Ignatieff inner circle shrinks, 2 more aides depart

[Keepitsimple]

I don't disagree, but a major issue for me is a parties stand on Gay rights and other social issues. If a party doesn't believe in upholding these or is willing to sacrifice them to appease a fringe group of religious supporters I can't support them. I honestly think it will take a CPC majority for the LPC to be able to rebuild itself and become more viable. The only trouble is every time the CPC is within striking distance someone opens their mouth and inserts their foot.

I wouldn't worry too much. The stumbling block for Conservatives was not Gay Rights - it was the definition of marriage. If not embraced, Conservatives had accepted Gay Rights for some time. Abortion rights are a done deal - we're not going back. I can't really think of any other "progressive" social battles to fight. The Conservatives have moved into a much larger tent and if there ever was a need to appease the fringe "far-right", that need no longer exists.

[capricorn]

They were once upon a time the perfect middle ground between the NDP and the CPC. Having said that what is to be done in the mean time? The chances of the NDP moving to me are slim to none and it is far more likely that the CPC will move closer to my personal views. If only they'd distance themselves from the social conservatives in their ranks I could vote for them. However, the Toronto Pride/Diversite fiasco reminded me that social conservatism still holds far too much sway in that party.

The quandary you find yourself in is understandable Dave. Yet, if more people like you joined with the Conservatives I think your views and potential influence would go a long way in counteracting the radicals who are really a blight on the party. What's even more beneficial is when new supporters become active in tempering those zealots. You are the type of potential supporter the Conservatives are targeting for.

I think inevitably either the CPC will move to where the LPC once was or another party will be created to fill the gap between the CPC and the NDP.

There's plenty of evidence that the Conservatives are working hard to position themselves as the alternate to the Liberals. Note how pundits often remark that the Conservatives are abandoning their base. Yet polls consistently show that the Conservative base is unshakable, therefore IMO the pundits are wrong on that count. I believe the Conservatives are only doing what is expected, i.e. strategizing to remain in power. That's the one and only end game. You don't need to be a pundit to figure that out.

[Moonbox]

So obviously, majority of Canada is in no way interested in going anywhere (like environment friendly, sustainable economy, social policies, like meaningful child care, accessible college education, investment in modern city infrastructure, urban transit, high speed trains, etc), just staying where we are and enjoying what we have.

The problem is that many of the things you think are going forward are what I would call wastes of money that I shouldn't have to pay taxes for. I DO NOT think that I should have to pay for other people's child care. I DO NOT think that I should pay extra for social programs. I think the cities themselves should pay for urban infrastructure and transit and do NOT think that's a provincial or federal responsibility. If the city wants these things, they should raise their taxes and pay for them. Then maybe we wouldn't have half our population living in the GTA/Montreal areas.

What YOU call 'moving forward' I consider unfair and wasteful spending towards have-nots.

[Smallc]

For now, the Conservative are the only big tent party. I can't support the Liberals as they currently exist, and I'm seriously questioning my membership in the party.

[punked]

For now, the Conservative are the only big tent party. I can't support the Liberals as they currently exist, and I'm seriously questioning my membership in the party.

I don't know about that the NDP has really big tent, there is no group think going on there.

[madmax]

The problem is that many of the things you think are going forward are what I would call wastes of money that I shouldn't have to pay taxes for. I DO NOT think that I should have to pay for other people's child care. I DO NOT think that I should pay extra for social programs.

You had no problem taking the benefits of these programs while you were being raised. Now that you are in a position to contribute you want to deny children the benefits you received?

Public School, High School, College and University are social programs massively subsidized by the government, thus the tax payer.

You think you did it on your own? You would never have been able to afford it.

When your child gets sick with Cancer or your father is rushed into the Hospital for quintuple bypass. You won't be bled dry after he returns home.

I have no problem supporting our society.

I do have a problem paying for Mike Duffys meals

[myata]

What YOU call 'moving forward' I consider unfair and wasteful spending towards have-nots.

Whether to consider moving a good thing or not, is very much a personal choice, something we cannot question because different individuals are so, well, different.

I'm only saying that it's hard to imagine a vigorous political contest about the best way to stay where we are and enjoy life as it comes. The obvious recepy, the one now adopted by both main parties, and also the only ones that could ever be elected to govern in this country, is "do little, say a lot". That's without doubt all what's going to happen here in the foreseable future, and it should certainly meet your aspirations of not wasting those precious taxpayer $$ on anything but holy consumption of more and ever prettier STUFF. That's OK, nothing out of normal, only a well known symptom of advancing old age, and all things must run their course under this sun.

[madmax]

What happened to the LPC in Quebec?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/725207--hebert-while-liberals-were-snoozing-the-competition-woke-up

MONTREAL—Monday's disastrous Liberal by-election results are part of a decade-long trend that has seen the party spiral into greater irrelevance with every passing vote. That is particularly, but not exclusively, the case in Quebec. There, as in the rest of Canada, a look at the larger picture reveals that the Liberals have missed out on the latest makeover of the federal landscape.

[myata]

What happened to the LPC in Quebec?

Very simple - same thing as in the ROC. With CPC moved toward the mainstream "center", there isn't anymore enough political room for two in the same electoral bed of aging, apathetic, focused above all else on preservation of status quo and self gratification "average" voter. The Conservatives are better suited to capture that segment due to their long time concept of "little government" (plays into aging "average" voter's aversion to change) and natural propensity to stoke fear, like e.g. that non-existent crime wave (plays into aging "average" voter's perception of golden old times).

The Libs could have attempted to move on and embrace the active, open to change electorate (it probably still exists, though perhaps in diminishing numbers) with an activist, forward looking agenda, but they are afraid, or not ready, or whatever. Barring a major, no, disastrous CPC screwup (= miracle), I don't see much hope for their current strategy.

Edited November 13, 2009 by myata

[Moonbox]

You had no problem taking the benefits of these programs while you were being raised. Now that you are in a position to contribute you want to deny children the benefits you received?

No not at all.

Public School, High School, College and University are social programs massively subsidized by the government, thus the tax payer.

Nobody is advocating for these to go away. While education is a social program, it's not the same as, say, welfare.

When your child gets sick with Cancer or your father is rushed into the Hospital for quintuple bypass. You won't be bled dry after he returns home.

Didn't say anything about free health care either. That's one thing I think everyone should be entitled to.

I have no problem supporting our society.

I have no problem supporting those in our society who contribute or are in bad situations through no fault of their own. I DO have a problem, however, having people expect me to subsidize other people's moronic/lazy lifestyles.

[Dave_ON]

You had no problem taking the benefits of these programs while you were being raised. Now that you are in a position to contribute you want to deny children the benefits you received?

Public School, High School, College and University are social programs massively subsidized by the government, thus the tax payer.

You think you did it on your own? You would never have been able to afford it.

When your child gets sick with Cancer or your father is rushed into the Hospital for quintuple bypass. You won't be bled dry after he returns home.

I have no problem supporting our society.

I do have a problem paying for Mike Duffys meals

I have no issue paying for programs we all use, I do have an issue with paying for programs that aren't/won't be used by the general public. Education and Medical services are of course no brainers. Universal child care isn't. Not everyone chooses to have children or is able to do so. Why should we be forced to pay for other people’s children?

Arguably Education and Medical attention is something we all need and will and have used. If anything rather than creating targeted programs that only assist a few people I would be more inclined to spend that money on expanding the programs we already have. I suppose if the program doesn’t benefit everyone, to me it’s not really worth it. I’d rather see health care expanded to include dental, and optometry and maybe even drug coverage. This is something that everyone can and will use at some point in their life and ALL of society would benefit from. It would likely mean a tax increase, but considering what I have to pay for my group insurance at work to cover these services I probably wouldn’t notice much of a difference. To me if public spending isn’t used by or accessible to all people it shouldn’t be done. I appreciate the NDP wants to help out the underdog, but I think if we focused on more universal, rather than targeted initiatives, we would all reap the long term benefits.

On a side note, considering Duffy's girth I'd be frightened to see what his meals cost.

[Dave_ON]

Whether to consider moving a good thing or not, is very much a personal choice, something we cannot question because different individuals are so, well, different.

I'm only saying that it's hard to imagine a vigorous political contest about the best way to stay where we are and enjoy life as it comes. The obvious recepy, the one now adopted by both main parties, and also the only ones that could ever be elected to govern in this country, is "do little, say a lot". That's without doubt all what's going to happen here in the foreseable future, and it should certainly meet your aspirations of not wasting those precious taxpayer $$ on anything but holy consumption of more and ever prettier STUFF. That's OK, nothing out of normal, only a well known symptom of advancing old age, and all things must run their course under this sun.

The way I see it, if you want what I have then earn it as I did. I worked hard to get to where I am and thus I reap the rewards. Those who did not work to better themselves, have not worked the way that I have do not deserve a hand out. It's not about "stuff" it's about earning one’s own keep and the freedom to do as you wish with what you have worked for. I'm all for working together to better society, but the key is "work", if you don't work and are both physically and mentally capable of doing so, then I have no use for you.

[myata]

Arguably Education and Medical attention is something we all need and will and have used.

I would add two more, of equally universal value: 1) sustainable development, and 2) quality of living (infrastructure, communications, accessability of programs, quality child care and development, etc ). These are nowhere on any practical agenda though.

And we're going to see our prize social programs crumble down and eventually slip through our fingers, because we're so afraid of change and reluctant to risk and try new. Standing still is going back. In social development as much as everywhere else.

Edited November 13, 2009 by myata

[Moonbox]

I would add two more, of equally universal value:

1) sustainable development, and 2) quality of living (infrastructure, communications, accessability of programs, quality child care and development, etc ). These are nowhere on any practical agenda though.

To argue that quality of living should be a universal standard is pretty much agreeing with communism.

Health and education should be universal and beyond that it's the individual's responsibility to achieve a quality standard of living.

They are not on any 'practical agenda' because most Canadians aren't interested in subsidizing the lazy and stupid any more than we already do.

And we're going to see our prize social programs crumble down and eventually slip through our fingers, because we're so afraid of change and reluctant to risk and try new. Standing still is going back. In social development as much as everywhere else.

[KeyStone]

In terms of social programs, I think the goal should be:

1)To provide all Canadians with the opportunity to succeed.

While most would agree with this statement, the conflict comes into how equal that should be.

When we have the wealthy getting private tutors, attending private school, and spending 400,000 on a 4-year education, it's never going to be completely equal.

2) To provide all Canadians with their basic needs.

Again, it seems that some here believe that if people are able to find work but don't - they should starve on the street. Personally, I'm not envious of someone that gets $520/month to pay rent, utilities, and buy food. I think if someone chooses that they have problems that we can't easily identify. They need more help than a paycheque once a month. They need counselling and support to fully enjoy life.

[Oleg Bach]

The tell tale clues provided though the "Liberal ship sinking" ...usually indicate that there is about to be a further power grab by the neo-cons..It's like a thermometer..when liberal goes down - rich get richer...eventually there will be no middle class - just rick folks with gold plated taps and poor common workers living on craft dinner.

[myata]

To argue that quality of living should be a universal standard is pretty much agreeing with communism.

Health and education should be universal and beyond that it's the individual's responsibility to achieve a quality standard of living.

No, you misunderstood, or misinterpreting. Quality of life is modern, environmentally friendly, livable cities. It's high speed train that'll take you from Toronto to Montreal in two hours, without costing you a fortune too. Government services, easy and accessible to you wherever in the country you happen to be. Communications infrastructure that gives you access to world's knowledge anywhere. Quality and affordable child care, so that more people could find and go to work knowing that their children aren't just being taken care of, but also receive best early years development assistence to help them succeed in the future. And many other things you could name.

Anybody and all of us would benefit from these programs if they were to be put in place. It's just that in our collective choices we decide to forego these opportunities in favour of stuffing our homes, cottages, garages, etc with more, and ever more of diverse, ubiquitous stuff. Why complain about lacking political choices then? To everybody, their own. To those who seek diversity, progress and innovation - lively political landscape, debates, initiatives, successes and failures. To those who only dream of how they'll retire in the comfort of their safe and familiar lair - invisible government, endless debates on how we're going to do something without actually doing anything, and above all, no change to status quo.

[scribblet]

The tell tale clues provided though the "Liberal ship sinking" ...usually indicate that there is about to be a further power grab by the neo-cons..It's like a thermometer..when liberal goes down - rich get richer...eventually there will be no middle class - just rick folks with gold plated taps and poor common workers living on craft dinner.

A further 'grab by the neo-cons' whatever neo-cons is supposed to mean, are you serious, they haven't 'grabbed' anything yet, we have the CPC as gov't right now, and probably will have after the next election. A couple of elections down the road, it's possible the neo-liberals will make a power grab. LMAO

Edited November 13, 2009 by scriblett

[Oleg Bach]

Money generated in the sale of war supplies is a bit of a money grab if you ask me - BUT if the neo-liberals want to liberate us from this treachery and money laundering on a massive scale - go head..I'm with you on that one - can't stand buisness types and politicals that think allowing naive soldiers to die as long as it turns a profit is okay..I know it's an age old practice..sacrficing your own citizens for fun and profit - but it must stop - surely we can do better than that..besides - what do the people of Afghanistan want? Same as us - more spendable cash and not to be harrassed by those with a sickness called sadistic human domination....If you've got some liberals who's minds can go further than legalizing a couple of bum buddies getting married then I approve.

[scribblet]

Bum buddies ???

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In my view the Liberals are going through some radical changes. When this process began some time ago with the rise of Iggy, I wasn't sure what was going on. Now however, it has become clear that there is a great deal of house cleaning going on. I may have underestimated this person to a large extent. He has turned the party 180 degrees to the point where most of us see it standing on its head and spitting nickels. Fair enough he is the leader and it is his responsibility to chart the course for the party. Yet it seems to most of us that the current path is largely undefined and we know not where in the hell the political winds blow from let alone where in the hell we are now. This new leader is keeping a very close hand in this game.

He has some time before the next election if Harper is to be believed.

[punked]

In my view the Liberals are going through some radical changes. When this process began some time ago with the rise of Iggy, I wasn't sure what was going on. Now however, it has become clear that there is a great deal of house cleaning going on. I may have underestimated this person to a large extent. He has turned the party 180 degrees to the point where most of us see it standing on its head and spitting nickels. Fair enough he is the leader and it is his responsibility to chart the course for the party. Yet it seems to most of us that the current path is largely undefined and we know not where in the hell the political winds blow from let alone where in the hell we are now. This new leader is keeping a very close hand in this game.

He has some time before the next election if Harper is to be believed.

Remind me again how bring back all the Liberals that ran the party during ADSCAM is cleaning house again?

[Hydraboss]

No, you misunderstood, or misinterpreting. Quality of life is modern, environmentally friendly, livable cities. It's high speed train that'll take you from Toronto to Montreal in two hours, without costing you a fortune too. Government services, easy and accessible to you wherever in the country you happen to be. Communications infrastructure that gives you access to world's knowledge anywhere. Quality and affordable child care, so that more people could find and go to work knowing that their children aren't just being taken care of, but also receive best early years development assistence to help them succeed in the future. And many other things you could name.

Why is it my responsibility to pay for your train ride to Montreal? If you can't afford it, why the hell are you going to Montreal in the first place?

The world's knowledge anywhere? Get a job and get a Roger's stick. There. Internet anywhere.

You had the kid...you pay for it. Want the kid to receive the best early years development assistance? Pay for it yourself. "Affordable" means your kid will be warehoused while you're at work. Deal with it.

Environmentally-friendly, livable cities? Who the hell cares about environmentally-friendly? I live in Canada and I want a warm house to live in, even if I have to burn down an entire old-growth forest to do it.

Anybody and all of us would benefit from these programs if they were to be put in place. It's just that in our collective choices we decide to forego these opportunities in favour of stuffing our homes, cottages, garages, etc with more, and ever more of diverse, ubiquitous stuff. Why complain about lacking political choices then? To everybody, their own. To those who seek diversity, progress and innovation - lively political landscape, debates, initiatives, successes and failures. To those who only dream of how they'll retire in the comfort of their safe and familiar lair - invisible government, endless debates on how we're going to do something without actually doing anything, and above all, no change to status quo.

I will vote for whichever party quits throwing my money away in foreign aid to countries that use it to buy arms instead of feeding their people. Whichever party quits spending money on gay parades, or arts festivals, or fountains in Shawinigan. Whichever party pulls their hands a little farther OUT of my pocket. I like "stuffing" my home. I have a 52" and a 57" for tv's in my house. I want a 65" plasma. Or maybe two. I can do that because I WORKED for my money.

Pay for your wishes with your money.

[madmax]

I will vote for whichever party quits throwing my money away in foreign aid to countries that use it to buy arms instead of feeding their people.

Strike one against the CPC.

Whichever party quits spending money on gay parades, or arts festivals, or fountains in Shawinigan.

If you include fountains in other cities... thats Strike TWO against the CPC.

Whichever party pulls their hands a little farther OUT of my pocket.

HST would be strike three, and you are paying thrice on that baby. One to fund the tax, two to implement the the tax, and three to put the tax upon the tax.

CPC is out....

So, who are you voting for.... LOL

Edited November 15, 2009 by madmax

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Remind me again how bring back all the Liberals that ran the party during ADSCAM is cleaning house again?

The same way that the PC's had to do it after bringing in NAFTA. Starting with nothing and building something. You will recall there was all of two representatives left in Ottawa following NAFTA and the GST. I will also say those were the two worst things ever done to the citizens of this land.