Nocrap

I agree. Hometowns honoring their own soldiers at half-mast has a deep meaning. These are their own sons and daughters...most likely known by or acquainted with other locals, with families and attachments in the community....not just some faceless strangers. And yes it's true as one other poster mentioned, if we always have the federal flag at half-mast (since we're at war and therefore more casualties can be expected), it will lose its meaning. If there is a need to publicly show some solidarity....can we not just have a moment of silence nationwide? Perhaps that's the problem. They shouldn't be diminished to 'faceless strangers', and maybe flying our flag at half mast thoroughout the deployment is not such a bad thing. It will remind the rest of us that , like it or not, we are at war. The CPC constantly tell us that the Liberals were the first to send our soildiers to Afghanistan, but the original mission was to be Nato led. Since Harper took the realm, our soldiers are now led by the Americans INTO battle, rather than trying to keep the peace. If he is so gungho to put them in such a situation to please his US buddies, the least he can do is honour them. If the families want the flag at half mast, I don't see the harm.

She was voted in because she's pretty. Her entire political succes to date is based on being pretty. You mean like Rona Ambrose? There were far better seletions for her cabinet post. Harper dragged her across the country during the election to boost CPC candidates who needed some propping up. However, we were talking about floor crossing and comparisons were made about other historical crossings; when an MP protested party postition or change in ideology. This was not about party policy, since days before Emerson was promoting Liberal policy to get elected. It was not in protest of his party's stand on any issue during a debate or vote, because Parliament had not yet sat. His being given a cabinet post did not help his constituents. The majority voted Liberal and therefore did not expect him to prop up the CPC platform, but oppose it. David Emerson's acceptance of a cabinet position was to benefit David Emerson. He could have done far better for Vancouver-Kingsway supporting the Liberal party that they democratically voted in. Had he run as a CPC candidate - he would never have made it to Parliament Hill, since the CPC got less than 20% of the vote. The NDP are right. This was completely unethical, undemocratic and since he refused to even be 'accountable' to the people of Vancouver-Kingsway for his self serving switcheroo - unforgivable.

"since he's not used to this kind of true leadership" No Canadians are used to this kind of leadership, unless they at one time were living under Stalin. Harper is trying to run the country like a dictatorship. HE decides who gets access to his cabinet and MP's. HE decides what stories to put out there. HE decides who gets to report those stories and HE decides what photo-ops are beneficial to cast him and his government in the best light. Sorry - but this is not a dictatorship and if you want to keep your MP's happy, let them speak for themselves; and if you want to keep Canadians happy, let us hear what we elected them to say. I'm sure by now they've memorized the CPC handbook and will do just fine. Keeping them away from the media is only telling us that you do not trust their abilities and we will remember that next election. If Harper can't trust them, how can we? What I've learned of Emerson, he will not be happy in a government that keeps him 'bound and gagged' and we already know that he is not the only one feeling the constraints. This type of media control does not work in a democracy. I couldn't find a link, but the article was in my local newspaper (part of the Osprey Group) and was accredited to the Canadian Press so should be available there soon.

If the parents decide to have one at home to look after the kids, fine. If they want to both work and have the kid in daycare, fine too. Just let them pay for it, not the taxpayer. I agree with Drea I am also infuriated with this lame excuse for a childcare plan that has far too many loopholes and not enough support for those who need it in order to work and share the tax burden. Suggestions of substantial tax cuts, so that people could afford childcare, would be wonderful; but I don't see it happening anytime soon. A cut in the GST will only help those with disposable income and mean nothing for those unable to shop for anything other than food and basic needs. The CPC are definitely a party for the 'have mores' and are completely out of touch with the grassroots.

Canadian Press Apr 21, 2006 "Trade minister David Emerson says privately that he is frustrated by the policies of the Conservative government.... His main complaints are that 'the government is too partisan and too tightly controlled under Prime Minister Stephen Harper'.... Jay Epworth, who was Emerson's aide when he was with the Liberals, said Emerson told him that he was shocked by the Harper government's adversarial approach...'Behind closed doors, the Conservatives are worse partisans than the Liberals ever were'. Epworth told the Star (Toronto) 'His words were that Harper's a hardass, that he was incredibly focused but has no people skills and that, if in the cabinet meeting he disagrees with the opinions of one or more of his ministers, he makes it perfectly clear that he believes the minister is wrong and that his way should prevail.' The Globe (and Mail) said another source said Emerson has told other former associates that he is chaffing at the tight rein Harper is exerting over his cabinet ministers, whose public comments are controlled by the Prime Minister's Office. The article goes on to say that Emerson was unavailable for comment (aka: bound and gagged) but that his communications director, Bill Klager, denies that Emerson ever made such remarks. Normally, I would agree, except that this is exactly how Mr. Harper has operated during and after the election. I'm not surprised that Emerson, who has always disliked Partisan politics, would find the climate in the CPC cabinet meetings over the top. I'm just surprised that it took him so long to realize this. The Canadian Press article may read like the National Enquirer, but I'm afraid we will see more of the same until Harper once again allows media access to his (our) elected officials.

In my teens I was definitely a socialist. My father was a liberal thinker (not the political party, though he did like Trudeau), and encouraged us to read and not form an opinion until we'd learned all the facts. Therefore, I read the 'Communist Manifesto' (obtained from the public library) and similar books before deciding that perhaps that was not the way to go. However, I was a human rights guru, and in some respects, still am. What happened as I got older, was that I realized that nothing is an easy fix. -I still believe that making post secondary education affordable for all who qualify, benefits all Canadians. -I still believe that affordable and accessible childcare benfits all Canadians. -I still believe that a public healthcare system benefits all Canadians. -I still believe in equality for all Canadians, regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual preferences (with the exception of pediaphilia), etc. -I still believe that homelessness is an issue that must be addressed. (And not with Flaherty's plan to simply throw them all in jail) -I still believe that poverty is an issue that must be addressed. -I still believe that it is our responsibilty to keep the environment fit for those we leave behind. -I still believe that there is no such thing as a 'good war'. I'm just more realistic now in how these can be accomplished.

After living through the Ice Storm, I have learned to keep a supply of necessary items on hand, but not with the thought of a future Terrorist attack....just the arch villain Mother Nature. I think that future attacks could be nuclear and we'd pretty much be toast anyway, so I plan for today and the immediate future. I don't want to spend my days in a bunker mentality.

This thread sums up NB politics nicely. lol... I was born in New Brunswick (Grandfalls) but have spent the last several decades in Ontario. Just love the East Coast. I believe Teddyballgame lives in NB.

I rarely pay much attention to accusations of partisanship, after reading anti-Liberal rants that make my postings pretty mild in comparison. However, Teddyballgame has mentioned other floor-crossings in history to defend Harper's wooing of Emerson with a cabinet post. In a parliamentary system; most MP's vote on issues as instructed by the party 'whip'. If they don't agree with the party line they can cross the floor to another party or sit as an independant. Winston Churchill crossed the floor in protest of his party's stand on specific issues. Belinda Stronach crossed the floor because she felt that Stephen Harper was taking the CPC too far right, and knew that her constituents would not accept this. She was right and after running for the Liberals next time, was voted back in. However, Emerson had no such falling out with the Liberals. In fact, just days before he was flogging the Liberal platform to get himself elected in his riding; and 'crossed' BEFORE PARLIAMENT EVEN SAT! Like or not, most Canadians vote party first, candidate second. If it were the other way around why bother promoting any party policies during elections? Just let the candidates run on their own platforms. If he crossed the floor after even one debate that he could oppose, it would not have looked so unethical. But, in a Democratic system, this was WRONG on every level.

Just the opposite. If they go NDP-Left with their next leader, the conservatives will score a really big majority--a Mulroney size one. I'm for the kookiest lib they can find. I'll even donate to help him win. They are right when they say he's a longshot. I've never heard of him. ""He's not seen as a strong candidate, but if he's the only one on the right, that will give him some support from all the Liberals who want a [right of centre] candidate." What Liberals want a right of centre candidate? I'm sure it is only a very few. And if he's right of centre, why isn't he joining the CPC who could use a few members closer to centre to offset those so far right they are poised to tip off the scale. Besides, if Harper supporters want a Harper clone, wouldn't they be afraid that he would be able to take Right Wing votes away from him?

"When the gov't says it's going to give people money they take it. Heck, I certainly wouldn't send it back -- it's free money after all." It is not 'free' money. It is taxable. The only ones that it will be free for are parents who can afford to stay home and regardless of their spouse's income; will not have to use any to share the tax burden of the handout. Husband or wife earns five-six figure salary and spouse stays home - 'free' money. Both parents work with modest to middle income - taxable. (most will only get to keep about 653.00 per year) Single parent unable to work - won't see a dime. Just one more way to insure that the rich get a little richer and keep the CPC in 'Stand Up for Canada' signs; only next election they will have to be 'Sit Down and Shut Up' signs; given the way that this seat warming PM is running things. As for the 37-41% approval rating (those who said they would vote CPC next around), those were provided by other posters here; who I believe were Harper supporters.

Drea You are right on the money. Accessible and Affordable Daycare/Childcare benefits all Canadians. Harper may be challenging the NDP, Liberals and Bloc to bring down his government over the issue, but he is also challenging taxpayers; who have been marching and protesting across the country over his decision to scrap the childcare plan and replace it with a 1950's style baby bonus. He can afford to be smug with his political opponents, but he cannot afford to be smug with potential voters. If his popularity was running at 80% or so, he could risk another election; but he's only showing about 37-41% approval rating; about the same as the election that gave him a Minority Government. People put the CPC in for change and to give the Liberals a time out. Harper is currently running lukewarm, so a change could be in the midst yet again. He's taking quite a gamble with such odds.

I would generally agree with this statement. While I acknowledge the concerns raised by Betsy, the sex-offender registry is a balancing act...the rights of the offender who has served his sentence versus the rights of the victims and the public at large. My inagural post on a new criminal law blog was about the Alberta Court of Appeal's recent comments on the registry and many of the quotes I referenced there demonstrate just how this balancing act is done...acknowledging that there is a way for an offender to get an exemption from the registry if they can establish that the negative effects on them personally would be "grossly disproportionate" to any benefits that society would get from their name being included. Calgary Criminal Lawyers' Weekly I guess I feel that this possibility of exemption is enough to satisfy me that the registry is just when you look at the big picture. FTA If the offender committed his/her crimes against children, there should be no exemption. If their past crimes were violent (including rape which is an act of violence), there should be very few exemptions. However, when we just say 'sex crimes', the registry becomes a little murky, because this can be a very broad definition.

Emerson did the right thing in our system and cross the floor when offered a spot to better represent those that elected him.

Doesn't that just say everything we need to know about those making the noise and the people who are upset that Harper's running a government instead of a never-ending press conference? Why should he make himself available when he's got no new information to divulge? I see no reason he should make himself available for fishing expeditions at the whim of the media. AGAIN? Is it not a waste of time and money to have him talking about the same things over and over because there's nothing new to say and because the members of the press corps have nothing better to do? Or is there a diabolical plan being unfolded with the major press to keep him so busy with them that he'd have no time left to do his job? Since Martin gave them no ammo with which to take this tyrant down, they figure they'll have to try on their own? Why else could they spend so much time whining, talking and writing about nothing? This is Seinfeld all over again. The major press corps is printing a bunch of whimpering stories about nothing. I was accused of using 3 week old articles, and this one is from March 25; before the media picked up on the fact that the Afghanistan trip was nothing more than a photo-op and his speech a rehashed Bush offering. Vote intentions are still running only about 1/3; very low considering that the Liberals don't even have a leader. This is the time for Harper to work with the media because when the Liberals do have a leader you can be sure they will be in their court.

Hi: (a refugee from rabble? - Ah huh )I'm not against those measures actually, I do think corporate and union donations should be limited, not sure about indivudual donations, maybe $1,000.00 is too low? When I was employed where there was a union, I was furious that my membership dues went to the NDP. I'd have been as peeved if they went to any other party. How dare union management decide which party to support and then use my dollars for political influence! Similar issue with corporations and other business. These entities cannot vote. Only their shareholders and employees can. Unions and business should not be permitted to fund political parties. Therefore, I'm really pleased to see the Accountability Act cut them out (hope that part of it goes through).The $1,000 limit evens out the sphere of influence, which I support. No, it isn't and I don't think the Tories are trying to hide that fact either, to be fair. Neither they nor the Liberals want PR. I commented previously about the NDP mentioning PR in their proposed ethics package. But their proposal tries to pin down in advance what PR in Canada should look like. You have to look hard to find any reference in their literature to the notion that the people should decide this, not politicians. In 2005, the CPC received more corporate contributions than other other party. I have a list of their 3000+ benefactors. The majority are CEO's of large cororations, their wives and families. More than half are from Alberta Oil Companies and many longtime supporters of the Reform Party. Like I've said before, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The CPC just has more Fat Cats behind their success. The Liberals used the same technique - the NDP very little if at all - the CPC had the most. No grass roots here.

The whole point of the exercise, I suspect. PR people dream of this kind of situation. Oh yeah. Still don't think I'd read it, but it will definitely be assured a wide distribution. Maybe Harper should get royalties because someone will be cashing in.

Isn't that what the Reform and Alliance parties did? At the time of the merger there were 66 Reform/Alliance MP's and 12 PC's (many of whom resigned). With the balance of power clearly Reform/Alliance, why did they abandon the green and white for Tory blue, and then drop any reference to the Reform/Alliance from their name? I'd call that doing anything to seek, achieve and retain power. A Liberal/NDP/Green Party merger would be no different.

Not true. The MP is voted induvidually. If people are so ignorant of the system that they actual vote for a party, then really I have no sympathy for them. They shouldn't vote if they are so thick skulled not to realise the realities of our system. Please, if you believe that its a party vote system, don't vote. Party leaders promote party policy. Most of us did not get to vote for Harper, Martin or Layton, so if you liked what they had to say, you supported their representitive in your riding. If we only voted because of the individual candidate, the election results would be much different. The reason that Mr. Harper and the CPC ran such a tight campaign was because they did not allow their candidates to sway from party line. Good or bad, that's just the way our electoral system works. Maybe the ballot should allow us to vote regional and national, and the national candidate with the most votes is PM, regardless of what party has the most elected MP's. Like or not, party politics are what wins elections. Vancouver voted Liberal and Vancouver should get Liberal. This was a real smear on a democratic election.

Then it's obvious that you'll always find fault with Harper and the CPC. Your topic and reasoning clearly reflects the way you feel. Indeed, and its too bad if she doesn't like the term Tory, guess she'll have to get used to it, and if one doesn't care, why would one continue going on about it. Seems like a lot of Canadians are liking what they see with Stephen Harper's government. When was the last time anyone saw the Torys at 41%? http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/11565 41% acceptance for a governing party is very low, meaning that 59% are not happy with their performance; and the Liberals don't even have a leader! Much less than the 60% approval rating that someone else suggested they had. Again this is about accountability and the first three months in, they are doing nothing to reassure Canadians that they are not throwing taxpayers' money out the window. Maybe if John Baird gave Ontario the 500 million dollars he bilked us out of, or had at least addressed the issue with our provincial auditor, I would not have this knot in my stomach now that he has a larger budget. I stand by my original statements about non-accountability and that third party CAMPAIGNING should be held to the same guidelines as any political campaigns. As far as the publication of Marxist newspapers, only those interested in that type of ideology will subscribe to the paper, so it is not going to affect the election. On the other hand, a full page ad in a newspaper read by all in the political spectrum - can and will influence votes.

My guess is as long as Harper refuses to treat the media with repect. With a minority government I would try to get them on my side; not alienate them. I saw a bit of the press conference and she had him in knots. Like I said before, his gagging of his MP's and disrespect for the media, is going to come back to bite him in the butt. Her job is not to "have him in knots". If Harper is ignoring the national press and going more to local and regional media it's because the latter tend to lack the kind of ideological motivation for their stories the national media lives for. The regional media will just ask questions, wanting a good, solid interview. National reporters will be trying to get something nasty, something quotable that will make the headlines and embarrass the government. Here's a question. If Harper is doing one on one interviews - which he apparently is - how long before Julie Van Dusen gets one? Here's a second question. If you're a news editor seeing rival stations and networks getting direct access to the PM and cabinet for interviews while your reporters are shut out because of their obvious political slants, how long before you dump those political reporters and hire someone more neutral? Sorry, but I still feel that Canadians should be concerned with his manipulation of the media. You will get a story as long as you spin it in his direction but heaven forbid you should 'report' any wrong doing. CTV OTTAWA -- Security on Parliament Hill barred reporters from attending a pair of Stephen Harper photo opportunities Monday as the Prime Ministers Office flexed its media messaging muscles. The made-for-TV confrontation between security and reporters outside Harper's office door graphically illustrated the deteriorating relations between a PMO seeking total message control and news media defending their hard-won access. It's a battle that may be beginning to resonate beyond the cozy precincts of the Peace Tower as the Conservatives threaten to hold secret cabinet meetings and withhold information about visiting heads of state. "Harper ran on a campaign of open and accountable government,'' New Democrat MP Charlie Angus said Monday. "And the first thing we see him doing is putting plywood up over all his windows and barring access to the doors. My question is, why? What is Harper afraid of?'' CBC CBC - "PM may hold cabinet meetings in secret," declares a headline on a National Post story, the latest bulletin in Stephen Harper’s war against the media. Our prime minister has always disliked the media. Especially in his Reform party days." This is a very good story because it shows how the media helped him during the election, only to have him turn around and bar them from future stories. The battle lines are drawn and he will not win this war. Next election will find him with no allies in the press.

Rob MP's of what little freedom they have? He won't even give them the constitutional right of freedom of speech. Of course it was a different matter after Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to join the Liberals. CBC "After Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to join the Liberals, Harper said his party would not go out of its way to encourage MPs to cross the floor. We are trying to create a principled party where people act in a principled way, and obviously we're fairly cautious about encouraging party jumping, because that's the kind of thing that generates cynicism." CTV "Fairly or unfairly, this particular instance has given many citizens a sense that their vote -- the cornerstone of our democratic system -- was somehow devalued, if not betrayed." Shapiro said he can only follow existing rules, but added, "in the final analysis, the most appropriate place to settle issues of this kind is not in the office of the ethics commissioner but in Parliament itself." Tories have questioned Shapiro's refusal to investigate whether former prime minister Paul Martin broke the rules when Stronach crossed the floor and was offered a plum cabinet position. Harper said Shapiro -- a target of Tory criticism in the past -- had no authority to dictate his cabinet choices And "The NDP also plans to put 38 current Tory MPs who voted in favour of a privatemember's motion against floor crossing on the spot by using an opposition day whenParliament opens to put forward a similar vote.

The man speaks the truth. The NDP's founding ideology is not compatible with the liberals. There is a thread here on this, note the post which compares the communist manifesto with the NDP manifesto. I don't think the centre or centre right liberals would accept that. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...communist&st=30 NDP: That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit; To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership; ... The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty. I disagree. I think the Liberals and NDP are closer than you think. Look at all the arguments about 'Uniting the Right'. It was believed than the just 'right of centre' would never join the Radical Right. It happened. There are still those that oppose and many, like Flora MacDonald are now voting NDP. I think it would be a force to be reckoned with.

My guess is as long as Harper refuses to treat the media with repect. With a minority government I would try to get them on my side; not alienate them. I saw a bit of the press conference and she had him in knots. Like I said before, his gagging of his MP's and disrespect for the media, is going to come back to bite him in the butt.

Completely agreed Hydra. And I'd never ask anyone to pay for my school. I wouldn't even ask my parents or relatives. I'm an adult and my life is my responsibility. If I've got to suffer by working a couple jobs and what not to get it done, or even borrow money, so be it. I will never ask the tax payer to cover for my lazyness. That was frustrates me so much. People are so willing to give in and go 'oh well, the government will bail me out.' Since when it is anyone's obligation to care for children other than the parents. I've had just about enough of paying for everyone else. Chances are when I finish my university, I won't be staying in Canada, consumed by this massive culture of entitlement. I'll take my education and go elsewhere, somewhere where hard work is respected and lazy people suffer until they realise they have to work to have the priveledges of the rest of society. OK. Let's just agree to disagree. I still believe that the CPC should stop the 1200.00 'not a Childcare Plan' and debate the actual childcare plan as a SEPARATE issue. Enough said.