Liberal party shows Ignorance and Arrogance

[Hicksey]

More rightwing nitwittery. Nothing's changed.

I doubt you'll admit it, but the left does its fair share of nitwittery as well. To be perfectly honest, I think we're about even.

[gerryhatrick]

Do you always have to attack without adding anything to the discussion?

More rightwing nitwittery. Nothing's changed.

You mean an attack like this:

"> Liberal party shows Ignorance and Arrogance, Says all parents are unfit to raise their own kids"

This is so dishonest and ignorant, and the funny part is the Conservatives are the source of this spin. It's not just the ranting of some online ideologue, it's actually real political spin.

Oh well. We're going to go through our own Bush-style era of bald-faced political bull$hittin' for a while now, that's expected.

[geoffrey]

You mean this?

Here is what Bennett said on childcare:

"There's actually no plan for early learning and child-care spaces. So it's a good job they're putting more money for prisons in the budget, because we're going to need them if we don't get this early childhood right."

So there ya go. Mom and Dad will raise criminals, the government will raise little angels.

Such BS.

Here's one of many links to the quote: http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commenta...04/1563365.html

[betsy]

More rightwing nitwittery. Nothing's changed.

Like the nitwittery of Bennett going on national television to flap her lips and spew her ignorance!

Why do you think that debate the next day was heated up the way it did? It was her comment!

Same, if not more insulting, than the "beer and popcorn" ccontemptuous comments directed at parents!

Sure, she toned down and spinned that controversial comment the next day. Same old Liberal back-tracking liars!

Nothing's changed! Actually it only got worse. At least Martin had some brains.

[betsy]

Did anyone see a CPAC show with Carolyn Bennett, Monica Lysack and REAL Woman rep? I didn't hear about that but some mothers from other forums are angry about it. Apparently Bennett and Lysack...and the host ganged up on a guest, likened the show to a Jerry Springer-style. Can someone fill us in what exactly happened?

This is an example how media is interfering and manipulating to sell whatever they support.

"Goldhawk live on Sunday CPAC,, childcare debate but no parents with small children!!!

News for Sunday

Comments for this issue are on Smalldeadanimals blog...

CPAC's call-in Goldhawk Live program Cross Canada, this Sunday,

from 8pm to 9pm, February 26. Carolyn Bennet,Diane Watts

REAL Women of Canada, Monica Rysech of Child Care Advocacy Association and a

representative from the Conservative Party will be on as well.

I have contacted Goldhawks assistant to ask to be on the show to represent the real parents, here is what I wrote..."

http://choiceforchildcare.blogspot.com/200...-childcare.html

[Guest Warwick Green]

More rightwing nitwittery. Nothing's changed.

I doubt you'll admit it, but the left does its fair share of nitwittery as well. To be perfectly honest, I think we're about even.

In the words of Scott Brison Esq, pretender to the Throne of Ottawa, "I will not lead you to the left; I will not lead you to the right; I will lead you forward". Blindly, no doubt.

[betsy]

Providing a $653.00 (after taxes unless you're rich) yearly handout and calling it a childcare plan is ridiculous and will neither allow a parent to work or encourage them to stay home. It's a vote grab pure and simple and something that we will be stuck with for years. Thank God we can't say the same for the CPC.

"LIBERAL PLAN = $500 PER CHILD

The math: the $11 billion over 10 years the Liberals proposed means a whopping $500 per year for each of the over 2 million children 0-5. The entire amount could go to bureaucratic "infrastructure" or wages and not result in a single "space," far less a "universal high quality system." The majority of daycares report VACANCIES averaging over 8%, according to the "You Bet I Care!" study and others. This calls into question the whole "shortage" claim.

MOST DAYCARE NOT "HIGH QUALITY"

Also, the "quality" of the majority of regulated daycare is "minimal to mediocre" according to the "You Bet I Care!" study, the OECD, and others. Improving it would require improving allowable staff:child ratios that are worsening since the study was done with up to eight one-year-olds per staff in Quebec. But the daycare lobby refuses to discuss this—their own research. Instead they falsely claim that government regulation assures high quality care and developmental improvements for children. "

Link to CRRU site and Caledon Institute Report by Ken Battle:

http://action.web.ca/home/crru/rsrcs_crru_full.shtml?x=84050

Link to "Finding a better way on child care," by Ken Battle, Michael Mendelson, and Sherri Torjman:

http://action.web.ca/home/crru/rsrcs_crru_full.shtml?x=85041

----------------

It's the Liberals who attempted the "vote-grab" in their last-minute desperate bid for survival! All I can say is to remind you that for 13 years....not a single childcare space was created under the Liberals.

Come to think of it, maybe they really did not create a single more childcare space since they know perfectly well that there's no real shortage!

[Guest Warwick Green]

Providing a $653.00 (after taxes unless you're rich) yearly handout and calling it a childcare plan is ridiculous and will neither allow a parent to work or encourage them to stay home. It's a vote grab pure and simple and something that we will be stuck with for years. Thank God we can't say the same for the CPC.

Both parties are pandering to their constituencies - the Liberals to those who believe that nothing is accomplished until you piss away large amounts of taxpayers money and the CPC to the religious right.

A pox on both thier houses.

[scribblet]

Providing a $653.00 (after taxes unless you're rich) yearly handout and calling it a childcare plan is ridiculous and will neither allow a parent to work or encourage them to stay home. It's a vote grab pure and simple and something that we will be stuck with for years. Thank God we can't say the same for the CPC.

Both parties are pandering to their constituencies - the Liberals to those who believe that nothing is accomplished until you piss away large amounts of taxpayers money and the CPC to the religious right.

A pox on both thier houses.

How is this issue pandering to the religious right ?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Providing a $653.00 (after taxes unless you're rich) yearly handout and calling it a childcare plan is ridiculous and will neither allow a parent to work or encourage them to stay home. It's a vote grab pure and simple and something that we will be stuck with for years. Thank God we can't say the same for the CPC.

Both parties are pandering to their constituencies - the Liberals to those who believe that nothing is accomplished until you piss away large amounts of taxpayers money and the CPC to the religious right.

A pox on both their houses.

How is this issue pandering to the religious right ?

The engine that drives social conservatism in Canada is the religious right (especially Protestant sects since the RCC is pretty much a spent force politically) and they regard daycare centers up there with abortion and SSM as the works of the devil.

[Nocrap]

it was that only those who chose to hand their kids off to a third-party should get a government subsidy.

This is exactly the problem. Harper and his gang of misfits are very clever at pitting Canadians against each other. The Bush administration does the exact same thing with the American public.

Working parents against stay at home parents.

Evangelists against Christians with both feet on the ground.

Christians against non-Christians.

Gays against Homo Phobes.

I guess they believe that so long as we're fighting each other, we won't take a close look at what they're up to.

The Liberals did offer a 'reward' as you like to call it, for stay at home parents (an extra $249.00 per year if you did not claim a childcare expense). However, it was added to the Child Tax Credit, which is income based. Therefore, high wage earners did not receive it.

The CPC have rolled this into their 1200.00 'gimme gimme plan', which is not income based and can be claimed by a parent with no income at all. Therefore, right off the bat, lower income families lose $ 249.00 of 'real money' if one parent is home, in exchange for a taxable handout, and the 1200.00 will be added to net family income when calculating other credits like GST rebates. The Child Tax Credit was not.

However, in most low income families, both parents have to work to get by, so they will not gain as much under the plan as the high single income family.

Again, I resent that the CPC believe that only families with stay at home moms have family values. This perfect little family is no more or less perfect than any other. Working families do NOT PASS THEIR CHILDREN OFF TO A THIRD PARTY. MOST TAKE GREAT CARE IN CHOOSING WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF THEIR CHILDREN WHEN THEY ARE WORKING and hot dang, if they can't still raise children who grow upto be valuable members of society.

[scribblet]

How is this issue pandering to the religious right ?

The engine that drives social conservatism in Canada is the religious right (especially Protestant sects since the RCC is pretty much a spent force politically) and they regard daycare centers up there with abortion and SSM as the works of the devil.

It may be the engine that drives social conservatism, but the majority of conservatives are not necessarily religious, or social cons. This is just another scare tactic tacking itself onto hatred of the U.S. and the religious right's support of Bush.

Even so, they have a right to a voice as do you and I, or is this part of a voice that says only atheists should have a voice ? Only a minority of people are atheist or agnostic, most people have some faith, or have been brought up in a faith. Harper to my knowledge has never talked about religion or used it as part of a campaign.

The CPC does not say nor believe that only 'stay at home' families should receive a subsidy, they are saying all people should have a CHOICE, there should be more than one option for day care.

This is getting kind of repetitious...

[Guest Warwick Green]

Harper to my knowledge has never talked about religion or used it as part of a campaign.

His promise to have another vote on SSM (something totally unecessary) is clearly pandering to the religious right who are by far and away the group most opposed to gay marriage.

While it is true that not all socons are religious, religion is definitely in the forefront of pushing the socon agenda. BTW, I am not religious but consider myself a social conservative. In fact I believe that the religious right is doing conservatism a lot of harm. And I would agree that other than tossing the socons a few bones (like the revisit of SSM) Harper is trying to stay away from them.

[scribblet]

Harper to my knowledge has never talked about religion or used it as part of a campaign.

His promise to have another vote on SSM (something totally unecessary) is clearly pandering to the religious right who are by far and away the group most opposed to gay marriage.

While it is true that not all socons are religious, religion is definitely in the forefront of pushing the socon agenda. BTW, I am not religious but consider myself a social conservative. In fact I believe that the religious right is doing conservatism a lot of harm. And I would agree that other than tossing the socons a few bones (like the revisit of SSM) Harper is trying to stay away from them.

Religion might be in the forefront of some so-con's agenda, but on the whole it does not drive the CPC nor Harper's agenda. He didn't actually say he would have another vote on SSM, he said he would have a free vote in parliament as to whether or not the issue should be revisited. I'd guess he's pretty sure it won't pass and he's on safe ground there.

I'm conservative and am not religious at all, I was active in two different ridings, none of the people on those boards where religious fundamentalists. I just find this whole thing an extention of the Bush hatred so many liberals have, they carry it over to here as if it were on the same level. I don't believe it is, but it can score points.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Harper to my knowledge has never talked about religion or used it as part of a campaign.

His promise to have another vote on SSM (something totally unecessary) is clearly pandering to the religious right who are by far and away the group most opposed to gay marriage.

While it is true that not all socons are religious, religion is definitely in the forefront of pushing the socon agenda. BTW, I am not religious but consider myself a social conservative. In fact I believe that the religious right is doing conservatism a lot of harm. And I would agree that other than tossing the socons a few bones (like the revisit of SSM) Harper is trying to stay away from them.

Religion might be in the forefront of some so-con's agenda, but on the whole it does not drive the CPC nor Harper's agenda. He didn't actually say he would have another vote on SSM, he said he would have a free vote in parliament as to whether or not the issue should be revisited. I'd guess he's pretty sure it won't pass and he's on safe ground there.

I'm conservative and am not religious at all, I was active in two different ridings, none of the people on those boards where religious fundamentalists. I just find this whole thing an extention of the Bush hatred so many liberals have, they carry it over to here as if it were on the same level. I don't believe it is, but it can score points.

You are right. He said he would hold a debate followed by a non-binding vote. If the vote was against SSM he would introduce a bill. And I am sure the last thing he wants is to have SSM once again in the front and center of the public's mind. He's trying to show that he's a moderate. I'm sure he will try to euchre it so the resolution supports SSM.

[Hicksey]

Harper to my knowledge has never talked about religion or used it as part of a campaign.

His promise to have another vote on SSM (something totally unecessary) is clearly pandering to the religious right who are by far and away the group most opposed to gay marriage.

While it is true that not all socons are religious, religion is definitely in the forefront of pushing the socon agenda. BTW, I am not religious but consider myself a social conservative. In fact I believe that the religious right is doing conservatism a lot of harm. And I would agree that other than tossing the socons a few bones (like the revisit of SSM) Harper is trying to stay away from them.

Religion might be in the forefront of some so-con's agenda, but on the whole it does not drive the CPC nor Harper's agenda. He didn't actually say he would have another vote on SSM, he said he would have a free vote in parliament as to whether or not the issue should be revisited. I'd guess he's pretty sure it won't pass and he's on safe ground there.

I'm conservative and am not religious at all, I was active in two different ridings, none of the people on those boards where religious fundamentalists. I just find this whole thing an extention of the Bush hatred so many liberals have, they carry it over to here as if it were on the same level. I don't believe it is, but it can score points.

You are right. He said he would hold a debate followed by a non-binding vote. If the vote was against SSM he would introduce a bill. And I am sure the last thing he wants is to have SSM once again in the front and center of the public's mind. He's trying to show that he's a moderate. I'm sure he will try to euchre it so the resolution supports SSM.

I agree. Harper was just straddling both sides of the fence to keep all sides of the party happy. This issue will not get a serious look unless there's a pretty hefty majority next time around. In fact it dies very quickly without one. It doesn't die because Harper wants it to, but because of political expediency.

[scribblet]

Harper to my knowledge has never talked about religion or used it as part of a campaign.

You are right. He said he would hold a debate followed by a non-binding vote. If the vote was against SSM he would introduce a bill. And I am sure the last thing he wants is to have SSM once again in the front and center of the public's mind. He's trying to show that he's a moderate. I'm sure he will try to euchre it so the resolution supports SSM.

I think he will too, just as he had euchred the anti abortion front. Harper is a fiscal conservative, an economic guru, and to my knowledge has never made an issue out of religion. The issue is only brought up by the media and others to scare people off. Even with a majority I doubt Harper would bring religion into any issue.

[Argus]

The CPC in their infinite wisdom believe in the nice June Cleaver approach to family life.

It's a very nice ideal. So?

That being said, I take offense to the CPC pitting working and stay at home parents against each other. Finley called on 'Family Values' groups to help her cause. Good Lord. Is she suggesting that a parent who wants to work does not value their family or does not have values?

A lot - an AWFUL LOT of working parents choose to work rather than look after their kids. Sorry, but that's it. They're not working because they can't make the rent. They're working to pay for the extravagances of life they regard as essential, like multiple cell phones, multiple cars, high end TVs and satellite dishes, ski trips, and summer cabins. Other women choose to work because they prefer that to staying at home with the child - more excitement I guess. I know a guy who makes $30k a year. He has two kids and a stay at home wife. They manage just fine by economizing, taking the bus, shopping at low end stores, avoiding brand names, clipping coupons, etc.

Besides, it was the Liberals who initially portrayed this as Liberal-pro child, Tory-anti child. Either you support their "day care program" or you hate children.

And what's this crap about parents raising their own children? Just because you work does not mean that you are not 'raising your own children'.

Just not raising it during the day.

Providing a $653.00 (after taxes unless you're rich) yearly handout and calling it a childcare plan is ridiculous

I agree. But the Liberals calling their provincal handouts a National Child Care Program is just as ridiculous. But that's politics.

[Argus]

it was that only those who chose to hand their kids off to a third-party should get a government subsidy.

This is exactly the problem. Harper and his gang of misfits are very clever at pitting Canadians against each other. The Bush administration does the exact same thing with the American public.

Working parents against stay at home parents.

Evangelists against Christians with both feet on the ground.

Christians against non-Christians.

Gays against Homo Phobes.

I guess they believe that so long as we're fighting each other, we won't take a close look at what they're up to.

You mistake ideals for cynical liberal politics. The tories aren't pitting anyone against anyone. Pitting gays against homophonbes? What arey you, kidding me? The Liberals used gay rights, which most of them don't believe in anyway, to pit liberals against conservatives, particularly against religious people. They constantly attack Christians, to the point some Liberal Party members have protested, and jeer and ridicule evangalists. How is this the fault of the Tories? As for pitting working against non-working parents that was clearly a response to the Liberals, who suggested anyone who didn't support THEIR alleged "daycare" plan was anti-child. The obvious response was to point out not only that it wasn't any kind of plan, but that it only benefited organized daycare. I can see how parents struggling to get by, forfeiting luxuries in order to have one parent stay home, would resent a hugely expensive program to subsidise working mothers who couldn't bother. And before you get outraged - a lot of working mothers work because they choose to, not because they have to.

Again, I resent that the CPC believe that only families with stay at home moms have family values. This perfect little family is no more or less perfect than any other. Working families do NOT PASS THEIR CHILDREN OFF TO A THIRD PARTY.

Uh, this is so self-evidently wrong I wonder what on Earth you can be thinking of.

[Black Dog]

A lot - an AWFUL LOT of working parents choose to work rather than look after their kids. Sorry, but that's it. They're not working because they can't make the rent. They're working to pay for the extravagances of life they regard as essential, like multiple cell phones, multiple cars, high end TVs and satellite dishes, ski trips, and summer cabins. Other women choose to work because they prefer that to staying at home with the child - more excitement I guess. I know a guy who makes $30k a year. He has two kids and a stay at home wife. They manage just fine by economizing, taking the bus, shopping at low end stores, avoiding brand names, clipping coupons, etc.

I can't say I see how this view that working parents are just greedy (which seems to be a fairly common one, given how often it works its way into discussions on childcare) squares with the rhetoric of choice we're hearing from the same bunch of people. For all the rhetoric declaring that "choice" is good, it seems any choice that doesn't involve having someone stay home with the kids is frowned upon. Basically, if one is going to support Harper's plan for providing choice in childcare, it seems a bit contradictary to imply that some choices should not be made (or that people who choose to, say, not forfeit luxuries in order to have one parent stay home are not as good parents as those saintly individuals who sacrifice. There's a whole puritan self-denial thing going on, but that's another discussion.)

[Hicksey]

A lot - an AWFUL LOT of working parents choose to work rather than look after their kids. Sorry, but that's it. They're not working because they can't make the rent. They're working to pay for the extravagances of life they regard as essential, like multiple cell phones, multiple cars, high end TVs and satellite dishes, ski trips, and summer cabins. Other women choose to work because they prefer that to staying at home with the child - more excitement I guess. I know a guy who makes $30k a year. He has two kids and a stay at home wife. They manage just fine by economizing, taking the bus, shopping at low end stores, avoiding brand names, clipping coupons, etc.

I can't say I see how this view that working parents are just greedy (which seems to be a fairly common one, given how often it works its way into discussions on childcare) squares with the rhetoric of choice we're hearing from the same bunch of people. For all the rhetoric declaring that "choice" is good, it seems any choice that doesn't involve having someone stay home with the kids is frowned upon. Basically, if one is going to support Harper's plan for providing choice in childcare, it seems a bit contradictary to imply that some choices should not be made (or that people who choose to, say, not forfeit luxuries in order to have one parent stay home are not as good parents as those saintly individuals who sacrifice. There's a whole puritan self-denial thing going on, but that's another discussion.)

I don't think that it should be assumed that people are greedy for wanting those little extras in life. I want them too. I think its human nature to want the better things in life. However, I also don't think that people ought to subsize my life so I can have them. If I can find a way to make the required money I'll get them. But if I can't I'm content to live out my days without them. There are some things I don't mind being taxed for it they are provided well, like health care, education, a solid infrastructure, disability for those that cannot work, a limited welfare system to give people the chance to bounce back, etc. But I don't think I should be taxed so someone can have a bigger house or car. Its not right. Those are things people ought to have to earn, not have them handed to you.

[Black Dog]

I don't think that it should be assumed that people are greedy for wanting those little extras in life. I want them too. I think its human nature to want the better things in life.

Your honesty is refreshing. But it hasn't escaped my notice that some people who agitate for Harper's program on teh grounds of choice also impugn the motives of those who might use daycare (of course, to say nothing of the fact that saying working families are selfish, materialistic people is getting close to "beer and popcorn" territory.)

I don't think I should be taxed so someone can have a bigger house or car. Its not right. Those are things people ought to have to earn, not have them handed to you.

I seem to recall that you oppose Harper's handout, which is good. Because it would be prety inconsistent to say one doesn't want taxpayer money supporting individual extravagance and then turn around and support a program that is simply a straight cash handout ($1,200 a year won't get you much in terms of childcare, but would make for a pretty decent downpayment on that new home theatre system).

In any case, we're not talking about taxes going to somebody's new car or plasma screen TV. At the end of the day, people still have to work for these things. As far as that affects the idea of a public childcare program, I'm sure one could set it up so that there are restrictions as to who can access it if materialism is such a big problem. But I don't accept that it is.

[Argus]

A lot - an AWFUL LOT of working parents choose to work rather than look after their kids. Sorry, but that's it. They're not working because they can't make the rent. They're working to pay for the extravagances of life they regard as essential, like multiple cell phones, multiple cars, high end TVs and satellite dishes, ski trips, and summer cabins. Other women choose to work because they prefer that to staying at home with the child - more excitement I guess. I know a guy who makes $30k a year. He has two kids and a stay at home wife. They manage just fine by economizing, taking the bus, shopping at low end stores, avoiding brand names, clipping coupons, etc.

I can't say I see how this view that working parents are just greedy (which seems to be a fairly common one, given how often it works its way into discussions on childcare) squares with the rhetoric of choice we're hearing from the same bunch of people.

I never suggested "working parents are greedy". I said "an awful lot" of working mothers work out of choice rather than need. Not the same thing at all. I've been in houses, I've seen their groceries, I know what their money is going on. I know they could save a lot if they had to, if they tried. I know they don't have to drive to work. I know they didn't have to buy that huge house. I know they don't need to take as many ski trips.

For all the rhetoric declaring that "choice" is good, it seems any choice that doesn't involve having someone stay home with the kids is frowned upon.

Having someone stay at home with the kids, at least in their early years, is best for the child. There doesn't seem to be much doubt about that.

Basically, if one is going to support Harper's plan for providing choice in childcare, it seems a bit contradictary to imply that some choices should not be made (or that people who choose to, say, not forfeit luxuries in order to have one parent stay home are not as good parents as those saintly individuals who sacrifice. There's a whole puritan self-denial thing going on, but that's another discussion.)

What Harper said was the previous govenrment's scheme gave money to only people who dropped their kid at daycare and went to work. What if people wanted to stay home and look after the kids? Why shouldn't they get the same goverment support? Seems quite reasonable to me.

There's no doubt some people have no choice but to have both parents work. There is also no doubt, and people on the left don't deny it but don't like to talk about it either, that some people could stay at home with the kids fairly easily, or with some economizing, but don't choose to because of lifestyle and career choices.

[Black Dog]

What Harper said was the previous govenrment's scheme gave money to only people who dropped their kid at daycare and went to work. What if people wanted to stay home and look after the kids? Why shouldn't they get the same goverment support? Seems quite reasonable to me

I don't see why it's one or the other. I've no problem with having a national daycare program in place. Nor do I have a problem with helping out stay-at-home parents. I have a problem with cynical political ploys which don't do a thing for anybody except buy votes for the government.

There's no doubt some people have no choice but to have both parents work. There is also no doubt, and people on the left don't deny it but don't like to talk about it either, that some people could stay at home with the kids fairly easily, or with some economizing, but don't choose to because of lifestyle and career choices.

So should people who make a choice to work not get support?

[Rovik]

Of course two parents have to work because their take home pay is so low after all the taxes collected to pay for all the day care centres.

Well, perhaps two parents may have to work because their take home pay is so low after all the taxes collected to pay for increased military spending (personally, I agree with if it earmarked toward peacekeeping though the parents might not agree with.)

And that isn't taught at home?

What is social skills? What is "interaction". You'd be surprised to know that these are just packaged words for simple manners, courtesy and intermingling with others....and you'd be surprised to know that as far as interaction goes, children had the natural instinct to get right into it!

These ECE grads should probably concentrate more in teaching kids how to dress up and button up! I cringed when I see kindergarten kids running around outside in the middle of winter with coats undone flapping about....with a teacher only a few feet away!

Not necessarily are all aspects taught at home. There are such things as basic computer skills and games that promote teamwork that kids may not get at home, for example, not all households have computers and it's hard for a child to learn teamwork on a constant basis if that child is an only child.

Well, some kids need a kickstart to get that "natural instinct to get right into it." For example, my cousin has one child, a boy, who was super shy (part of the reason was that she and her husband lived in an area where there were not many kids in the neighbourhood.) Once she brought him to daycare when he was three years old, she saw a huge change and he become more social, more confident in himself.

Those ECE grads work hard everyday to provide a caring, learning environment for the children and in regards to teaching the kids to "dress up and button up," perhaps one should talk to those kids' parents! And in regards to the teacher not making sure the kids are dressed up for the weather, then perhaps that teacher needs to be talked to. If I saw a similar event as you did, I would complain to that teacher and if that didn't work, to her supervisor.

We have gone all the way from day care being an undesirable but necessary service for working parents to something that is now claimed to be an "essential part of the educational system"

It's not going to be long before some Liberal leadership candidate wants to make day care mandatory since it is so integral to the child's upbringing.

What we are seeing here is the last gasp of the leftoids, knowing that as soon as the budget is passed there is never any chance of resurrecting the Martin day care program. And good riddance too. Parents wants day care - they pay for it!

First, if you ask a lot of people about daycare, "undesirable," would not be the word they would use. It's not an "essential part of the educational system" because if a family can afford to have a family member look after the child at home or if they know someone they can trust to look after a child, then daycare is not essential. It becomes essential to those where both parents work and where either or can't afford to stop working or for a singlle mom, perhaps going to college or university. So no, you won't see it beome mandatory because not 100% of the population need it and to suggest that it become mandatory is an exaggeration bordering on the ridiculous, in my opinion.

You be surprised how many non-left wingers support the National Childcare program. At the Memorial University daycare, for example, other than the students themselves, Scientists and Business people are big users of the Daycare and I've been told that many of these people support the Daycare. And many of these people, would not be considered left wingers.

Duffy jokingly referred to a feedback commenting the educational system is so entrenched with NDP-leaning teachers and so-called "educators" that they'd want to get hold of children as young as possible so they can be moulded to the NDP way of thinking. Of course the NDP strategist side-stepped this comment and didn't answer...switching instead to the well-rehearsed over-used line of reasoning.

Now seriously, do you think this is a big conspiracy to brainwash kids into becoming left-leaning adults. Of course, he wouldn't comment on a far-fetched idea, to do so would be given it more credence than it deserves. It's almost like saying that the Conservatives have an agenda to completely cut out social programs and the cutting of the daycare, Kyoto an Kelowna agreements is the start. Even the most fervent left-wingers know that the Conservatives will never completely get rid of social programs

This universal daycare is nothing more than a desperate vote-buying tool of the Liberals in their death throes.

Now, it is nothing more than another tool to criticize and find fault with the new government in the Liberal's life-after-death struggle.

True, they should have pushed it when they first promised it over 12 years ago. if they did, it would implemented today. The Liberals are notorious for promising things at elections and never following through unfortunately.

The Tory plan gives families a choice, while the Grits promised and didn't deliver for 13 years, and if they had there would have been no choice but Soviet type care. Parents want the right to choose, and the resources to exercise those choices.

You call the Conservative plan giving people a choice?? How does this give a single Mom going to university a choice? How does this give working parents a choice when one has to quit their job and career to look after the kids. And the ones to get hit hardest by this? Working women. The Conservative plan in many ways and situations does not offer a choice at all.