Sunday, November 29, 2009
Gift Cards: Like Cash, but less useful
Why do people buy gift cards? There is something that does the very same thing and it is redemable everywhere. It is called CASH. I will only ever buy a gift card if the amount on the gift card is greater than the amount it costs to buy that gift card. But given the number of suckers out there, I am going to be waiting a very long time.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Janine Krieber
This is what Janine Krieber got right
1) Igantieff has been an unmediated disaster.
2) The rot goes well beyond Ignatieff.
3) Paul Martin was a cancer.
Now this is what she got wrong.
1) Love is blind. It is obvious to all but the two of them that Stephen Dion does not have the ability to rebuild the party. His English is not good enough. He never had the support of the caucus or even the party base. He is not engaging speaker, he is not charismatic and he comes off as a wimp. Moreover, the notion that the green shift would win the election for the Liberals was pie in sky nonsense. The Liberals actually did a nice job boiling down what the tax shift was. "Less on what you earn more on what you burn." However, the Liberals were never going to be able to explain to the public just what is "burnt" and as a result how such a shift would effect the cost of any number of goods and services. The Conservatives gave them an answer. It would be a "tax on everything". Naturally some Canadians were convinced that this was simply a tax increase in disguise. But the kicker was this. I do not care what Canadians told polling companies about climate change. No one I mean no is ever going to be excited over a tax shift. Making the central plank of his platform something that did not offer a single tangible benefit Canadians just went to show how hopeless Dion was as a politician and why he needed to be ushered out the door as soon as possible.
2) Listening to some Liberals you would think that the gun registry, NEP and SSM lost the Liberals Western Canada. Such suggestions are of course ridiculous. West of Winnipeg the Liberals were only ever strong in BC and the reason they dropped off the map in BC after the 1974 election was because of Trudeau's pandering to Quebec. Of course, pandering to Quebec was the same reason why "the West" rejected the PC party in 1993. For Janine Krieber, to suggest that the coalition with the Bloc was a good idea just goes to show how removed she is from understanding political realities in Western Canada.
3) The rot did not begin with Martin taking over. Under Martin and Chrétien the Liberals abandoned universality, the heart of the Liberal brand, and favored instead means tested programs. Means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. Sure enough the Liberals, despite their vacuous rhetoric to contrary, have become virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives on most issues.
Dion did nothing to reverse the trend. The Green shift only goes to prove that this is true. The same party that had once promised to replace the GST was now planning to reduce income taxes and introduce a regressive tax.
Worse, Dion was the first to take steps to rob the Liberals of their only remaining redeeming feature, viz., a luke warm social liberalism. People should not be confused by Dion's commitment to affirmative action and other forms of degenerate liberalism. Whether it be marijuana, euthanasia or prostitution, Dion did nothing and said next to nothing. What Dion started Ignatieff finished. Under the guise of making the Liberals competitive again in rural Canada,Ignatieff Liberals have made it clear that the Liberal party will never again to say or doing anything that might anger social conservatives.
1) Igantieff has been an unmediated disaster.
2) The rot goes well beyond Ignatieff.
3) Paul Martin was a cancer.
Now this is what she got wrong.
1) Love is blind. It is obvious to all but the two of them that Stephen Dion does not have the ability to rebuild the party. His English is not good enough. He never had the support of the caucus or even the party base. He is not engaging speaker, he is not charismatic and he comes off as a wimp. Moreover, the notion that the green shift would win the election for the Liberals was pie in sky nonsense. The Liberals actually did a nice job boiling down what the tax shift was. "Less on what you earn more on what you burn." However, the Liberals were never going to be able to explain to the public just what is "burnt" and as a result how such a shift would effect the cost of any number of goods and services. The Conservatives gave them an answer. It would be a "tax on everything". Naturally some Canadians were convinced that this was simply a tax increase in disguise. But the kicker was this. I do not care what Canadians told polling companies about climate change. No one I mean no is ever going to be excited over a tax shift. Making the central plank of his platform something that did not offer a single tangible benefit Canadians just went to show how hopeless Dion was as a politician and why he needed to be ushered out the door as soon as possible.
2) Listening to some Liberals you would think that the gun registry, NEP and SSM lost the Liberals Western Canada. Such suggestions are of course ridiculous. West of Winnipeg the Liberals were only ever strong in BC and the reason they dropped off the map in BC after the 1974 election was because of Trudeau's pandering to Quebec. Of course, pandering to Quebec was the same reason why "the West" rejected the PC party in 1993. For Janine Krieber, to suggest that the coalition with the Bloc was a good idea just goes to show how removed she is from understanding political realities in Western Canada.
3) The rot did not begin with Martin taking over. Under Martin and Chrétien the Liberals abandoned universality, the heart of the Liberal brand, and favored instead means tested programs. Means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. Sure enough the Liberals, despite their vacuous rhetoric to contrary, have become virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives on most issues.
Dion did nothing to reverse the trend. The Green shift only goes to prove that this is true. The same party that had once promised to replace the GST was now planning to reduce income taxes and introduce a regressive tax.
Worse, Dion was the first to take steps to rob the Liberals of their only remaining redeeming feature, viz., a luke warm social liberalism. People should not be confused by Dion's commitment to affirmative action and other forms of degenerate liberalism. Whether it be marijuana, euthanasia or prostitution, Dion did nothing and said next to nothing. What Dion started Ignatieff finished. Under the guise of making the Liberals competitive again in rural Canada,Ignatieff Liberals have made it clear that the Liberal party will never again to say or doing anything that might anger social conservatives.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Conservatives enabling Criminals to Keep their Guns
Gun nuts love to drone on about how law abiding gun owners are being targeted by registry. Leaving aside the fact that given that it is a crime not to register a gun, only gun owners that register their guns are law abiding. Of course the registry targets --- a odd choice of words given the subject matter really--- , law abiding gun owners. If you take any large group of people, and the number of law abiding gun owners is large, you can predict with fairly good accuracy that a certain number will develop heart disease, a certain number will get cancer, and certain numbers will be convicted of a crime. By not having Canadians register long guns, the Conservatives are enabling criminals to have guns. After all, the registry, and remember we are talking about former law abiding gun owners who dutifully registered all their guns, gives the authorities enough ammunition to ensure these criminals surrender their registered guns.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Gun Registry: Some thoughts
1)The cost of registry is about a billion dollars. The 2 billion dollar figure bantered around by the Conservatives is a lie. Whatever the cost though, saying these cost overruns justify disbanding the registry now is akin to saying that if a bridge goes over budget than it should be blown up upon completion. By the way, it costs around 3 million a year to register long guns and if the Conservatives had of continued to collect monies for these guns, then there would be no cost to tax paper whatsoever.
2) People still get murdered by long guns in this country. Indeed, 88% of women killed with gun were killed with a shotgun or rifle.
3) The sharp distinction between "law abiding" firearm owners and criminals is a false distinction. From 2005 to Sep 2009 there have been 9,340 firearm licences have been revoked. Some developed a mental illness. Others committed crimes of various sorts. In other words, over time a sizable number of "law abiding" firearm owners become statistically much more likely to poise a danger to others, particularly their spouses. Little wonder than that while the vast majority of gun owners want the registry gone, 77% of those living with a gun owner want it kept. As another blogger, Luke, identified the crux of the matter. "If person had their firearm licence revoked and their firearms are not registered how would the authorities ensure proper disposal of the firearms?"
4) There is also the issue of suicide to consider. For every homicide in Canada there are 6 or more suicides. The likelihood that one will commit suicide goes up significantly if there is a firearm in the home.
5) All the evidence is consistent with the gun registry having worked. To wit:
The suicide rate in Canada peaked at 15.2 in 1978, dipped below 12 for the first time in 32 years in 2000 and reached a post 1970 low of 11.3 in 2004.
The average suicide rate per year between 1970 and 1976 was 13.35, between 1977 and 1983 it was 14.5, between 1984 and 1990 it was 13.1, between 1991 and 1997 it was 13 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 12.
The number of suicides by firearm in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004. There was an average of 1033 fire arm suicides per year between 1970 and 1976, 1197 between 1977 and 1983, 1084 between 1984 and 1990, 970 between 1991 and 1997 and 682 between 1998 and 2004.
The number of accidental shooting deaths in Canada stood at 143 in 1971 and has generally declined since then; a low of 20 was reached in 2000. There was an average of 117 accidental shooting deaths per year between 1970 and 1976, 70 between 1977 and 1983, 62.3 between 1984 and 1990, 50.1 between 1991 and 1997 and 28.1 between 1998 and 2004.
The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 1.82.
2) People still get murdered by long guns in this country. Indeed, 88% of women killed with gun were killed with a shotgun or rifle.
3) The sharp distinction between "law abiding" firearm owners and criminals is a false distinction. From 2005 to Sep 2009 there have been 9,340 firearm licences have been revoked. Some developed a mental illness. Others committed crimes of various sorts. In other words, over time a sizable number of "law abiding" firearm owners become statistically much more likely to poise a danger to others, particularly their spouses. Little wonder than that while the vast majority of gun owners want the registry gone, 77% of those living with a gun owner want it kept. As another blogger, Luke, identified the crux of the matter. "If person had their firearm licence revoked and their firearms are not registered how would the authorities ensure proper disposal of the firearms?"
4) There is also the issue of suicide to consider. For every homicide in Canada there are 6 or more suicides. The likelihood that one will commit suicide goes up significantly if there is a firearm in the home.
5) All the evidence is consistent with the gun registry having worked. To wit:
The suicide rate in Canada peaked at 15.2 in 1978, dipped below 12 for the first time in 32 years in 2000 and reached a post 1970 low of 11.3 in 2004.
The average suicide rate per year between 1970 and 1976 was 13.35, between 1977 and 1983 it was 14.5, between 1984 and 1990 it was 13.1, between 1991 and 1997 it was 13 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 12.
The number of suicides by firearm in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004. There was an average of 1033 fire arm suicides per year between 1970 and 1976, 1197 between 1977 and 1983, 1084 between 1984 and 1990, 970 between 1991 and 1997 and 682 between 1998 and 2004.
The number of accidental shooting deaths in Canada stood at 143 in 1971 and has generally declined since then; a low of 20 was reached in 2000. There was an average of 117 accidental shooting deaths per year between 1970 and 1976, 70 between 1977 and 1983, 62.3 between 1984 and 1990, 50.1 between 1991 and 1997 and 28.1 between 1998 and 2004.
The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 1.82.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Liberal Bloggers Need to Say What they Stand For
Many Liberal bloggers are content to argue the party line, talk inside baseball and daily goings on. This is too bad. The Liberals do not stand for anything. They are no role model. Moreover, the Liberal party needs to be regularly kicked in the balls least it become to comfortable with its own mediocrity. The Liberal bloggers, big and small, need to articulate what concrete programs and changes they want. So let us hear it Calgary Grit, BCer in Toronto, et al.
Here again is my list. Of course, not all of them are terribly realistic, but so what
Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental care
2) Full day Kindergarten and Playschool
3) Natonal Drug plan
Upgrading of national standards
1) $10 hour National minimum wage indexed to inflation
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights If someone was to suggest that land should be reserved for, say, Chinese Canadians and that Chinese Canadians should have rights that other Canadians do not have, you would first ask them to lie down; you would then call 911 and tell the person at the other end of the line that you believe that the person before you had suffered a stroke and that paramedics should come quick. Whether it be billions lost to illegal cigarette sales, or setting up school food programs for kids who live on land that if divided equally would net them tens of millions on the open market, it hard to think of anything quite so daft.
A commitment to native rights and reserves condemns future generations to be born into a communities that are completely economically unviable. Without hope for a better future, these children will be plagued by the same problems that plagued their parents. Lamenting high infant mortality rates, teen pregnancy rates, teen drop out rates, crime rates and rapid substance abuse, means nota if you are setting in motion the very things you lament.
The same goes for racism. People can lament that racism still exists in Canada all they want. However,supporting a policy that defines native in the same manner that Nazis defined Jew and giving one particular group rights that no other groups enjoys, is preventing things from getting better. The bleeders should not kid themselves.
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification If the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents? The average immigrant to Canada is only a bit younger than the average Canadian. Now do not get me wrong. Canada needs more immigrants -- alot more. Canada needs to at least triple the number of economic immigrants to Canada each year. However at the same time as it needs to do that, it needs to all but eliminate every other category of immigrant. Also, there needs to be a greater emphasis and youth, and language skills.
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
5) The Monarchy
Here again is my list. Of course, not all of them are terribly realistic, but so what
Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental care
2) Full day Kindergarten and Playschool
3) Natonal Drug plan
Upgrading of national standards
1) $10 hour National minimum wage indexed to inflation
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights If someone was to suggest that land should be reserved for, say, Chinese Canadians and that Chinese Canadians should have rights that other Canadians do not have, you would first ask them to lie down; you would then call 911 and tell the person at the other end of the line that you believe that the person before you had suffered a stroke and that paramedics should come quick. Whether it be billions lost to illegal cigarette sales, or setting up school food programs for kids who live on land that if divided equally would net them tens of millions on the open market, it hard to think of anything quite so daft.
A commitment to native rights and reserves condemns future generations to be born into a communities that are completely economically unviable. Without hope for a better future, these children will be plagued by the same problems that plagued their parents. Lamenting high infant mortality rates, teen pregnancy rates, teen drop out rates, crime rates and rapid substance abuse, means nota if you are setting in motion the very things you lament.
The same goes for racism. People can lament that racism still exists in Canada all they want. However,supporting a policy that defines native in the same manner that Nazis defined Jew and giving one particular group rights that no other groups enjoys, is preventing things from getting better. The bleeders should not kid themselves.
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification If the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents? The average immigrant to Canada is only a bit younger than the average Canadian. Now do not get me wrong. Canada needs more immigrants -- alot more. Canada needs to at least triple the number of economic immigrants to Canada each year. However at the same time as it needs to do that, it needs to all but eliminate every other category of immigrant. Also, there needs to be a greater emphasis and youth, and language skills.
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
5) The Monarchy
The Liberals need to forget Chrétien majorities and build a movement
The Liberal's problem in nutshell is this. The Conservative party is part of larger conservative movement and very notion of liberal movement sounds well odd. Conservative party draws strength from the movement and movement in turn draws strength from having a party that reflects their values. There is no liberal movement in Canada and the Liberal party, especially under Ignatieff, has done nothing to foster one.
Without a core set of policy goals to work towards, it at little wonder why the Liberal party is purely reactive and dominated by short term thinking. Other than returning to power, the party has set itself no goals. This is marked contrast to Harper. Harper has a long term vision and long term strategy for how to accomplish it.
Chrétien's successes provide the Liberals with no template. The seas parted for Chrétien in 1993. The constitutional wars sidelined two two major federal parties (NDP and PCs) for a decade and gave birth to two new parties (Reform and Bloc). The Liberals were the only established party left standing after the 1993 election. His subsequent majorities were based on taking a 100 seats in Ontario. The Liberals would do well to pretend that they never happened.
Without a core set of policy goals to work towards, it at little wonder why the Liberal party is purely reactive and dominated by short term thinking. Other than returning to power, the party has set itself no goals. This is marked contrast to Harper. Harper has a long term vision and long term strategy for how to accomplish it.
Chrétien's successes provide the Liberals with no template. The seas parted for Chrétien in 1993. The constitutional wars sidelined two two major federal parties (NDP and PCs) for a decade and gave birth to two new parties (Reform and Bloc). The Liberals were the only established party left standing after the 1993 election. His subsequent majorities were based on taking a 100 seats in Ontario. The Liberals would do well to pretend that they never happened.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Jason Kenney Thinks Canadians are Morons
Jason Kenney must think that Canadians are morons. The notion that Canada will be able to better ingrate immigrants into Canadian society by teaching them about the beaver and Vimy Ridge is ridiculous.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
The thing is though the number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.
Do not take my word for it. Take Sheila Fraser's word for it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/auditor-general-sounds-alarm-on-immigration-policy/article1349837/
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
The thing is though the number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.
Do not take my word for it. Take Sheila Fraser's word for it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/auditor-general-sounds-alarm-on-immigration-policy/article1349837/
Liberal Fund Raising Plea
When we were flush with cash, it was easy to poll for policy. Now that times are tight, we still poll --- more than anyone else I might add-- , but we do poll nearly enough. As result, we are essentially flying blind!!!!!!!! We do not have enough information to see which way the wind is blowing and tailor our policies to whims of public opinion. The policy cupboard is bare. Only more polling will change that.
Remember what separates us from the Conservatives is not policy. Not being able to poll for policy we have had to adopt their platform as our own well all the while voting against them in the house. No, what separates us is that they have opinions and we have none They shape opinion and events and we react to them -- well at least some of time. We have not bothered to say anything about Senate reform and the gun registry for years. Being significantly older than than those whipper snapper Conservatives MPs, we just do not have the energy. We old, tired and stuck in our ways. Help us.
Remember what separates us from the Conservatives is not policy. Not being able to poll for policy we have had to adopt their platform as our own well all the while voting against them in the house. No, what separates us is that they have opinions and we have none They shape opinion and events and we react to them -- well at least some of time. We have not bothered to say anything about Senate reform and the gun registry for years. Being significantly older than than those whipper snapper Conservatives MPs, we just do not have the energy. We old, tired and stuck in our ways. Help us.
Liberalism Is Dead
Small l liberalism in Canada is all but dead. The Chrétien and Martin fatally wounded it. Under Martin and Chrétien the Liberals abandoned universality, the heart of the Liberal brand, and favored instead means tested programs. Means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. Sure enough the Liberals, despite their vacuous rhetoric to contrary, have become virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives on most issues. Indeed, so in lock step are the Liberal and Conservative parties that a tax shift is considered a bold departure.
Having already insured that Conservatives and Liberals are of a piece when it comes to foreign policy, and pandering to Quebec nationalists, Ignatieff is poised to delivery the coup de grace. Under the guise of making the Liberals competitive again in rural Canada, the Ignatieff Liberals have made it clear that the Liberal party will never again to say or doing anything that might anger social conservatives. Small l liberalism is dead and with it the Liberal brand. It should also be said that this bolds ill for the Liberals electoral fortunes. If conservatism is what the public wants, they are going to prefer the real thing to some ill named Johnny come lately.
Having already insured that Conservatives and Liberals are of a piece when it comes to foreign policy, and pandering to Quebec nationalists, Ignatieff is poised to delivery the coup de grace. Under the guise of making the Liberals competitive again in rural Canada, the Ignatieff Liberals have made it clear that the Liberal party will never again to say or doing anything that might anger social conservatives. Small l liberalism is dead and with it the Liberal brand. It should also be said that this bolds ill for the Liberals electoral fortunes. If conservatism is what the public wants, they are going to prefer the real thing to some ill named Johnny come lately.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Why the Green Shift Failed
The Liberals actually did a nice job boiling down what the tax shift was. "Less on what you earn more on what you burn." However, the Liberals were never going to be able to explain to the public just what is "burnt" and as a result how such a shift would effect the cost of any number of goods and services. The Conservatives gave them an answer. It would be a "tax on everything". Naturally some Canadians were convinced that this was simply a tax increase in disguise. But the kicker was this. I do not care what Canadians told polling companies about climate change. No one I mean no is ever going to be excited over a tax shift. Making the central plank of his platform something that did not offer a single tangible benefit Canadians just went to show how hopeless Dion was as a politician and why he needed to be ushered out the door as soon as possible.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Is Igantieff just Visiting? I am starting to hope So
There were times over the last few months that when the Conservative Ignatieff just visiting ads came on that I thought to myself if only this were true. Last week I did not even need one of the ads to prompt such thoughts. I dreamt of driving him back to Harvard myself
Now do not get me wrong. Ignatieff is lot more salable than Dion ever was. No matter how much some people wanted to deny it, Dion's English was just not good enough and he came across as a consummate whimp. The Conservatives literally pooped on the guy. Ignatieff, at least, has a strong command of both languages and I never once thought of stealing his lunch money.
The problem with Igantieff is that as a politician he is a deathly boring panderer and amazingly insubstantive. He is of his party in other words. Martin had dreams of being all things to all people, but it was not until loosing power in 2006 that this sentiment really started to take hold of the party and has since culminated in Ignatieff's directionless leadership. A party that wants to be equal things to both social conservatives and social liberals, to both federalists and Quebec nationalists will not mean anything to anyone Ignatieff has stripped the party of any passion and any energy Indeed, the Liberals do not even pretend to stand for anything. When pressed as to why they have not introduced any policy, they either dodge the question or they answer in terms of political consequences. "The Conservatives might steal it" for example. Never mind the fact, that if the Conservatives are likely the steal it chances are it is not worth squat to begin with. Such messaging is only ever going to make sense to the dwindling number of Liberal die hards. Indeed, to your average voter, it does not matter a lick to your average voter whether another party steals a policy. What matters is whether they like that policy. And from a public policy point of view what matters is whether the policy is good for the country.
With the notable exception of the Dion's half baked notion that the Liberals could sail to victory by championing the environment, not since Trudeau have the Liberals been willing to advance anything resembling an agenda. In the Chretein and Martin years the Liberals did not so much advance policy as -- at least in their telling of it -- have it forced upon them either by external forces or by the courts. SSM is a classic case in point. The Liberals framed the issue as something that they had been forced to do. As Martin put it, you can not cherry pick charter rights; you take the good with bad. SSM was the just the price for having other rights guarnteed. SSM was the straight man's burden to bear.
All of this is in marked contrast to the Conservatives going all the way back to Mulroney. Whether it be an the idiotic idea of a Triple E senate or equally stupid idea of shutting the "long registry", full blooded Conservative parties have always known what they want and they have been willing to pursue it. What this has meant in the greater scheme of things is that just as the Liberals have feetered away the advantage their once mighty brand gave them the Conservatives have replaced the Liberals as the natural governing party of Canada.
The Liberals can not afford to not weigh in on contenious issues. Playing itself will not rebuild their brand. Playing it safe will not win them the next election. Playing it safe will mean a Conservative majority.
Now do not get me wrong. Ignatieff is lot more salable than Dion ever was. No matter how much some people wanted to deny it, Dion's English was just not good enough and he came across as a consummate whimp. The Conservatives literally pooped on the guy. Ignatieff, at least, has a strong command of both languages and I never once thought of stealing his lunch money.
The problem with Igantieff is that as a politician he is a deathly boring panderer and amazingly insubstantive. He is of his party in other words. Martin had dreams of being all things to all people, but it was not until loosing power in 2006 that this sentiment really started to take hold of the party and has since culminated in Ignatieff's directionless leadership. A party that wants to be equal things to both social conservatives and social liberals, to both federalists and Quebec nationalists will not mean anything to anyone Ignatieff has stripped the party of any passion and any energy Indeed, the Liberals do not even pretend to stand for anything. When pressed as to why they have not introduced any policy, they either dodge the question or they answer in terms of political consequences. "The Conservatives might steal it" for example. Never mind the fact, that if the Conservatives are likely the steal it chances are it is not worth squat to begin with. Such messaging is only ever going to make sense to the dwindling number of Liberal die hards. Indeed, to your average voter, it does not matter a lick to your average voter whether another party steals a policy. What matters is whether they like that policy. And from a public policy point of view what matters is whether the policy is good for the country.
With the notable exception of the Dion's half baked notion that the Liberals could sail to victory by championing the environment, not since Trudeau have the Liberals been willing to advance anything resembling an agenda. In the Chretein and Martin years the Liberals did not so much advance policy as -- at least in their telling of it -- have it forced upon them either by external forces or by the courts. SSM is a classic case in point. The Liberals framed the issue as something that they had been forced to do. As Martin put it, you can not cherry pick charter rights; you take the good with bad. SSM was the just the price for having other rights guarnteed. SSM was the straight man's burden to bear.
All of this is in marked contrast to the Conservatives going all the way back to Mulroney. Whether it be an the idiotic idea of a Triple E senate or equally stupid idea of shutting the "long registry", full blooded Conservative parties have always known what they want and they have been willing to pursue it. What this has meant in the greater scheme of things is that just as the Liberals have feetered away the advantage their once mighty brand gave them the Conservatives have replaced the Liberals as the natural governing party of Canada.
The Liberals can not afford to not weigh in on contenious issues. Playing itself will not rebuild their brand. Playing it safe will not win them the next election. Playing it safe will mean a Conservative majority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
