Why Those Evil Boy Scouts! (Today, Being Prepared is Somehow Sinister)

Great take!

Indeed James. While watching football yesterday I caught Mulclair’s press conference while switching between games.

At first I thought “Holy Cr5ap, what they hell do they have on tape that is so damning? It must be a doozy!”

Then CTV played the tape….

Uhm, what? So? This is scandal? Hell Jack Layton even said the very thing about the Bloc I did in my comment on your previous post.

I agree, this makes the NDP and the Bloc look good - they are staying friendly not divisive, maintaining communication not cutting each other off, despite some pretty fundamental differences of opinion and policy (as well as lots of identical ones).

They seem more prepared to go for consensus at a time when, as the Conservatives said themselves only a week ago, we need to put ideology aside and use pragmatism.

This seems very pragmatic to me.

Of course, when I saw that Pierre Poilievre was involved, I knew it was desperation. Poilievre is my MP and creates bogus scandals and artificial outrage on a regular basis. He is also an ideologue of epic proportions.

James,

I think this furthers the potential criminal case Mulclair alluded to, because unless it was Mike Allen himself, it would be pretty easy to prove that the invite was intercepted by someone it was not meant for, even by mistake.

The Cons just keep digging their hole deeper.

Well James, three things:

1) this is still speculation as to how the Tories got the tape

2) the point is that the NDP has said they only wanted to take down the Tories because the Tories haven’t done anything about the economy. That would be a lie now, wouldn’t it?

3) if you were a Liberal/NDP supporter and you received an e-mail to listen to a “secret” Tory meeting, would you have done the same? Would most of your political friends? Think very hard before answering…

http://www.politicswatch.com/olo-mar26-2007.htm

Hello, James! I’ll note your point about all this being speculation, although your progression of point 1 through 3 sort of sounds like: “you’ve no proof that this happened and, even if you did, there was nothing wrong with what the guy did!”

As for point two, as I mentioned in my previous article, there are a number of reasons why the opposition might want to plan to bring this government down. The issue of the economy is a coincidental issue, and one of the ones which resonates with the public. I don’t see any dishonesty in planning ahead to see what your response should be if the Conservatives fail to reach out to the opposition in conciliatory tones and, instead, dares the opposition to fight back.

Finally, if the situation were reversed, would I have done anything differently? The answer is yes, and I speak from experience. I set up a friend’s website and helped him sign it onto the Liblogs aggregator. Remember, I’m a political non-partisan and am occasionally antagonistic to the Liberal party. But because I used my e-mail address to sign my friend’s website up, I started receiving Liblog e-mails, including ones planning out Liblogger strategies in response to the 2006 election.

I immediately contacted the head of the Liblogs, Jason Cherniak, and asked him why I was receiving these e-mails. He wasn’t sure himself, and was a little concerned about the leak until we figured out what happened. He offered me to let me continue receiving these e-mails as long as I kept the details in confidence, but I declined, and he took me off his list.

I did this because the content of these e-mails weren’t meant for me, and Jason was certainly within his rights not to let me have the information. It’s only an honest mistake that caused it to happen. I didn’t see the value of scoring cheap political points against the Liberals by divulging the information of those e-mails. I believe if you come into possession of something that doesn’t belong to you, you should return it. It’s how my parents brought me up.

I would hope that most of my political friends would have a similar level of integrity and act accordingly, but maybe my standards are a little high. But then, I think there’s value in humanity ascribing to be better, rather than playing to the lowest common denominator.

So all the Tories would have to do is return the tape to the NDP?

That’s why I implied that these others on the non-Tory side of the fence might not be so kind, as with the files found in the link provided.

One could say that whichever Tory listened in (the NDP says it is John Duncan, not sure how he fits into the “typo” theory) was only doing what the Liberals were doing with the box of files: examining the contents to ascertain whether or not there’s anything there in the “public interest.

As for the “planning ahead”, no, I don’t have a problem with that. Very prudent. I just question the timing of the “discovery” that there was no economic stimulus package.

It isn’t so much that I have a problem with what the coalition is doing. It’s that I have a problem with Stephane Dion becoming Prime Minister despite being soundly defeated six weeks ago. That really does reek to high heaven.

“breaking his own election date law in doing so”

He did not. The election date law is specific to majorities, not minorities.

And while I’ll give you points on ethics, James, this “mistake” shows me, at least, that the NDP is incapable of organizing something as simple as a conference call effectively. Not what I’d call a reassurance on their ability to keep national secrets safe.

Your points on Harper’s demeanour over the past few years are also well taken, and I’ve already stated how frustrated, angry, (pick an adjective) that he opened this can of worms with his partisan crap in the first place.

I freaked out my daughter by telling her I thought he should resign immediately. “But MOM! You LOVE Stephen Harper!”

Remember how p’o’d conservatives (small and large C) were that Liberal supporters would still vote Liberal after AdScam? I’d bet the ONLY way the CPC will hold onto seats in the next election is with a new leader, and Harper residing in the wastedumps of history. Which is a sad end to his political career, because he DID do what appeared impossible and unite the right, but such is the life of a party leader.

You and I will have to respectfully agree to disagree over whether forming a coalition is acceptable at this point in time.

And I’m really tired of the canard “no stimulus plan” when no one, of any of the 3 opposition parties, has made any suggestions other than Duceppe re the lumber industry PRIOR. Duceppe was the only one that met with Harper to discuss the Throne Speech. What does that say about the intent of the opposition parties to play nice in the sandbox?

“breaking his own election date law in doing so”

He did not. The election date law is specific to majorities, not minorities.

Um… no. The relevant paragraphs:

The suggestion that this legislation doesn’t apply to a prime minister of a minority government is, frankly, silly. Harper himself made sure of that when he set the clock ticking for an election in October 2009.

Ask yourself: why 2009? His government came to power in June 2006, and our constitution allows individual parliaments (not governments, parliaments) to maintain their mandate for five years. Tradition has dictated that majority governments call an election roughly every four years. Four years translates to an election in mid-to-late 2010. Five years translates to 2011. Harper picked 2009, or an election after just three years. While it is unusual for a minority parliament to last that long, it’s not unheard of. So the year Harper voluntarily picked to end his government’s mandate strongly suggests that he wanted to show that his legislation applied to his government as well.

…

Harper specifically brought in this bill to counter what previous governments sought to do: calling an election before the expiration of the mandate whenever the conditions were most favourable for them, and this is what he is doing now. Any excuses that Harper brings forward for going forward with an election now: obstructionism from the opposition; a need to clear the air and firm up the mandate, et cetera, can be brought forward by future governments when they feel the law should not apply to them. Harper, in passing this legislation, sets the precedent. If he disobeys the spirit of his own law, it becomes a law that isn’t worth respecting, and the “achievement” has to come off of any list of Harper Accomplishments for that list to remain credible.

Here you go. Yup, OK. No harmony in the House, all because of Harper.

Yup Yup

http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/capital-diary2.pdf

Good try, James:

From canada.com here http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=4f72a461-9d41-4b77-9f22-aab47e14449d:

“… The one-paragraph amendment to the Canada Elections Act is subject to an override clause saying the Governor General retains the power to dissolve Parliament at his or her discretion - which historically means at the request of a prime minister.

A binding law would have required a constitutional amendment …”

And of course, “everybody knows” that Canadians don’t want to re-open the constitution.

So, no. Good try, but no.

Which applies equally well to majority governments. I never said anywhere in the article that Stephen Harper broke the letter of the law — primarily the law was basically meaningless. What he did do was break the spirit of the law. He hadn’t lost the confidence of the House, and yet he went to the Governor General to call an election. That was something he promised he wouldn’t do, when he went to pass the bill.

Note what the House Leader and Minister of Democratic Reform (Rob Nicholson) said during the debate on the bill:

I will begin with the description of the current process for calling general elections and I will discuss some of the difficulties associated with it. This will be followed by a discussion of the many advantages associated with fixed date elections. Finally, I will be very pleased to present the specifics of Bill C-16.

Currently, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, whose government has not lost the confidence of the House of Commons, to determine what he or she regards as a propitious time for an election to renew the government’s mandate. The Prime Minister then requests dissolution of the House from the Queen’s representative and if the Governor General agrees, he or she proclaims the date of the election.

What we have is a situation where the Prime Minister is able to choose the date of the general election, not based necessarily on what is in the best interests of the country, but what is in the best interests of his or her political party. Bill C-16 would address this problem and would produce a number of other benefits.

Harper never lost the confidence of the House of Commons before the 2008 election. Ergo, he called an election opportunistically — something he promised not to do. He was the one who took his failure to work with any of the three opposition parties to the highest level. So is it any surprise the opposition parties got prepared to work with themselves rather than him?

And while I’ll give you points on ethics, James, this “mistake” shows me, at least, that the NDP is incapable of organizing something as simple as a conference call effectively. Not what I’d call a reassurance on their ability to keep national secrets safe.

Oh come on - using a single character typo as evidence of gross incompetence?

On a conference call of that nature?

ABSOLUTELY!

What if it’s an honest-to-God security issue? You still okay with a “typo”? I’m not. Give your head a shake, and take the “I’m tired of Harper” blinders off for just a minute, please.

I realize you’re self-employed, but you HAVE worked in companies and/or municipalities in the past. You KNOW that this kind of incompetence is awarded with a pink slip. Give it up, already.

I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-C-E. Spelled any other way is still incompetence. Period. And you’re okay with them having the keys to the kingdom.

I’m not.

Well, Candace, you may need to give your head a shake in a couple of areas.

One, you’re replying to Josh, not me. He’s the one who said “Oh come on - using a single character typo as evidence of gross incompetence?” He’s a medical student in Halifax.

Secondly, I have worked at IT companies in the past, and I’ve seen honest mistakes like this dealt with without firings. I’ve seen small mistakes like this occur, and have even received e-mails I wasn’t supposed to because of it. In my case, my reaction was to contact the people who sent me the e-mail in error and notify them of their mistake. Why is it so hard for other people to do that? On your blog, you compared the acquiring and use of this e-mail to sending private communication from Al Queda to CSIS, but analogy only works if you have parties like the NDP on any sort of enemy scale that includes Al Queda, rather than accepting the NDP as a group of Canadians, not unlike yourself, who have legitimate opinions that happen to differ from your own.

Finally, and I’m less sure about this, it’s not the NDP who assigned those e-mail addresses, but non-partisan IT workers on Parliament Hill. It sort of complicates the picture, doesn’t it?

James - the info I received re: Mike Allen, while from a good source, was wrong (apparently). They are now saying it was a mix-up between John Duncan (CON) and Linda Duncan (NDP). -GM

Greg: hard to tell how they know one way or the either, isn’t it?

I can only imagine what would have happened if the Tories did the same thing. Which is my entire point.

The thing is, James G, if the Conservatives were in opposition and trying this now, it would be an entirely different Conservative party we’re looking at. It would be a Conservative Party with a leader willing to cooperate with an opposition party or two (like the Bloc and the NDP) to advance policies of a common interest to a majority of Canadians, and they’d be up against a Liberal government who, shall we say, wasn’t.

In that framework, I’d be okay with a Conservative-NDP coalition, or even Conservative-NDP-Bloc. Indeed, I called for it in 2006, here and here.

This was because I assumed that Harper was less of a shameless and arrogant partisan than he turned out to be. But, oh well. Live and learn, right?

Sorry, JamesG, I think I may have misread your comment and what you were replying to. But to anybody who thinks that I’m only supporting this coalition because it’s the Liberals who are the victors and the Conservatives who are the victims, I want to point out that this isn’t the case. It wasn’t two years ago, when the tables were essentially turned.

NP, James Bow. I was getting confused myself as to which James said what, to whom. You’ve made your point very clear, and I appreciate it.

As usual, there is enough hypocrisy on both sides, replete with the requisite, “its different when I do it”.

Take, for example, the “the Liberals should enforce caucus discipline” coming from the Coalition supporters who would have us believe they are very much more democratic than that nasty Harper when he, er, enforces caucus discipline. Or something.

Me, despite my support of the Tories, would love to see a day WITHOUT formal parties of any kind. My conservatism is of the libertarian kind (pro-dope, pornography, same-sex marriage) that doesn’t fit me in well with the God Squad, let me tell you. So when it comes to vote, I have to often choose the lesser of two or three evils. As well, I tend to vote for the best candidate, not party.

And just as people have pointed out that there is no mention of a Prime Minister in the Constitution, neither is there a mention of political parties…