|
Rathgeber stating a lot of obvious things about the CPC's tight messaging control. Threw out a comment about the Duffy scandal as an example of the party's issues with accountability and transparency.
BGrifter fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jun 6, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnfq60pLs8I There's a baby crying at the same time as Baird is talking 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I'm moving back to Ontario soon so I'm a bit out of the loop, but is "unelected Premier Kathleen Wynne" a thing? Because if so that's pretty gross. Yes, but they always seem to forget Ernie Eves doing the same thing after Harris ran off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Oh, if only more Tory MPs would go independent and ruin Harper's majority... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I'm moving back to Ontario soon so I'm a bit out of the loop, but is "unelected Premier Kathleen Wynne" a thing? Because if so that's pretty gross. Yeah, it's a thing. Some people really don't want a Liberal government, and that's fine on its own, but they're really pushing any angle to exclaim just how illegitimate, in their minds, the current government is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
The "unelected and illegitimate" line gets trotted out every single time there's a leadership transition in the governing party. It's dishonest and disingenuous, but it's not particularly suprising or disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
QP TIME Come on, start asking about what Rathgeber said repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Independent MPs: the best MPs.quote:Edmonton East MP Peter Goldring today is expected to hear a verdict today on a charge that he refused to provide a breath sample after a 2011 roadside stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The "unelected and illegitimate" line gets trotted out every single time there's a leadership transition in the governing party. It's dishonest and disingenuous, but it's not particularly suprising or disgusting. Not surprising, but it kinda twists the view of how we elect our political representatives. There's enough ignorance about how the government works already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
And here we go on Rathegeber questions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:It is to a point, however the federal government isn't a business and should have no trade secrets or proprietary research that needs to be guarded. In fact, if they are doing research and not publishing it for public (corporate) consumption, then you should be probably be asking why they are bothering. The Canadian government ddoes have proprietary research most of which has to do with unreleased research that may or may not have real economic viability or could cause damage to unfinish research. We don't have trade secrets as such but unfinished science can cause serious damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Ottawa is pretty Liberal on the provincial level, which is always good for a laugh whenever Ottawa conservatives complain about Toronto liberals and how Dalton McGuinty (and now [unelected premier] Kathleen Wynne) are ALL THEIR FAULT! I"m leaving Jim Baird's riding to move to Poilievre riding, I"m sad. Breaking up the old Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is one of the few moments out and out gerrymandering in Canadian history. *I also double posted due to tabs*
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I"m leaving Jim Baird's riding to move to Poilievre riding, I"m sad. It is an honest tossup for me which of those two picks I found most obnoxious in my time in Ottawa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnfq60pLs8I Is John Baird ever *not* making this face? e: It's hilarious to me how the CPC keeps trying to push that Angry Tom meme when this guy is Harper's right-hand man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
"Angry Tom" always struck me as a really weak smear to begin with. Most people who actually bother to vote these days are extremely pissed about something or other, so the idea that they'd be turned off by someone who is angry seems silly. Its sorta like how saying that Harper is an autocrat doesn't necessarily hurt him when the electorate is craving stability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Helsing posted:"Angry Tom" always struck me as a really weak smear to begin with. To a casual, uneducated, uninformed voter it's incredibly effective. Easy to find pictures of him looking angry and menacing. Think not in reality but in Conservative smear campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
I thought Kinsella came up with the Angry Tom thing? Either way, it's dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:To a casual, uneducated, uninformed voter it's incredibly effective. Easy to find pictures of him looking angry and menacing. Think not in reality but in Conservative smear campaigns. Unless the anger can somehow be framed in a way that makes it seem dehibilitating to his performance I'm not convinced its a very effective attack. Compared to greed, incompetence, stupidity, weakness, cowardice or lack of resolve I really don't think its a terribly effective way to characterize your enemy. I could be wrong here. Happy and cheerful politicians are often very effective, and obviously it would be best for Mulcair if he could avoid the "Angry" label. Its never good to get smeared in politics. But of all the attacks one could imagine being used against the leader of the opposition, "He's Angry!" just doesn't seem like a great one. As I said before, I think a lot of Canadian voters are already pissed off about something so hearing that someone is "angry" isn't necessarily a big turn off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:As I said before, I think a lot of Canadian voters are already pissed off about something so hearing that someone is "angry" isn't necessarily a big turn off. Sure they are. But a lot of those angry voters are already planning to vote for the party with the foppy pretty boy because they can't stand the NDP and the other part of those angry voters are angry about stuff the Conservatives support so they'd be more than happy to call Muclair an angry, annoying whiner. The NDP appeals perfectly to the Internet message board poster. They've failed almost every time to appeal to the average Canadian voter. It took the Liberal Party being led by the worst loving candidate ever to get their Opposition and unfortunately for the NDP, Trudeau has far more appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:To a casual, uneducated, uninformed voter it's incredibly effective. Easy to find pictures of him looking angry and menacing. Think not in reality but in Conservative smear campaigns. Which is funny because the top page of results in GIS for John Baird have a lot of images of him angry and yelling at someone, whereas a lot of the images I find of Mulcair are of HAPPY TOM!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:The NDP appeals perfectly to the Internet message board poster. They've failed almost every time to appeal to the average Canadian voter. It took the Liberal Party being led by the worst loving candidate ever to get their Opposition and unfortunately for the NDP, Trudeau has far more appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
It's true that the NDP's support in a lot of quarters right now is uncertain, but before the 2011 election who could've foreseen the NDP surging up to official opposition status? They may be due for another surge by the time the next election rolls around (which is still a long enough time into the future that anything could happen), or it might turn out to be a flash in the plan as Trudeau ascends in his role as Liberal savior, or maybe we're all due for another long term of Harper. With the vivid example of polling failure we've just seen with BC, it's hard to say with any authority what kind of support each party has right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:The Canadian government ddoes have proprietary research most of which has to do with unreleased research that may or may not have real economic viability or could cause damage to unfinish research. Almost all of the research that was prompting muzzling concerns was coming out of DFO or Environment, and was largely published work (eg. Kristi Miller's work was published in Science, which was why she was giving comments to journos, when she was muzzled). The notion that there's some kind of legitimacy to the actions of the feds here in preventing damage from "unfinished science" is extremely tendentious- it's not even clear to me what "finished science" means, science is definitionally never finished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:Since the courts have stopped the federal government from merely shutting down safe injection sites, the Conservatives are relying on local NIMBY mentalities to keep them from being opened: Oh sure, now they want data quote:Describing the need for the clinic including scientific evidence of a medical benefit, relevant data on drug use, infectious diseases, overdose deaths and drug-related loitering, as well as any relevant official reports. And by the way, this is the email the Conservatives sent out today quote:Do you want a supervised drug consumption site in your community? These are facilities where drug addicts get to shoot up heroin and other illicit drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Sure they are. But a lot of those angry voters are already planning to vote for the party with the foppy pretty boy because they can't stand the NDP and the other part of those angry voters are angry about stuff the Conservatives support so they'd be more than happy to call Muclair an angry, annoying whiner. You're missing my point. I'm not trying to suggest that painting Mulcair as angry will somehow cause more people to vote for him, I'm just saying its a really weak way of attacking him. For comparison, I think the framing of Ignatieff as opportunistic and unprincipled or the framing of Dion as weak and incompetent were both much more effective when it came to damaging their electoral prospects. quote:The NDP appeals perfectly to the Internet message board poster. They've failed almost every time to appeal to the average Canadian voter. It took the Liberal Party being led by the worst loving candidate ever to get their Opposition and unfortunately for the NDP, Trudeau has far more appeal. What exactly is "the average Canadian voter" in your mind? We aren't really a homogeneous enough country for that to be a particularly useful concept. As far as being effective, the NDP has appealed to a substantial portion of the Canadian populace and has been instrumental in implementing the modern healthcare system that most Canadians seem to believe is a pretty fundamental value.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
In totally unrelated, and bizarre, news, the Competition Bureau has charged Nestle and Mars, along with a large distribution network, with price fixing. Hershey would have been charged too, but they cooperated with the investigation and are expected to plead guilty. Maybe the telecomms industry can be next.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Maybe the telecomms industry can be next. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION v. ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INC. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION v. GLOBALIVE WIRELESS MANAGEMENT CORP. ETC. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION v. SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC. All filed today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:As far as being effective, the NDP has appealed to a substantial portion of the Canadian populace and has been instrumental in implementing the modern healthcare system that most Canadians seem to believe is a pretty fundamental value. Ah right, when was that? In the last 30 years? Of course they appeal to a substantial portion of the Canadian populace. They did become the Opposition Party. But if you are actually denying that the NDP's tactics of broadening their image to the average Canadian who might actually vote them in as a minority leader has been quite mediocre, I don't know what to say. Muclair is a fun attack dog in Parliament but I'm sure to Conservative so is John Baird. NDP needs to do a much better job selling themselves to Canadians. "We did better than the Liberals once" isn't exactly praise you can take to the bank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Ah right, when was that? In the last 30 years? Not much in the way of options right now to be honest especially for the left leaning out west.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:About that. Whoa, that's surprising. I'm guessing they've been investigating for a while?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:About that. There is a God. gently caress you Rogers. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:There is a God. Wonder why they haven't hit up Bell or Telus..
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Dolash posted:It's true that the NDP's support in a lot of quarters right now is uncertain, but before the 2011 election who could've foreseen the NDP surging up to official opposition status? They may be due for another surge by the time the next election rolls around (which is still a long enough time into the future that anything could happen), or it might turn out to be a flash in the plan as Trudeau ascends in his role as Liberal savior, or maybe we're all due for another long term of Harper. Problem is as an NDPer for a longtime I know plenty of people that don't find direct fault with the NDP specifically but don't support them because. "They can't govern and they'll never win." Of course, the Conservative party had the same issue and they went through a lot of mental gymnastics to tell you they were Canada's Founding Party (tm) and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Uh  PM's former chief of staff controlled secret Tory fund quote:CBC News has learned that Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, had control of a secret fund in the Prime Minister’s Office when he cut the now infamous $90,000 "personal cheque" to disgraced Senator Mike Duffy. There's more detail in the article but wow, this has been a ridiculous few weeks for the CPC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Stephen Harper posted:Uh Wait isn't this basically just a somewhat inflammatory story trying to tell people about party coffers? Or is it sort of like earmarked funding in the US? I think this is a bit of piling on but I suppose this can be construed in a more inflammatory way. My bet this doesn't really become a story. I thought pretty much everyone knew this existed in every party. Yea I suppose \/ that being said its used for things that could be construed as partisan that the party and PM don't want the government to pay for. It's also a bit disingenuous to say its half the publics in an attempt to skew the optics. It is half public in that through voter subsidy most political funding has public cash in it. Anyway, ill be interested to see if/when this becomes spoken about in other media outlets. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Wait isn't this basically just a somewhat inflammatory story trying to tell people about party coffers? I think this is a bit of piling on. According to the article this is the first time a party has done something like this. quote:There's nothing illegal or particularly new about a prime minister and his staff using party funds for partisan and even personal purposes — and stirring up a hornets' nest of political controversy in the process. One of the other issues is that this money can apparently be invested, and there's something fundamentally unsettling about a secret government stash of money being handled by a former Bay Street man while he works in the executive office. Stephen Harper fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Mulcair's grilling of Harper was fun while it lasted, unfortunately the first minister of our responsible government won't be making himself available for Question Time again until September at the earliest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Wait isn't this basically just a somewhat inflammatory story trying to tell people about party coffers? Or is it sort of like earmarked funding in the US? I think this is a bit of piling on but I suppose this can be construed in a more inflammatory way. It's pretty loving weird that one guy controlled the fund exclusively. He could have written himself a $90,000 cheque to cover the Duffy bribe anytime he wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
I didn't think it was particularly scandalous that the Conservatives have a rainy day slush fund. Plenty of other things to get up in arms about right now. Bookending the "trained seal" clip from Rathgeber with Chris Alexander on a panel was entertaining television.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:51
|
|