Justin Trudeau = Harper with a smile

1277 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

MA, re: above. You are wasting your time. Every thread gets turned into a response of PV electorial reform.

 

janfromthebruce

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Just posted this at Huff Post:

"

So, its ok for the Libs to have as their fund raising chief a multi billionaire who benefitted directly from Chretien/Martin's decison NOT to

go after that 700 million dollars that went to the US (they knew it was Brnfman's money), who benefitted from LPC Chretien/Martin tax policy

that benefitted him and his family, the Thompsons and all the other people of power and influence? Trudeau surrounds himself with Multi

Billionaires, Martinites, LPC insiders, and has as a his Chief of Staff the leading Keystone Pipeline lobbyist, and all you Libs insist

Trudeau represents change? Really? No seriously, really? You are all either being deliberately obtuse, or your narcisstic compartimentalization

allows you all to ignore this in your self rightous belief that Le Dauphin is Candas great progressive hope, the anti-Harper. Well

all I can say is anyone who voted NDP and now is going to vote for this PRETENDER to some legacy in the belief Le Dauphin is going to bring a

progressive nirvana is ether a fool or is delirious. There is no other explantion. Your deliberate and willful display of arrogant

self-rightousness and leeming like willingness to follow this demagogue cannot be explained any other way. Well good luck, and thanks for

screwing oridinary Canadians. You should ALL be proud of yourselves.

And this applies to anyone else here who argues simillary. If you believe that, Frankly, you are nuts!

Great rant Art but I believe one catches more bees with honey. So when is the last time that one percenters and their enablers didn't believe in "let them eat cake" philosophy? It's the return of the robber barons of the 21st century.

mark_alfred

janfromthebruce wrote:

MA, re: above. You are wasting your time. Every thread gets turned into a response of PV electorial reform.

You're probably right.  Plus, PV is not reform in any sense of the word.  But, I guess some believe that if you repeat an untruth a zillion times over, it will be seen as true.  Or, failing that, then controversy and doubt can be created around proportional representation -- which actually is electoral reform -- to frustrate people's commitment to actual reform.  So, yes, best not to waste time with such propaganda.  Proportional representation is the solution that should be supported.  Period.  And it's the NDP that is pushing this solution forward.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

MA, re: above. You are wasting your time. Every thread gets turned into a response of PV electorial reform.

You're probably right.  Plus, PV is not reform in any sense of the word.  But, I guess some believe that if you repeat an untruth a zillion times over, it will be seen as true.  Or, failing that, then controversy and doubt can be created around proportional representation -- which actually is electoral reform -- to frustrate people's commitment to actual reform.  So, yes, best not to waste time with such propaganda.  Proportional representation is the solution that should be supported.  Period.  And it's the NDP that is pushing this solution forward.

Actually it's up to Canadians to decide what real electoral reform is, not electoral-reform zealots. I'm hoping Canadians will get involved in the voting reform debate to ensure it becomes a key 2015 election issue. Of course, most people will just ignore senseless, strident proclamations like the ones above...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Would you please take the discussion of electoral reform to another thread? Mods, would you please enforce some discipline here on this?

OK, so regarding Trudeau, how is he continuing to get away with this. Who is advising Tom. He is getting terribl advice and the polls show that even though many of yo u are talking about what a great job he and the NDP are doing a great job in the house Canadians do not seem to care. Does anyone want to offer an opinion on why the NDP is not going after the NDP.  Lets discuss Trudeau with a smile now. OK.

clambake

He's letting Trudeau outflank him. The media will only pay attention to Tom unless the party releases some bold, new vision for the country. Maybe NDP HQ think it's too early for this. But if they wait to late, the meme will slowly revert back to the 'natural' red vs. blue idea (maybe it already has).  Unfortunately, the senate issue isn't one that's making huge traction right now.

clambake

edit: moving this post to another thread

janfromthebruce

clambake wrote:

He's letting Trudeau outflank him. The media will only pay attention to Tom unless the party releases some bold, new vision for the country. Maybe NDP HQ think it's too early for this. But if they wait to late, the meme will slowly revert back to the 'natural' red vs. blue idea (maybe it already has).  Unfortunately, the senate issue isn't one that's making huge traction right now.

oh, is this where one changes the subject or talks of anything with substance and instead asks: So have you ever smoked marijauna? harhar

Centrist

nakedApe42 wrote:
Actually, Trudeau is dealing with the issue now with legalization. Decriminalization (which the NDP supports) is hypocritical because it locks up drug dealers while forcing users to buy from drug dealers.

Actually, Tom Mulcair today in Nanaimo, B.C. signed a banner advocating for the legalization of marijuana and made this statement:

Quote:
Mulcair said. “If you’re saying that marijuana can be used and can be legalized, which is what we’ve been saying for 40 years, you start with that and then you work on the rest of it. 

 

 

http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/221843181.html

janfromthebruce

You do the best analysis possible to rate the concentrations, the strengths and the types of drugs you’re dealing with and then you can go to the extra step, but it has to be done in order if it’s going to be credible.”

That's right because the "back to school" message for kids should not be smoking is cool.

janfromthebruce

For those who think the Trudeau Jr. Libs are so progressive look at who is new party bagman is, and the Libs cozy past with the Millionaire club.

The Rest of the Story
Bronfmans Evade $800 million in Taxes
with Aid of Revenue Canada

Stephen Bronfman: directeur du financement du PLC et donateur du NPD

Justin Trudeau a nommé l'homme d'affaires Stephen Bronfman... (Photo Andrew Vaughan, PC)

Walking back down memory lane and 1993, Chretien Libs campaigned on Lib redbook #1 and theme was jobs jobs jobs and all that progressive "cool" stuff. Of course it never happen, it was austerity for most of us, except the few (the onepercenters) like the Bronfmans, oh and the Paul Martin's dynasty of course (those shipping lines got to fly under a foreign flag).

The Liberals, also close to Bronfman (picture), are not blameless either. The transfer was not made public until 1996, three years after the election of Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Even more interesting is that the so-called loophole in the law, through which this family drove its fortune out of the country tax-free, was not closed by Paul Martin, the Finance Minister, until October, 1996 -- four months after the federal auditor-general cited the transfer as irregular.

snip

The auditor-general also noted in his 1996 report that Revenue Canada did a flip-flop on this transfer. It had already refused to let the trust be transferred tax-free and then reversed its decision the same day without explanation. When asked by the auditor for details, the department said it was unable to reveal the names of civil servants who met secretly on several occasions to permit this dramatic loss of tax revenue. The department also told the auditor there were no minutes kept of the meetings.

This is unacceptable in a democracy and we may never know what went on and who's responsible if the latest legal manoeuvre works.

So here we go again, the Liberals pretending to be progressive, caring for the middle class, and hoping all the young new voters will be low info voters, not know and be fooled for voting for Harper lite with a smiley face.

And the Bronfmans and their onepercenter club will be safe knowing that their corporate dynasties are safe from the hordes of ordinary Canadians. Same old, same old.

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I guess this time they wouldn't fool you again so that is progress.  Most people on this board have never voted for them not in 1993 and not in 2011 or anytime in between. The number of posters who think they are progressive is miniscule and most of them seem to prefer to hide under your bed.

To bad the alternative is a 3P i.e. a polished, pragmatic politician with deep roots into the Quebec Liberal party.

janfromthebruce

Too bad the only national supporting party in Quebec is Liberals whereas the others are separatists. Really makes it difficult to become involved politically provincially. Hence why the Layton and now Mulcair would like to start a provincial NDP in Quebec. And the NDP is more than Mulcair, last time I noticed.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Of course the NDP is more than its leader but it too has a cult of the Leader so how much more is debatable. Pragmatic politicians make decisions based on many things and I have seen the NDP in action in BC and Saskatchewan at the provincial level. I expect that shortly after the election of a Mulcair government we will be told that the cupboard is bare and that Saint Tommy spent 40 years in the dessert reducing the deficit before he brought in medicare. The NDP also has predicable excuses. I thought that Ujjal Dosanjh was a liberal and told everyone I knew in the party that it was a mistake to elect him leader because he didn't really share the parties principles. The reaction I got reminds me very much of your denial of Mulcair's liberal side. I think maybe I have a better nose for liberals than you do.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Of course the NDP is more than its leader but it too has a cult of the Leader so how much more is debatable. Pragmatic politicians make decisions based on many things and I have seen the NDP in action in BC and Saskatchewan at the provincial level. I expect that shortly after the election of a Mulcair government we will be told that the cupboard is bare and that Saint Tommy spent 40 years in the dessert reducing the deficit before he brought in medicare. The NDP also has predicable excuses. I thought that Ujjal Dosanjh was a liberal and told everyone I knew in the party that it was a mistake to elect him leader because he didn't really share the parties principles. The reaction I got reminds me very much of your denial of Mulcair's liberal side. I think maybe I have a better nose for liberals than you do.

The whole problem is that so-called centrist parties have been enabling the neo-con "starve the beast" agenda over the past 30 years. This right-wing Canadian economist actually spells out the odious process: 1. bring in reckless tax cuts; 2) manufacture a budget crisis; 3) justify big spending cuts; 4) go to 1.

So we need a centrist party to actually call out the neo-cons on their morally-bankrupt agenda to destroy post-war centrist government — instead of casting the disgusting policy in stone.

The approach should be on strengthening the economy. Frivolous boutique tax target votes instead of economic efficiency. We need to eliminate tax-expenditure waste and restructure the complicated tax code to maximize economic performance. Failed tax cut schemes that didn't deliver promised results must be reversed: we can't afford to waste taxpayer dollars. Money doesn't grow on trees: reckless tax cuts create big deficits and burden future generations with debt. Free-market ideology claimed tax cuts pay would pay for themselves; that proved false; we need evidence-based economic policy to succeed. Etc.

Also because the rich pay lower taxes on capital gains and dividends, there should be a minimum tax of 50% on income over $250,000. According to the CBC the wealthiest pay the lowest effective tax rate:

"By the centre's calculations, the top one per cent of Canadian families — those earning at least $266,000 — paid 30.5 per cent of their income in taxes in 2005. That was less than any other income group — even the lowest."

 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Centrist wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:
Actually, Trudeau is dealing with the issue now with legalization. Decriminalization (which the NDP supports) is hypocritical because it locks up drug dealers while forcing users to buy from drug dealers.

Actually, Tom Mulcair today in Nanaimo, B.C. signed a banner advocating for the legalization of marijuana and made this statement:

Quote:
Mulcair said. “If you’re saying that marijuana can be used and can be legalized, which is what we’ve been saying for 40 years, you start with that and then you work on the rest of it. 

It's good to hear the NDP is finally speaking out on the issue, instead of letting Trudeau steal all the thunder. But they should be quicker to respond.

 

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Of course the NDP is more than its leader but it too has a cult of the Leader so how much more is debatable. Pragmatic politicians make decisions based on many things and I have seen the NDP in action in BC and Saskatchewan at the provincial level. I expect that shortly after the election of a Mulcair government we will be told that the cupboard is bare and that Saint Tommy spent 40 years in the dessert reducing the deficit before he brought in medicare. The NDP also has predicable excuses. I thought that Ujjal Dosanjh was a liberal and told everyone I knew in the party that it was a mistake to elect him leader because he didn't really share the parties principles. The reaction I got reminds me very much of your denial of Mulcair's liberal side. I think maybe I have a better nose for liberals than you do.

 

 You don't have an monopoly on realizing Ujjal Dosanjh was an asshole before he became leader, I too knew it, but I don't live in BC so it wasn't up to me. Ujjal is an opportunist and always was. The only reason he joined the NDP was that it was the quickest route to power, in BC, can we accuse Mulcair of the same motives for joining the NDP? A resounding No.

 Mulcair strongly opposed joining with the Liberal, he can't stand the Federal Liberals. He is not a Liberal, he's also a man who has kept his word on many promises.

. Kropto and his witch hunt against Muclair, sigh.

Brachina

 Honestly I never understood why Mulcair called his position decriminalization, when having read it sounded awefully like Legalization to me, he always planned to tax it for instantance. I mean yes he planned to regulate it, but I still think his plan falls within Legalizaation. After all commissioning a study and not allowing organized crime to particapate really isn't enough to make it decrimalization, its still legalization if you tax it and allow the trade.

 

 So I'm happy to see he corrected it.

Summer

Brachina wrote:

 Honestly I never understood why Mulcair called his position decriminalization, when having read it sounded awefully like Legalization to me, he always planned to tax it for instantance. I mean yes he planned to regulate it, but I still think his plan falls within Legalizaation. 

I don't follow the connection between taxation = support for legalization vs. decriminalization.  

The sale of illegal drugs is already subject to tax (it’s just hard to collect the tax because most drug dealers aren’t all that eager to report their income).  As far as I know, no change in law or policy is necessary to impost GST/HST or income tax on drugs.  If you’re talking about sin taxes like alcohol and cigarettes, that would require new legislation.

 

wage zombie

I'm happy to hear that Mulcair is willing to say legalization.  I don't believe it is a clarification though, I believe it is a reversal.

I'd be happy if the NDP did run on a policy of legalization but I'm not holding my breath.

The party policy has been decrminalization, and that's such a broad term that it can mean anything from hefty fines and confiscation for possession to legalization.

My personal preference would be the party run on a policy of decriminalization, with the explicit idea conveyed that federal laws related to possession, use etc. all be struck down and regulation being put in the hands of the provinces.

Provinces could choose to regulate cannabis much like alcohol, if desired.  Producers could be regulated much like alcohol producers.

Or provinces could choose to dole out hefty fines and confiscate, if desired.  Producers would not be given licenses.

Unlicensed producers would be handled in the same manner as unlicensed alcohol producers, which I imagine is a criminal charge.

I believe there are currently reguations in place limiting how much alcohol can be taken across provincial borders.  Similar legislation could be put in place for transport of cannabis.  The maximum amount could be set at 0 if desired.

The federal govt could legislate that some amount of tax revenue from sales go towards extra federal or coastal border security.  I think this is unlikely to be necessary or practical, but might make some people feel better.

I would prefer this as a policy over "legalization" (ie. federal govt legislating that it will be openly sold throughout Canada).  I would also prefer it to legalization as a political stance.  If Trudeau runs on legalization and Harper runs on tough on crime, I think this would position us very well.

I don't want to hear about more studies being required, I don't want to hear about how today's weed isn't the weed "you" grew up with.

I want to hear that cannabis is safe enough that we can let the provinces regulate it as they see fit.  I think this respects people of all regions.  I would really like to see this as a policy we are running on in 2015.

mark_alfred

nakedApe42 wrote:

Centrist wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:
Actually, Trudeau is dealing with the issue now with legalization. Decriminalization (which the NDP supports) is hypocritical because it locks up drug dealers while forcing users to buy from drug dealers.

Actually, Tom Mulcair today in Nanaimo, B.C. signed a banner advocating for the legalization of marijuana and made this statement:

Quote:
Mulcair said. “If you’re saying that marijuana can be used and can be legalized, which is what we’ve been saying for 40 years, you start with that and then you work on the rest of it. 

It's good to hear the NDP is finally speaking out on the issue, instead of letting Trudeau steal all the thunder. But they should be quicker to respond.

Interesting.  The two paragraphs in the article quoted above regarding Mulcair's statements on marijuana read:

Quote:

Mulcair also said he is in favour of decriminalization of marijuana and made a point of suggesting Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was hypocritical by admitting he had used marijuana, but  voted with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to increase penalties for marijuana possession.

“Actions speak louder than words,” Mulcair said. “If you’re saying that marijuana can be used and can be legalized, which is what we’ve been saying for 40 years, you start with that and then you work on the rest of it. You do the best analysis possible to rate the concentrations, the strengths and the types of drugs you’re dealing with and then you can go to the extra step, but it has to be done in order if it’s going to be credible.”

terrytowel

Two weeks ago, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau admitted to the world that he smoked marijuana after becoming a member of Parliament.

Well, according to U.S. immigration lawyer Len Saunders, that admission could come with some serious consequences.

In an interview with the Surrey North Delta Leader, Saunders claims that Trudeau could now be barred from entering the United States.

"I couldn't believe it when I saw him admit to it," said Len Saunders.

The Blaine, Wash. lawyer says Trudeau and any other admitted Canadian pot smokers – high profile or not – should expect to be refused entry to the U.S.

"Justin Trudeau is inadmissable to the United States," Saunders said. "He's admitted to use of an illegal substance. If he's elected prime minister he can't come into the U.S. without a waiver."

Saunders notes that, with the recent referendum that ended pot prohibition in Washington, officials in that state may have somewhat eased up on enforcing those rules but that it's still a "folly for any Canadian to publicly disclose their past pot use."

A Canadian-based U.S. immigration expert agrees.

"Justin Trudeau could very well be barred from the US for admitting pot use," Fadi Minawi of Niren and Associates told Yahoo! Canada News in an email exchange.

"If [Trudeau] was to be questioned [at U.S. customs] and..admitted to the essential elements of this offence that would constitute of a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance and that would be problematic for him.

"We have dealt with people who are barred for life from the US for previous drug use upon being questioned – this happens more frequently than many people believe."

Minawi adds that if Trudeau is barred, his only recourse would be to apply for what's called an entry waiver which would essentially deem him "rehabilitated." But there are no guarantees.

"Waivers are approved for up to five years total – although not easy to get," he said.

"Applicants need to demonstrate: 1) risk of harm to US society if admitted; 2) seriousness of violation (any drug violation is considered very serious); and 3) the reason applicant is seeking entry to the US."

This certainly could be problematic for a potential prime minister who might have to go to the United States to meet with a potential President Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush in a few years.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/could-justin-trudeau-barr...

 

 

Brachina

 I'm glad he's making the point on Mulcair about Justin's hypocracy.

 

 Did any one else notice Mulcair uses legalize and decrimalize interchangably? Not a big deal just interesting.

 

janfromthebruce

noted with interest

mark_alfred

Brachina wrote:

 I'm glad he's making the point on Mulcair about Justin's hypocracy.

 

 Did any one else notice Mulcair uses legalize and decrimalize interchangably? Not a big deal just interesting.

 

I don't think he's using the terms interchangably.  I think he's saying that decriminalization (along with research) is a step to take before legalization.

Brachina

 So doing it in stages. At least his position is well thoughtout.

clambake

Usually Twitter is a big JT love affair, but I love the responses to his latest tweet:

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/375317845363527680

Quote:

Justin Trudeau

 We Liberals urge the #G20 to show leadership for the 2 million Syrians who have been made refugees by this terrible war. #cdnpol

janfromthebruce

Take note that Trudeau does not take any position on the war in Syria. Thus all can pin their own hopes and dreams or wishes and think that is what he means by his tweet.

So terrible for the refugees - tsk, tsk (that is how it can be read) but showing some care and concern but not enough to take a position.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

What is the clear NDP postion on Syria? So far it seems they are just saying lets get into the House and condemn the Syrian government for an unproven chemical attack.  Better they had kept their mouths shut, at least until there is actual proof.

mark_alfred

What's Harper's position?  What's May's position?  What's Trudeau's position?  What's Mulcair's position?  Seems they all tend to emphasize the United Nations, which given Russia and China's reticence, is a pretty safe bet.

knownothing knownothing's picture

That's fine with me if the NDP waits for the UNSC. That is about as non-interventionist as one can get right now.

Aristotleded24

knownothing wrote:
That's fine with me if the NDP waits for the UNSC. That is about as non-interventionist as one can get right now.

With Harper ruling out military action, the issue of where everybody stands on Syria is practically a moot point anyways.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Yeah for once proroguing did some good. He didn't want to face Mulcair in the HoC so he called off the war.

janfromthebruce

knownothing wrote:

Yeah for once proroguing did some good. He didn't want to face Mulcair in the HoC so he called off the war.

And posted the NDP position on Syria under Mulcair.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

knownothing wrote:
That's fine with me if the NDP waits for the UNSC. That is about as non-interventionist as one can get right now.

With Harper ruling out military action, the issue of where everybody stands on Syria is practically a moot point anyways.

I doubt if it is a moot point to the Syrian people who it seems are in for more interference.  Canada with all party consensus is blockading Syria and Iran just as they have been doing since the first gulf war.  We are also actively engaged in destroying the economies of those countries with sanctions that used to be considered an act of war.

Moot point to us comfortable Canadians, if we don't care what our government is doing to other human beings in our name. 

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, it's not good enough to be thankful for a lack of military action. You have to tell everyone what an inconsiderate asshole they are for not grandstanding about multiple historical wrongs. Thanks kropotkin. You just won activism.

Brachina

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Yeah, it's not good enough to be thankful for a lack of military action. You have to tell everyone what an inconsiderate asshole they are for not grandstanding about multiple historical wrongs. Thanks kropotkin. You just won activism.

LMFAO.

@Kropto Its kind of a neat idea that Harper is so afraid of facing Mulcair in the House of Commons that he decides not to go to war just to aviod Mulcair. Its probably true.

Jacob Two-Two

Those aren't historical wrongs, SD. Those are things happening right now.

pookie

Brachina wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Yeah, it's not good enough to be thankful for a lack of military action. You have to tell everyone what an inconsiderate asshole they are for not grandstanding about multiple historical wrongs. Thanks kropotkin. You just won activism.

LMFAO. @Kropto Its kind of a neat idea that Harper is so afraid of facing Mulcair in the House of Commons that he decides not to go to war just to aviod Mulcair. Its probably true.

lol

Brachina

 I readvin the paper that Rebel violence may have killed support for Obama's first strike plans.

Brian Glennie

Centrist wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:
Actually, Trudeau is dealing with the issue now with legalization. Decriminalization (which the NDP supports) is hypocritical because it locks up drug dealers while forcing users to buy from drug dealers.

Actually, Tom Mulcair today in Nanaimo, B.C. signed a banner advocating for the legalization of marijuana and made this statement:

Quote:
Mulcair said. “If you’re saying that marijuana can be used and can be legalized, which is what we’ve been saying for 40 years, you start with that and then you work on the rest of it. 
 

http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/221843181.html

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mulcair+dismisses+Liberal+honeymoon+totally+ignore+Justin/8880397/story.html

Quote:
Mulcair proceeded to question Trudeau’s “character” and “ability to lead” given his recent admission to smoking pot just a year before he supported mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana production in the House of Commons. By contrast, he said, the NDP supports decriminalization and a recent proposal by police chiefs to fine people for minor pot possession rather than saddle them with a criminal record.

Tom seemed to offer a more progressive vision when he was in BC, but I don't think the NDP's policy on marijuana has changed any.

 

 

terrytowel

Mulcair just told the Globe and Mail that Paul Martin did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on the issues of childcare and aboriginal issues.

Brachina
Brachina

terrytowel wrote:

Mulcair just told the Globe and Mail that Paul Martin did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on the issues of childcare and aboriginal issues.

 

 Which is absolutely true. For how many majority governments did theiberals including Martin lie and ignore these issues. And yes thier was some redress during the minority, but it was forced upon the Liberals so the NDP gets cedit not Paul Martin whose implimation was poor anyways.

janfromthebruce

yeah, and we've gone down this road before where Layton offered to ensure national childcare and First Nation accord to go through and Martin said no - he wasn't willing to budget. He was trying to wedge the issue and his gamble didn't work. Too bad he wanted to gamble with those 2 progressive programs. Take note, he made sure corporate taxcuts had happen years before and reduced con't and so his fellow corporate bigwigs con't to reap Canadian largeness.

socialdemocrati...

Funny how Martin could always find time to lower corporate taxes and slash the social safety net. I'm sure he was just getting around to the really awesome progressive stuff.

janfromthebruce

Yeah, in a rocky minority govt in the midst of the sponsorship scandal and Liberal inner war. Libs elected with majority govts, in 1993, 1997, and 2001 and a minority after that. Just never got around to it until the "dying days" of the Lib minority govt.

I love walking down memory lane: Red Book (Liberal Party of Canada)

The specificity of the Red Book came back to haunt the Liberals, however, and much of the next few years were spent defending broken promises. The most notable of these was the Goods and Services Tax, which the Liberals had promised to replace but did not. Critics also said that the Liberals had broken their promises to increase the power of individual Members of Parliament and introducing a national childcare program.

The Liberal national child-care plan: Evolution of a promise

By Reality Check Team on March 31, 2011 4:47 PM

Categories: Child care Michael Ignatieff

The Liberals have been talking about a national child-care plan for a long time, 18 years in fact.

Former leader Jean Chretien first introduced a national plan in the 1993 Red Book, the campaign platform for the election that year.

snip

What started as a targeted plan back in 1993 with promises of $720 million, has now evolved, in Liberal eyes anyway, into a combined (Liberal-Conservative) $3.1-billion a year child-care plan with no real guarantee of a single new daycare space being created.

By 2005, others saw it as a shellgame

Federal Election: Liberal child care promises a shell game Newsletter December 8, 2005

The Liberals’ child care promises are a shell game in which kids are the losers, said Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).

“Worse, the Liberal election promises also lumps the need for new child care facilities in with other infrastructure needs,” Moist said. “This pits kids and parents against other community needs, such as water, transit, roads and bridges.”

And a central flaw in the federal government’s plan remains: the absence of legislation to ensure that the money is spent on public, not-for-profit child care.

“No legislation means the provinces can take the cash but not commit to public child care,” Moist said. “The Conservatives would send public money directly to Kid-Mart. The Liberals would let the provinces do it. In the end, there’s no guarantee for public child care because the provinces are just doing what they want.”

“After all this time, you’d think the Liberals would get it right,” Moist said. “Parents and kids need federal legislation to make sure the money goes to quality, public, not-for-profit child care centres and programs, not to big box commercial operators. Enforceable mechanisms are the only way to build a public system that is high-quality, universal and accessible.

Jean Chrétien (and GST)

In September 1990 Chrétien seeing a chance to make a strong impression on public opinion after a shaky start as a leader reaped a major windfall after Mulroney introduced an unpopular Goods and Services Tax (GST), which Chrétien decided to vigorously oppose.[31] The political scientist Brooke Jeffrey and Chrétien's biographer Lawrence Martin wrote that the decision to oppose the GST in 1990 was taken for reasons of political expediency rather than for principle, namely that Chrétien needed an issue to oppose the government on that would allow him to connect with the public; sources close to Chrétien were later to claim that he had wanted to support the GST bill, but had been forced by his caucus against his will to oppose it.

The read is quite interesting and reminds me of the series House of Cards

clambake

I've always thought progressives need to do a better job of exposing the Liberal Party record and Trudeau's consistent voting record with Harper. So i've been engaging with Liberal supporters on Twitter and on HuffPost. Most of them come across as geniuinely progressive and smart. But when you start debating with them about Trudeau or the Liberal record, all rationality goes out the window. I don't understand it.

Most seem to think Trudeau is this anti-Harper, progressive hero. But they lose their minds when I point out that he voted with him on FIPA, Nexen, mandatory minimums (while smoking pot) or the fact that his oil lobbyist Cheif of Staff. I even bring up the Liberal record on the environment for people with Suzuki quotes in their profile. But the issues never get addressed as they prefer to take pot shots against Mulcair ("Harper-lite") or say that i'm lying or that i'm, in fact, a "Harper troll" myself! It's simply unbelievable. How can these supposed progressives be so enamoured with Trudeau to the point of irrationality or denial? It's incredibly frustrating. And how do we dispell the "progressive" Trudeau myth since the media won't do it?

Krago

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/09/09/ndp-call-trudeau-‘harper-light’/35863

It looks like NDP strategists read babble. God help Canada.

socialdemocrati...

You have to distinguish between people who vote Liberal with an open mind, and actual Liberal partisans. When you're a partisan, you'll follow the party line until the end of time. You'll be in favor of corporate tax giveaways, until your party is against them, and then go back to being for them when Trudeau comes along.

Step one is figuring out who's actually undecided. If you're intensely posting on every political article two years out from the election, safe to say you've made up your mind. Actual undecideds are far more disengaged.

That being said, you CAN force a Liberal partisan to get on the record with what they think, so when Trudeau lurches right, you can point out that they were let down. Those are the moments when a partisan can have a crisis of faith.

Pages

Topic locked