Don't look now, but the Bob Rae Liberals are surging in the polls up to 28% support, putting them in 2nd place, 7% behind the Tories. The question on everyone's mind, does this mean that the opposition will pull the plug on the government and try to force an early election? Hurry, get the buses ready and the lawn signs out of storage! Oh that's right I almost forgot, the Tories have a stable majority government...we no longer need to get election ready every time a good poll comes out for the Liberals. People like Nik Nanos still need to remain relevant somehow, though it is difficult for them when we do not have election speculation at every turn. You'll have to forgive our media, they still have a hangover from 6 years of minority Parliament.
What this poll means, should Bobby's Liberals hold some of this ground they've gained on the NDP, is that it will be more likely Rae breaks his pledge and runs for full time leadership when they finally get around to having a convention. A question I'd like to ask as I watch The Soloman Show, why do the Liberals send Holland, Findlay, or Kennedy to do the majority of their press spots on the politics shows? Not much talent on the actual elected team, eh? Because what I really needed today was Mark Holland getting sanctimonious about the Wheat Board. Bob probably wants to keep potential leadership contenders out of the spotlight.
Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts
Liberals To Hold American Style Primary To Select Leader?
The Liberals are considering an American style primary process to select their next leader, where they would hold individual votes in a number of different cities to see who comes out on top. Today's poll question; is this a good idea? The alternative is a flawed convention process that last produced the futile and inept Stephane Dion to run for Prime Minister. Perhaps the results of the last Liberal leadership convention justifies the impetus to alter the selection process. The big question will be whether or not you'll have to be a paid card carrying Liberal to vote. In many American primaries, declared Democrats can vote for Republicans and visa versa.
Would I show up to vote for the next Liberal leader if they held an open primary in Vancouver? Probably, but I'd much rather vote in the NDP leadership race. Thus far the NDP race has a greater number of candidates who have a 0% chance of being elected Prime Minister in the next election. Having survived Bob Rae's Ontario, I could never mark his name on a ballot, even if I expected him to lose.
Would I show up to vote for the next Liberal leader if they held an open primary in Vancouver? Probably, but I'd much rather vote in the NDP leadership race. Thus far the NDP race has a greater number of candidates who have a 0% chance of being elected Prime Minister in the next election. Having survived Bob Rae's Ontario, I could never mark his name on a ballot, even if I expected him to lose.
A Failure To Stand Up For Alberta, OR Our #$%#$ Lefty Premier
Our new lefty premier just doesn't get Albertans. Is she really from Alberta? Does she not understand what makes Alberta prosperous? Guess not.
There is nothing Conservative about our new premier-elect, she is a lefty from head to toe. Thanks to the PC's stupid membership rules, the Liberals/NDP/Greens voted in a useless Liberal premier. Last election of a leader, I voted. This time I couldn't care less, because I will not be voting PC in the next election, I will be voting Wildrose. I just hope that Alison doesn't permentally damage our relationship with the federal government and the US in the meantime. She thinks she's smarter than Ed, but I suspect that she is just another arrogant Liberal pretending to be a Conservative. She is in for a huge shock, think Kim Campbell, next election!
Alison, go to the US, shout out to anyone who will listen, that Alberta is open for business. Tell them that the pipeline will provide American jobs. Oh, why do I bother, she's tone deaf to Conservatives.
CALGARY - Alberta Premier Alison Redford said she's not going to lobby Washington decision-makers to give a stamp of approval to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline......Liberal lefty spewing on, and on about nothing, and the problem is that she is serious. Don't make waves by actually PROMOTING Alberta. A "process"? How polite, how destructive to Alberta's oil industry. "Tell the story"? Is she serious? Lady, it's not a "story", it is the livelihood of thousands of Canadians, not just Albertans. We have the oil, the US wants oil and have the capacity to process it, why wouldn't you go there and promote our ethical oil over the middle east blood oil? What a wash out you are already. Bring back Eddy, at least he was smart enough to know he needed advisers to help him, Alison thinks she is smart enough to do everything on her own, or by listening to US advisers. Typical liberal thinking.
"It's not my intention and never has been my intention to go and specifically lobby decision-makers in the process because that's not how the process works," said Redford. "I do believe that this is a process that Americans have to go through, to decide what they want to come to be.
"We are going to very clearly tell the story that this matters to Alberta and we think that we can speak to our experience with respect to regulations and pipelines."
The new premier has taken intense criticism from Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith, who insists Redford should have travelled to Washington for the final keystone hearing on Oct 7.Advise from Americans? Seriously? Is she that clueless? Sigh....she obviously is.
Redford was sworn in as premier on Oct. 7, and said Smith is merely an “armchair quarterback.”
“I think it’s easy to sit back and say ‘you should have done this you should have done that.’ What I know is that before I made this sort of decision I took advice from people who are in leadership roles in Washington,” said Redford.
“I’m very confident in the advice that I’ve received with respect to that and I believe that this is exactly the right time to go.”
During four days of travelling starting in Washington Nov. 14, Redford will also stop over in New York Wednesday to speak about Alberta’s viable investment markets, while addressing environmental stewardship in Toronto Wednesday, wrapping up the week meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa Thursday.We intend to do business differently? How? Hey, Alison, Toronto is not the center of the universe, are you going to pander to it? Ottawa just wants our money, how are you going to ensure that we get to keep more of ours? Big talk, no actual plan, or is she keeping it secret from Albertans?
“Part of what we need to be able to do when we’re in Toronto and in Ottawa is to be abel to set a tone for the fact that as a government we intend to do business differently with respect to federal/provincial relations,” she said.
There is nothing Conservative about our new premier-elect, she is a lefty from head to toe. Thanks to the PC's stupid membership rules, the Liberals/NDP/Greens voted in a useless Liberal premier. Last election of a leader, I voted. This time I couldn't care less, because I will not be voting PC in the next election, I will be voting Wildrose. I just hope that Alison doesn't permentally damage our relationship with the federal government and the US in the meantime. She thinks she's smarter than Ed, but I suspect that she is just another arrogant Liberal pretending to be a Conservative. She is in for a huge shock, think Kim Campbell, next election!
Alison, go to the US, shout out to anyone who will listen, that Alberta is open for business. Tell them that the pipeline will provide American jobs. Oh, why do I bother, she's tone deaf to Conservatives.
NDP Leadership Candidate Proposing Joint Nominations
At least one NDP leadership hopeful is proposing that the Liberals and NDP join forces in the next election to nominate a single opposition candidate in Conservative ridings. The goal is to maximize the probability of defeating Stephen Harper without actually officially merging the two parties. The downside being that it would decrease the probability of either the Liberals or the NDP winning a majority government, likely resulting in the need for a power sharing agreement in a minority government situation. If the Liberals run 220 candidates instead of 308, it will be more difficult to win 155 seats (70% of Liberals would have to win their seats to win a majority).
So are the Liberals going to diminish their probability of winning a majority just to remove Stephen Harper from power? It's plausible, and will be debated when the Liberals finally get around to beginning their own leadership race. Will it happen? I'm not convinced, but a limited non compete would be the first stop on the road to a merger.
So are the Liberals going to diminish their probability of winning a majority just to remove Stephen Harper from power? It's plausible, and will be debated when the Liberals finally get around to beginning their own leadership race. Will it happen? I'm not convinced, but a limited non compete would be the first stop on the road to a merger.
"Hands Off Our CBC"
Today Bob Rae's Liberal Party announced a new campaign and online petition called "hands off our CBC" in an attempt to stop the government from reducing the billion plus dollars tax payer subsidize the state broadcaster annually. According to Jennifer Ditchburn the Liberals are "trying to tap a well of potential support". I'm not exactly sure who she thinks will make up this "well of support", unless she's talking about people who collect pay cheques from the CBC. Perhaps Bobby's plan is to try and get the folks at CBC Newsworld in their corner, as if they weren't already. The Liberals aren't picking up any support from their right by engaging in this policy, so this is likely a play for NDP votes. Most CBC jobs are unionized, so saving the subsidies should have some appeal to big labour.
Unfortunately for Bob, his announcement was overshadowed today by Mulcair entering the NDP leadership race.
Unfortunately for Bob, his announcement was overshadowed today by Mulcair entering the NDP leadership race.
Kevin Page Booked For Liberal Fundraiser?
Here's an interesting story; parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page was booked for a speaking appearance at an event on Tuesday in BC that turned out to be a Liberal fundraiser. This was news to Kevin Page, who had been told by organizers that it was a non-partisan event only to find out later that the Liberals would be taking donations at the door. Page then refused to appear unless that money was donated to charity...and no, the Liberal Party doesn't count as a charity. The organizer of the event happens to be the VP of the Liberal riding association for Nanaimo. Whether or not donations were taken for the party, this was still a Liberal event and begs the question why Kevin Page is taking bookings to speak at such an engagement. His job demands neutrality, and I don't think the Liberal lecture circuit can be labelled as non-partisan regardless of who takes home the donations.
Where is the Ontario P. C. Party?
Why vote P.C. ? Seriously? Does anyone know? On Thursday, Christina Blizzard said exactly what I've been thinking. How exactly do Tim Hudak and the rest of the invisible Progressive Conservatives, differ from the status quo? Besides standing right along side Dalton, where does the P.C. Party stand?If I want all-day kindergarten, I just won't bother to vote . . . why would I? I'm not voting NDP,
Bob Rae for NDP leader
I have a modest proposal for the now-leaderless federal NDP: Why not consider Bob Rae for your new leader? This option has several attractive benefits:- It would finally cement Rae's reputation as a shameless political opportunist. He's a Dipper! No, wait - he's a Liberal! No, wait ...
- It would confirm that Liberals have no coherent political ideology other than gaining and retaining power.
- It would be a shining example of what would await the country if (shudder) the federal NDP ever forms a government. The campaign slogans practically write themselves: "Vote NDP & let Bob Rae do for the country what he did for Ontario!"
- The sparring between Rae as Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister Harper would make Question Period worth watching again. Imagine Darth Harper rising in the House in awful majesty, all dark clouds and thunderbolts, fixing his evil eye on the helpless rebels gathered around Rae on the opposition benches - the thought makes me giggle like a little girl.
Come on, Dippers - put aside partisan politics and do this for the country. We look to you in our hour of need.
RELATED: File this under "I wish I'd written that" - John Ivison of the National Post, writing in an editorial about Rae's leadership of the Liberal Party: "Satire will die the day Canadians flock to support Bob Rae on a ticket of prosperity and economic growth."
[Image stolen from Stephen Taylor]
Does Warren Kinsella even read what he's written?
In Sunday's column, he writes about the *Not a Leader* ad about Dion that played during the Superbowl. He says:Nowhere in the ad does Harper’s campaign team declare they were hoping to persuade one million Liberal voters to stay home. But that in fact was their objective and they achieved it.Extensive focus group and polling research had told the Tories that while many Grits despised Harper,
Kinsella: Liberal voters even stupider than you thought
Imagine a million Liberal voters standing out in this heat, waiting to vote. Poor guys. Turns out it wasn't the Conservative ads that made them stay home from the polls--- Kinsella fired off another column -- it was nasty conservative tricksters placing late-night harassing phone calls from across the border to tell those Liberal voters that their polling stations had changed. I'm guessing they
Inside the Liberal hive-mind
Liberal Party of Canada president Alfred Apps gave a speech on June 9 in which he outlined his vision of the future. If anyone needed further proof of the ideological bankruptcy of the former Natural Governing Party, they should look no further.
Mr. Apps begins with a description of the party's roots in the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries:
Adding "positive rights" like child care, environmental security, housing, and income and retirement security to the Constitution is the exact opposite of empowering individuals. Enshrining them in the Charter creates an obligation for the state to provide these benefits. Massive government bureaucracies would by necessity need to be set up to monitor and run gargantuan state programs for universal child care and housing, and all the other rights suddenly guaranteed by the Constitution. This would remove any incentive for individuals to provide these things for themselves, or for corporations to offer them as benefits to their employees.
It would also create the necessity for pervasive income-redistribution schemes to pay for it all, since individuals would have no incentive any more to pay for them. We would truly be living in a cradle-to-grave nanny state where every aspect of a citizen's life is monitored and managed, and income inequalities are taxed away to "empower the powerless", primacy of the individual be damned. What better way to limit the rights of the individual than to take away his income? And yet, Apps suggests that this can all be done with "fiscal prudence within a mixed market economy in a global marketplace". Nonsense. This vision of Canada's future is only possible in a command economy supported by massive government spending and ruinous taxation. In other words, we would become like post-war Europe and eventually face the decline and collapse that is now unfolding in Greece, Portugal and Spain.
Mr. Apps begins with a description of the party's roots in the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries:
The Liberal Party of Canada's core assumptions in politics are about power. We believe that the inexorable progress of mankind, the constant expansion of freedom, demands the ever more democratic disbursal of power. That the primary ongoing role of the state should be to transfer power from the powerful to the less powerful. And because we believe in the primacy of the individual, we think of that power being placed in the hands of individuals to the maximum extent possible.He then proceeds to negate that very freedom that classical liberalism stands for. Are free individuals really the fundamental units of Canadian society? Not so much, according to Apps. Individuals are important insomuch as they are members of various "marginalized and ignored" groups, which he suggests should be the focus of future Liberal policy:
Just as we need to bring Liberals who have been marginalized and ignored back into the life of our party with a massive outreach exercise, we need to bring Canadians whose agenda has been marginalized and ignored by the current government back into the centre of our political life. This means our aboriginal population, especially the young. Women, especially single mothers and working women with families. New Canadians. The urban poor. Rural and remote Canadians. Those who are fighting for a clean environment and against climate change. People suffering from mental health issues. Volunteer caregivers. All Canadians who believe that Canada's international mission can no longer be undermined by its reputation abroad for how its treats the poorest of citizens within its own borders.What policies, then, would the future Liberal Party enact to reach out to the powerless? Well, amending the Constitution to include "positive rights" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for starters:
Two hundred years after the American Revolution, and more than a century after Confederation, under prime minister Pierre Trudeau, Canada followed the American example and, in 1982, engrafted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Canadian Constitution. Some of these new rights were positive rights -the right to minority language schooling, for example. In order to more properly empower Canadians, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to include more positive rights for economic, cultural and social freedom.This is a breathtaking suggestion and, coming from someone who purports to believe in the "primacy of the individual", an amazing example of cognitive dissonance.
As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men." He proposed, but was never able to enact, a bill of rights that would have a guaranteed all Americans' health care, education, housing, and income and retirement security. Roosevelt died a year after making this revolutionary proposal, and the plan died with him.
Canada should take up where he left off, and we have a home-grown example of how to do it. One of the few jurisdictions to have accorded positive economic, social and cultural rights to citizens was Quebec, under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms enacted by the Bourassa provincial Liberal government in 1975. It guaranteed a range of rights including the right to child care, public education and environmental security. This law only has quasi-constitutional status as it is amendable solely by vote of the Quebec National Assembly. Still, it provides a uniquely Canadian benchmark worthy of reinforcement as we push toward a new frontier of Liberalism.
Adding "positive rights" like child care, environmental security, housing, and income and retirement security to the Constitution is the exact opposite of empowering individuals. Enshrining them in the Charter creates an obligation for the state to provide these benefits. Massive government bureaucracies would by necessity need to be set up to monitor and run gargantuan state programs for universal child care and housing, and all the other rights suddenly guaranteed by the Constitution. This would remove any incentive for individuals to provide these things for themselves, or for corporations to offer them as benefits to their employees.
It would also create the necessity for pervasive income-redistribution schemes to pay for it all, since individuals would have no incentive any more to pay for them. We would truly be living in a cradle-to-grave nanny state where every aspect of a citizen's life is monitored and managed, and income inequalities are taxed away to "empower the powerless", primacy of the individual be damned. What better way to limit the rights of the individual than to take away his income? And yet, Apps suggests that this can all be done with "fiscal prudence within a mixed market economy in a global marketplace". Nonsense. This vision of Canada's future is only possible in a command economy supported by massive government spending and ruinous taxation. In other words, we would become like post-war Europe and eventually face the decline and collapse that is now unfolding in Greece, Portugal and Spain.
If this is the party president's vision of the future of Canada, then the Liberal Party of Canada is truly a spent force. A party that still worships Franklin Roosevelt and Pierre Trudeau while at the same time claiming to be the guardian of individual liberty can't be taken very seriously.
According to my calculations ...
The Liberal Party will be extinct in 2014. This graph of the number of Liberal seats in the House of Commons for the past five elections tells the story:
(click to enlarge)
(click to enlarge)
The Liberals should form a coalition with the Greens ...
... one party has MPs with no leader; the other has a leader with no MPs.
Okay, I'll play
Always love Kate's sign generator (title link). This time I decided to play. Here are a few of my tries:canadianna
Liberal feigned outrage at the "Harper government"
Remember back in March when Michael Ignatieff was howling with indignation that the Conservatives were using the term "Harper government" in federal publications and on Government of Canada websites?
Like you, I am profoundly shocked. It's totally unacceptable. The government of Canada is not the government of Mr. Harper, it's the government of citizens, the government of all the citizens of Canada.
The Liberals are masters of feigned outrage. As George Burns once said; "Sincerity - if you can fake that, you've got it made."
Federal Liberals are moving swiftly to capitalize on public outrage over Conservative attempts to rebrand the government of Canada as "the Harper government."
They've produced a radio ad that will begin running Saturday in Quebec, expressing shock at the Tories' effrontery in equating the government with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"Like you, I am profoundly shocked," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says in the ad.
"It's totally unacceptable. The government of Canada is not the government of Mr. Harper, it's the government of citizens, the government of all the citizens of Canada."Imagine my surprise then, that while reading through the Liberal Party of Canada's platform, I found the current federal government consistently referred to as "the Harper government". Out of curiosity, I counted the number of times the supposedly contentious phrase appears in the document: thirty two.
Like you, I am profoundly shocked. It's totally unacceptable. The government of Canada is not the government of Mr. Harper, it's the government of citizens, the government of all the citizens of Canada.
The Liberals are masters of feigned outrage. As George Burns once said; "Sincerity - if you can fake that, you've got it made."
Name that party
The Ottawa Citizen has reported on today's resignation of Senator Raymond Lavigne, who finally quit after being convicted of fraud and breach of trust. In light of the feeding frenzy going on in parliamentary committees right now over the government's alleged "contempt of Parliament", it seems odd that nowhere in the Citizen's nine paragraph story does reporter Althia Raj see fit to mention the Senator's party affiliation.
For the record, Senator Lavigne is a Liberal. He was elected as MP for the Quebec riding of Verdun-St Paul in 1993 and again in 1997 and 2000. He was appointed to the Senate by Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien in 2002 to allow former Quebec cabinet minister Liza Frulla to run in his riding for the federal Liberals.
The Citizen does report that "Lavigne, 65, has come under fire for spending $315,355 in travel expenses, on top of his $132,300 salary, despite being barred from doing any work in the Senate or its committees". This is serious unethical behaviour, and it seems to me that people might be curious about how it reflects on the Liberal Party which he represented for years in both the House and the Senate, and indeed the judgment of the Liberal Prime Minister who appointed him to the upper chamber.
The opposition parties, led by the odious Pat Martin, are worked into a lather over the Bev Oda affair and the Government's crime bill. In both cases, the Citizen didn't hesitate to identify the political party involved. Reporting on the crime bill, the Citizen mentioned not only the Conservative Party but also its leader:
And while we're at it, let's get Althia Raj to testify why she doesn't think it's important that readers know that Raymond Lavigne is a Liberal.
For the record, Senator Lavigne is a Liberal. He was elected as MP for the Quebec riding of Verdun-St Paul in 1993 and again in 1997 and 2000. He was appointed to the Senate by Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien in 2002 to allow former Quebec cabinet minister Liza Frulla to run in his riding for the federal Liberals.
The Citizen does report that "Lavigne, 65, has come under fire for spending $315,355 in travel expenses, on top of his $132,300 salary, despite being barred from doing any work in the Senate or its committees". This is serious unethical behaviour, and it seems to me that people might be curious about how it reflects on the Liberal Party which he represented for years in both the House and the Senate, and indeed the judgment of the Liberal Prime Minister who appointed him to the upper chamber.
The opposition parties, led by the odious Pat Martin, are worked into a lather over the Bev Oda affair and the Government's crime bill. In both cases, the Citizen didn't hesitate to identify the political party involved. Reporting on the crime bill, the Citizen mentioned not only the Conservative Party but also its leader:
The release of hundreds of pages of federal documents on Wednesday has sparked new warnings from opposition parties that they are losing confidence in Stephen Harper's minority government for not sharing enough details about the price of its agenda.On the Bev Oda issue, the Citizen reports:
Facing accusations of contempt of Parliament, the Tory government released the thick binder of notes that reveal over $600 million in new spending estimates associated with its heavy law-and-order agenda.
Federal politicians have approved a plan to draft a report finding the minority Conservative government in contempt of Parliament, setting the stage for a confidence motion that could provoke an election.Let's call together a parliamentary committee and put Michael Ignatieff on the hot seat. He's the leader of the Liberal Party; what did he know about l'affaire Lavigne, and when did he know it? Contempt of parliament indeed.
And while we're at it, let's get Althia Raj to testify why she doesn't think it's important that readers know that Raymond Lavigne is a Liberal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)