") in the main keyword field. This is what you get:



Now back up, change the News Source to "conservative.ca" and try again:



The same holds true for the NDP, Greens, and Bloc Quebecois as well.

Does this seem like fair coverage to you, especially during an election campaign? Please write to Google and let them know that if they're going to include party press releases in their aggregator, they should do so for all the parties, not just one.

Update: Google sent me a reply, claming that "an article's placement on our main page is determined entirely by a mathematical algorithm, based on many factors including how often and where a story appears on the web." That's nice, but it's also completely irrelevant to my complaint. It's not that the other parties get less prominent "placement" than the Liberals, it that they don't get any placement whatsoever. Try again, guys.

Labels: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, media, nerd stuff

Check out this awesome parody of a Liberal attack ad from the 2004 election.

It was created by Grig, who also wrote a detailed analysis of the original Liberal ad. (I don't know if I believe his "subliminal image" argument, but it proves beyond any doubt that the muzzle flash was there.)

For what it's worth, here's my (much more humble) take on the gun ad:

Labels: ads, Liberal Party

Button from a Conservative blog, based on a graphic from the Conservative Party, posted four months ago:



Button from the Liberal Party website, posted in the last couple days:



(Hat tip: Warren Kinsella)

Labels: Liberal Party, Paul Martin

From the main page of the Liberal website:



Psst... Hey, Paul! From June 28, 2004 to November 28, 2005 is seventeen months.

Remember Belinda's press conference, when Martin made a big deal of how he could count? Methinks someone was fibbing...

Labels: Liberal Party

Thanks to my exclusive sources, I've been able to obtain a copy of one of the attack ads that the Liberals will be running in the upcoming election.

Download it now.

(Note: To avoid showing their hand, the Liberals disguised some of the details in this version. "Prime Minister" was changed to "city councilman," while "Stephen Harper" was renamed "Jeff Miller" and "Paul Martin" became "Doug Smith.")

Labels: ads, attempted humour, Liberal Party

Well, Scott Brison sure knows how to satisfy reporters, doesn't he? After Stephen Harper unveiled his Federal Accountability Act ethics package yesterday, Brison rushed to the microphones with a haphazard assortment of bogus claims about Harper's service with the NCC. He also took the opportunity to whine about how the Conservatives weren't obediently following the Liberal mantra of waiting for Gomery's second report before proposing anything.

CTV has video of his statement here. But if you poke around in the page's HTML code, you can get a more complete feed which lets you hear the reactions of the reporters after Brison abruptly left.

Reporter #1: [exasperated sigh]
Reporter #2: I came for this?
Reporter #3: All this work for what?
Reporter #2: We ran all the way here for this?
...
Reporter #4: Get over here, we want to ask you some questions!

Listen to the reaction.

Labels: Liberal Party, Scott Brison

When I got home this evening, I was greeted by two e-newsletters in my inbox. The first was from the Conservative Party, and featured a comparison of what Stephen Harper and Paul Martin have be doing over the summer.



It links to a page on the Conservative site with a map that shows how much more Harper has travelled around the country this summer compared to Martin. More importantly, it also features ten issues which have been important to Canada during that time, and contrasts the Liberals' inaction with the what the Conservatives would do if they were in power, including links to the relevant sections of the Conservative policy declaration. The issues are all referenced to the Conservative slogan, Stand up for Canada.

(In the event that one of the conservative.ca webmasters is reading my humble blog, I'd like to point out a small glitch: in the "Devil's Lake" section, the banner text mistakenly says Safer Communities when it slides onto the screen, before changing to the correct version, The Environment.)

On the other side, we have the Liberal newsletter.

Dear Dan ,

In our first survey you told us that health care was your number one priority, as it is ours.

What element of our health care accord is the most important to you?

Click Here Now to answer this short survey about issues that are important to you.

Thanks for your participation!

Funny, when I filled out the Liberal Party's online survey a month ago, I didn't choose health care as my "number one priority." Isn't it nice that the Liberals assume that whatever option wins a plurality of the vote automatically becomes the sole voice of the nation? At least we know why they think they should be able to do whatever they want when they win less than 40% of the vote...

Anyway, let's take a look at the choices in their new survey, asking "What element of our health care accord is the most important to you?"

• Reducing Wait Times and Improving Access
  
• The Wait Times Reduction Fund
  (A tad repetitive, aren't we?)
  
• Strategic Health Human Resource Action Plans
  (If anyone can figure out what the heck this is supposed to mean, please let me know.)
  
• Home Care
  
• Primary Care Reform
  
• National Pharmaceuticals Strategy
  
• Ensuring the Health of Canadians
  (Now there's a specific and meaningful choice.)
  
• Prevention, Promotion and Public Health
  (See above.)
  
• Accountability and Reporting to Citizens
  (Don't hold your breath.)

To the surprise of no one, "Choice in health care options" and "Allowing the private sector to help out" weren't acceptable votes. I guess it would have been rather embarrassing if one of them had won, as their next newsletter would have been forced to boldly proclaim to all Liberal supporters "You told us that you want two-tier health care!"

Labels: Conservative Party, Liberal Party

Over the last few weeks, we've heard endless claims that Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe formed an "alliance" to bring down the Liberal budget and thereby destroy Canada. Certain media outlets were happy to use misleading pictures to promote the idea.

Yesterday, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois joined together to defeat a Conservative motion to give Justice Gomery's final report some teeth. Well, I guess this means the media will be all over how the fact that the Liberals and the Bloc voted the same way on something is proof that they have an "alliance."

Right?

Labels: Bloc Quebecois, Liberal Party