Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, who insists most companies will pass along any reduced costs from the HST to Ontarians, said it would be reckless to lower prices on beer, wine and spirits. - The Spec.com
Reckless! My god, if there was one way the Libs could have turned a few folks around to being at least "indifferent" it was the lower cost of beer and wine as a result of the HST coming to be. The Ontario Government has ensured that its big business, The LCBO, will not pass savings onto you and me...
Now of course we can expect Ontario's other big businesses to pass along savings to the consumer.
RIGHT!
Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts
2.04.2010
Glen Murray takes shot at Rae
"I’m not like Bob Rae," Murray said. "I cut taxes every year I was mayor." Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre. - Winnipeg Free Press
Yikes, not sure I would want to share an office with Murray if I were Bob Rae. But then Glen may not have to worry about that...
Yikes, not sure I would want to share an office with Murray if I were Bob Rae. But then Glen may not have to worry about that...
2.01.2010
Rotary Pres says Cathy Crowe in Toronto Centre
I know those reading will say, of course this blog is supporting Cathy Crowe for MPP in Toronto Centre. Yes that is the bent here, yet I have to say, if ever Ontario needed someone specific at Queen's Park, it's Cathy. For that matter, why the heck didn't the Liberals try to recruit her? Surely she carries more cred than the local Liberal Candidate, Glen Murray, who is promising a key in the pocket of every resident to safe affordable housing.
I like Glen's promise, he needs to make it facing off against the one person in Toronto who has been doing that for years. And John Andras thinks so too!
I like Glen's promise, he needs to make it facing off against the one person in Toronto who has been doing that for years. And John Andras thinks so too!
"I have worked with Cathy for over 15 years. She is one of the most tireless workers, most clear-headed thinkers and most effective advocates. Equally at home speaking at a drop-in or at the Rotary Club, Cathy can bridge diverse interests and find common ground on seemingly intractable problems. I can think of no-one better to represent Toronto Centre at Queens' Park."- John Andras, Past President, Rotary Club Toronto
9.14.2009
Minority Govt's pass NDP Policy
Somebody is out of the sunlight and they don't like it.
Jack Layton has said he would wait and see what Harper is going to do before deciding if the NDP would vote with the Liberals in bringing down the government. Minority governments must work with the other parties if they wish to stay in power.
In 2005 Paul Martin very much wanted to stay in power and agreed to many of the NDP demands for concessions in the budget. Paul Martin in 2006 decided he wouldn't make any concessions and as a result the NDP voted against the budget. This is one of the methods the NDP though never in power has brought about significant change to public policy over the years. One need only look to the Trudeau government in 1972. Trudeau required NDP support to stay in power. That resulted in several policy moves that likely would not have occurred had Trudeau to rely on his on party to support them. The threat of the government falling allowed for more progressive budgets and legislation to proceed.
In 1974 Mr. Trudeau met with his caucus in Sudbury Ontario days before the non-confidence motion was presented. He suggested at the time the NDP were too scared of an election and thus wouldn't vote down his government. The NDP on the other hand felt that Trudeau had become arrogant and his parliamentary actions proved it. Really what was at issue was Trudeau's wish for an election. He got it and subsequently won a majority government in 1974.
Paul Martin desperately wanted to stay in power. He had barely squeaked back into government with the support of the NDP and as it turned out some independent MP's and the floor crossing from the Tories to the Libs that helped. Martin managed to do some very good things in his time as PM. He passed same-sex marriage, looked seriously at decriminalizing Marijuana possession, agreements with the Provinces to reduce wait times. All of which squeaked by in votes.
Martin then proceeded to deliver on Child Care and repairing relations with First Nations. Martin held a historic meeting in Kelowna, for which many including the NDP applauded him for. Martin failed to deliver however. Seeing his government hanging on every vote, he must have decided he needed election fodder, something to distinguish the Liberals from the Conservatives.
While Martin could have brought in legislation or a mini budget to implement the Kelowna Accord and the Childcare program, he did not. Instead he put it out as a carrot for voters. This was a serious mistake. The Liberals were already down in many places due to the sponsorship scandal and they paid dearly for it in the polls.
Its my contention, that if Martin had brought in Childcare and the Kelowna Accord it would have passed in Parliament and the result would have seen him re-elected, most likely to another minority but re-elected. The NDP voted against the government after it became clear Martin was not going to take immediate action on the Kelowna Accord nor the Childcare program.
It was a very risky strategy for Martin, hold the carrot way out there, hope he could paint Harper as mean, and squeak in on the promise to implement the Childcare program and the Kelowna Accord.
The rest is history as they say.
The election of Harper saw the Liberals whacked severely by the voters. The sponsorship scandal and a line from Harper that stated there were enough checks on his power by the courts and bureaucracy that people should feel safe voting for them. Whats happened as a result was a Liberal party battered from inside and out, no money and no leadership.
I can say charitably that they were between a rock and a hard place. Harper attached confidence in his government to just about everything. If a bill or budget failed it would bring down the government and the Liberals would have to fight an election with little funds and likely return of the Conservatives, perhaps even a majority Harper government. The Liberals sat on their hands, not voting sometimes or voting if they could hold their noses.
The Liberals have only themselves to blame however. Martin need not have lost a confidence motion to start with. The time to pay the piper over the sponsorship scandal was heavy on people's minds.
Yes the NDP could have supported Martin, Martin would still have required some independent MP's and its not totally clear he could count on them. Martin may have lost the confidence motion no matter which way the NDP voted.
Now here we are two elections later and the Liberals could have defeated the Harper government on any one of 79 occassions. They have allowed Harper to govern as if he has a majority. Throughout this time the NDP as is well noted voted against the Harper government. The NDP put many motions and bills before parliament but were rejected by Harper.
Now the Liberals have a new leader (their second since Martin lost), the party coffers are full and they want to go to an election. The trouble is they have no reason for their new found opposition. It will be fourth election in approximately five years. The chances of a majority government are slim, Canadians have become less scared of Harper after three years in the job. Generally polls have indicated the electors do not see a need for an election now.
Back to the NDP and Jack Layton. They have continued to try to make Parliament work. Proposed many Bills and Motions in the house and all were rejected by Harper. Now Harper faces a significant threat of losing power. Does he want to remain as PM? If he does he had better look at the issues the NDP have been talking about for the last year. Major EI reform, Pension secuirty, Credit card interest rates. True these are not sexy issues but they matter very much in the lives of Canadians.
I don't like Harper's politics and what he has been able to do to date. We can't undo that. He has managed to govern like a majority because of the state of the Liberal party. Now that the Liberal party has stepped up, there is a chance (however slight) for some movement from Harper. It is not something that should be ignored.
I doubt very much the Liberals would vote against the issues being put forward by the NDP. I expect the BLOC would also support the NDP positions if Harper brought them forward.
As awful as Harper is, there is likely no better opportunity to extract some progressive policy from him for a few more months in power. That of course is reliant on Harper's desire to stay in power.
Jack Layton has said he would wait and see what Harper is going to do before deciding if the NDP would vote with the Liberals in bringing down the government. Minority governments must work with the other parties if they wish to stay in power.
In 2005 Paul Martin very much wanted to stay in power and agreed to many of the NDP demands for concessions in the budget. Paul Martin in 2006 decided he wouldn't make any concessions and as a result the NDP voted against the budget. This is one of the methods the NDP though never in power has brought about significant change to public policy over the years. One need only look to the Trudeau government in 1972. Trudeau required NDP support to stay in power. That resulted in several policy moves that likely would not have occurred had Trudeau to rely on his on party to support them. The threat of the government falling allowed for more progressive budgets and legislation to proceed.
In 1974 Mr. Trudeau met with his caucus in Sudbury Ontario days before the non-confidence motion was presented. He suggested at the time the NDP were too scared of an election and thus wouldn't vote down his government. The NDP on the other hand felt that Trudeau had become arrogant and his parliamentary actions proved it. Really what was at issue was Trudeau's wish for an election. He got it and subsequently won a majority government in 1974.
Paul Martin desperately wanted to stay in power. He had barely squeaked back into government with the support of the NDP and as it turned out some independent MP's and the floor crossing from the Tories to the Libs that helped. Martin managed to do some very good things in his time as PM. He passed same-sex marriage, looked seriously at decriminalizing Marijuana possession, agreements with the Provinces to reduce wait times. All of which squeaked by in votes.
Martin then proceeded to deliver on Child Care and repairing relations with First Nations. Martin held a historic meeting in Kelowna, for which many including the NDP applauded him for. Martin failed to deliver however. Seeing his government hanging on every vote, he must have decided he needed election fodder, something to distinguish the Liberals from the Conservatives.
While Martin could have brought in legislation or a mini budget to implement the Kelowna Accord and the Childcare program, he did not. Instead he put it out as a carrot for voters. This was a serious mistake. The Liberals were already down in many places due to the sponsorship scandal and they paid dearly for it in the polls.
Its my contention, that if Martin had brought in Childcare and the Kelowna Accord it would have passed in Parliament and the result would have seen him re-elected, most likely to another minority but re-elected. The NDP voted against the government after it became clear Martin was not going to take immediate action on the Kelowna Accord nor the Childcare program.
It was a very risky strategy for Martin, hold the carrot way out there, hope he could paint Harper as mean, and squeak in on the promise to implement the Childcare program and the Kelowna Accord.
The rest is history as they say.
The election of Harper saw the Liberals whacked severely by the voters. The sponsorship scandal and a line from Harper that stated there were enough checks on his power by the courts and bureaucracy that people should feel safe voting for them. Whats happened as a result was a Liberal party battered from inside and out, no money and no leadership.
I can say charitably that they were between a rock and a hard place. Harper attached confidence in his government to just about everything. If a bill or budget failed it would bring down the government and the Liberals would have to fight an election with little funds and likely return of the Conservatives, perhaps even a majority Harper government. The Liberals sat on their hands, not voting sometimes or voting if they could hold their noses.
The Liberals have only themselves to blame however. Martin need not have lost a confidence motion to start with. The time to pay the piper over the sponsorship scandal was heavy on people's minds.
Yes the NDP could have supported Martin, Martin would still have required some independent MP's and its not totally clear he could count on them. Martin may have lost the confidence motion no matter which way the NDP voted.
Now here we are two elections later and the Liberals could have defeated the Harper government on any one of 79 occassions. They have allowed Harper to govern as if he has a majority. Throughout this time the NDP as is well noted voted against the Harper government. The NDP put many motions and bills before parliament but were rejected by Harper.
Now the Liberals have a new leader (their second since Martin lost), the party coffers are full and they want to go to an election. The trouble is they have no reason for their new found opposition. It will be fourth election in approximately five years. The chances of a majority government are slim, Canadians have become less scared of Harper after three years in the job. Generally polls have indicated the electors do not see a need for an election now.
Back to the NDP and Jack Layton. They have continued to try to make Parliament work. Proposed many Bills and Motions in the house and all were rejected by Harper. Now Harper faces a significant threat of losing power. Does he want to remain as PM? If he does he had better look at the issues the NDP have been talking about for the last year. Major EI reform, Pension secuirty, Credit card interest rates. True these are not sexy issues but they matter very much in the lives of Canadians.
I don't like Harper's politics and what he has been able to do to date. We can't undo that. He has managed to govern like a majority because of the state of the Liberal party. Now that the Liberal party has stepped up, there is a chance (however slight) for some movement from Harper. It is not something that should be ignored.
I doubt very much the Liberals would vote against the issues being put forward by the NDP. I expect the BLOC would also support the NDP positions if Harper brought them forward.
As awful as Harper is, there is likely no better opportunity to extract some progressive policy from him for a few more months in power. That of course is reliant on Harper's desire to stay in power.
9.08.2009
Hey, We Can do better!
The Libs might think I hate them, they actually think any New Democrat that reminds the LPC crowd of broken promises or of the pathetic excuses used by LPCers to prop up Stephen Harper. Some may well dislike those Liberals. Me, I'm pretty pragmatic. I like the NDP, I think they are the right choice, I think the Liberals are the second choice and Stephen Harper isn't a good choice.
With that it was great to come back after a weekend at the cottage away from all the crazy folks and see that the Libs actually came up with a cool ad. It looks even more awesome with what a few NDP bloggers created below...
With that it was great to come back after a weekend at the cottage away from all the crazy folks and see that the Libs actually came up with a cool ad. It looks even more awesome with what a few NDP bloggers created below...
9.04.2009
We had child care in 1942
Child care has been a promise of government for years. The federal government once provided childcare in Canada. It began in 1942 when it saw women were needed in factories to assist the war effort. It was not uncommon for women to tether their child in the yard before they went off to work. Other arrangements were made, such as leaving your child with a friend or family member.
see this clip from CBC Archives.
The State saw the value in providing this care then but lost sight of its value when the war ended. Women were let go from there jobs and replaced by the returning men. The women were then expected to stay home and look after these children.
Ontario after some protests from women that lost their husbands in the war, kept some day cares going. The federal government however got out of the business of daycare funding.
The return of the federal government to the provision of daycare funding has been demanded for years. The NDP and the CCF had been asking for it years. The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney promised a national daycare program in 1984. By 1992 it became clear the federal government was going to back out of the promise. (see CBC clip Broken Promises)
Against a strong public protest in 1992, the Liberals in the election of 1993 prominently proclaimed Childcare as high priority in the infamous Redbook Canadians had a reasonable expectation that the long wait was over. It never happened.
In each successive election the Liberal government promised to deliver on Day care. After the election victory, the funding was never found, the promise unfulfilled, but it done its work in seeing some people vote Liberal in a vain hope it would happen this time.
We came close to getting daycare in Paul Martin's government. Martin was looking for issues to separate his Liberal minority from that of the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper. Child care was a key piece of his agenda. They actually started to negotiate with some provinces. Unfortunately Martin wanted to use the carrot of childcare in the election. He did not introduce the need legislation to Parliament. It would have passed had he done so however his thought was that to defeat Harper, he needed to give people something to vote for. The carrot did not work as we all know.
Harper won the election and changed direction on childcare. Now parents get money directly which covers only a very small portion of the cost. The hope of affordable childcare has been lost certainly under Harper.
Now Ken Dryden, LPC MP from Toronto is promising it again. This time they mean it. That's what he and some Liberals are saying. Just as Ignatieff has had to state very strongly his party is going to vote non confidence in the Harper Government, they have to be strong on childcare.
Will the Liberals bring in national funding to childcare if elected. This time they will have too. I expect if the Liberals are in a minority, they will need the NDP support to stay there. Childcare will be high on the list of things required of a minority government.
see this clip from CBC Archives.
The State saw the value in providing this care then but lost sight of its value when the war ended. Women were let go from there jobs and replaced by the returning men. The women were then expected to stay home and look after these children.
Ontario after some protests from women that lost their husbands in the war, kept some day cares going. The federal government however got out of the business of daycare funding.
The return of the federal government to the provision of daycare funding has been demanded for years. The NDP and the CCF had been asking for it years. The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney promised a national daycare program in 1984. By 1992 it became clear the federal government was going to back out of the promise. (see CBC clip Broken Promises)
Against a strong public protest in 1992, the Liberals in the election of 1993 prominently proclaimed Childcare as high priority in the infamous Redbook Canadians had a reasonable expectation that the long wait was over. It never happened.
In each successive election the Liberal government promised to deliver on Day care. After the election victory, the funding was never found, the promise unfulfilled, but it done its work in seeing some people vote Liberal in a vain hope it would happen this time.
We came close to getting daycare in Paul Martin's government. Martin was looking for issues to separate his Liberal minority from that of the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper. Child care was a key piece of his agenda. They actually started to negotiate with some provinces. Unfortunately Martin wanted to use the carrot of childcare in the election. He did not introduce the need legislation to Parliament. It would have passed had he done so however his thought was that to defeat Harper, he needed to give people something to vote for. The carrot did not work as we all know.
Harper won the election and changed direction on childcare. Now parents get money directly which covers only a very small portion of the cost. The hope of affordable childcare has been lost certainly under Harper.
Now Ken Dryden, LPC MP from Toronto is promising it again. This time they mean it. That's what he and some Liberals are saying. Just as Ignatieff has had to state very strongly his party is going to vote non confidence in the Harper Government, they have to be strong on childcare.
Will the Liberals bring in national funding to childcare if elected. This time they will have too. I expect if the Liberals are in a minority, they will need the NDP support to stay there. Childcare will be high on the list of things required of a minority government.
9.03.2009
Jack 's new fan club
You know that when the Liberals are operating round the clock surveillance they are doing it because they are worried. Is it Prime Minister Stephen Harper they are paying all this attention too? No not Stephen, its Jack Layton.
Kinsella and a few other LPCer bloggers are behaving like frat house kids. Why, they are scared to death that Jack Layton is a serious threat to their electoral success. So serious they have dispatched loyal bumpkins off to hold up silly signs and look pretty.
I'm sure that Layton's team finds it amusing. When was the last time people were actually following Jack like this to "harass" him? It means the LPC brass is very worried about the NDP. Expect the Liberals to pay a great deal attention to Jack and the New Democrats this election.
Its going to be a fun election for New Democrats.
Kinsella and a few other LPCer bloggers are behaving like frat house kids. Why, they are scared to death that Jack Layton is a serious threat to their electoral success. So serious they have dispatched loyal bumpkins off to hold up silly signs and look pretty.
I'm sure that Layton's team finds it amusing. When was the last time people were actually following Jack like this to "harass" him? It means the LPC brass is very worried about the NDP. Expect the Liberals to pay a great deal attention to Jack and the New Democrats this election.
Its going to be a fun election for New Democrats.
For the Record
The man who cried wolf...
In Sudbury this week...
“We've kept this (Harper) government on life support for 10 months. It's important to remember that.”
And on the record ...
“Our party is united in its determination to face Mr. Harper down.” – Michael Ignatieff to meeting of New Brunswick Liberals, -Telegraph-Journal December 6, 2008
“We've put down a very clear marker. This government has to get the money out the door … If this government fails to meet these targets, it will not survive for long." – Michael Ignatieff, CBC.ca, January 28, 2009
“Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is looking to June as his first chance to defeat the Harper government over its handling of the economic crisis, according to his finance critic.” – Globe and Mail, February 27, 2009
"I want to make Parliament work but I don't write blank cheques. That's not what my voters sent me to Parliament to do," he said less than three hours before Liberals approved the fund. "If the government wants to make Parliament work, we can find a way to make it work. If they don't want to make it work, look out." – Michael Ignatieff, Hamilton Spectator, March 25, 2009
“Michael Ignatieff declared Thursday that federal Liberals are united, out of debt and "basically ready to fight an election" if an impasse is reached in Parliament.” – Canwest News, April 30, 2009
“The leader of the federal Liberal party has threatened to push for an election if the minority Conservative government doesn't support proposals to reform the employment insurance system.” – CBC.ca, May 3, 2009
“Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says the party will decide next week whether to try to bring down the Harper government and plunge the country into a mid-summer election.” – Canadian Press, June 3, 2009.
Layton lets Iggy stew
It looks like the Tories don't like kool aid. They will love campaigning on the budget especially the home renovation credit. That still has to be passed in the budget when MP's return. Can you imagine Harper out there slamming Ignatieff over that one.
Today Jack Layton comes to the microphone and will respond to recent developments. Layton has left Ignatieff out there all by himself for a couple of days now. I'm sure he hates being ignored. Today The LPC leader will be reminded of his record. Or perhaps Layton will be talking about his and the NDP.
Who was the federal leader that raised concerns for workers losing jobs and a need for expanded EI reform now, not four months later after you study it. Pension reform, protection against rip off cell phone contracts, credit interest rates? Those are things that bite down hard on Canadian wallets.
Who has consistently hammered both the current government and the Liberal government on the child soldier in Gitmo? Whose motion was it that called for the Government to allow American war resisters to remain in our country? Who was it that has been hammering away at getting money for affordable housing year after year and did force the Martin government to do just that and embarrass the Harper government into doing it as well.
Just as an added emphasis, you can bet that if Harper or Ignatieff were Prime Minister when Iraq war was started, Canadians would still be there. Afghanistan is a war effort well supported by Liberals and Conservatives. Only the NDP and BLOC have consistently said, we have to get out. You can bet that the LPC will extend our effort there just as Harper will if he is re-elected.
Those and many more issues were led by the NDP. You want an election, you will get it. The NDP will be campaigning as the real opposition and the party that can not be bought. Liberals will be reminded of their 79 (maybe 80 by the time they gather up the courage to say no) votes in support of Harper.
What changed that Ignatieff couldn't take anymore. He has issued at least seven ultimatums to date. He and the LPC brain trust have decided they want to play chicken. They have a reputation of capitulating to Harper, a million reasons for doing so, none of them reflective of what was good for Canada.
The NDP will largely ignore Ignatieff on the campaign. They will present a real alternative to the Harper government.
Today Jack Layton comes to the microphone and will respond to recent developments. Layton has left Ignatieff out there all by himself for a couple of days now. I'm sure he hates being ignored. Today The LPC leader will be reminded of his record. Or perhaps Layton will be talking about his and the NDP.
Who was the federal leader that raised concerns for workers losing jobs and a need for expanded EI reform now, not four months later after you study it. Pension reform, protection against rip off cell phone contracts, credit interest rates? Those are things that bite down hard on Canadian wallets.
Who has consistently hammered both the current government and the Liberal government on the child soldier in Gitmo? Whose motion was it that called for the Government to allow American war resisters to remain in our country? Who was it that has been hammering away at getting money for affordable housing year after year and did force the Martin government to do just that and embarrass the Harper government into doing it as well.
Just as an added emphasis, you can bet that if Harper or Ignatieff were Prime Minister when Iraq war was started, Canadians would still be there. Afghanistan is a war effort well supported by Liberals and Conservatives. Only the NDP and BLOC have consistently said, we have to get out. You can bet that the LPC will extend our effort there just as Harper will if he is re-elected.
Those and many more issues were led by the NDP. You want an election, you will get it. The NDP will be campaigning as the real opposition and the party that can not be bought. Liberals will be reminded of their 79 (maybe 80 by the time they gather up the courage to say no) votes in support of Harper.
What changed that Ignatieff couldn't take anymore. He has issued at least seven ultimatums to date. He and the LPC brain trust have decided they want to play chicken. They have a reputation of capitulating to Harper, a million reasons for doing so, none of them reflective of what was good for Canada.
The NDP will largely ignore Ignatieff on the campaign. They will present a real alternative to the Harper government.
9.01.2009
Under the L - 80
CBCBy the time it happens, likely in the next few weeks, the LPC will vote against Harper and hope to bring him down. Its about time is some ways. They have had at least 79 chances to do this since Harper was elected.
Harper's 'time is up,' Ignatieff tells LiberalsLiberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told a Liberal audience in Sudbury, Ont., Tuesday that the party will oppose Stephen Harper's minority government when Parliament resumes in two weeks. "Mr. Harper, your time is up," he said. "We cannot support this government any further."
Now the question will be, what is Harper willing to do to stay in government? I have a few ideas for him...
Comments lost
I'm not sure what happened. I know I posted to Bcer in Toronto's blog yesterday and about twenty others left comments. My comment never made it. Only five comments remain today. I guess it touched a nerve.
I know the issue of the fundraiser has become a little silly, as I posted earlier here, all political parties have them and charge big money, albeit Liberal fundraisers tend to charge the most. That's okay as it is what their members and supporters will pay.
So in that respect I see where Jeff got on his high horse yesterday and then decided to calm it down a bit. Good. Still I wonder why my comment never made the cut. I don't have the exact comment saved so from memory I said Jeff was comparing apples and oranges. A mail out for funds versus holding a big money fundraiser in a town that was facing a hard time are different.
Optics are everything in politics and I guess that is what happened when my comment and the comments of some fifteen to twenty others were deleted from the conversation. Too be fair, there were a few LPCer supporter comments that were lost in the editing of the comments along with some pretty hard nosed NDP comments.
Just to add one more thing, I know I am hard on the Liberals. They give me much reason to be. Still in the end I will prefer a Ignateiff led government to a Harper led one. My first choice is Layton yet I know that will be in the future.
If Liberals want to gain progressive voters then think about what you're saying. Quit sounding like Harper lite and I will have to turn my attention back to Harper. I haven't forgot him, but like LPCers I want my party to become stronger. As long as LPCers keep saying its them or Harper when we know different, you piss us off.
The next election will likely see another minority. I am hopeful it can be someone other than Harper. That will mean we will have to work together. That will mean the NDP will have to moderate its demands and the Liberals will have to deliver on some NDP cherished issues.
It has been done before, remember old age pension, medicare, CPP, Affordable Housing, Canada Health Act, Employment Insurance, 40 hour weeks, right to organize, and education funding agreements.
They all happened under minority situations or Liberal governments facing electoral defeat (1944, King adopted almost the entire CCF platform). They gave rise to much of the social safety net as it exists today.
Partisans in both parties push hard. One pushes and the other pushes back. I know Layton will take cheap shots at the Liberals, he wants to displace them. Ignatieff and his team do the same because they want to limit an NDP rise in seats.
I know the issue of the fundraiser has become a little silly, as I posted earlier here, all political parties have them and charge big money, albeit Liberal fundraisers tend to charge the most. That's okay as it is what their members and supporters will pay.
So in that respect I see where Jeff got on his high horse yesterday and then decided to calm it down a bit. Good. Still I wonder why my comment never made the cut. I don't have the exact comment saved so from memory I said Jeff was comparing apples and oranges. A mail out for funds versus holding a big money fundraiser in a town that was facing a hard time are different.
Optics are everything in politics and I guess that is what happened when my comment and the comments of some fifteen to twenty others were deleted from the conversation. Too be fair, there were a few LPCer supporter comments that were lost in the editing of the comments along with some pretty hard nosed NDP comments.
Just to add one more thing, I know I am hard on the Liberals. They give me much reason to be. Still in the end I will prefer a Ignateiff led government to a Harper led one. My first choice is Layton yet I know that will be in the future.
If Liberals want to gain progressive voters then think about what you're saying. Quit sounding like Harper lite and I will have to turn my attention back to Harper. I haven't forgot him, but like LPCers I want my party to become stronger. As long as LPCers keep saying its them or Harper when we know different, you piss us off.
The next election will likely see another minority. I am hopeful it can be someone other than Harper. That will mean we will have to work together. That will mean the NDP will have to moderate its demands and the Liberals will have to deliver on some NDP cherished issues.
It has been done before, remember old age pension, medicare, CPP, Affordable Housing, Canada Health Act, Employment Insurance, 40 hour weeks, right to organize, and education funding agreements.
They all happened under minority situations or Liberal governments facing electoral defeat (1944, King adopted almost the entire CCF platform). They gave rise to much of the social safety net as it exists today.
Partisans in both parties push hard. One pushes and the other pushes back. I know Layton will take cheap shots at the Liberals, he wants to displace them. Ignatieff and his team do the same because they want to limit an NDP rise in seats.
8.31.2009
LPCers know how to raise funds
Its about optics and sometimes that may seem silly. Lets look at the recent arrival of the LPCers in Sudbury Ontario this week. They have arrived for the annual caucus retreat. Its a good thing for them to be in Sudbury.
First the Liberals arrive in town that has 3,200 people on strike against a foreign mining conglomerate that is making money and had arranged a sweet, top secret deal with the Federal government. The Liberals know there is a high profile strike happening yet seemed less than prepared.
The meeting of so many Liberals means a fundraiser is needed. Someone comes up with a $550 per person price tag. Now I know all about arranging these kinds of fundraisers . You have to do them and everyone does. The Liberals lobbed a soft one out there and the NDP have smacked it out of the park in this case.
See the Liberals should have seen it coming. They could have made tickets available for much less to some people. They would have taken the winds out of the sails before the NDP could launch their attack. Yet they are so desperate for money that they didn't even consider that idea.
Smaller cities and towns have a different view of big fundraisers. Most people in Sudbury could never afford $550 for a ticket. It looks like a gathering of the elite. I'm sure the Liberals didn't mean it that way, but what is really sad is that they didn't even see it coming.
The NDP jumped on it and quickly organized a dinner for $5.50 with all the proceeds going to the striking workers. Contrast the two and you can see how elitist the Liberals look in this case. It won't help their case in Northern Ontario having all those suits running around either. I hope they tone the dress for the event. No gowns please.
Now Jeff has posted a blog today going after the NDP for asking for money in a mail out. The specifics you can find on his blog. The NDP ask for money so they can keep the pressure on the Government to get our soldiers out of Afghanistan. Its no different than mailings I get from the Liberal Party of Canada asking me for money to fight Harper's mean spirited agenda of the day. Jeff is comparing Apples and Oranges.
He just doesn't get it. He's a smart dude but somehow he misses the little details. Seeing as the NDP is simple in his mind, how come the LPC is getting lots of press over their fundraiser. I hope for their sake they sell out. They can kiss Northern Ontario off next election as well, it likely went for spaghetti for $5.50.
I'm not opposed to a political party holding a big buck fundraiser at the right time and the right place.
First the Liberals arrive in town that has 3,200 people on strike against a foreign mining conglomerate that is making money and had arranged a sweet, top secret deal with the Federal government. The Liberals know there is a high profile strike happening yet seemed less than prepared.
The meeting of so many Liberals means a fundraiser is needed. Someone comes up with a $550 per person price tag. Now I know all about arranging these kinds of fundraisers . You have to do them and everyone does. The Liberals lobbed a soft one out there and the NDP have smacked it out of the park in this case.
See the Liberals should have seen it coming. They could have made tickets available for much less to some people. They would have taken the winds out of the sails before the NDP could launch their attack. Yet they are so desperate for money that they didn't even consider that idea.
Smaller cities and towns have a different view of big fundraisers. Most people in Sudbury could never afford $550 for a ticket. It looks like a gathering of the elite. I'm sure the Liberals didn't mean it that way, but what is really sad is that they didn't even see it coming.
The NDP jumped on it and quickly organized a dinner for $5.50 with all the proceeds going to the striking workers. Contrast the two and you can see how elitist the Liberals look in this case. It won't help their case in Northern Ontario having all those suits running around either. I hope they tone the dress for the event. No gowns please.
Now Jeff has posted a blog today going after the NDP for asking for money in a mail out. The specifics you can find on his blog. The NDP ask for money so they can keep the pressure on the Government to get our soldiers out of Afghanistan. Its no different than mailings I get from the Liberal Party of Canada asking me for money to fight Harper's mean spirited agenda of the day. Jeff is comparing Apples and Oranges.
He just doesn't get it. He's a smart dude but somehow he misses the little details. Seeing as the NDP is simple in his mind, how come the LPC is getting lots of press over their fundraiser. I hope for their sake they sell out. They can kiss Northern Ontario off next election as well, it likely went for spaghetti for $5.50.
I'm not opposed to a political party holding a big buck fundraiser at the right time and the right place.
Optics and wooden nickels
Now one of the things that the backroom boys in the Liberal party always told me, when I was a little kid (in their eyes) optics was everything and you need money to run a campaign. I learned well from them, even won a few elections operating on that premise.
Still as I got older and I am sure smarter, optics are not the only thing that counts but they can sure as heck give you a pain in the neck. Lets look at the current LPC effort in Sudbury. It was a pretty smart idea to hold the gathering of the clan in small city Canada.
The optics are great. Sudbury is hurting. Lets go there and show them and other Canadians in similar small towns tha
t we're with them. Besides the money we spend (House of Commons) on rooms, meals, car rentals, escorts, golf, real nickel nickels and drinks, we will have a great time out of the direct glare of all those nasty national media types.
Then things started to go wrong. Sudbury workers are engaged in what looks to be a long strike against the town's largest employer, a Brazillion mining giant. You see several years ago the workers signed an agreement with the company that said we will take less now, but as the price of Nickel goes so do we. So when the price went up the workers got a share. As the price went down a little the workers got a little less.
That apparently is not good enough for the big Brazillion company. They want to extract more than nickel out of the ground, it looks like they want a little bit of the workers hide as well.
Still this isn't totally lost for the LPCers. They could do something for these workers right? Maybe talk to the company about being fair here. Maybe they could meet with the strikers and show their support. Walk the picket line or bring Timbits and coffee down and have little chin wag.
I am sure the local LPC candidate loves having the party there to show support and perhaps give them a boost in maybe, just maybe, unseating the NDP Member of Parliament.
It seems the optics have got out of hand, even in the area that they have control over. The local LPC nomination is spilling messy stuff all over the place. Accusations of the the party wanting someone over someone else and who knows if membership applications arrived early or late, it was just 90 or so potential members.
The situation in Sudbury doesn't look so great now. At least you will all be able to gather around a grand hall and have dinner and reassure each other you have the right stuff to govern. Its so silly voters that haven't recognised this yet. At $550 a plate its a sure bet that many of the people the LPCers want to vote for them won't be at the table. Heck it would take a person working at the grand hall serving up this feast for a king, over 50 hours to earn enough to attend. That sucks for him or her, right?
Then we have that wily NDP MP from the area that the LPCers would love to upset, he goes and hosts a dinner for $5.50. Every cent of that goes to the local strikers. Just how do you compete with that kind of logic. Doesn't he know you need money to win elections? He's giving it away for crying out loud. Heck Maria Minna said this to CBC in defense of the Liberals fundraiser ...
The LPC still haven't learned a thing since the good ole days. They would have been better off going to cottage country or trying out the York Hotel. At least they know how to talk to those people.
Now I post this because I think we deserve better than this and of course it shows the LPCers slipping up again. Mayb
e, just maybe some LPCer blogger or PR guy will do something.
One last piece of advice, don't take any wooden nickels, especially in Sudbury, oh that looks bad...
update: Iggy is meeting with local strikers today. Hope it went well, anybody here?
Update: 4pm Aug 31 - LPCer Jeff says on Twitter: Iggy calls on Vale Inco to come back to bargaining table
Update: 4:30pm Aug 31 It appears Jeff's view of event in Sudbury neglected to include Ignatieff's refusal to support the workers beyond calling for the company to come back to the table. CBC reported that Ignatieff met with Steelworkers for about 90 minutes. The Union was hoping Ignatieff would support their efforts to open the agreement between the Government of Canada and Vale Inco. Ignatieff said NO.
Still as I got older and I am sure smarter, optics are not the only thing that counts but they can sure as heck give you a pain in the neck. Lets look at the current LPC effort in Sudbury. It was a pretty smart idea to hold the gathering of the clan in small city Canada.
The optics are great. Sudbury is hurting. Lets go there and show them and other Canadians in similar small towns tha
t we're with them. Besides the money we spend (House of Commons) on rooms, meals, car rentals, escorts, golf, real nickel nickels and drinks, we will have a great time out of the direct glare of all those nasty national media types.Then things started to go wrong. Sudbury workers are engaged in what looks to be a long strike against the town's largest employer, a Brazillion mining giant. You see several years ago the workers signed an agreement with the company that said we will take less now, but as the price of Nickel goes so do we. So when the price went up the workers got a share. As the price went down a little the workers got a little less.
That apparently is not good enough for the big Brazillion company. They want to extract more than nickel out of the ground, it looks like they want a little bit of the workers hide as well.
Still this isn't totally lost for the LPCers. They could do something for these workers right? Maybe talk to the company about being fair here. Maybe they could meet with the strikers and show their support. Walk the picket line or bring Timbits and coffee down and have little chin wag.
I am sure the local LPC candidate loves having the party there to show support and perhaps give them a boost in maybe, just maybe, unseating the NDP Member of Parliament.
It seems the optics have got out of hand, even in the area that they have control over. The local LPC nomination is spilling messy stuff all over the place. Accusations of the the party wanting someone over someone else and who knows if membership applications arrived early or late, it was just 90 or so potential members.
The situation in Sudbury doesn't look so great now. At least you will all be able to gather around a grand hall and have dinner and reassure each other you have the right stuff to govern. Its so silly voters that haven't recognised this yet. At $550 a plate its a sure bet that many of the people the LPCers want to vote for them won't be at the table. Heck it would take a person working at the grand hall serving up this feast for a king, over 50 hours to earn enough to attend. That sucks for him or her, right?
Then we have that wily NDP MP from the area that the LPCers would love to upset, he goes and hosts a dinner for $5.50. Every cent of that goes to the local strikers. Just how do you compete with that kind of logic. Doesn't he know you need money to win elections? He's giving it away for crying out loud. Heck Maria Minna said this to CBC in defense of the Liberals fundraiser ...
"saying it was planned long in advance. She insisted this week's gathering will benefit the local community and the country politically and economically."We're also going to be spending money, by the way," she told CBC News. "I think we're giving." - Maria Minna, Toronto Beaches Liberal MPAt least the LPC is good for something, Maria can afford a $550 dinner.
The LPC still haven't learned a thing since the good ole days. They would have been better off going to cottage country or trying out the York Hotel. At least they know how to talk to those people.
Now I post this because I think we deserve better than this and of course it shows the LPCers slipping up again. Mayb
e, just maybe some LPCer blogger or PR guy will do something.One last piece of advice, don't take any wooden nickels, especially in Sudbury, oh that looks bad...
update: Iggy is meeting with local strikers today. Hope it went well, anybody here?
Update: 4pm Aug 31 - LPCer Jeff says on Twitter: Iggy calls on Vale Inco to come back to bargaining table
Update: 4:30pm Aug 31 It appears Jeff's view of event in Sudbury neglected to include Ignatieff's refusal to support the workers beyond calling for the company to come back to the table. CBC reported that Ignatieff met with Steelworkers for about 90 minutes. The Union was hoping Ignatieff would support their efforts to open the agreement between the Government of Canada and Vale Inco. Ignatieff said NO.
LPCers addicted to Opposition
I know some of my LPCer (that's Liberal Party of Canada) friends won't like this. But sometimes tough love is called for...
A Decreasingly Brief, Updated History of Liberal Declarations that they Can't Go On Supporting the Harper Government's Every WhimNow isn't that a nice way of putting it out there. The LPCer's are doing the same again. I suspect they have lost the will to govern, in that case get out of the way and the real opposition will do it.
8.29.2009
How do I get off this horse?
EI reform isn't coming anytime soon to workers exhausting their benefits. As unemployment continues to rise, banks make huge profits and the prospect of an election dimming, we can expect little help.
Ignatieff managed to avoid a spring election by having Harper agree to a panel of LPCers and Conservatives, discuss over the summer, possible changes to EI. They met over the summer and so far agreed to disagree. That's not a surprise really. Harper has been stating for months that such action when demanded by the NDP was not needed. Now Iggy is back peddling. How do I get off this horse?
Where are the roots to today's EI problems? Go back to 1994 and Paul Martin, then finance Minister in the Liberal government. He cut back the entitlements, building of Brian Mulroney's cut backs to make it even harder to qualify for EI. They expanded the number of regions and extended hours needed to qualify, cut weeks of benefit and unless your boss went belly up, you couldn't hope to get EI.
Today we see record numbers of people on EI. Those people will see their benefits run out in a few months. What then, there are few new jobs, heck more people than ever are losing jobs.
Back to Paul Martin. As finance minister he stole funds from EI to balance the governments budget. So while collecting ever larger amounts of premiums from employers and employees, they used the excess. They cut EI benefits to allow even more of the EI premiums money to go to balancing the general budget.
Now we have Harper who wants EI to cover the self employed. Not a bad idea, but one that is fraught with difficulties. It looks like his plan would see current workers subsidize the plan. It looks like workers in Canada are caught between a rock and a hard place, between Conservative and LPC boulders.
Why is it so hard to get either of these leaders to stand up for workers in this country? Why do they continue to block EI changes that would allow people more time to find work, to pay their mortgage and bills and get by. Just a couple of days ago the big banks announced that 16000 Canadian households are three or more months behind in payments. That's a record. Its still a small number but an ugly looking trend.
The prospect of a fall election looks dimmer. Harper managed to hide his nine appointed senators behind Gary Doer, Canada's new chief lobbyist in Washington. He is managing to look moderate in the media and the public.
Well then, imagine Stephen Harper with a majority. It won't be a pretty sight. The LPCers will have only themselves to blame. They will blame the NDP for failing to fall into line and support the so called centre left. There is nothing left about the LPC save CB in Toronto and soon there will be nothing.
How do I get off this horse? That's the question Iggy should have looked after before he forced Dion out. The LPC choose this horse and now I must admit, I am mildly amused watching them vote against still another non-confidence motion. Seems they prefer the opposition benches as they are, no need to spend money they don't have to run in an election that Harper just might win again.
Better talk to Jack and the NDP. He was supportive of working together a while ago. But remember, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Jack may want a little more than a token cabinet seat or two when you come calling again.
Ignatieff managed to avoid a spring election by having Harper agree to a panel of LPCers and Conservatives, discuss over the summer, possible changes to EI. They met over the summer and so far agreed to disagree. That's not a surprise really. Harper has been stating for months that such action when demanded by the NDP was not needed. Now Iggy is back peddling. How do I get off this horse?
Where are the roots to today's EI problems? Go back to 1994 and Paul Martin, then finance Minister in the Liberal government. He cut back the entitlements, building of Brian Mulroney's cut backs to make it even harder to qualify for EI. They expanded the number of regions and extended hours needed to qualify, cut weeks of benefit and unless your boss went belly up, you couldn't hope to get EI.
Today we see record numbers of people on EI. Those people will see their benefits run out in a few months. What then, there are few new jobs, heck more people than ever are losing jobs.
Back to Paul Martin. As finance minister he stole funds from EI to balance the governments budget. So while collecting ever larger amounts of premiums from employers and employees, they used the excess. They cut EI benefits to allow even more of the EI premiums money to go to balancing the general budget.
Now we have Harper who wants EI to cover the self employed. Not a bad idea, but one that is fraught with difficulties. It looks like his plan would see current workers subsidize the plan. It looks like workers in Canada are caught between a rock and a hard place, between Conservative and LPC boulders.
Why is it so hard to get either of these leaders to stand up for workers in this country? Why do they continue to block EI changes that would allow people more time to find work, to pay their mortgage and bills and get by. Just a couple of days ago the big banks announced that 16000 Canadian households are three or more months behind in payments. That's a record. Its still a small number but an ugly looking trend.
The prospect of a fall election looks dimmer. Harper managed to hide his nine appointed senators behind Gary Doer, Canada's new chief lobbyist in Washington. He is managing to look moderate in the media and the public.
Well then, imagine Stephen Harper with a majority. It won't be a pretty sight. The LPCers will have only themselves to blame. They will blame the NDP for failing to fall into line and support the so called centre left. There is nothing left about the LPC save CB in Toronto and soon there will be nothing.
How do I get off this horse? That's the question Iggy should have looked after before he forced Dion out. The LPC choose this horse and now I must admit, I am mildly amused watching them vote against still another non-confidence motion. Seems they prefer the opposition benches as they are, no need to spend money they don't have to run in an election that Harper just might win again.
Better talk to Jack and the NDP. He was supportive of working together a while ago. But remember, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Jack may want a little more than a token cabinet seat or two when you come calling again.
8.17.2009
The Pot is trying to call the Kettle black.
The Pot is trying to call the Kettle black.
Its pertty funny if you think about it. The NDP kick someone out of convention because he offered to pay people to come to that convention. Now that maybe okay in the LPC Party, but most folks would call that vote buying. The NDP have means of helping those come to convention that can not afford too otherwise. That's because they believe all elected delegates should be able to attend.
Now we have Liberals all over the place screaming that the NDP is intolerant, doesn't support change to POT laws. How silly is that. For as long as I can remember, the NDP has supported changes to Canada's POT laws. Even the LPC talked about it. Heck, don't take my word, ask your neighbour which party is most "POT" friendly.
In the end as with every controversial position, the Liberals let the POT issue die on the order paper. Just as they let the Child Care plan die and the First Nations Kelowna Accord die.
In each instance the Paul Martin government could have introduced these changes. They would have had NDP support to do them. The LPC Party failed to bring these issues to a vote or into a budget. Instead, the LPC decided they needed some carrots to hold in front of voters so we could vote for them instead of the Conservatives.
Its did not work. Canadians have become wise to this old trick. For any LPC member or blogger to attack the NDP because they sent a POT activist that tried to buy votes packing is hypocritical.
To conclude... Dana Larson made a mistake. I support legalization of Pot. Larsen made it easy to send him packing. Larsen commented on a LPC Blog, A BCer in Toronto thus...
-
I am hardly "pleased as punch." I don't want to be the guy outside the convention with a sign, I wanted to be the guy inside lobbying for drug policy reform.
But I cannot stand down when I am falsely accused of bribing delegates and buying votes. I have been to a dozen NDP conventions and this one was the first time that our End Prohibition ad was rejected from the convention guide, and trying to book a table included 3 months of no replies before we finally got a table on the same day I was bounced as a delegate!
I love the NDP, and my fellow New Democrats generally seem to support my work. But clearly Brad Lavigne doesn't like pot smokers and has a hate-on for me personally.
Thanks for the coverage!
NDP still the NDP
NDP still the NDP
and not so "Lily White," says LPC blogger...
Seven hours for debate. That's a fair amount of time at any major party convention. That is in addition to the time spent by the panels. At NDP conventions, it is the delegates that decide what priority is set to each item. Not the party brass.
Good guy Liberal blogger Scott Tribe wrote a blog titled "How undemocratic of the New Democratic Party delegates (or some of 'em). " specifically about the name change resolution.
Scott reasons that the name change issue was so big that the party faithful should have had an opportunity to debate it and when it did finally come to debate, the clock was run out by some pretty smart (undemocratic in Scott's terms) delegates opposed to a name change.
The name change was all big hype by the media and bloggers. I even supported the idea. That said, the delegates did not seem to think it needed such a high priority. When the ranking of resolutions was put to the floor, the delegates adopted the ranking. Any resolution can still be moved up on the the list if there is a will by the delegates to do so.
So the real story behind Scott's blog is made clear here in a reply from someone who said the story isn't so important...
I suppose its tough being a Liberal (LPC) these days. They have been working overtime to bring the NDP vote into their fold. It has proven to be a great failure. So while the NDP took positions on many issues of the day at their convention, the LPCs are still trying to figure out how to prevent an election as their party succumbs to the Conservatives in the latest polling. Muddying the "Lily White" NDP seems to be an ongoing growth strategy for some LPC supporters.Scott Tribe Reply:
August 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm@Paladiea, Actually.. its all over the papers (ie the Star saying this was all anti-climactic), but whatever.. I’m just pointing it out so the next time NDP bloggers try to be critical of Liberal leadership for some undemocratic slight (and they’ve had no bones about doing so before), they can be reminded they aren’t lilly-white when it comes to undemocratic practices in their own party.
Back to Scott's blog, Devin Johnson, a NDP blogger wrote...
I think Devon did a good job here...Devin Johnston Reply:
August 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pmWhere is the lack of democracy here? We didn’t get to the name change because the party delegates voted to prioritize other resolutions first. It is literally not possible in our party for the party leadership to prevent us from debating something that the membership is interested in debating: the prioritization list comes from the convention delegates themselves. When New Dems criticize the Libs for being undemocratic, it’s because the Liberal brass is actually making a unilateral decision without allowing the membership to dissent. When Liberals accuse New Democrats of being undemocratic, it’s because we were pressed for time at our convention. Incidentally, any policies that didn’t make it to the floor get forwarded on to our federal council for further discussion.
Im not sure what the bloggers will say when the NDP introduce a motion to eliminate small business tax. "NDP abandons workers," comes to mind.
8.12.2009
That funny Skinny Dipper
That funny Skinny Dipper
has a fun post ...
If Political Parties were stores what would they be?
Canadian Tire - Conservatives
Zellers - Liberals
Home Hardware and The Source - NDP
Mountain Equipment Co-op - Green
8.11.2009
What's in a name...
What's in a name...
There is a proposal at this weekends NDP convention in Halifa
x to drop the "New" from the New Democratic Party of Canada moniker. Several generations have grown up with the "New" attached to the Democratic Party in Canada. I think its a good idea to drop the "New" as well. Michael Byers, a professor at UBC and NDP candidate in the 2008 federal election thinks its a good idea as well, you can see his article in the Toronto Star today. The people most fearing the potential NDP name change are the Liberals. The Liberals biggest threat is the NDP and their worst nightmare is the potential of the NDP with a name change to be seen by many younger Canadians for their polices rather than the dreaded red scare the NDP has been hobbled with at the hands of very effective Liberal campaigners and their supportive media.
Put a name change together and the prospect that the next election will see no party with a majority, the Democratic Party stands to make gains, likely at the expense of the Liberal Party. No wonder Liberals are running scared.
Mr. Ignatieff hOne of the reasons for this lack of growth has to be leadership on issues. People have a good idea what the Conservatives and the NDP would do. People have also seen what they get with Ignatieff and they haven't warmed up to it. Two big issues Liberals fumbled, E.I. and the Republican attack in the US on Canada's healthcare system.as returned the party's traditional core support levels – and revived it in Quebec – but the Strategic Counsel poll found they have lost the traditional edge among women, younger voters, and Canadians who live in cities and large towns, crucial to their hopes of victory. The NDP vote has remained firm.“The Liberals have plateaued,” said The Strategic Counsel's Peter Donolo. - The Globe and Mail, August 11, 2009
As tens of thousands of vote rich Ontario workers lost jobs every month, Ignatieff proposed a committee to spend the summer studying the idea of change. What these workers needed was action, not another delay. The Liberals will pay dearly for that miscue.
Next up is the outright attack by the right in the USA of Canada's healthcare system. Now we all know and appreciate that we don't have a perfect system, its still better than the US healthcare system. Canadians are more than a little ticked off to see our country being maligned in this manner. They want Canadian leaders to speak out. Only NDP leader Jack Layton has stood up.
Name change or not, the next election will see the NDP going after both Harper and Ignatieff. This is a taste of what you will see from the NDP provided by National Director Brad Lavigne...
The NDP name change throws a big wrinkle in the Liberals election plan. They know its a smart move, its an opportunity to re-brand the NDP and they have little time to counter attack, unless the Liberals decide to find some other "face saving" means of supporting the Harper government until the spring.“Mr. Layton has written a book about investing in Canadians and their communities. Mr. Ignatieff has written books defending torture,” said Lavigne.
“Mr. Ignatieff has defended and supported the war in Iraq … If Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Harper were prime minister in 2004, Canada would still be in Iraq today.”
Lavigne also scoffed at Ignatieff’s proposed changes to reform the Employment Insurance system saying the Liberal leader was “out of the country” when the system Canada has today was crafted.- By PETER ZIMONJIC, National Bureau, Sun Media
What's in a name, ask any Liberal.
update: I found a post by the Northern BC Dipper supporting a name change. He does a good job of it!
1.29.2009
Harper and Ignatieff lock hands
This video made me think of the budget.
Could this be a glimpse of the future as Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff lock hands in an effort to win the hearts of Canadians. Racing toward the election some day real soon, they just can't get away from each other! Then Canadians catch up to them.
Maybe I am just daydreaming...
Could this be a glimpse of the future as Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff lock hands in an effort to win the hearts of Canadians. Racing toward the election some day real soon, they just can't get away from each other! Then Canadians catch up to them.
Maybe I am just daydreaming...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)