Harper Makes Child Care a Confidence Vote

[Hicksey]

I never said now. I said that as soon as the Liberals have a leader and a decent show in the polls the conservatives should be ready for an election. I don't think I'm too far off on this one. I'll be surprised if we go as long as we did last time between elections.

The CPC is in far better shape than the Liberals at this point. For that reason alone there won't be an election called until the five priorities have passed.

The Conservatives have a leader. They have money in the bank, instead of a debt in the millions.

The Government won't be forced into an election before the summer break. It will be ready to fight one in the fall, although the election will almost definitely be held in 2007.

Your take on an election forced by the opposition this early isn't credible.

A four point gain by the Conservatives over the January election results would mean a majority for them.

Are the Liberals willing to take the risk they can avoid such a relatively small swing with an interim leader, no time to prepare a major policy overhaul and a *potential* backlash over forcing an early election? (I am being charitable in saying potential. I don't think childcare is an issue potential swing voters will see as a deciding factor. Therefore, an election forced this year would more likely be about the desire for the stability of a majority government rather than a "referendum" on childcare.)

The pickup of Emerson and keeping Milliken as Speaker are testaments to Harper's shrewdness. Now the Government survives if they can get any one of the opposition parties onside for any given vote.

Under the currrent situation, how could all three of the Bloq, NDP and Liberals think an election would be in each of their best interest?

Also give Jack Layton a little credit. Remember that his plan is to replace the Liberals as official opposition. He'd prefer an election called when the Liberals are at a low point, i.e. not when the Liberals would think it would be in their best interest.

Remember Martin's first speech from the throne? He actually feared he might be defeated on it. Contrast that with Harper's. He quietly worked with Layton and Duceppe. The speech from the throne marked the start of a new era in government, not the start of an embarrassing, unstable minority that accomplished nothing. (i.e. Martin's minority.)

As soon as the Liberals have a front man they'll take him down as long as they're not completely tanked in the polls.

If it says nothing else it says that he has moxy, that much is for sure. In a liberal (little l on purpose, Liberals, NDP and BQ are all liberal to differing extents) dominated house he's leveraging his minority position against the Liberals' tendency to live and die by the polls and I'm not sure its as wise as you say. All I can say is that if this is the road Harper is taking he had better start his fundraising now.

To people that might have voted conservative or did it says a lot. To the rest its another message lost because they don't care. And because the Liberals know that the folks that don't care likely outnumber those who do they're probably willing to gamble that people will not only grudgingly go back to the polls, but also vote against the agenda that caused yet another election instead of the party that forced it again.

[Nocrap]

I never said now. I said that as soon as the Liberals have a leader and a decent show in the polls the conservatives should be ready for an election. I don't think I'm too far off on this one. I'll be surprised if we go as long as we did last time between elections.

The CPC is in far better shape than the Liberals at this point. For that reason alone there won't be an election called until the five priorities have passed.

The Conservatives have a leader. They have money in the bank, instead of a debt in the millions.

The Government won't be forced into an election before the summer break. It will be ready to fight one in the fall, although the election will almost definitely be held in 2007.

Your take on an election forced by the opposition this early isn't credible.

A four point gain by the Conservatives over the January election results would mean a majority for them.

Are the Liberals willing to take the risk they can avoid such a relatively small swing with an interim leader, no time to prepare a major policy overhaul and a *potential* backlash over forcing an early election? (I am being charitable in saying potential. I don't think childcare is an issue potential swing voters will see as a deciding factor. Therefore, an election forced this year would more likely be about the desire for the stability of a majority government rather than a "referendum" on childcare.)

The pickup of Emerson and keeping Milliken as Speaker are testaments to Harper's shrewdness. Now the Government survives if they can get any one of the opposition parties onside for any given vote.

Under the currrent situation, how could all three of the Bloq, NDP and Liberals think an election would be in each of their best interest?

Also give Jack Layton a little credit. Remember that his plan is to replace the Liberals as official opposition. He'd prefer an election called when the Liberals are at a low point, i.e. not when the Liberals would think it would be in their best interest.

Remember Martin's first speech from the throne? He actually feared he might be defeated on it. Contrast that with Harper's. He quietly worked with Layton and Duceppe. The speech from the throne marked the start of a new era in government, not the start of an embarrassing, unstable minority that accomplished nothing. (i.e. Martin's minority.)

As soon as the Liberals have a front man they'll take him down as long as they're not completely tanked in the polls.

If it says nothing else it says that he has moxy, that much is for sure. In a liberal (little l on purpose, Liberals, NDP and BQ are all liberal to differing extents) dominated house he's leveraging his minority position against the Liberals' tendency to live and die by the polls and I'm not sure its as wise as you say. All I can say is that if this is the road Harper is taking he had better start his fundraising now.

To people that might have voted conservative or did it says a lot. To the rest its another message lost because they don't care. And because the Liberals know that the folks that don't care likely outnumber those who do they're probably willing to gamble that people will not only grudgingly go back to the polls, but also vote against the agenda that caused yet another election instead of the party that forced it again.

Drea

Would you, as a taxpayer, rather pay me $1500 per month to stay at home on welfare or would you rather partially subsidize my daycare so I can go out and earn $40,000 per year (I'm currently paying about $8,000 in tax) so that I can be a contributing member of society?

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.

[Guest Warwick Green]

He can't back down on the $1200 but he could have used the excuse that 'the house wouldn't pass it' rather than 'I dare you to bring me down'. Seems he's betting that the opposition wouldn't want to lose the votes bought with that $1200, so they won't oppose it and have people think that it 'got taken away' by those nasty Liberals (or whomever).

I think the left has badly misjudged this issue. The belief that there would be a public outcry if Harper tried to do away with the Martin model has not materialized. The few demonstrators are mainly day care workers primarily worried about losing their jobs.

This is the left's equivalent of SSM where the right felt there would be a big hue and cry but where in effect the only people worried about it are a handful of CPC backbenchers.

[Drea]

I think the left has badly misjudged this issue. The belief that there would be a public outcry if Harper tried to do away with the Martin model has not materialized. The few demonstrators are mainly day care workers primarily worried about losing their jobs.

This is the left's equivalent of SSM where the right felt there would be a big hue and cry but where in effect the only people worried about it are a handful of CPC backbenchers.

Public outcry? What are you expecting? Mass protests? Car burning?

Most people will just shrug and accept the money (no one is going to send it back LOL) and continue searching for daycare space.

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.

[shoop]

Marching and protesting in the streets? What? Where? Is the National media conveniently ignoring this story?

37 to 41% approval rates? Where are you getting this from?

That an unabashed Harper-hater such as yourself is saying his Government is *lukewarm* means that Harper is doing something right. Persuadable voters probably have a much higher opinion of him than that.

Sorry, no election over this issue. It will become the law.

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.

[Renegade]

Why should we collectively share the cost of having children? Many reasons. Let me give three. At present, we don't put the cost of education solely on parents. Most animals raise their young in collectives. Would you have taken the risk to let your parents solely pay for your upbringing?

August, let me address the reasons you gave for why we should collectively support parents:

we don't put the cost of education solely on parents.

True. We put the cost of education mostly on the property owner, and that doesn't make any sense either. The cost of a children's education should be borne by the parents in the same way childcare should.

Most animals raise their young in collectives.

Some animals devour their young. Many animals leave their injured and elderly to die. Some species kill the male after breeding. Since when have we modeled human society on animal behaviour?

Would you have taken the risk to let your parents solely pay for your upbringing?

Absolutely!! If my parents couldn't afford to pay for my essentials they shouldn't have had me or should have given me up for adoption. Same is true for other parents. That is part of the responsibility of being a parent. Either accept it or don't be a parent.

[Black Dog]

think the left has badly misjudged this issue. The belief that there would be a public outcry if Harper tried to do away with the Martin model has not materialized. The few demonstrators are mainly day care workers primarily worried about losing their jobs.

Of course people aren't that upset: who doesn't like free money?

Absolutely!! If my parents couldn't afford to pay for my essentials they shouldn't have had me or should have given me up for adoption. Same is true for other parents. That is part of the responsibility of being a parent. Either accept it or don't be a parent.

We collectively support parents because we acknowledge that children, cliche as it is, are the future of the nation and we need to position them for success. Unfortunately, hand outs like Harper's don't do that.

[Guest Warwick Green]

We collectively support parents because we acknowledge that children, cliche as it is, are the future of the nation and we need to position them for success. Unfortunately, hand outs like Harper's don't do that.

And neither did Martin's approach. All he was offerring was some subsidization to those parents wanting to dump the kid at a day care centre while Mom and Dad were at work. Martin offered nothing to the stay-at-home spouse.

[Renegade]

We collectively support parents because we acknowledge that children, cliche as it is, are the future of the nation and we need to position them for success.

We position children for success by setting educational and childcare standards and giving them the freedom to pursue a path according to their skills and desires. We don't do it be letting parents off the hook for their finanical responsibilites.

[geoffrey]

Curiously, the Tory policy returns to the very popular, simple Liberal policy of 1950s Baby Bonus Cheques. Trudeau's Social Engineers and Flow Charts revised, adjusted, changed and ultimately eliminated those cheques. If you want to know where the Liberal Party has gone wrong, there's your answer.

Harper (like King and St-Laurent) understands that putting money in people's hands is the best way to help them.

Putting money in people's hands is a good way to help them. But why have the government take the money in the first place, just adding the usual massive beaurcracy. It's much better for the economy and all families to get a sizeable tax cut instead. That helps parents, students, seniors, disabled people, gays, straights, rich and poor. This handout only helps a selection of the population, at everyone else's expense.

A nice big tax cut like all Canadians deserve right now is the best solution to many of our problems, whether its GST, income or capital gains. The government takes too much, I think you've agreed with that statement before in other threads August. Why not apply the same logic here?

The last thing we need is another transfer program.

[shoop]

The GST puts a lot of money back in people's hands. Everybody's hands.

The Conservatives hands were tied on this issue. They made meany arguments. Not providing some sort of child care policy during the election would have given more credence to the *scary* *scary* *scary* charges.

From that perspective it is making the best of a less than ideal situation.

The Government will bering in a lot more targeted tax cuts that will help tradespeople, students, encourage people to use transporation, etc...

It shows some innovative thinking that was sorely lacking for 13 years of Liberal rule.

Putting money in people's hands is a good way to help them. But why have the government take the money in the first place, just adding the usual massive beaurcracy. It's much better for the economy and all families to get a sizeable tax cut instead. That helps parents, students, seniors, disabled people, gays, straights, rich and poor. This handout only helps a selection of the population, at everyone else's expense.

[Hicksey]

We collectively support parents because we acknowledge that children, cliche as it is, are the future of the nation and we need to position them for success.

We position children for success by setting educational and childcare standards and giving them the freedom to pursue a path according to their skills and desires. We don't do it be letting parents off the hook for their finanical responsibilites.

AMEN! Very well said.

I still think the real problem is that taxation coupled with rising energy rates have crept up and taken enough out the average family's budget that they cannot afford these options themselves. I'd much rather keep what I earn than have it filtered through the government and have a fool's share of it handed back under the guise of a chilcare allowance that doesn't come close to covering child care costs.

[Nocrap]

"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.

[scribblet]

Curiously, the Tory policy returns to the very popular, simple Liberal policy of 1950s Baby Bonus Cheques. Trudeau's Social Engineers and Flow Charts revised, adjusted, changed and ultimately eliminated those cheques. If you want to know where the Liberal Party has gone wrong, there's your answer.

Harper (like King and St-Laurent) understands that putting money in people's hands is the best way to help them.

Putting money in people's hands is a good way to help them. But why have the government take the money in the first place, just adding the usual massive beaurcracy. It's much better for the economy and all families to get a sizeable tax cut instead. That helps parents, students, seniors, disabled people, gays, straights, rich and poor. This handout only helps a selection of the population, at everyone else's expense.

A nice big tax cut like all Canadians deserve right now is the best solution to many of our problems, whether its GST, income or capital gains. The government takes too much, I think you've agreed with that statement before in other threads August. Why not apply the same logic here?

The last thing we need is another transfer program.

Well said...too many people sitting on their collective butts expecting handouts from the rest of us. A social safety net is one thing, a permanent nanny state is another.

[Drea]

"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.

Nocrap, I was responding to the poster who was expecting mass protests. People don't protest getting money regardless of whether or not it's taxed. They still think of it as "free" money from the govt.

I am absolutely infuriated that my tax dollars will go to families with high 5 or 6 figure incomes while the young family stuggling to get by gets a slap in the face.

[Black Dog]

And neither did Martin's approach. All he was offerring was some subsidization to those parents wanting to dump the kid at a day care centre while Mom and Dad were at work. Martin offered nothing to the stay-at-home spouse.

So instead of plan which helps some people more than others, we have a "plan" that does nothing for anyone. Great.

It's interesting to see the underlying class issues at play over this. It seems stay at home partents (read: middle class) are the ideal, yet the same people who encourage such a structure would most definitely balk at extending supports to low income families to facilitate more stay-at-home parenting on the grounds that people should take financial responsibility for their kids, even if that means working and "dumping their kids off at daycare." But if they do dump their kids at daycare, don't expect any support either.

We position children for success by setting educational and childcare standards and giving them the freedom to pursue a path according to their skills and desires. We don't do it be letting parents off the hook for their finanical responsibilites.

Again: if not letting parents off the hook for their financial responsibilities is a good thing, why is Harper giving them a handout?

Well said...too many people sitting on their collective butts expecting handouts from the rest of us. A social safety net is one thing, a permanent nanny state is another.

Just curious here: can you quantify what "too many people etc." means?

[Renegade]

Again: if not letting parents off the hook for their financial responsibilities is a good thing, why is Harper giving them a handout?

I agree. He shouldn't. There should be no direct nor indirect subsidy to parents for childcare. There is already childcare tax deduction and CTB. That, is already too much.

[Kiraly]

Again: if not letting parents off the hook for their financial responsibilities is a good thing, why is Harper giving them a handout?

In my opinion, it was a politcally motivated decision. The Conservatives do not support a national subsidized daycare program, but going into an election campaign and responding to the question of daycare by saying "they have no plan to address the issue as it is provincial jurisdiction" would have been a vote loser.

[Hicksey]

Instead of filtering our tax dollars through the government, why is it not a better idea to let people keep enough of what they earn so they can afford these items on their own? If everyone can afford the option, then demand will create the spaces instead of the government stepping in and it costing Joe Taxpayer an arm and a leg.

Why is the government the answer to every question you ask a liberal? I think it is much wiser for the government to limit itself to making policies that allow people to do better for themselves. If we weren't paying 50% of our paychecks to one tax or another and endlessly rising energy prices we wouldn't need the government to give us the money back they never should have taken in the first place.

People are crying about additional healthcare costs, child care costs and energy costs only because the government takes enough that they need two incomes to pay it all and still have any quality of life. The better way is to bring us back to a time when a one income household isn't disadvantaged.

I'll admit that in living in Canada and experiencing a lot of government programs first hand that I have a soft spot for a few of them that I see as intertwined into the culture and the removal of which would harm society as a whole. But many of them are run poorly in so far that fraudulent claims not nearly as vigilantly investigated and prosecuted as they ought to be. There is a lot of room to cut fat and bring down the cost of government and hence the taxation levels.

[blueblood]

Instead of filtering our tax dollars through the government, why is it not a better idea to let people keep enough of what they earn so they can afford these items on their own? If everyone can afford the option, then demand will create the spaces instead of the government stepping in and it costing Joe Taxpayer an arm and a leg.

Why is the government the answer to every question you ask a liberal? I think it is much wiser for the government to limit itself to making policies that allow people to do better for themselves. If we weren't paying 50% of our paychecks to one tax or another and endlessly rising energy prices we wouldn't need the government to give us the money back they never should have taken in the first place.

People are crying about additional healthcare costs, child care costs and energy costs only because the government takes enough that they need two incomes to pay it all and still have any quality of life. The better way is to bring us back to a time when a one income household isn't disadvantaged.

I'll admit that in living in Canada and experiencing a lot of government programs first hand that I have a soft spot for a few of them that I see as intertwined into the culture and the removal of which would harm society as a whole. But many of them are run poorly in so far that fraudulent claims not nearly as vigilantly investigated and prosecuted as they ought to be. There is a lot of room to cut fat and bring down the cost of government and hence the taxation levels.

Your first point is alright except for the fact that what about the guy not making enough to benefit from tax breaks? I don't know about you but quite a substancial amount of single moms are in a financial pickle. In the end we're trying to help out the little guy.

Your second point makes no sence, for example the ag income crisis is due to a LACK of government policy (i.e. rules) and usually allowing people to do better for themselves usually results in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, yes lets go back to a medeival rich poor gap. I'll agree 50% is quite steep, but look at it this way, almost a million bucks for a house in Vancouver, 300 plus grand for a house in Calgary, a nice vehicle costing around 50 large, no wonder two people have to work.Energy prices are high due to finite fossil fuels and intense corporate manipulation of the government

If your wanting to bring us back to a time when a 1 income household isn't disadvantaged, you gotta get rid of lots of corporations, move to rural areas where its CHEAP to live and live a simpler life. WE as a society WANT too much.

I'll agree with you on your last point, to a point where cutting the fat shouldn't mean cutting jobs, better to have people working and contributing to society.

[Guest Warwick Green]

It's interesting to see the underlying class issues at play over this. It seems stay at home partents (read: middle class) are the ideal, yet the same people who encourage such a structure would most definitely balk at extending supports to low income families to facilitate more stay-at-home parenting on the grounds that people should take financial responsibility for their kids, even if that means working and "dumping their kids off at daycare." But if they do dump their kids at daycare, don't expect any support either.

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.

[Nocrap]

It's interesting to see the underlying class issues at play over this. It seems stay at home partents (read: middle class) are the ideal, yet the same people who encourage such a structure would most definitely balk at extending supports to low income families to facilitate more stay-at-home parenting on the grounds that people should take financial responsibility for their kids, even if that means working and "dumping their kids off at daycare." But if they do dump their kids at daycare, don't expect any support either.

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 absolutely infuriated that my tax dollars will go to families with high 5 or 6 figure incomes while the young family stuggling to get by gets a slap in the face.

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.

[Teddy Ballgame]

The CPC are definitely a party for the 'have mores' and are completely out of touch with the grassroots.

- ALLCRAP ... You might like to know that in Canada we have a means of determining which of our political parties is in closest touch with the feelings, views, needs and wants of the grassroots and which of our parties has grown out of touch with the grassroots and what they want their representatives to do. It is called an ELECTION. In this interesting and innovative process, all the people who want a voice in how their country is governed get to vote to select the representatives they deem to be most in touch with them and their values, views and priorities.

- Strangely enough, we just had one of these new fangled election thingies just three months ago tomorrow. And guess what, ALLCRAP? The plurality of voters decided that Harper's Conservatives and their five immediate priorities including their child care policy was most in touch with their views and needs.

- Since then, all that has happened is that the Conservatives have continued to gain in popularity and the Liberals have continued to implode and to decline in popularity (the gap in popular support ranges from a low of ten points to a high of 19 points) so that an election today would result in a Conservative majority government.

- But you keep on pitching, ALLCRAP. I get a kick out of you and your inventive posts. No wonder you are so enamoured of Count Iggy. He in one of his rare and brief sojourns in the country he now seeks to lead taught a creative writing course at Banff. So like you, he values "creative" writing. Indeed, examining the Liberal Red Books and annual surplus projections and other writings, it seems that they are all highly "creative" and so perhaps Count Iggy Ignatieff does after all have one qualification to lead the Liberals in that he is "creative" with the language.

[Drea]

The CPC are definitely a party for the 'have mores' and are completely out of touch with the grassroots.

- ALLCRAP ... You might like to know that in Canada we have a means of determining which of our political parties is in closest touch with the feelings, views, needs and wants of the grassroots and which of our parties has grown out of touch with the grassroots and what they want their representatives to do. It is called an ELECTION. In this interesting and innovative process, all the people who want a voice in how their country is governed get to vote to select the representatives they deem to be most in touch with them and their values, views and priorities.

- Strangely enough, we just had one of these new fangled election thingies just three months ago tomorrow. And guess what, ALLCRAP? The plurality of voters decided that Harper's Conservatives and their five immediate priorities including their child care policy was most in touch with their views and needs.

- Since then, all that has happened is that the Conservatives have continued to gain in popularity and the Liberals have continued to implode and to decline in popularity (the gap in popular support ranges from a low of ten points to a high of 19 points) so that an election today would result in a Conservative majority government.

- But you keep on pitching, ALLCRAP. I get a kick out of you and your inventive posts. No wonder you are so enamoured of Count Iggy. He in one of his rare and brief sojourns in the country he now seeks to lead taught a creative writing course at Banff. So like you, he values "creative" writing. Indeed, examining the Liberal Red Books and annual surplus projections and other writings, it seems that they are all highly "creative" and so perhaps Count Iggy Ignatieff does after all have one qualification to lead the Liberals in that he is "creative" with the language.

TB, do we have to ask Greg to step in here?

The name of the poster is Nocrap.

While it's fine to state your feelings, please try to curb your tendency to insult others.

[shoop]

Go ahead and cry foul all you want, but TB is making some pretty valid points in his response.

The Government was elected by a plurality of voters with its childcare policy as a cornerstone of its election platform. The Government has gained support in opinion polls since being sworn in. Valid points that you and nocrap conveniently ignore in your thread.

If you merely want to chastise posters you disagree with perhaps a private message to the offender would use less bandwidth and free up the board for actual discussion.

Supporting a poster like nocrap, whose sole purpose is to attack our PM, is pretty sad.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

TB, do we have to ask Greg to step in here?

The name of the poster is Nocrap.

While it's fine to state your feelings, please try to curb your tendency to insult others.