I am glutton for outragous-ness.
From time to time I get a rise out of reading the CBC comments section within their news articles.
As I am sure most readers know;
Our friend NDP MP Pat Martin dropped the "F-Bomb" on a twitter poster pertaining to the Government
He stated:
“This is a f—ing disgrace … closure again. And on the Budget! There’s not a democracy in the world that would tolerate this jackboot s—,”
This is from a Member of Parliament who was elected in 1997, and has been collected a paycheque from the taxpayer for roughly 14 years.
I am not offended by swearing, I do so daily.
However I once again find this situation as the Canadian media not holding the NDP to the same level of scrutiny as the Conservatives or Liberals.
Had John MacKay or Peter Van Loan made similar comments there would be cries from the NDP that they should resign or publicly apologize.
However with the NDP the most common response I get is "Its Pat Martin, what do you expect, he is a spirited guy"
Stockwell Day was a "spirited guy" and I don't think we would have given him the same "meh" reaction had he dropped an F bomb in regards to the Liberals passing legislation in the same manner when they had a majority government.
It appears that the public doesn't quite take the NDP seriously yet;
They still get the treatment as though they are the same 3rd opposition party with 19 seats as they were in 2004.
However if the voting public and the media don't hold them to the same standard, and don't take them as seriously as the Tories and Liberals,
Then I have to ask;
Why should the Conservatives?
Showing posts with label Conservative Party of Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative Party of Canada. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Don’t you love the smell of an election in the morning?
Its budget day;
I find myself clicking refresh on any number of different news and political websites hoping to get some new information that will let us know if we will be heading to the polls in May or not.
People keep asking if I think there will be an election, and had you asked me last week I would have chuckled and said not unless the opposition wants to give the Conservatives a majority.
Today I still feel that even at 38% or so, if the double digit lead the Conservatives hold over the Liberals in Ontario is correct that will be enough to generate the seats required for the Tories to pull a 1997 and find themselves with a thin majority.
The question is why would the opposition want to allow this?
The answer I think is pretty simple;
If you are the BQ, there is a very real possibility that your leader who is the only real face of the party will be moving to Provincial pastures within the next 12-18 months and you are better off contesting an election with him, then having a bitter leadership race which may very well result in a leader Quebeckers are generally apathetic to.
Duceppe is a known commodity good for a 45 seat pop.
The balance of the Commons is when it becomes a bit more hazy.
For the Liberals, as I have said for the last two years this is a party that needs four years in opposition to rebuild themselves. They don’t have the leader, support, will, or money to be in this constant state of election campaigning that a minority government provides.
This is a party that’s has problems that do not simply span from who the leader is, but simply a party that lacks direction or any identity. If you took the logos off the 2004, 2006, and 2008 Liberal Platforms someone with no knowledge of Canadian politics would be hard-pressed to assume they came from the same party.
They need direction and they need an end to infighting.
This is something that will not get done in the context of a minority government.
However I think there is just too much pride at stake for that to ever happen.
Yet we find ourselves with the Liberals polling somewhere between 23-27% nationally and a fairly consistent double digit gap between them and the Conservatives in Ontario.
Voting down this budget, or taking down the government on whatever ethical grounds they feel they may be going to the polls over seems more a leap of pride then of any real political strategy.
The Liberals needs to make fairly substantial gains to be anywhere near a position to consider forming a government.
The idea of walking into an election hoping that Canadians will value correct use of letterhead over the recovery of the economy is a stretch, yet its why we seem to find ourselves potentially at the polls.
I think the Liberals have just gone too far this time, its gone past the point of “Mr. Harper your time is up” and the Liberals almost have to go to the polls because abstaining from this budget will kill what’s left of their creditability.
Now we come to the NDP.
A party that wanted four very low cost concessions for their potential support.
A far cry from the billions of dollars they demanded from Paul Martin’s Liberals in 2005.
The Conservatives have countered with agreeing to two of the least left of center and low cost requests.
I have no idea how to even begin to gauge NDP support.
Polling has them at a support level that may cost them 15-20 seats then the next poll has them adding a couple.
However can the NDP really pass a budget with Corporate Tax Cuts?
I just don’t see it.
What I find all the more puzzling is that it appears that Thomas Mulcair seems to be the one rattling the saber to go to an election (at least by some online reports which we can very well take with a grain of salt)
Mulcair is perhaps the second most known commodity within the party,
And while he may very well be doing wonders within the party, I find it highly unlikely that he will be able to retain Outremont with Martin Cauchon running for the Liberals.
It’s not a slight at Mulcair, it’s simply a political reality of Quebec.
Outremont is a Liberal Stronghold, Mulcair was a Liberal Cabinet Minister in the Provincial Liberal Government, however he has hardly beat anyone of note in either election he has won, and now he faces a real honest to goodness and very personally popular Liberal.
I can see why the NDP may vote down the budget, but I just don’t see why many of them would be smiling while they do.
I guess we will find out shortly.
I find myself clicking refresh on any number of different news and political websites hoping to get some new information that will let us know if we will be heading to the polls in May or not.
People keep asking if I think there will be an election, and had you asked me last week I would have chuckled and said not unless the opposition wants to give the Conservatives a majority.
Today I still feel that even at 38% or so, if the double digit lead the Conservatives hold over the Liberals in Ontario is correct that will be enough to generate the seats required for the Tories to pull a 1997 and find themselves with a thin majority.
The question is why would the opposition want to allow this?
The answer I think is pretty simple;
If you are the BQ, there is a very real possibility that your leader who is the only real face of the party will be moving to Provincial pastures within the next 12-18 months and you are better off contesting an election with him, then having a bitter leadership race which may very well result in a leader Quebeckers are generally apathetic to.
Duceppe is a known commodity good for a 45 seat pop.
The balance of the Commons is when it becomes a bit more hazy.
For the Liberals, as I have said for the last two years this is a party that needs four years in opposition to rebuild themselves. They don’t have the leader, support, will, or money to be in this constant state of election campaigning that a minority government provides.
This is a party that’s has problems that do not simply span from who the leader is, but simply a party that lacks direction or any identity. If you took the logos off the 2004, 2006, and 2008 Liberal Platforms someone with no knowledge of Canadian politics would be hard-pressed to assume they came from the same party.
They need direction and they need an end to infighting.
This is something that will not get done in the context of a minority government.
However I think there is just too much pride at stake for that to ever happen.
Yet we find ourselves with the Liberals polling somewhere between 23-27% nationally and a fairly consistent double digit gap between them and the Conservatives in Ontario.
Voting down this budget, or taking down the government on whatever ethical grounds they feel they may be going to the polls over seems more a leap of pride then of any real political strategy.
The Liberals needs to make fairly substantial gains to be anywhere near a position to consider forming a government.
The idea of walking into an election hoping that Canadians will value correct use of letterhead over the recovery of the economy is a stretch, yet its why we seem to find ourselves potentially at the polls.
I think the Liberals have just gone too far this time, its gone past the point of “Mr. Harper your time is up” and the Liberals almost have to go to the polls because abstaining from this budget will kill what’s left of their creditability.
Now we come to the NDP.
A party that wanted four very low cost concessions for their potential support.
A far cry from the billions of dollars they demanded from Paul Martin’s Liberals in 2005.
The Conservatives have countered with agreeing to two of the least left of center and low cost requests.
I have no idea how to even begin to gauge NDP support.
Polling has them at a support level that may cost them 15-20 seats then the next poll has them adding a couple.
However can the NDP really pass a budget with Corporate Tax Cuts?
I just don’t see it.
What I find all the more puzzling is that it appears that Thomas Mulcair seems to be the one rattling the saber to go to an election (at least by some online reports which we can very well take with a grain of salt)
Mulcair is perhaps the second most known commodity within the party,
And while he may very well be doing wonders within the party, I find it highly unlikely that he will be able to retain Outremont with Martin Cauchon running for the Liberals.
It’s not a slight at Mulcair, it’s simply a political reality of Quebec.
Outremont is a Liberal Stronghold, Mulcair was a Liberal Cabinet Minister in the Provincial Liberal Government, however he has hardly beat anyone of note in either election he has won, and now he faces a real honest to goodness and very personally popular Liberal.
I can see why the NDP may vote down the budget, but I just don’t see why many of them would be smiling while they do.
I guess we will find out shortly.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
When is being "right" at the expense of being right, Wrong?
I hate war.
I hate losing young men, who die in the service of this nation in order to do some degree of good in a part of the world that the vast majority of the Canadian population will never visit within 1000 miles of.
It turns my stomach a little bit when I watch those on the left make an attempt to make politicians who are right of center in their political leanings either war mongers or somehow guilty of war crimes.
The concept that anyone in power regardless of political stripe takes any sort of pleasure in sending soldiers into harms way is perhaps the greatest slander and most epic insult that can be volleyed onto a person.
It implies they are somehow subhuman, when in reality we know that regardless of who makes the discussion; it’s never easy.
As I sat watching the Sunday talk show circuit that pits a left of center and right of center rhetoric machine against each other in an attempt to see who can make the most fantastic and utterly ridiculous claim against the other side, and comment was made that stuck with me.
“You need to do the RIGHT thing”
I don’t recall which side it came from, nor could I pick the guy who said it out of a line-up but it caused me to dwell on the word “right”
What is the “right thing”?
As a Canadian the topic that is most discussed when the matter of war is raised is that of the ongoing Afghan War,
I have watched the typical partisan ballet;
The Liberals who entered this conflict in 2001 where in favor of the conflict till January 24th 2006 which interestingly enough is the first day that the Conservatives took power in Canada.
After that every attempt was made to paint this as “Harper’s War” and to make out anyone who was the Minister of Defense as some sort of trigger happy war monger.
If you took a poll today it would swing a few percent one way or another but both sides tend to hover around the high 40’s or low 50’s depending on the poll, which as far as I am concerned pretty well puts us at a tie.
In 2001 when Canadians were asked if we should go into Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks, the numbers were in the high 70’s to low 80’s in terms of percentage.
This is where the “right” thing comes into effect,
30% of Canadians have gone from pro to con over the course of the 8+ years this conflict has raged on.
What I have ask them is very simple:
What do we owe the Afghan people? Should we not finish the job?
We walked into their country with our NATO allies, we kicked the Taliban to the curb, we beat back insurgents in the streets, we have got them to a point where they have at least the most rudimentary democracy in place, and then we lost interest, because we started losing soldiers.
I can’t blame Canadians for wanting to take our troops out of harms way, but at the same time I have to wonder why we are so quick to be willing to trade lives.
How many Afghan lives are worth that of one Canadian?
It may sound like a harsh question, but its one that the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democrats, as well as BQ have indirectly asked me as a Canadian to decide.
How many Afghan Civilians do I feel are worth the life of a single Canadian troop?
There are two ways to approach that simply morbid question;
You can be right; or you can be politically right.
The see the difference I can cite a very simple example.
In the early 1990’s the UN sent a Peacekeeping team into Somalia to attempt to stop a pending civil war, this mission ended after the Battle of Mogadishu when news footage of the dead U.S. soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu found its way back to the people of the United States in 1993.
Public opinion of the conflict in Somalia plummeted, and President Bill Clinton did the politically right thing and pulled out the US soldiers from the Somali mission after 19 US soldiers were killed during the Battle of Mogadishu (31 for the entire mission), which resulted in the collapse of the mission, and Somalia falling into a continued state of Civil War.
The Somali Civil War still rages on, and has resulted in the death of about 400,000 people, with well over a million displaced from their home.
The question of how many Somali lives are worth a single American life was answered:
31 Americans died,
The American people wanted out.
They got out
400,000 Somali's are dead
400,000 / 31 = 12,903 Somali’s died in exchange for every US solider that did.
But;
Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996 by one of the largest margins every won by a Democrat in a Presidential election.
He made the “right” call, politically speaking, he was “politically right”.
But that call resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Somali citizens,
The question then becomes, was it the “right” choice?
Was there any obligation to finish what they started?
George W. Bush is often called a War Monger because he oversaw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Stephen Harper is often call the same for his support of the Mission in Afghanistan, but it should be noted that roughly 8,309 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since October 2001, with estimates as high as 16,000, Iraq based on IBC’s numbers have experienced 104,119 civilian deaths (as the high estimate, roughly 96,000 as the low)
Even if I am being generous; the inaction in Somali led to roughly 4x more civilian deaths then the direct action of invading two nations.
But there seems to be this mentality that if its not on CNN then it didn't really happen. If a child is murdered in Africa, and various international news agencies don't bother to cover it, does it count? Clearly to those on the left, it does not.
As a fairness test;
If I stand by and watch a man drown or;
If I drown a man,
The man is just as dead at the end of the day.
I understand that politicians can draw a line between civilians who die when we are watching, and then those who die when we are not.
I however, do not.
Civilian death seems to be different depending on your party line; and while that may pass salt in Washington or Ottawa, it doesn’t work with me.
If we held the withdrawal from Somalia to the same loose international legal standard that is being used by pundits to damn all Conservatives, Republicans, and Labour Party Members over Iraq & Afghanistan; Would Bill Clinton not be subject to the Yamashita standard?
I don’t think so; but he was a Republican I can assure you that it would at least be a hot topic of debate on the Sunday talk circuit.
Why is the opposition in Canada in such a rush to potentially have our own withdrawal which could potentially lead to civil war weighing on our conscience?
Will it win them an election?
Perhaps.
Damning our troops and the government who supports them may be “politically right” but I have to wonder what the consequences of being “politically right” would be for the average Afghan?
We went in there, and we need to finish the job.
Scoring points off our troops who are in harms way every day from the confines of the Parliament buildings may score you political points;
But I still have a hard time as an average Canadian when I am asked to indirectly answer how many Afghan lives are worth that of a single Canadians?
Because that is what a withdrawal, and calls for withdrawal basically amounts to.
And that is when bring “right” vs. “politically right” becomes the choice of every Canadian.
I hate losing young men, who die in the service of this nation in order to do some degree of good in a part of the world that the vast majority of the Canadian population will never visit within 1000 miles of.
It turns my stomach a little bit when I watch those on the left make an attempt to make politicians who are right of center in their political leanings either war mongers or somehow guilty of war crimes.
The concept that anyone in power regardless of political stripe takes any sort of pleasure in sending soldiers into harms way is perhaps the greatest slander and most epic insult that can be volleyed onto a person.
It implies they are somehow subhuman, when in reality we know that regardless of who makes the discussion; it’s never easy.
As I sat watching the Sunday talk show circuit that pits a left of center and right of center rhetoric machine against each other in an attempt to see who can make the most fantastic and utterly ridiculous claim against the other side, and comment was made that stuck with me.
“You need to do the RIGHT thing”
I don’t recall which side it came from, nor could I pick the guy who said it out of a line-up but it caused me to dwell on the word “right”
What is the “right thing”?
As a Canadian the topic that is most discussed when the matter of war is raised is that of the ongoing Afghan War,
I have watched the typical partisan ballet;
The Liberals who entered this conflict in 2001 where in favor of the conflict till January 24th 2006 which interestingly enough is the first day that the Conservatives took power in Canada.
After that every attempt was made to paint this as “Harper’s War” and to make out anyone who was the Minister of Defense as some sort of trigger happy war monger.
If you took a poll today it would swing a few percent one way or another but both sides tend to hover around the high 40’s or low 50’s depending on the poll, which as far as I am concerned pretty well puts us at a tie.
In 2001 when Canadians were asked if we should go into Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks, the numbers were in the high 70’s to low 80’s in terms of percentage.
This is where the “right” thing comes into effect,
30% of Canadians have gone from pro to con over the course of the 8+ years this conflict has raged on.
What I have ask them is very simple:
What do we owe the Afghan people? Should we not finish the job?
We walked into their country with our NATO allies, we kicked the Taliban to the curb, we beat back insurgents in the streets, we have got them to a point where they have at least the most rudimentary democracy in place, and then we lost interest, because we started losing soldiers.
I can’t blame Canadians for wanting to take our troops out of harms way, but at the same time I have to wonder why we are so quick to be willing to trade lives.
How many Afghan lives are worth that of one Canadian?
It may sound like a harsh question, but its one that the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democrats, as well as BQ have indirectly asked me as a Canadian to decide.
How many Afghan Civilians do I feel are worth the life of a single Canadian troop?
There are two ways to approach that simply morbid question;
You can be right; or you can be politically right.
The see the difference I can cite a very simple example.
In the early 1990’s the UN sent a Peacekeeping team into Somalia to attempt to stop a pending civil war, this mission ended after the Battle of Mogadishu when news footage of the dead U.S. soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu found its way back to the people of the United States in 1993.
Public opinion of the conflict in Somalia plummeted, and President Bill Clinton did the politically right thing and pulled out the US soldiers from the Somali mission after 19 US soldiers were killed during the Battle of Mogadishu (31 for the entire mission), which resulted in the collapse of the mission, and Somalia falling into a continued state of Civil War.
The Somali Civil War still rages on, and has resulted in the death of about 400,000 people, with well over a million displaced from their home.
The question of how many Somali lives are worth a single American life was answered:
31 Americans died,
The American people wanted out.
They got out
400,000 Somali's are dead
400,000 / 31 = 12,903 Somali’s died in exchange for every US solider that did.
But;
Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996 by one of the largest margins every won by a Democrat in a Presidential election.
He made the “right” call, politically speaking, he was “politically right”.
But that call resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Somali citizens,
The question then becomes, was it the “right” choice?
Was there any obligation to finish what they started?
George W. Bush is often called a War Monger because he oversaw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Stephen Harper is often call the same for his support of the Mission in Afghanistan, but it should be noted that roughly 8,309 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since October 2001, with estimates as high as 16,000, Iraq based on IBC’s numbers have experienced 104,119 civilian deaths (as the high estimate, roughly 96,000 as the low)
Even if I am being generous; the inaction in Somali led to roughly 4x more civilian deaths then the direct action of invading two nations.
But there seems to be this mentality that if its not on CNN then it didn't really happen. If a child is murdered in Africa, and various international news agencies don't bother to cover it, does it count? Clearly to those on the left, it does not.
As a fairness test;
If I stand by and watch a man drown or;
If I drown a man,
The man is just as dead at the end of the day.
I understand that politicians can draw a line between civilians who die when we are watching, and then those who die when we are not.
I however, do not.
Civilian death seems to be different depending on your party line; and while that may pass salt in Washington or Ottawa, it doesn’t work with me.
If we held the withdrawal from Somalia to the same loose international legal standard that is being used by pundits to damn all Conservatives, Republicans, and Labour Party Members over Iraq & Afghanistan; Would Bill Clinton not be subject to the Yamashita standard?
I don’t think so; but he was a Republican I can assure you that it would at least be a hot topic of debate on the Sunday talk circuit.
Why is the opposition in Canada in such a rush to potentially have our own withdrawal which could potentially lead to civil war weighing on our conscience?
Will it win them an election?
Perhaps.
Damning our troops and the government who supports them may be “politically right” but I have to wonder what the consequences of being “politically right” would be for the average Afghan?
We went in there, and we need to finish the job.
Scoring points off our troops who are in harms way every day from the confines of the Parliament buildings may score you political points;
But I still have a hard time as an average Canadian when I am asked to indirectly answer how many Afghan lives are worth that of a single Canadians?
Because that is what a withdrawal, and calls for withdrawal basically amounts to.
And that is when bring “right” vs. “politically right” becomes the choice of every Canadian.
Conservative Supporters are Paranoid & Crazy...
I often sit on the sidelines and enjoy watching my friends who cover the right and left spectrum of politics argue back and forth about the fairness of media.
The Conservative supporters have this conspiracy theory that the "left wing" media is out to get them, and the Liberal and New Democrat supporters simply laugh and say that they are crazy, and that reporting the truth does not constitute bias.
As I was thumbing through the Globe and Mail website the other day, I came across this interesting article that caught my eye.
The headline was:
With the little blurb online before the article saying:
Neat! I had to read more!
This revelation was made based on a Nanos poll which basically asked based on the following institutions do you feel they have too much power, the right amount of power, or not enough power, or unsure.
The results from the poll which is displayed within the very article shows the following when asked about the office of the Prime Minister:
Too Much Power: 41.6%
The Right Amount of Power: 40.4%
Not Enough Power: 9.3%
Unsure: 8.7%
Perhaps I fell asleep in grade school when they taught the class how to add, but based on the Nano's poll I see it as 49.7% of Canadians feeling that the PMO has either the right amount of power, or not enough...
That is a higher figure of Canadians believing that the headline of the article is incorrect, then correct.
But again, what do I know?
Have a look at the article yourself and make your own judgment.
I guess maybe there is something to the old saying:
"It's not paranoia if they are really after you"
The Conservative supporters have this conspiracy theory that the "left wing" media is out to get them, and the Liberal and New Democrat supporters simply laugh and say that they are crazy, and that reporting the truth does not constitute bias.
As I was thumbing through the Globe and Mail website the other day, I came across this interesting article that caught my eye.
The headline was:
PMO has too much power, poll finds
With the little blurb online before the article saying:
More than 40 per cent of Canadians put Prime Minister's Office ahead of Senate as institution most deserving to have its wings clipped
Neat! I had to read more!
This revelation was made based on a Nanos poll which basically asked based on the following institutions do you feel they have too much power, the right amount of power, or not enough power, or unsure.
The results from the poll which is displayed within the very article shows the following when asked about the office of the Prime Minister:
Too Much Power: 41.6%
The Right Amount of Power: 40.4%
Not Enough Power: 9.3%
Unsure: 8.7%
Perhaps I fell asleep in grade school when they taught the class how to add, but based on the Nano's poll I see it as 49.7% of Canadians feeling that the PMO has either the right amount of power, or not enough...
That is a higher figure of Canadians believing that the headline of the article is incorrect, then correct.
But again, what do I know?
Have a look at the article yourself and make your own judgment.
I guess maybe there is something to the old saying:
"It's not paranoia if they are really after you"
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Damn You, and Your “Responsible” Budget!
Let me be clear, I don’t have anything against the Liberal Party of Canada.
Historically they have done some pretty interesting things, and had some very interesting leaders, who have benefited this country for electing them.
However, this incarnation of the Liberal Party of Canada just gives me the creeps.
I hate appointed leaders, nothing makes me more angry then party brass around a board room table anointing the leader of a political party that is suppose to represent Canadians especially when that leader shouldn’t buy the support of other leadership hopefuls in 2006.
I wasn’t thrilled when Harper ran in 2003, as a merged party shouldn’t have either of the former parties’ leaders running the show,
I wasn’t thrilled at the 11 month delay in 2006 which basically gave the Conservatives an unelected majority government while the Liberals samples eight potential leaders
And I wasn’t thrilled that Ignatieff was anointed rather then elected.
But in the first two cases, at least the unwashed masses got to have some input into selecting their leader, and the problem with men in smoke filled rooms selecting a leader is that those men rarely if ever understand the plight of the working class stiffs like me.
Last year was like watching a tennis match at the US open when it came to where the Liberals stood on issues.
March 2009 – We will support this reckless spending the government is putting forth, but we want them to submit reports as to where the money is going…
You know, do what a government is legally required to do anyway when it comes to spending tax payer money…
They even went as far as to create a cute “onprobation.ca” website to show us how they were like vigilant hawks who would strike down at anyone who abused us minions as we toiled in the fields.
But of course they lost interest in actually doing the job of the opposition party of Canada, and went back to whining that being in opposition is beneath Canada’s natural Governing Party, as the website now simply re-directs to the Liberal Party home page and has down so for several months…
So much for that….
September 2009 – They voted against legislation that would have made the Home Renovation Credit Law,
Yeah, you know that credit they supported in March that most of us spent when it was warm in summer so we could do the work on our “honey do” lists like replace tiles, have the roof fixes, finish the basement…basically all the stuff that most sane Canadians don’t wait till Fall to get started on when the credit is set to expire in February.
Because now, they are against reckless spending…
Yet they are not interested in keeping the Conservative accountable for this reckless spending they are now against, which they were for in March when they were in favor of the reckless spending in the first place…
Get all that?
As I sat there within thousands of dollars of renovation materials receipts in my hands for the first time in a long time I actually cheer the NDP as they did the right thing and supported passing the legislation the Liberals should have passed in the first place.
I wrote my MP, and I tend to never do that because writing my MP is like going into Best Buy and complaining to the guy who sells TV’s that I am unhappy with the quality of company XYZ’s TV’s, he may smile and nod, he may even show some apathy for my situation, but at the end of the day he/she has no real power to make any real choices because they have to pull the party line anyway.
My Liberal MP replied to my frantic “Ummmm dude? I spent a few grand doing work around the house under the promise I would write some of it off, and you supported that in March, and now you are punking me?? Really? REALLY???”
His response was basically;
The legislation has passed, and the reno credit is law.
When in reality,
The legislation had passed despite his party not supporting it, and had the legislation been voted down we would have hit the polls, and I may have never seen my credit ever again.
I may vote Liberal in the future, but never ever ever again will I vote for him.
Taking bread out of my mouth is one thing,
Offering me bread, putting butter on it, handing it to me, and trying to slap it out of my hand as I put it in my mouth is another.
Now here we are in February 2010;
The Conservatives have leaked parts of their budget.
No Tax Cuts
No New Spending
While I am disappointed that the Reagan approach to cut taxes to stimulate spending which historically increases government revenue anyway (also used successfully in Ontario by Mike Harris)
I am pleased that spending is under control,
But of course, that is terrible.
It’s being called a do nothing budget…
This is the problem with the opposition parties,
There is no right answer.
And in a minority government that creates a real legislative quagmire.
We have been in election mode since the day after the 2004 election, every political party wasting time in Parliament hoping for a soundbyte they can use in a election which could happen any day…
This of course at the expense of governing.
The Liberals are now against restraint,
The same fiscal restraint they were for when they opted to stop supporting the budget they supported in March in September.
They want to spend billions on daycare, they feel that not spending money that we don’t have is “doing nothing”,
As a normal Canadian who actually has to work for a living at a honest to goodness job, I call not spending money that I don’t have something very different,
I call it “reality”.
But what do I know?
Historically they have done some pretty interesting things, and had some very interesting leaders, who have benefited this country for electing them.
However, this incarnation of the Liberal Party of Canada just gives me the creeps.
I hate appointed leaders, nothing makes me more angry then party brass around a board room table anointing the leader of a political party that is suppose to represent Canadians especially when that leader shouldn’t buy the support of other leadership hopefuls in 2006.
I wasn’t thrilled when Harper ran in 2003, as a merged party shouldn’t have either of the former parties’ leaders running the show,
I wasn’t thrilled at the 11 month delay in 2006 which basically gave the Conservatives an unelected majority government while the Liberals samples eight potential leaders
And I wasn’t thrilled that Ignatieff was anointed rather then elected.
But in the first two cases, at least the unwashed masses got to have some input into selecting their leader, and the problem with men in smoke filled rooms selecting a leader is that those men rarely if ever understand the plight of the working class stiffs like me.
Last year was like watching a tennis match at the US open when it came to where the Liberals stood on issues.
March 2009 – We will support this reckless spending the government is putting forth, but we want them to submit reports as to where the money is going…
You know, do what a government is legally required to do anyway when it comes to spending tax payer money…
They even went as far as to create a cute “onprobation.ca” website to show us how they were like vigilant hawks who would strike down at anyone who abused us minions as we toiled in the fields.
But of course they lost interest in actually doing the job of the opposition party of Canada, and went back to whining that being in opposition is beneath Canada’s natural Governing Party, as the website now simply re-directs to the Liberal Party home page and has down so for several months…
So much for that….
September 2009 – They voted against legislation that would have made the Home Renovation Credit Law,
Yeah, you know that credit they supported in March that most of us spent when it was warm in summer so we could do the work on our “honey do” lists like replace tiles, have the roof fixes, finish the basement…basically all the stuff that most sane Canadians don’t wait till Fall to get started on when the credit is set to expire in February.
Because now, they are against reckless spending…
Yet they are not interested in keeping the Conservative accountable for this reckless spending they are now against, which they were for in March when they were in favor of the reckless spending in the first place…
Get all that?
As I sat there within thousands of dollars of renovation materials receipts in my hands for the first time in a long time I actually cheer the NDP as they did the right thing and supported passing the legislation the Liberals should have passed in the first place.
I wrote my MP, and I tend to never do that because writing my MP is like going into Best Buy and complaining to the guy who sells TV’s that I am unhappy with the quality of company XYZ’s TV’s, he may smile and nod, he may even show some apathy for my situation, but at the end of the day he/she has no real power to make any real choices because they have to pull the party line anyway.
My Liberal MP replied to my frantic “Ummmm dude? I spent a few grand doing work around the house under the promise I would write some of it off, and you supported that in March, and now you are punking me?? Really? REALLY???”
His response was basically;
The legislation has passed, and the reno credit is law.
When in reality,
The legislation had passed despite his party not supporting it, and had the legislation been voted down we would have hit the polls, and I may have never seen my credit ever again.
I may vote Liberal in the future, but never ever ever again will I vote for him.
Taking bread out of my mouth is one thing,
Offering me bread, putting butter on it, handing it to me, and trying to slap it out of my hand as I put it in my mouth is another.
Now here we are in February 2010;
The Conservatives have leaked parts of their budget.
No Tax Cuts
No New Spending
While I am disappointed that the Reagan approach to cut taxes to stimulate spending which historically increases government revenue anyway (also used successfully in Ontario by Mike Harris)
I am pleased that spending is under control,
But of course, that is terrible.
It’s being called a do nothing budget…
This is the problem with the opposition parties,
There is no right answer.
And in a minority government that creates a real legislative quagmire.
We have been in election mode since the day after the 2004 election, every political party wasting time in Parliament hoping for a soundbyte they can use in a election which could happen any day…
This of course at the expense of governing.
The Liberals are now against restraint,
The same fiscal restraint they were for when they opted to stop supporting the budget they supported in March in September.
They want to spend billions on daycare, they feel that not spending money that we don’t have is “doing nothing”,
As a normal Canadian who actually has to work for a living at a honest to goodness job, I call not spending money that I don’t have something very different,
I call it “reality”.
But what do I know?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
By-Election Blues
I liked Paul Martin.
While that may come as a surprise as he is an “Evil Liberal” he seemed like the sort that would offer me what I wanted, a loose fiscally conservative approach to the money and big talk and little action on the social side of the spectrum government shouldn’t be involved in but find themselves involved in.
It wasn’t Ad-Scam that drove me away from Paul Martin, it was the Liberal Party and their moving target of values and principals that did.
If I cast a vote for the Conservatives or the New Democrats even without flipping open their platform I have a good idea of what I am getting, their principals and stances on issues has been fairly consistent, and their approach in regards to the direction this country should be moving in has been fairly consistent.
The problem I am finding with the Liberals is that they just can’t wrap their head around the concept of being the opposition party, every move that is made is a move that is made with the intention of getting back into power and when you are polling 10 – 15 percent behind the Government you have to start thinking about governing from within your role.
Every week I see a Liberal MP waving a doorknob or complaining about a blue website, or going on about an Olympic Logo and I have to ask myself is there not a better use of the official oppositions time?
Last night while the Liberal bloggers and pundits are out in full force claiming that finishing a distant third in four by-elections was all part of the plan and they were not competitive in those ridings anyway so why bother?
Why bother?
Because you are a party that now has half the seats of the party you need to defeat to enter power in the future.
This excuse that the Liberals could not be “competitive” in any of the four ridings is a reflection of what is wrong with the party.
The NDP was not “competitive” in Hochelaga, and they ran a hard campaign they knew the odds of winning were slim in, they lost but they did not roll over.
The Conservatives were certainly not “competitive” in Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and they ran a hard campaign and shocked even some of the most optimistic Conservatives.
The Liberals are a party that is 78 seats away from forming a majority government, and the old saying “beggars can’t be choosers” comes to mind.
Especially when it seems that Quebec has been the only region that has seen any sort of growth in terms of Liberal popularity since they dumped Dion earlier in the year.
As I stand back and look at the Liberal Party and try and analyze what’s wrong I think the problem ultimately starts at the top of the party, and works its way down.
During the 2006 Liberal Leadership Convention on the final ballot I watched Bob Rae supporters crawl over the figurative broken glass to assure that Michael Ignatieff did not become leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
They opted for their dislike of team Iggy to override their ultimate accountability to the party by selecting someone who could beat Stephen Harper.
When Mr. Ignatieff was appointed leader of the Liberal Party earlier this year, I have to ask myself what are the thoughts of the Bob Rae supporters who hated the idea in the first place?
Have they walked away from the party? Or are they simply laying in wait to be able to throw Mr. Ignatieff’s career under the first political bus they see coming?
There just doesn’t seem to be strategy coming from the top, there is no general leading and directing policy and platform, it just seems like you have 77 Independent MP’s who happen to sit together in the Commons who have their own agenda’s and plans who are held together by a mutual dislike of the governing party.
While the NDP can build bridges with the hate they have toward the government party, the reality is you can do that when you are expected to be the third opposition party in the commons.
If the Liberals hope to be elected again they need some substance, and more importantly they need a leader who:
1) Is known as a Liberal first, not a writer, professor, or New Democrat
2) Is electable in a region the Liberals need to grow within to be competitive (Ontario or Quebec)
3) Has his or her own reputation and cannot be “branded” by the Conservatives
The problem now is that every leader they select within the confines of a minority government is nothing more then a battlefield promotion because the guy before hand was blown to bits on the battlefield in front of the troops crushing their morale.
The Liberal Party needs time, they need to rebuild, they need to fundraise, they need a concise strategy and policy that the entire party can get behind and sing in unison.
I don’t see that happening within the realm of a minority government,
Leadership conventions take months, and they provide months of a defacto Conservative majority, which makes the Liberals look weak because they need to support the government or abstain from the legislation to avoid walking into an election leaderless which just harms their reputation more.
The Liberals are going to lose their Senate majority in early January, that may have been the only thing keeping them going to this point,
But with that gone moving on in this manner just hurts the party more.
The Liberals are best served by a Conservative Majority, and after last night and after it became clear with the early retirement in the Senate that will cost the Liberals their majority in the upper house.
They are a party that just needs to time.
If the Conservatives secure a majority, they can take eight months to hold a leadership convention and pick the right leader,
Someone like Frank McKenna or Dalton McGuinty who are Liberals first.
Then you have three years to fundraise, three years to develop policy, and three years to actually get some degree of dirt on the government to run on.
Most Liberals turn green at the thought of losing an election and causing a Conservative Majority, but the reality is that the Liberal Party has simply become reduce to a bunch of MP’s that sit in the corner rubbing their hands together hoping for something to go wrong with the government,
It’s easy to climb the polls because you are the protest party because the electorate is angry at the government,
But it’s a lot easier to press two on your touchtone in a poll in anger then it is to vote for a party based solely on anger.
The Liberals need to win based on what they bring to the table, and thus far they seem to hope they can win because of what the other guy left off their table.
While that may come as a surprise as he is an “Evil Liberal” he seemed like the sort that would offer me what I wanted, a loose fiscally conservative approach to the money and big talk and little action on the social side of the spectrum government shouldn’t be involved in but find themselves involved in.
It wasn’t Ad-Scam that drove me away from Paul Martin, it was the Liberal Party and their moving target of values and principals that did.
If I cast a vote for the Conservatives or the New Democrats even without flipping open their platform I have a good idea of what I am getting, their principals and stances on issues has been fairly consistent, and their approach in regards to the direction this country should be moving in has been fairly consistent.
The problem I am finding with the Liberals is that they just can’t wrap their head around the concept of being the opposition party, every move that is made is a move that is made with the intention of getting back into power and when you are polling 10 – 15 percent behind the Government you have to start thinking about governing from within your role.
Every week I see a Liberal MP waving a doorknob or complaining about a blue website, or going on about an Olympic Logo and I have to ask myself is there not a better use of the official oppositions time?
Last night while the Liberal bloggers and pundits are out in full force claiming that finishing a distant third in four by-elections was all part of the plan and they were not competitive in those ridings anyway so why bother?
Why bother?
Because you are a party that now has half the seats of the party you need to defeat to enter power in the future.
This excuse that the Liberals could not be “competitive” in any of the four ridings is a reflection of what is wrong with the party.
The NDP was not “competitive” in Hochelaga, and they ran a hard campaign they knew the odds of winning were slim in, they lost but they did not roll over.
The Conservatives were certainly not “competitive” in Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and they ran a hard campaign and shocked even some of the most optimistic Conservatives.
The Liberals are a party that is 78 seats away from forming a majority government, and the old saying “beggars can’t be choosers” comes to mind.
Especially when it seems that Quebec has been the only region that has seen any sort of growth in terms of Liberal popularity since they dumped Dion earlier in the year.
As I stand back and look at the Liberal Party and try and analyze what’s wrong I think the problem ultimately starts at the top of the party, and works its way down.
During the 2006 Liberal Leadership Convention on the final ballot I watched Bob Rae supporters crawl over the figurative broken glass to assure that Michael Ignatieff did not become leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
They opted for their dislike of team Iggy to override their ultimate accountability to the party by selecting someone who could beat Stephen Harper.
When Mr. Ignatieff was appointed leader of the Liberal Party earlier this year, I have to ask myself what are the thoughts of the Bob Rae supporters who hated the idea in the first place?
Have they walked away from the party? Or are they simply laying in wait to be able to throw Mr. Ignatieff’s career under the first political bus they see coming?
There just doesn’t seem to be strategy coming from the top, there is no general leading and directing policy and platform, it just seems like you have 77 Independent MP’s who happen to sit together in the Commons who have their own agenda’s and plans who are held together by a mutual dislike of the governing party.
While the NDP can build bridges with the hate they have toward the government party, the reality is you can do that when you are expected to be the third opposition party in the commons.
If the Liberals hope to be elected again they need some substance, and more importantly they need a leader who:
1) Is known as a Liberal first, not a writer, professor, or New Democrat
2) Is electable in a region the Liberals need to grow within to be competitive (Ontario or Quebec)
3) Has his or her own reputation and cannot be “branded” by the Conservatives
The problem now is that every leader they select within the confines of a minority government is nothing more then a battlefield promotion because the guy before hand was blown to bits on the battlefield in front of the troops crushing their morale.
The Liberal Party needs time, they need to rebuild, they need to fundraise, they need a concise strategy and policy that the entire party can get behind and sing in unison.
I don’t see that happening within the realm of a minority government,
Leadership conventions take months, and they provide months of a defacto Conservative majority, which makes the Liberals look weak because they need to support the government or abstain from the legislation to avoid walking into an election leaderless which just harms their reputation more.
The Liberals are going to lose their Senate majority in early January, that may have been the only thing keeping them going to this point,
But with that gone moving on in this manner just hurts the party more.
The Liberals are best served by a Conservative Majority, and after last night and after it became clear with the early retirement in the Senate that will cost the Liberals their majority in the upper house.
They are a party that just needs to time.
If the Conservatives secure a majority, they can take eight months to hold a leadership convention and pick the right leader,
Someone like Frank McKenna or Dalton McGuinty who are Liberals first.
Then you have three years to fundraise, three years to develop policy, and three years to actually get some degree of dirt on the government to run on.
Most Liberals turn green at the thought of losing an election and causing a Conservative Majority, but the reality is that the Liberal Party has simply become reduce to a bunch of MP’s that sit in the corner rubbing their hands together hoping for something to go wrong with the government,
It’s easy to climb the polls because you are the protest party because the electorate is angry at the government,
But it’s a lot easier to press two on your touchtone in a poll in anger then it is to vote for a party based solely on anger.
The Liberals need to win based on what they bring to the table, and thus far they seem to hope they can win because of what the other guy left off their table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
