Liberals starting to show true colours

[punked]

This is absolutely true. The Liberals were relentless in their attacks. It was a shame and it's still a shame when the Conservatives do it. Those attacks ring a lot differently than, "Dear Mr. Ignatieff, Confidence votes are really important. Where were you for 2/3s of them? Sincerely, Jack Layton."

Ignatieff, truly, was caught between a rock and a hard place. The party was rebuilding, so instead of showing up and voting down the government, perhaps forcing another election when they weren't ready, he just didn't show up. This is also why in some instances he "held up Stephen Harper". They're really in a Catch-22 here. The baggage of the Chretien/Martin/Dion transition has decimated the party and one can add Ignatieff's name to that list on May 3.

The Liberals did have a third option. It is what the NDP when a confidence vote comes up. They say "Listen we get it you are a right wing government, but we also know you want to stay in power so how about you do this, this , and this. All things we agree on and we will support you." Instead they just hid.

[cybercoma]

I don't want the NDP to be second party. Because eventually, the second party winds up being the first party. The NDP in its present incarnation would be an unmitigated disaster for Canada. This is still, though you rarely hear much about it, a party committed to old style socialism, anti-Americanism, punitive taxes on the upper and middle classes, punitive taxes and rules on business, mandatory hiring quotas, and huge welfare to the poor and minorities.

It's funny how you throw around the dysphemism "punitive" as though it's a truism. If you read the history, social securities were put into place for the benefit of business. At times it was conservative governments that implemented them. Many of our current policies are based at least in part on Bismarckean insurance schemes. Otto von Bismarck was by no means a "socialist" or interested looking out for the average worker over business. Bismarck helped the worker, so that the workers' security would benefit business. It's anything but accurate to claim the taxes and rules placed on business are punitive because those regulations and taxes are as much, if not more for their benefit than anything else.

[cybercoma]

The Liberals did have a third option. It is what the NDP when a confidence vote comes up. They say "Listen we get it you are a right wing government, but we also know you want to stay in power so how about you do this, this , and this. All things we agree on and we will support you." Instead they just hid.

I don't know that this is true. Although I haven't paid attention to whether or not Ignatieff met with Harper to try and get their items on the agenda, it would surprise me if he didn't. The problem, historically, with the Liberals is that they don't have an agenda of their own. They're a pragmatic party that sways with the polls. It makes it tough to support them because you don't know where they're going to stand from one election cycle to the next.

[punked]

I don't know that this is true. Although I haven't paid attention to whether or not Ignatieff met with Harper to try and get their items on the agenda, it would surprise me if he didn't. The problem, historically, with the Liberals is that they don't have an agenda of their own. They're a pragmatic party that sways with the polls. It makes it tough to support them because you don't know where they're going to stand from one election cycle to the next.

I would agree with that, but then should anyone vote for them?

[cybercoma]

Sure. If that's the Canada that they want.

[RNG]

It's funny how you throw around the dysphemism "punitive" as though it's a truism. If you read the history, social securities were put into place for the benefit of business. At times it was conservative governments that implemented them. Many of our current policies are based at least in part on Bismarckean insurance schemes. Otto von Bismarck was by no means a "socialist" or interested looking out for the average worker over business. Bismarck helped the worker, so that the workers' security would benefit business. It's anything but accurate to claim the taxes and rules placed on business are punitive because those regulations and taxes are as much, if not more for their benefit than anything else.

I've been visiting political forums for years now and this is a new one to me. Any links?

[cybercoma]

Really? Just look up Bismarck's social insurance schemes. Read about Canada's social security and the reasoning given for it. A lot of it was influenced by the interests of business. Look up Fordism. I mean, I could go hunting for links for you, but this is really just basic history of social policy stuff.

[cybercoma]

I don't mean that as an insult. I just mean that it should be easy to find, btw.

[RNG]

I don't mean that as an insult. I just mean that it should be easy to find, btw.

It was, and I am surprised I had never heard of this before. The articles I read though suggest it was to keep the socialists from gaining power as much as to help business. And the help was in terms of stemming the large emmigration of workers to America. In our here and now I don't think many workers would want to emmigrate to China.

Edited April 24, 2011 by RNG

[cybercoma]

The articles I read though suggest it was to keep the socialists from gaining power as much as to help business.

Paging Stephen Harper.