Policy alert - Macleans.ca

Policy alert


Jack Layton promises funding for crime prevention and police officers.

If elected, the NDP would boost federal support for the National Crime Prevention Centre to $100 million per year. The party would also increase and make permanent the youth gang prevention fund, which supports programs aimed at keeping kids away from crime. Funding for the program would go from $7.5 million to $16.5 million. The NDP would also invest $75 million a year in federal support for a shelter system and women fleeing violence … the NDP would double and make permanent the police officer recruitment fund. The party said there would be annual increases over the following three years with a goal of adding 2,500 new police officers.


Policy alert

  1. Here's a policy alert….for the media:

    How about just reporting the straight facts, in the appropriate context and with the pertinent background information, for the purpose of informing, rather than distorting and propagandizing for the purpose advocating.

    A magnifying glass to the right and a blind eye to the left may produce a cheap, immediate political high, but there are consequences.

    Like being exposed as partisan hacks, with the outing of facts that put a lie to the agenda driven story. By whom are these facts exposed? Those who do the job the media deliberately refrain from doing. A cursery inquirey would have led to real suspicions about the "student victim". A real inquiry would have put the CPC concerns in the context of these "surprise protests" organized by leftist groups against the CPC.

    But those facts get in the way of the agenda.

    • yes its true i completely agree!!! this is waht the news is, not the fake made up spin jobs that we see and hear so much. That makes this momma pretty mad!! Don't piss off momma, HAHA. :)

    • .
      Are you retracting Dear Leader's apology for him?

      So efficient. The leader of the Government of Harper apologizes, and another arm of the Government of Harper erases the apology. No apology needed. Done. Pass the peas…

      But I don't want an apology from Dear Leader. I want an EXPLANATION.

      Based on the Government of Harper's threshold of crime-conviction tolerance with respect to Carlson, he could comfortably put Conrad Black in charge of media. An advisor to the Ministry of Truth.

      • Why won't Harper come clean on the broken promise to hire more police? Is it because he fears they'll support the long gun registry, like the Canadian chief of police, hospital doctors and emergency responders?
        What's Harper afraid of — a debate?

        • Why won't Harper come clean on what he eats for breakfast? Is it because he devours more kittens than any reasonable person would ever find acceptable?
          What is Harper afraid of — the humane society?

          • Nice attempt at derailing.

            Though in fairness, it's in response at an attempt to derail a response to a post which attempts to derail the thread from a response attempting to derail conversation from the point of the original article in the first place.

            It all gets very meta.

            ..and stupid.

          • Could not agree more my friend.

  2. And so the fact that this "student victim" is an NDP party activist, that all parties have invited guest lists, that all parties have a real concern about a protest developing at a rally,remain safely uncovered.

    A magnifying glass to the right a blind eye to the left.

    Like I've been saying, the epic scandal of our generation.

    • So, "she recieved" an email three years ago (December 2, 2008).

      And by the way, how do you know that this is even her email address?

      Please correct me if I am wrong, but I did a google search, and the only place that it appears is on blogging tory sites relating to this story.

      I do hope that on top of having the RCMP bounce her out of a public event, that there is not also a smear campaign initiated by party staffers who leaked the email address used to register.

    • If this is the proof that she was a plant… wow. This is your proof? This? Seriously? With a straight face… Seriously?

      Better get on the blower to Harper, tell him to retract the apology to her.

      • The important thing is, this obvious fishyness gets completely ignored by the media.

        At a minimum it raises questions as to why an NDP supporter is at a Harper rally. And BTW Layton came out and admitted she's a current supporter.

        I understand you're completely content on the magnifying glass being on Harper and the blind eye to the left.

        In other words, you're content on the media cheating for your team.

        I guess the ends justify the means.

        • Obvious fishyness? Sorry, not buying. Y'know, every once in a while, you do pick out a good example of the media not doing its job. This, my friend, ain't one of them. Particularly after the Conservatives have already apologized.

          BTW… who's going through this lady's old e-mails? Yuk. Is this something the Conservative Party does to sniff out their enemies? That thought is actually far more disconcerting than a girl getting kicked out of a rally.

          • Dude, it's like total equivalence and the lamestream media is in the tank for Iggy!!!!!!

  3. Hey will Jack Layton be sending any more NDP operatives to sabotage Conservative rallies?

    Chet has the link above with the details about the story Wherry has been reporting on.

    Why don't you try getting to the bottom of that story?

    • Again an attempt to derail. Hey, will any conbot be attempting to comment on the article they're responding to? Or is that too scary?

  4. And it looks like the coalition is working together nicely….with the media well ensconced in the middle.

    Layton sends NDP operatives.

    Operative cries "victim".

    Media reports on victim and Harper's "undemocratic" thuggery.

    Iggy flies in wearing his "progressive" cape, scolding Harper for being "undemocratic".

    Media parrots Iggy's claim that Harper is an undemocratic thug.



    and repeat. Over, and over and over again in paper after paper, and in newscast after newscast.

    • Conbot damage control, AKA digging a bigger hole.

      • I take it you haven't seen the consistent ten point spread, in the polls,

        and Iggy's leadership numbers half that of Harpers, and even below Laytons then.

        And if you follow the Quebec press, the Lib party is literally in shambles there, likely reduced to a few Montreal seats, with the CPC increasingly seen as the only Federals anti bloc option.

        • So chet, you're WINNING! and you still have to do this? Surely some 19 year old female student couldn't throw off Dear Leader that much. She attended an Ignatieff rally without incident. And you're stepping all over Harper's own damage control – he, in a show of openess allowed some protesters into his meeting today.

          • Hey Jan, how about the pregnant woman and the reporters being roughed up at an Iggy rally?

            I guess the "big red tent" doesn't have room for pregnant women?

            Iggy thinks he doesn't have to do "damage control" becuase his friends in the leftist media are covering for him. It's getting out though. Sad that the Liberals have to cheat by having a corrupt media cover up his many transgressions.

    • Chet, You've got it.

      That's exactly what I wrote about a week or so ago in response to Wells' coverage of Harper when in Halifax at the wharf. Wells stated that the audience was 'handpicked', but at a gathering at an industrial wharf, which always needs access by means of gates, there could not have been open access to the public and why then report that the audience was handpicked? Why not report that because the Harper event took place at a restricted wharf, therefore the event was for invited guests only. That sounds much more objective, rather than say "Party handpicked"

      Also, on CBC radio, I have heard repeatedly that the student was "kicked out' of the event. Kicked out? Give me a break. It creates the image that the student was 'kicked'. Why not say, " the student was removed from the event."

      Also, last night on the CBC The National webpage (I catch the National via the web), the lead in story, the one in which Ignatieff had to explain the Forbes removal, it was not featured as a picture for that segment of the news – it just read today's headlines, and the logo National in the pictured box, whereas further down the list of news events of the same day, Harper's rally incident with the student and the RCMP involvement with it, was marked with a picture and the text of what had happened. So, once again, when negative news for Ignatieff is leading the newscast of the day, it says: news of the day without mentioning his name or his party's name. Yet, everything about the Harper incident was pictured and texted. It's wrong.

  5. This is in an apparent "news" story by the Candian Press just out, reporting on the CPC release of their platform tomorrow:

    "They're no doubt hoping the platform injects some momentum into a campaign that's been focused on reannouncing old promises or making several that won't come to pass for several years."

    "No doubt". Editorializing, as fact, and its…beyond doubt.

    And don't you love the "old promises" characterization.

    Years old? How about months even? No. The….ahem old ones, like from a few weeks ago in the ultra recent budget that was just defeated by the opposition.

    Agenda leftist "gotcha" journalism masquarading as "news".

    The epic scandal of our times.

    • Honestly, I am trying to understand why you have a problem with the above;

      They're no doubt hoping the platform injects some momentum – so, you are saying that Harper dosen't want to get the number up to majority range (they are currently close, but just not there)

      campaign that's been focused on reannouncing old promises – well, if you don't want to include all the rhetoric around coalitions, most of Harper's speechs last week focused on the steps that the Conservatives took through the EAP, and some of the work they want to do around Human Smuggling. You also had a vow to scrap the party subsidies and the long gun registry.

      several that won't come to pass for several years – several of the announcements will only come into effect once the budget is balanced (2016? (14) by their projections). These include, income splitting, doubling of the Children's Fitness Tax Credit, additon of one for adults, up to 10 k in TFSAs.

  6. Maybe Jack's 2500 new officers will get on it right away.

  7. Just watched CPAC's Peter van Dusen, one of the most objective stations, I think.

    Peter mentioned that Ignatieff today had to apologize for the second day in a row about a running Liberal candiate and the making of derogatory remaks. Peter wondered if such forgiveness for a Liberal candidate would have gone over as well had the candidate been a Tory one. And Jennifer Ditchburn, a guest panelist, agreed (!!) that had the candidate making the derogatory remarks been a Tory, the whole episode would have ballooned out of proportion. She had to admit that there does seem to be a double standard.

    The other guest whose name I could not catch, admitted to the same. I was quite surprised that this was admitted to – this double standard: one standard set for the other parties and one standard set for the Tories.

    But this has been going on for years, years. How come it never was so openly discussed before??? Has it become too obvious, and therefore it must now be admitted to or else the media seems to be making complete fools of themselves??

    • I've seen people admit to such double-standards, on shows such as Paiken's show on TV Ontario, or other shows that really do try to remain objective and try to avoid double-standards. But that doesn't mean it will ever stop. Nor is there much anyone can do about it. It's really up to the media outlets themselves to decide what kind of product they want to produce, whether they want to be a goofy outlet like the National Enquirer, a partisan mouthpiece like the Toronto Star, or something else. The reality is that people really can see through it, and for the most part journalists like Wherry and Potter (obviously both are die-hard partisan Liberals if you've read anything they write) end up embarassing themselves more than anything else.

      So we can watch Potter go to bat for his friends because that's far more important than the fact that the national taxpayer-funded broadcaster tries to fool most people into thinking they're Liberal, and we can watch people go on and on about Bruce Carson the govt employee with a criminal past while the same people seem to show no interest in Pablo Rodriguez the drunk-driving Liberal MP and Andre Forbes the white-supremacist Liberal MP candidate.

      Sensible people will know it says more about the reporters/journalists than it says about anything or anybody else.

    • Hey doofuses, it's because you claim to be better than everyone else in this regard! You promised openness and accountability, you've gone to shielding your candidates from public forums and all-candidate meetings and now your so-called leader is roaring around the country in a bubble, talking to the bobbleheads about promises for some time in the future — when the CONs balance a budget! Isn't that a historical first! Take us back in time to the point where a Conservative government balanced the books on their own merits — that means outside of piddling away the surplus from the previous Liberal government? It's because you need to get the ghost of Diefenbaker, if even that recent!
      You're toads of the lowest order who stalk people on the internet and try to shame them out of 'their corner' as a bully would. What a gutless tribe you are! And once Canadians clue in that the taxpayers are paying for all your despicable tricks — from out-of-election attack ads to hookers for top advisors to mega-prisons for private corps, the quicker you'll be handed your hat in a hurry. That day can't come soon enuf…

    • Cheryl Gallant suggests that it would.

      However, I note this is yet ANOTHER attempt to pull conversation away from the article.

      What's the matter, afraid that CPC voters who aren't blind sheep will see the NDP policy and realize that even the NDP are better conservatives than the CPC?

  8. And Jennifer Ditchburn, a guest panelist, agreed (!!) that had the candidate making the derogatory remarks been a Tory, the whole episode would have ballooned out of proportion.

    Of course. If anyone would know, it's Ditchburn. That's her job description. She's done the last 2 or 3 CP smear jobs on Conservative non-scandals. And then wonders why Harper won't take her questions.

    • I have watched her on At Issue a few times and could not quite yet get a handle on her.

      And here's another thing. Why do we have, year in year out, 4 people working in Toronto, and three of them living in Toronto, appear on the National At Issue Panel??? (Peter Mansbridge is also from Toronto).

      Why not have some panelists on from the west or east?? Isn't this country bigger than Toronto, politically speaking??

    • That second link is another goofy piece similar to Wherry's rally attendance analysis. Wow, someone accused of fraud was in the second row! Sounds like something a gossipy grandma would say about the crowd at the latest potluck dinner. Ditchburn sure knows of what she speaks, she's a pro.

      • Yep, good catch by Ditchburn. I suppose fraudsters like plagarists who like lying narcissists. Maybe you should take out a membership, scfup.

  9. .
    What all the parties are lacking is an all-Americas policy against the rise of semi-military-strength crime gangs moving North from Central and South America. Nobody is paying SERIOUS attention.

    Drugs, child/women trafficking, kidnapping, bribery. Judge and Mayor assassinations. That and full-spectrum laws and regulations against corporate, white-collar crime.

    And you'd think the way Harper excuses himself about Carlson, even Conrad Black would be welcome in his cabinet. Maybe, media-boss? Ministry of Truth?

    Orwell. 1984.

  10. Unfortunately I think there will always be sheep, but at the same time it's not always journalists who can manipulate them.

    I would say most of the time the media is dishonest it costs them. That's why the NY Times readership is falling while the WSJ is rising. That's why Fox News has better ratings than all the other cable news channels combined. That's why CBC viewership has been steadily falling for years.

    The Rob Ford race is a classic example that there is a limit to what they can do. All of the Toronto media did everything they could to convince people not to vote for him, especially the TO Star, and the end result was that he won decisively anyway.

  11. Oh my, "All hugs for the Big Red Tent":

    Funny, Iggy's bodyguards rough up reporters, and elbow a pregnant women at a rally?

    And all the other events brushed under the carpet, while the media generates a "scandal" about controlling entry – and now must have "flashmobs"?

    The corruption scandal of our generation……now getting coverage.

    Oh, there's a reason why the left was protesting Sun TV News.

    They didn't want this comfy, corrupt, little bubble bursting.

    • That actually is a very interesting article.

  12. Aren't any of the Consevatives here — s_c_f , FVerhoeven, john_g, chet — interested in discussing the NDP crime proposals?

    I thought crime was an important issue for your team. Shouldn't you be dissecting the proposal and comparing it with your good ideas instead of going on about how the media is unfair to Conservatives?

    Don't you have any ideas on crime prevention?

    • I think I figured it out.. they're trying desperately to change the topic so that any on the fence folks who might have voted CPC last time don't notice this policy in comparison with Mr. Harper's lack of action on the same file, and don't come to the conclusion that even the NDP are more conservative these days than Mr. Harper's lunge for power.

      The tactic is called a "flooding", and I expect we're going to be seeing more and more of it as the campaign progresses. After all, the last thing any CPC supporter wants is someone to actually look at the issues of today. Mr. Harper's not prepared to deal with those issues, that's why all of his promises are for four years down the road.

  13. In my view, Harper has been treated with kindly kid gloves. We need reminding of his attempts to silence parliament.