Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Canada Desperate For a Revitalized Liberal Party.

 Long time readers of this blog know that I am not a Federal Liberal Party supporter and never have been.
I like to consider myself a small 'c' Conservative and was happy to see Stephen Harper elected with a majority.

That being said I believe that the country is desperate for the rebirth and relaunch of a Liberal Party to act as a counterweight to the more and more dogmatic and narrow agenda driven Conservatives, who seem to be emboldened by the lack of opposition.
With a vacum created in the political center and left of center, it's no surprise that the country has turned to the NDP as the only credible opposition to the Conservative juggernaut, something that scares me as much as a runaway Stephen Harper.

So what the heck are the Liberals waiting for?

Jean Chretien-Helmet Backwards, but forward thinking?
There's something to be said for a political party taking some time to lick the wounds of an election smack down, but that time has come and gone and if the Liberals don't do something soon, they will be consigned to the scrap heap of history, a footnote in the Canadian Encyclopedia.

Time seems to be running out and there doesn't seem to be anyone in the Liberal party, the least bit concerned.

I firmly believe that between Harper and Mulcair, a great many Canadians, perhaps even a majority, are now looking for a kinder and gentler version of the two dogmatists, someone who won't bash Quebec or Alberta, a leader and a party that will represent Canadians from coast to coast.

In the meantime, the Liberals are content to go through the motions, openly admitting that they are treading water in anticipation of a new leadership convention after a period of rebuilding.

The problem is that there doesn't appear to be much rebuilding going on..

Even worse, is the insipid Bob Rae, the 'temporary' leader that represents the old guard, everything that was rejected by Canadians in the last election.

I honestly don't understand how the Liberal base tolerates such mediocrity at the top, a leader that is bound like Moses to wander through the opposition benches for forty years.

Where are the political strategists, have they also fled the party or are they being constrained as I fear, by the Bob Rae forces who are stalling as long as they can, until the party has nothing left at all, giving him a chance at permanent leadership?

At any rate, if the Liberals are to survive, they need to stop acting like losers and project an image of confidence, instead of the aura that surrounds the party now, that of a bunch of sadsacks going through the motions.

Solution? Your editor is never short of advice...

Get rid of Bob Rae, an albatross that represents not leadership, but losership.

Marc Garneau- The Right Stuff
Elect a new leader quickly, someone with impeccable national credentials, someone who projects integrity, honesty and trustworthiness, even if he isn't a political heavyweight.

To that end, no better candidate appears than Montreal's Marc Garneau, an ex astronaut that proudly wore the Canadian flag on his arm.
"Born in February 1949 in Quebec City, Canada. He received his early education in Quebec City and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu in Quebec and in London, England. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Physics from the Royal Military College of Kingston in 1970, and a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, England, in 1973. He attended the Canadian Forces Command and Staff College of Toronto in 1982-1983. Read the rest of his biography, you will be impressed!
Handsome and flawlessly bilingual, his election as a leader would preserve the fine Liberal Party tradition of alternating leadership between anglophones and francophones.

Mr. Garneau is the right choice to rebuild the party, he doesn't have to create or sell a comprehensive national policy, he has to project an image that the Liberals have returned as the party of national unity, a force of inclusion, not exclusion and a party where dogmatic left and right wing policies are not welcome.

It isn't a hard message to sell, I think many Canadians are ripe for the picking, especially in southern Ontario, where the voter's decision to support the Conservatives in the last election is one that many have come to regret.
Here is where Mr. Garneau can easily sell himself and his party as a solid alternative to the politics of the extreme, as practiced by Harper and Mulcair.

Mr. Garneau also has the right stuff to regain a base in Quebec, his integrity and reputation will help Quebecers forget the humiliation of the Sponsorship scandal.
For the majority of Quebecers, a return to the Liberals can happen, it is just a question of some healing time and a new and trustworthy leader.

For the ROC, even in the West, I believe that Garneau is an acceptable leader, considering his history as an astronaut with unimpeachable bone fides as a loyal Canadian.
A good "Frenchie" so to speak....ahem.

It's time for the Liberals to sell themselves for what they always were, a middle of the road party that serves the interests of all Canadians without pitting one region off against another.

As I said from the onset, I'm not a supporter, but as a strategist, I would encourage the Liberals to play on their strengths.
It's time to remind voters that it was the Liberals under Jean Chretien (no intellectual giant) that balanced the budget, unlike the present Conservatives who have blown the wad despite a false reputation as prudent fiscalists.
It was the Liberals that avoided the catastrophe of involvement in the war in Iraq, standing up to the unrelenting pressure of the Americans.
It's true that they got us involved in Afghanistan, but that was a NATO issue, which meant that not sending troops would mean abandoning NATO itself, something no government could have undertaken at the time.

If the Liberals are to be a force once again in Canadian politics, it's time to act now.
Like a bottle of wine, there is such a thing as being over-aged.

A new leader with an impeccable record of integrity and service to this country, coupled with a simple message of inclusion rather than confrontation, is the ticket to success

The road to salvation is sometimes uncomplicated, taking the first step and making the commitment to follow through is the hard part.

The Liberal Party has a choice.....move forward or die.

97 comments:

  1. Aw crap, Ed. Anglo Franco Ango Franco Anglo Franco. Mumbo jumbo mumbo jumbo mumbo jumbo mumbo jumbo.

    Yeah, this Liberal "tradition" has had its time. Quebec bashing is fair, fair game after all the péquiste fed bashing I endured those last eight years I heard it in Quebec before I could finally achieve my goal and leave Quebec for good.

    I've had it with goddamn pro-Quebec parties and I think Garneau would just be another Pollyanna trying to appease both sides and in effect favouring Quebec and Francophones.

    It's no skin off my nose whether the Liberals sink or swim. I think there should be three Anglophone leaders for every Francophone because Francophones make up ¼ of Canada and that's the lot. They're already overrepresented in the Supreme Court with 1/3 of the judges, guaranteed.

    If Harper doesn't mind his pints and quarts soon, he'll end up alienating everybody...at least east of the Manitoba-Ontario border. Let's face it, Ontario needs representation because Ontario is almost 40% of the population, and Harper has to build bridges with Ontario, not blow them up.

    Personally I am happy that Harper is alienating Quebec because Quebec has neither done Harper nor the rest of Canada any favours. Maybe it's just plain time a party is started to favour the English language because that's the majority, and I'm tired of reading about language goons fining shopkeepers for speaking Canada's major official language.

    Quebec is so goddamn backwards that leaders from Quebec are a bad, bad influence on the rest of Canada. Endless corruption, fascist language reinforcement that NO Quebec politician at the provincial or federal level has come to side with the Anglophones.

    If Rae wants to die in office à la Constantine Chernyenko, the last leader of the USSR communist Old Guard, fine with me. He'll never win in Ontario, and it seems nobody is picking up the baton in the Liberal Party anyway. The 2nd Millennium is over, and so is the Liberal Party of Canada, and good riddance. The Liberals and da Bloc can go fishing as far as I'm concerned; besides, between his federal and provincial politician pension plans, he and Duceppe can walk into the sunset together with their fishing poles over their shoulders. Two has-beens well overpaid for sitting on their asses the rest of their useless lives.

    Another centralist party catering to Quebec's every whim? FAGGEDABOUDIT!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sauga, you don't get fined for not speaking English, but for not offering services in French. If you have a company that hires over 50 people, you need to have French services. Most big businesses in Montreal offer bilingual services and you don't get higher up unless you're fluently bilingual. Bill 101's provisions in this area are not as enforced as they were intended to be for economic reasons. The ROC and the US were not willing to do business in Quebec unless English services were offered. I just thought I'd clear that up so there seems to have been a misunderstanding in the last post...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear horse with no name: I can't possibly thank you enough for disclosing what I already know all too well. I think you forget I was born and raised in Quebec went to Quebec schools from my first day of kindergarten through my final exam in Advanced Financial Accounting at Concordia U. and subsequent convocation. My mind to leave Quebec came with the tabling and passing Bill 22 into law. From that point on, I saw the writing on the wall and every nightmare scenario I pictured that summer came to fruition bit by bit.

      The election of the PQ and rush to put their own lingustic Mein Kampf and overt hatred towards everything not of their ilk just reinforced my resolve to leave upon completion of my education. The Mein Kampf I speak of BTW is Bill 1, not Bill 101. The latter is a watered down version of the former because the former would have been filleted like a properly cooked fish by the Supreme Court had it been legislated into law. Bill 101 had the spirit of Bill 1, but made efforts not to say too many "wrong things" that would have picked it completely apart. Despite the much more careful wording, the spirit of what proved to be the Bill 1 Manifesto was still incorporated, and parts of the final product were still repealed by the Supreme Court, esp. where corporations were forced to plead their cases in French unless all parties to the action allowed pleading in English, and the fact an English version of a piece of legislation, report or other legal document was not considered official in the courts. Especially irritating for the separatists was repealing Section 72, French being the language of instruction in school except for Anglophones de souche (i.e., Anglophones with established roots in Quebec). Only Anglophones de souche were entitled to English schooling, but that was blatantly against the Constitution that allows Canadian citizens from any part of Canada coming to Quebec being entitled to English schooling. I'll never forget the late Yves Bérubé and Claude Charron, Parasite and others frothing at their mouths in English in the Assembly figuring Quebec would end up becoming English. SEIGNEUR! and MAUDIT TABERNACK!

      I've been in Ontario over 10,000 days now and don't regret a single day living in Ontario. I DON'T need lessons from you or anyone else on Quebec history over the last half century, thank you very much.

      Delete
    2. Then why do you claim people are being fined for speaking English? I thought I disabused you of that notion in the past post but I guess you weren't paying attention.

      Delete
    3. The anonymous contributor was you? I read that whole critique very carefully, so I guess you're just trying to split hairs. Speaking English, whether or not accompanied with a French greeting, is being fined for speaking English...OK, I'll qualify that a bit...by speaking English ALONE!

      When I answer a question with a "yes", it means I'm not saying "no". Not saying "no" means I'm saying "yes" if those are the only two choices to answering a question. Not speaking French when greeting someone in English means I'm speaking English ergo being fined for speaking English.

      Too many attempts at weak semantics, Yan, so the trivial quibbling ends here!

      Delete
    4. The anonymous contributor was not me, I was just wondering.

      I've never really understood why the right to refuse service to the majority of the Province's population is so important. It doesn't seem like a good idea even if you have it. I guess that's why it's hard for me to dredge up sympathy for people who get fined for refusing to offer french services.

      Fines against petty names, fines against saying Hi before Bonjour, fines for unilingual english beer coasters, those I can feel sympathy and outrage. But fines for flat-out refusing french services? Much harder.

      Delete
    5. Sauga, I agree with everything you have written in your reply. The real reason for Bill 101, the reason that basically triumphs over all, was to promote sovereignty. Laurin knew that many parts of it were unconstitutional and were bound to eventually be ruled as such. When that happened, they could say "LOOK, THOSE DASTARDLY HENGLISH!!!!". Basically Canada/Ottawa=English=Evil. I've said "hi" many times to customers and have never received a fine for it. Although I clearly understand the outrage over fining small "depanneurs" for putting apostrophes on their names and other petty offenses.

      Delete
    6. Mr. Sauga to Anon and YannickThursday, June 7, 2012 at 9:25:00 AM EDT

      Unfortunately, the law is a bully authored by a vindictive bigot, supported by his equally bigoted minions and unfortunately a tyrannous majority of society who are sympathizers of the bully law. Bullies tend to sniff out easy, vulnerable targets who are least the likely to offer resistance, esp. since after 35 years they have had very little success picking on those their own size or bigger.

      Yannick, my apologies for labelling you for the anonymous comments.

      Delete
    7. Mr. Sauga to Yannick (one further note)Thursday, June 7, 2012 at 10:21:00 AM EDT

      Actually, Yannick, you did write in your last posting "...for flat-out refusing french services? Much harder [to justify not fining]." This is EXACTLY why I refer to Quebec as a fascist state. In a democracy, it's your right to speak any language. I'm not claiming it makes good sense from a business standpoint, but it certainly isn't the just society Trudeau was selling when he was campaigning for the Liberal leadership convention back in 1968. Then again, maybe Big Daddy Trudeau figured alienating Anglophones in Quebec was just. Enough of them idiotically voted for him election after election, so maybe it is I who is missing the boat [NOT!]

      Too, it really doesn't make sense that shopkeepers cannot or will not speak English to those who address them in English (and many have answered the English inquiry correctly in French). Interestingly, the other jurisdictions in Canada don't act this way from the English point of view.

      Delete
    8. You see it as fascism, I see it as akin to regulations against polluting, or having to post nutritional information on cereal boxes. I don't think it is a fundamental right to refuse service to the majority of a Province's population. It's at best indicative of supreme and calleous indifference, and at worse of racism and discrimination.

      Unless it's an institution whose sole purpose is to service anglophones, like a Hospital or a University. I'm not sure if under the current law people there are forced to offer French services. If they are, I am against it.

      Delete
  3. “Move forward or die” is a tad harsh… the same choice faces just about any political party pretty much anywhere. Compared to the Liberals in 2011, the Conservatives suffered a far more ignominious defeat in 1993, holding on to only 2 seats in the whole of Canada, and yet they managed to eventually bounce back, so why not the Liberals?

    I was part of the Orange Crush in the last election in order to get rid of the Bloc incumbent in a traditional Liberal riding since it was clear that the Liberal candidate wasn’t going to pull it off (yes, we’ve elected 3 parties in the last 4 elections). However, thanks to the NDP’s pandering for Quebecers’ votes with the Sherbrooke Declaration (much as La Marois is doing with the student boycotters provincially), I’m not sure I’ll be doing that again.

    Marc Garneau is certainly a very admirable candidate and does represent “new blood”, as it were. On the other hand, he did win his seat in 2011 by the skin of his teeth (it had been announced that he had lost his seat before pulling a last-minute comeback) compared to the 2008 election. Even though he may represent the old guard, Bob Rae did march in Montreal’s Gay Pride and St. Patrick’s parades, which I’m not sure Marc Garneau did. So it’s still a toss-up for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. The conservatives only bounced back from their 1992 defeat by being absorbed by the Reform party, though. The genius of the move is that the party chose "Conservative" as their name. They would have been unable to break out in the east if they had chosen a different name. Even you, Cat, seem to be under the impression that the Conservative Party is the spiritual successor of the Progressive Conservatives - I do not agree.

      Delete
  4. The Lib's cannot win a National vote with a Quebecer at the helm of the party.......the ROC has had enough.. The Libs need to elect a leader from the West to fight fire with fire... If they go with a left of centre-Quebec centric leader it's match terminee... They will loose to the NDP on that ground...

    ReplyDelete
  5. The liberals need to pick a leader like Marc Garneau or better yet someone from Western Canada like Ralph Goodale. The current harper government is making the liberals adscam look like peanuts. There is plenty of entitlement spending going on and worst yet are their justifications. I am not a fan of the Federal liberals but I don't support a majority conservative government. As a minority the conservatives tried to be alot more inclusive. Their true colours came out with their majority mandate.

    Plus they are getting rid of alot of agencies such as the office the monitors CSIS activities(founded after CSIS was found to be breaking many canadian laws.) For votes the Conservatives even went on the path of declaring Quebec a distinct nation. My biggest worries is harpers declaration to be doing free trade with almost any other country. Doesn't seem to even care much about the manufacturing sector, even though they bailed out General motors (after realizing how much revenue the workers at those GM plants bring to federal revenue and secondary parts plants that depend on GM and Chrysler.)

    The federal liberals don't have to do much, all they need is another leader beside Rae. Once they do that they will automatically pull in alot of vote that went to the NDP and also some of the conservatives (especially in the urban areas). The liberals haven't got trashed as bad as the PCs did in 1993. That was the end of the PCs and the beginning of the end for the Reform party as as a seperate entity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like to think the purpose of free trade is to give us easier access to other markets as opposed to exporting jobs. Exporting jobs doesn't help us and we're the voters. I don't see what favours politicians can gain by alienating voters.

      Ignatieff did nothing but alienate voters and look where the Liberals are now no thanks to his mismanagement. Too, Iggy made it clear he was interested in nothing more than being PM, not the betterment of the country. The Liberal Party elite put him there by acclamation because it wasn't too long after Dion won the convention, then folded flat. Martin was simply out to usurp Chrétien, then Martin folded, and Rae felt scorned by the Liberal elite by overlooking him. It was an endless usurping game, Ignatieff pulled a coup d'état on Dion and to a lesser extent, Rae, but Rae would NEVER win Ontario after his policies in the early 90s taxed the bejeezis out of Ontarians. We don't need a do-nothing Liberal Party as you propose.

      As for Harper, he did open a can of worms by giving Quebec "nation" status lip service, but in the end, it really means nothing no matter how much Quebec embellishes what Harper said. I find Harper too autocratic myself, but with an election now about three years away, it's plenty of time to get voters to forget what he's doing now if he does more appeasing things later. The average voter has a very short memory so Harper still has ample time to revitalize his image.

      Delete
  6. I can't understand why Anglos outside a traditional bloc quebecois area would vote for the NDP. Layton like Mulclair are Quebec Anglos that would sell out the minorities in Quebec in a heartbeat. The allos were less likely to vote NDP and saved alot of Liberal seats on the island. The NDP also has gotten away with the sympathy factor for Jack layton outside of quebec especially. It has to be brought out that the NDP outside of Quebec paints a different picture. In the last federal election the NDP didn't even have bilingual campaign signs in anglo and allo Montreal ridings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mulcair has the luxury of testing the waters for three years to find a way for the NDP to gel with the entire country. Had Layton remained at the helm, he would have had to choose side right quick between Quebec and RoC. It's not to say Mulcair won't eventually split like a hatchet hitting a 2-by-4 right on the grain (as Yosemite Sam did in an old Looney Tunes cartoon), but for now he's being given time to get his feet wet.

      Sadly, since both parties are on opposite extremes right now not unlike what is happening in the U.S., the country is becoming increasingly divided (although since the election of the PQ in 76, everything between Quebec and RoC has been divided anyway) so it adds tension to the mix.

      The divisions were and are inevitable anyway because the separatists have reached the end of their rope and are trying to attack tooth and nail like the cornered rats that they are. I for one have had enough of Quebec and if there was any way I could remove Quebec from Canada, I would do so in a heartbeat. Simply put, it's a corrupt society of malcontents.

      Delete
  7. I hope that the Liberal party remains in the ash pile. I don't want to see a resurrection of the 'good Canadian' Francophone at the helm of the country who will either ignore what goes on in Quebec or most likely, bend over backward in support to strengthen his electoral base. We can thank the Liberals for Quebec and for the silence that exists outside the province concerning how draconian linguistic legislation really is. I'd say that the provincial Libs are cut of the same cloth. Let's not forget that they were the first to bring us language legislation. If the Liberal party wants to represent Canada then it should do so for all Canadians and represent Ontario as well as the West who have become Canada's bread basket.
    If opposing Bill 101 at the federal level is considered Quebec bashing, then being against slavery in Sudan would be described as being anti - Muslim.... bullshit. A smart Conservative strategist would make a cause out of eliminating the linguistic status quo in Quebec. Exposing 101 to the ROC on a consistent basis in the media would only rally Canadians behind the Conservatives who can point out that this situation is firmly and almost exclusively the responsibility of the Quebecois dominated Liberals. Harper will no doubt get as wrinkled as Chretien before he is forced out of the office of prime minister.
    Who cares if Quebec feels alienated at that point? Francophones vote with their pockets, like they did in both referendums. When the bell starts tolling the death of 101 the propaganda machine in the province will revert to the promises of a bright bilingual Quebec. The Bealieus, the Dumonts and the Reals wil remain the minority that they are and become a historical footnote of an ugly chapter in Canadian history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the provincial Libs are NOT cut of the same cloth. They're far more evil, but I'll grant you the federal Liberals are just as guilty and their Quebec cousins because they sit idly by while the Quebec Liberals let us have it. Remember: 22 + 178 = 200, i.e., Bourassa's Liberals screwed the minorities 100% x 2 with those two chapters of legislation authored or at the very least perpetrated by HIM! In more recent times, Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest hasn't done thing one to weaken the language Gestapo; in fact, he recently emboldened it by adding 26 language inspectors!

      Delete
    2. Because the tories have had the chutzpah to set things right, Anonymous?!

      Delete
  8. The Liberal's problem is that they have no real ideology other than to maintain power, stealing ideas from both the Left and Right, depending on which way the political winds are blowing. The NDP's problem is that if they ever got into power, their misguidedly moronic policies would destroy the country if implemented. As for the Conservatives, their problem is Harper. My grandmother used to say,"You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar." Harper prefers to use Raid, being nasty or petty when he could get a better result by altering his delivery. What a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  9. '"You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar." Harper prefers to use Raid, being nasty or petty when he could get a better result by altering his delivery.'

    Nearly half a century of honey have left us with a serious pest problem. That Harper got a majority shows that Canadians are ready to call in the exterminator - and it's only the tip of the iceberg. If the Cons play their cards right Canada might finally become a country instead of a decentralized hub of provinces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My comment regarding the Conservatives was not aimed at their choice of policies which I gather you enthusiastically support. My point, which seems to have successfully eluded you, is that if given two ways of delivering/implementing the same message/policy, Harper invariably will choose the way that pisses off the most people. This may work adequately with a majority, but could well cost that same majority in the next election. You don't burn political capital for negligible gain.

      Delete
    2. You might be right, but when it comes to the electorate in Quebec, their perception is susceptible to the local propaganda to such an extent that even the policies of appeasement that have been in place taste like vinegar when the demagogues hit the pulpit. Harper's declaration of the Quebecois as a nation gained him nothing. If he brandishes a hammer when it comes to Quebec I believe Canada will support him even if the approach is callous. Depending on the exposure that issues in Quebec will get under those circumstances, I think that Canada will demand nothing less than a hammer. He can play the Republican card, only that in this case he is selling the defense of Canadian values, multiculturalism, equality etc. The Liberals can forever be painted as betrayers of these priciples in the quest of parliamentary seats, and the NDP will take it where they deserve it after their stance in Quebec is played out in the public eye. It would leave the Conservatives with no competition whatsoever and the other parties with negligible support in the ROC. It's all a matter of what the Conservatives focus the public eye on. If it's language and Quebec's excessive legislation and maltreatment of Canadians, the political style of Harper will fit in th way Churchill's abrasive style became the perfect fit after Chamberlain.

      Delete
    3. And the only policy I support is an end to 101, whatever the means, tanks or ballots. Any other concerns over the Conservative policies as too far on the right seem irrelevant considering that non Francophone Canadians are already deprived of a meaningful vote in Quebec. Fascism roleplaying socialism in Quebec has to be eradicated one way or the other before I start to care about jet fighter scandals. These will remain no matter what party is in power and have more to do with a globalization corporate agenda than anything local.

      Delete
    4. Harper already campaigned in Quebec under the motto "Our region to power" last election. You can't pander more than that!

      Delete
  10. Its rather intersting to see the comments of the rebirth of the Liberal party which is not likely to happen any time soon unless the virtually shed themselves of the old guard that not one trusts. One poster indicated maybe Ralph Goodale....well good luck with that as the man is not bilingual and no matter if he could bring the party back to life, they Quebec liberals would simply not allow it. As for the NDP, after Harper puts the wedges in place they will be f;ked as well. The big Wedge will be the same one he used against the liberals and NDP when they tried for a coalition government...(he simply linked them all as separatists and it worked rather well). The same fate is due for Mulclair and the NDP. Muclair has already aliented the West with his talk of "dutch disease" created by the West and his criticism of the Western Based Petro Industry. He is lucky he got our of Western Canada with his shirt last week. In SK, the NDP don't know what to do about it. SK was the birthplace of the NDP (CCF) and now they are put in the positition of having to defend (there is not defense) their own party which is critical of the West. Its hilarious, to see the few NDP MLA's in SK, stumble through responses to remarks made by Brad Wall towards Mulclair. Of course the NDP in SK, as the Liberals on the federal scene, have been totally wiped out. Harper will simply associate Mulclair and the "vague orange" in Quebec as being sympathetic towards separatists and that will pretty much be it.

    Stephen Harper may not use a lot of honey in lieu of Vinegar but he is a good strategist nonetheless.

    Quebec should get what they deserve. NOTHING.

    As to Quebec federal Leaders.....let me see. PET, the OLA. Jean Creature "we don't like dealing with Westerners". And of course lets not forget Marc LaLonde and the NEP sanctioned by good old leader of the day.

    Keep in mind people. all polticians (NDP, Con or Lib,BQ) are shit birds and couldn't give a rats ass for the common good of Canada...They are all hypocrites looking forward to their indexed pensions while the rest of us trod along trying to get by.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Personally, the thought of voting for any of the reigning schmucks makes me want to open my wrist. It literally turns my stomach listening to any of them spew their lies. Honesty, responsibility, integrity, ethics? Ha! What's that? Scarcer then hen teeth when being applied to politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Although Marc Garneau is a first class potential candidate and a National Hero to many, I don't think he has the charisma required to take the cake. Does he have what it takes to beat up Harper? Not too sure. By any measure, The Harper Team has become an embarrassment, making political gaffs on a weekly basis. It shouldn't be hard to flush them out by a well oiled political machine.
    On a side note, with the discovery of a major oil deposit in North Dakota (Bakken Oil Field) American reliance on Alberta oil is set to take a major hit in the coming years. There is even talk of American oil self reliance in the next 10 years (it's that big). So goes Alberta's oil economy, so goes the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives' fortune.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Editor, as much as Bob Rae dropped the ball in his Ontario years he was the only leader with the balls to celebrate the 30th anniversary of our Charter. He wrote a piece on it talking about the separatist lie, that Levesque went there merely to sabotage and that even a clear question with a clear majority merely opens the door to discussions. Compare this to UncleTom Mulcair's shameless pandering to the separatists (he should fuckin know better seeing the vote stealing that happened in his riding, Chomedey), saying they can make up all the rules, steal the vote and destroy the country with 50%+1. Maybe the Liberals have pandered too much to Quebec but they do have a limit and they do not see history through the eyes of the Parti Quebecois racists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part of me believes Mulcair is playing Good Cop Bad Cop with regard to the Separatist option. You don't become a soft nationalist overnight. This was a former Alliance Quebec lawyer and one of the few true federalist voices in the Quebec Liberal caucus. If this Quebec pandering was part of a ploy to squash the Bloc and reel in Francophone votes, then brilliant. But if they are really serious about the Sherbrooke declaration, then he's a two faced scum bag.

      Delete
    2. James John,

      Well said!

      Anon 1:44pm,

      The last part of your statement on Uncle Tom is correct!

      Delete
    3. Yes, Thomas Mulcair is a two-faced scum bag whoring for votes, just like Jack Layton was. Both appeared at pro-101 rallies. The editor of this blog has posted pictures of the two of them standing near or next to that Jew hating communist, Amir Khadir.

      Delete
  14. I'll go with 2 faced scum bag.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, 2 faced scumbag fits the bill. I think by the next election the NDP outside Quebec will be decimated. If the liberals find a decent liberal, they will get the majority of seats in Ontario, and the atlantic region. There might be some suprises on the west coast and the prairie provinces. Just look at the alberta election. The wildrose party (basically reform) got beaten by a Red Tory PC party. Canadians in general want a centrist party. While I want the conservatives and the NDP to lose the next election I would like to see harper stick it to Quebec before he goes down. Take Quebec down with a sinking conservative ship. Would love to see him to try to change the constitution that allows Quebec to deny English schooling to English speakers in Quebec, while allowing access to French speakers for French schooling in the rest of Canada. It would force NDP and Liberals to do a free vote as they would find it hard to justify the double standard.

      Delete
  15. The Editor writes:

    Handsome and flawlessly bilingual, his election as a leader would preserve the fine Liberal Party tradition of alternating leadership between anglophones and francophones.

    I would like to see a leader who is unilingual and not be ashamed of it.

    Look. Being individually bilingual is the antithesis of Official Bilingualism. Just once, I'd like to see someone in public life acknowledge that by example. Making the knowledge of the second language -- French -- a requirement of the Prime Minister is a complete waste of time and excludes the majority of the people in this country, cutting down drastically on drawing from a talent pool...and that really diminishes the opportunity to get a best guy or girl for the job.

    If someone aspiring to public office wants to insist upon making a statement about tolerance and openness to another language besides his own, let him or her learn to speak Cree...or Ojibway...or Huron...or one of any of the other 55 aboriginal languages spoken within our borders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look. Being individually bilingual is the antithesis of Official Bilingualism.

      That's entirely true.

      Making the knowledge of the second language -- French -- a requirement of the Prime Minister is a complete waste of time and excludes the majority of the people in this country, cutting down drastically on drawing from a talent pool...and that really diminishes the opportunity to get a best guy or girl for the job.

      That makes sense from your perspective.

      Think about it from mine. Someone wants me to give him his vote, but is not even willing to learn my language so he can talk to me directly.

      Furthermore, I personally believe that official bilingualism is one of the cornerstones of my Canadian nationality. How can I trust this candidate to uphold the bilingual nature of my country if he's not even willing to put in the hours and learn my language?

      That's what I think about when I choosing for whom to vote. I don't expect anglophones or allophones to think the same. They're the ones deciding their own votes. I would never tell an immigrant that he personally should not vote for a candidate if the candidate does not speak French.

      But by not being bilingual, the candidate would cut himself off from my vote. You can choose to do it, in fact I believe that the Reform leader Preston Manning was not bilingual. But you write yourself off from a quarter of this country's population, so only Right-Wing parties can really attempt it.

      Delete
    2. Yannick:

      Being individually bilingual has become a requirement of the job of Prime Minister if, as you say, one wants the job. Not only to appeal to votes from francophones in Quebec but, to quite a large degree, for many anglophones outside Quebec who, like you, buy into the "Two founding peoples" theory of Canadian Unity. I think Diefenbacker was the last PM with a poor command of French (prompting John Kennedy to, reportedly, make a snide comment about him for it when they met at Camp David when JFK was president).

      But I really think that's changing. Too many anglophones in the ROC see Official Bilingualism as a failed policy (so do I) and are getting fed up with seeing bilingual individuals (disproportionately francophones) getting the bulk of the cushy federal civil servant jobs and THEN, to add insult to injury, seeing for 20 years the majority of Quebec MPs being from the Bloc, a separatist party. Of course, that's changed now with the election of over 50 NDP candidates but, of course, I will argue that the NDP in Quebec is as separatist as the Bloc is.

      But I am a great believer in the marketplace, both the commercial variety as well as the political one...and if being individually bilingual is the thing that gets a candidate the most votes then who am I to say it is a bad thing? Harper learned French for this very reason, which he speaks with a marked Quebecois inflection and it worked for him.

      Nevertheless, I think Official Bilingualism is a failed policy and -- as I have written previously on this blog -- being a Member of Parliament is one of the very few jobs in this country in which being individually bilingual is absolutely not necessary, seeing as every word an MP utters in the House of Commons is translated both orally and in writing into the other official language.

      Delete
    3. "I think Official bilingualism is a failed policy"

      French spoken frequency in the home: (best measure of the common use of a language)

      BC 0.4%
      AB 0.7%
      SK 0.4%
      MB 1.2%
      ON 2.5%
      NB 27%
      QC 81%
      NS 2.0%
      NL 0.1%

      Stats from the Official Language Commissioner...

      OLA- incepted in 1969. which is now over 40 years.

      Cost ...in excess of 300 Billion Dollars...some say over 600 billion.

      It has been and continues to be a huge failure at an astounding cost

      Actually repressive and discriminitory against the clear anglo majority of Canada. Ask yourself how many talented people have lost promotions, or did not receive a position in the civil service, on account of this "bad" legislation.

      Check the figures again.

      Delete
    4. But the purpose of the OLA is to provide bilingual services in either language, not to teach the whole of Canada french or get them to speak French in their homes. How then does french speaking at home have anything to do with the failure or success of the OLA?

      Delete
    5. Oh for f'k sake. The numbers are clearly indicative that the OLA has not resulted in any real benefits, other than for the French minority in this country which it benefits. I could also bring up the failure of French Immersion programs where students quickly lose any second language skills after they graduate from high school (rate of bilingualism quickly reduces after graduation) Odd isn't it that the whole of Canada has the OLA catering to Francophone minority interests and you have 101 in Quebec which is designed to disadvantage the anglo minority. Hypocracy to the n'th degree.

      The OLA has in fact been a waste of time and energy...63 year old civil servants put in french immersion programs two years from retirement at the taxpayers expense...Only to return to their jobs and never use it. 800.00 per year bilingual bonuses to civil servants.

      The whole thing is f'king pharce and a very expensive one at that. Canada is not and never will be a bilingual french/english country and we should just quite throwing good money after bad towards a failed enterprise.

      I am tired of my tax dollar (and lots of them) being totally wasted.

      Delete
    6. "Canada is not and never will be a bilingual french/english country and we should just quite throwing good money after bad towards a failed enterprise."

      The point is not for the whole country to be bilingual. The point is for the members of the two language communities to have access to federal services.

      You're arguing that a quarter of our population should not have services in their language.

      Keep hoping. It's not going to happen.

      Delete
    7. No, I am not hoping for a Quarter of the population not to have services in their language. In fact, I am hoping that a Quarter of the population would somehow garner enough intestinal fortitude to separate themselves from the ROC. This would solve the language issues on both sides of a new border as well as many others issues. Of course this will never happen as Quebec is defacto broke with their 250 Billion dollar debt they have created themselves but want the ROC to bail them out with transfers and excess amounts of equalization payments.

      Of course your right, We will continue to waste money on the OLA at huge expense to stakeholders (read the majority anglo ratepayers in Canada) who really have no need for any of this program. We will also continue to send payments to the money pit of Quebec which has been going on since the inception of the equalization program in 1957. Hard to believe that such a vibrant "distinct" nation with a nation is so incredibly unproductive. (eg: GDP/capita is 55th worst of the 60 states and provinces in North America...) Of course this is quite typical of a welfare state.



      Pathetic situation.

      Delete
    8. "The point is not for the whole country to be bilingual. The point is for the members of the two language communities to have access to federal services."

      "You're arguing that a quarter of our population should not have services in their language."

      The problem is that far, far too many federal civil servants are required to be bilingual/French speaking. Federal services in French could be provided by considerably fewer bilingual staff. The OLA has been deeply abused with too much preference given to Francophones.

      Delete
    9. What would be an acceptable proportion of bilingual civil service members, according to you?

      In the non-Francophone west, only 5% of the civil workers need to be bilingual. Mostly front-line people who have to interact with the public, as well as top-level people who may need to correspond with french agencies.

      Most bilingual staff is located in Ottawa, Quebec and New-Brunswick, where it makes sense for them to be bilingual seeing as they may have to interact with french-only and english-only parts of the service or public members. The idea is that the federal public service be representative of the linguistic makeup of this country, and that people can work in french in some departments, as opposed to an english-only service that provides ground-level french services. But I guess that's open to debate.

      40% or so of the federal service is mandated to be bilingual, 52% is english essential. I think something like 5% is french essential and 3% can use either/or.

      According to you what would be the correct number of bilingual staff members? Should it rigidly match population makeup? Should it be according to need? How would you measure need? I ask this last one because many people, me included, sometimes use the english services instead of the french ones because the french ones have so few people manning them that one gets dramatically faster service in english. I've often done the test using my cellphone waiting on the french service and my landline waiting on the english service, using whichever one comes up first. Up to now it has always been the english service.

      Delete
    10. "(eg: GDP/capita is 55th worst of the 60 states and provinces in North America...)"

      Soyons positif,il y a quand même 5 états pires que nous en amérique :)

      Delete
    11. "In the non-Francophone west, only 5% of the civil workers need to be bilingual."

      According to the Office of the Official Language Commissioner, in Alberta, there are only 0.1% of the population that is French only (unilingual french) and 2.0% by mother tongue French. (whom most speak English)

      So, 5% is, from a practical perspectivde is way to much representation. Likely 1% would be a more reasonable figure.

      Same goes for BC, SK and MB and most of the maritimes other than NB.


      On a national basis , 40% is over the top as well as there are actually only 13% of the population that is unilingually French. This from the same source - OLA statistics.

      Figures don't lie. The French factor is way overepresented by the current mandates.

      Likely a bilingual component of 10% would be more appropriate Canada wide , rather than the 40% now mandated. Maybe 1 or 2% in the West and higher in Quebec and NB for an average of 10% throughout the country.

      Thats what the actual figures would tell us.

      Delete
    12. "According to the Office of the Official Language Commissioner, in Alberta, there are only 0.1% of the population that is French only (unilingual french) and 2.0% by mother tongue French. (whom most speak English)
      "

      "On a national basis , 40% is over the top as well as there are actually only 13% of the population that is unilingually French. This from the same source - OLA statistics."


      You're doing that thing again, where you think that the only ones who want services in French are the unilingual French. What about the bilingual French? Do we surrender our claim to French services when we learn English? Perhaps the bigots from Quebec who allegedly prevent the youth from learning English are on the right track. If we learn English, people will use that to deny us our rights. Too bad I can't unlearn it.

      (I'm only being slightly facetious)

      Delete
    13. Ok, then, lets use another norm.

      In Canada 17% of people claim to be bilingual..13% are unilingually franco (dont understand or don't wish to understand English).

      Then with 13% unilingual and 17% bilingual lets apply the average of 15%. You ok with 15% bilinguals in the civil service? Seems about right to me. Lets use a blended average across the country....1% in the West and proportionately higher in Quebec and NB...where there are substantial numbers of "francos".

      Of course on need to be serviced its only 13% and not the 40% mandated.

      Deny your f'king rights. What about my rights to not have the French factor forced down my throat, my prospects for employment limited under current mandate, as it is right now. French this, french that, faaack. Why don't you take the path that I suggested earlier as it would be much better for all concerned. Go ahead, comme ils dits, prendrez la porte. :) ou comme ils dits en anglais. f'k off.

      Delete
    14. I see. You are entitled to a job, so I get to not have services in the second major language of this country.

      Sounds fair to me.

      Questionable math in averaging 17% bilingual with 13% unilingual french, btw. Care to explain the logic?

      Finally, unfortunately for you I am not nor have I ever been a citizen of Quebec. As such, I am unable to vote for Seperation one way or another :( Luckily I can vote for politicians who will uphold the bilingual nature of this country :)

      Delete
    15. "I see. You are entitled to a job, so I get to not have services in the second major language of this country."

      What the hell does that have to do with it. If there is no need for bilingual (in this country French services) why should I be disciminated against for being part of the majority.

      "Questionable math in averaging 17% bilingual with 13% unilingual french, btw. Care to explain the logic?"

      Ok, I was trying to give you one. I stand by my reasoning ...by numbers if there are 13 percent unilingual francos then they need to have services in their language. Not 40. For the bilinguals I would assume the majority are French mother tongued with a few wannabe anglos thrown in. So , even if I weight the score to 13 plus 17% (assuming all bilinguals are French mother tongued) we only come up with 30%. Not 40% as mandated. Of course of the 17% bi's, if only half are french mother tonguged then it drops to about 20% for essential french services. In either case, a far cry from the 40% mandated by the OLA.


      "Finally, unfortunately for you I am not nor have I ever been a citizen of Quebec. As such, I am unable to vote for Seperation one way or another :( Luckily I can vote for politicians who will uphold the bilingual nature of this country :)"

      Well, I really don't give a sh*t where your from as it makes no difference to me. You continue to vote for what it is you want...Of course you are voting for something that has a cost but NO benefit for the majority of this country. Perhaps you should relocate to Quebec, I am sure the atmosphere and politics would suit you well. Y'a know, something paid for by others.

      Delete
    16. "What the hell does that have to do with it. If there is no need for bilingual (in this country French services) why should I be disciminated against for being part of the majority."

      But that isn't what you're doing. You're saying that your access to a job as a unilingual anglophone trumps my access to services as a francophone. You're the one discriminating here, not I. You think you should have access to ALL the jobs, regardless of whether or not you have the skill (french language) required for the job.

      That would be like saying that people who don't have a degree are discriminated against because the better jobs are only going to people with degrees.

      Furthermore, your argumentation is based on the statement that only unilingual Francophones "need" French languages. It implies that French services are intended as a crutch to the linguistically maladapted. It does not recognise the equality of French and English in our country, and it is a patently ignorant and oppressive stance.

      "Of course of the 17% bi's, if only half are french mother tonguged then it drops to about 20% for essential french services. In either case, a far cry from the 40% mandated by the OLA."

      Slightly less dubious math if you're taking the "census" route. At least you're no longer arguing that only unilingual francophones use French services. Of course you're still counting bilinguals who's first language is not French in the "English only" category. What about bilingual allos living in Montreal? Bet you some of them prefer French services.

      Regardless, the "census" approach is ridiculous. For instance, we have about 2% of this country who have no understanding of either French or English. With rising immigration this number is sure to rise for a little bit. Should we then scour the streets of Toronto for poor saps who know neither English nor French then, and fire them whenever they start making sense of their coworker's language?

      Amazingly, when you start thinking about staffing on the level of need, you don't necessarily tailor your employee roster to the precise demographics of the country. For instance, my home town of Moncton N-B has a lucrative industry of call centers. The reason why call centres settle in Moncton, N-B rather than somewhere else is because there is a great proportion of fluently bilingual people there that can offer service in either French or English. Such people count as two employees because they can switch from one language to the other. Why build two call centres, one French one English when you could build one bilingual one?

      Perhaps, before deciding all in your great wisdom all on your own that French services are stupid and useless in Canada, or at least grossly over-provided, you might want to read an audir on the subject? You might be surprised...

      Delete
    17. Yannick writes:

      But the purpose of the OLA is to provide bilingual services in either language, not to teach the whole of Canada french or get them to speak French in their homes. How then does french speaking at home have anything to do with the failure or success of the OLA?

      I think you are essentially correct, Yannick...with one exception.

      Part VII of the OLA goes beyond the mandate of providing federal government services in French and English to what I believe is "social engineering". It provides for "enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development..." This has nothing to do with federal government services and moves into the realm of the private sector.

      I believe it is unconstitutional. Although "language" does not appear in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a prohibited base of discrimination, a 2005 Supreme Court case may have established "language" as a prohibited base. I say "may" because I am not a lawyer and this is my interpretation of what they wrote in that decision. However, if my interpretation is correct, that would mean that it is discriminatory for the federal government to promote any language group in the non-governmental area.

      See: Part VII

      Delete
    18. We can debate that section, sure. I'm in favour of promoting the arts and culture myself; I don't see anything too nefarious in doing so in minority regions. Bet you section VII is used to promote St Patty's in Montreal just like it funds the Acadian Historical Village in New-Brunswick.

      I think in the end promoting these kinds of things brings us together as a nation, but like I said it's debatable.

      Delete
    19. "But that isn't what you're doing. You're saying that your access to a job as a unilingual anglophone trumps my access to services as a francophone."

      Absolutely not. Just by the numbers and proportional representation which is grossly biased to the French component of this country. When they talk about delivering services bilingually what they are really saying is delivering services in French. English is common and not a problem other than in Quebec. Bilingual essential has nothing to do with English.

      "It does not recognise the equality of French and English in our country, and it is a patently ignorant and oppressive stance."

      There is no equality...Canada is overwhelmingly anglo and the numbers are trending year to year. To even suggest they are equal is a gross exaggeration. Did you not comprehend the statistics I presented with regards to the state of usage of French in all provinces. Other than Quebec and NB it might as well not exist.


      I did not say that French services were stupid. What I said was to be provided in proportion to need. A logical stance. On the audir you quoted I wouldn't believe a GD thing that the Official Language Commissioner has to say...In fact Grahame Fraser is the Official Commissioner of promoting the French Language in Canada. If this office had any balls at all they would be challenging the Quebec language law bill 101 which discriminates against anglos. Of course they are mute on this subject, aren't they?
      Nearly 90 % of their budget goes to promoting the French language in Canada..This provided mostly by the anglo population, who receive absolutely no benefit from this program. I have had an extended communication with Mr. Fraser and his arguments are weak to say the least. Doesn't want to talk about the discrimination against anglos in the civil service where, in fact, there is no need for proficiency in French (all of Canada with the exception on two provinces).

      As I said before, the OLA is a total load of BS.

      As to your call centers in NB; I hope you get more so you can get off the equalization payments we graciously send to your bilingual province. Seems to be a common trait among provinces with a strong French element:)

      Just sayin. One more thing...take your french and stick it up "votre derriere".













      Census date should dictate to what level we apply bilingual services. No need, no service. Simply a matter of economics and practicality.

      I thought you might be a native to the only official bilingual province in Canada. How much am I subsidizing you on a per capita basis for your distinct folklore culture.? Further, how are the bilingual imperative sign laws going these days? Looks like the French in NB are now following the lead of the french language zealots of their bretheren in Quebec.

      Delete
    20. But you're unilaterally deciding what "enough" is, without any consideration to actual demand (i.e. people who walk in centres wanting french service).

      In order to provide bilingual service, there needs to always be at least one person that is bilingual. If there isn't they need to have them commute from another location while the citizen waits - sometimes up to 2-3 hours. This is what the audit I linked you says. Of course you won't read it - you've decided what the truth is, and you are trapped in your ignorance.

      If you won't listen to the Office of Official Languages, maybe you'll credit my experience? The service in French, no matter if in a call centre, airport, service centre, etc... is almost always slower and of poorer quality than the same service in English. The only time when it is equal is when the service is given by a francophone. This current state of affairs is due to the fact that up to now, despite the nominal requirements of the OLA, it has been more important to nurse the sensibilities of unilingual anglophones than provide actual, equal quality billingual service.

      By the way, "equal" does not mean "identical". It means "equal before the law" - the principle that one is not treated more poorly by the federal government when requesting services in French rather than English.

      And it's very intellectually dishonest to somehow insinuate that New Brunswick receives equalization payments on account of its bilingual nature when PEI, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Ontario also receive Equalization payments. In fact the poorest province of this country for the longest time was Newfoundland up and until they found oil- at which point they became one of the "haves" provinces. Coincidently Newfoundland is the most anglophone province in this country. I suppose that their anglophone work ethic magically manifested itself at the same time as the oil in the sea?

      Delete
  16. Content de ne pas être un canadien-anglais vivant à Montréal car ils ne sont pas au bout de leur peines,les pauvres.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another witless immature remark. Try saying something of substance for once if you are capable of it.

      Delete
    2. Une promesse ou une menace?

      Delete
    3. Une promace ou peut-être bien menesse,c'est comme vous voulez.

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous Wednesday, June 6, 2012 7:00:00 PM EDT

      Have you been playing with baking soda and envelopes lately? Just curious.

      Delete
    5. Par curiosité,avez-vous manipulé des enveloppes brunes dernièrement?

      Delete
    6. Only the ones in which I am mailing my check to Revenue quebec. You're welcome.

      Delete
    7. Évidemment...J'aurais dû m'en douter.

      Delete
  17. Watched in the news today.

    The Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, managed to to turn budget deficit of 3.6G$ into a projected 154M$ surplus without increasing tax. He did so by passing the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill. Can this model be applied to this province? Well, my alarm clock goes off, my dream is stopped, and I have to wake up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do hope so.

      You know, Paul Martin -- a man who created a surplus for the Canadian federal government for 11 years -- is greatly admired in certain segments of the Tea Party in the U.S. On more than one occasion, Michele Bachmann praised him publicly. Despite what the media would have you believe, the Tea Party is NOT made up of right wing yahoo's who are fundamentalist Christians. The Tea Party, for the most part, was created with one thing and one thing only in mind: put the breaks on wanton government spending and a demand that elected officials balance the budget. Indeed, their "protest" movement was as much, if not more, a reaction to the Republican overspending as it was to the Democrats. That fact is lost on many.

      I personally think they are the best thing that has happened in American politics in a long time.

      Delete
    2. @tony kondaks

      The tea party inception conveniently ignored the largest increase in government spending in American history under the Bush administration. It is highly partisan and has many racist elements. While it may have individual members that are not "right wing yahoos" they do not have control or influence over the "yahoos". Similar the Rene Levesque control over the rest of the PQ.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous writes:

      The tea party inception conveniently ignored the largest increase in government spending in American history under the Bush administration.

      They really didn't. They weren't formed after Obama became president but before...and the protest really was against Republican overspending as much as Democrat overspending.

      And they certainly did not ignore the largest increase in government spending under Bush; that is precisely why they were formed and why they keep defeating RINOs in primaries! Of course, Obama has now surpassed Bush in deficit spending in almost four years what it took Bush 8 years to accomplish.

      Anonymous further writes:

      It is highly partisan and has many racist elements

      I don't think so. I think it is highly ideological but not partisan...if they were, they would support the Republican Party more.

      Racist? Certainly, there are racist elements as there are in any party (all have nut cases). But compared to the Democrats -- and, particularly, the past acquaintances of Barack Obama -- they have a fraction of the racist elements.

      How are they supposed to control any yahoo's that show up at, say, a rally with posters they make as individuals?

      Delete
    4. I was under the impression that a majority of the "Obama Deficit" was carry-over of the Bush cuts to the top earners. A tax cut that the Tea Party prevented the Democrats from overturning, by the way.

      Delete
    5. Also, much as I didn't hate Paul Martin, the man mostly took out the deficit by turning EI into a tax and by reducing transfers to province - in effect sweeping the deficit under the rug. The origin of the so-called "fiscal disiquilibrium". He wasn't a messiah.

      Delete
    6. Yannick writes:

      I was under the impression that a majority of the "Obama Deficit" was carry-over of the Bush cuts to the top earners. A tax cut that the Tea Party prevented the Democrats from overturning, by the way.

      Actually, Bush's huge deficits were a result of both overspending (spending went up in Bush's eight years from about $2 trillion in Clinton's last year to over $3.2 trillion by the time Bush left office) and his tax cuts.

      But it wasn't the Bush tax cuts to the "top earners", as you write above, that added to the deficit. Bush lowered the rates on all of the five tax brackets in place at the time (even adding a sixth). The problem with Bush's tax cuts weren't that the highest tax brackets were lowered; doing this actually increased tax revenues to the treasury from those sources. The problem was that Bush cut the lower tax brackets as well, resulting in low income earners paying hardly any taxes at all.

      The politically incorrect reality is that poorer Americans are simply not paying their fair share of taxes whereas richer Americans are paying far, far more than their fair share.

      Delete
    7. Eh. I dunno, it makes sense that those who profit the most from the system also maintain it. But I'm probably showing my Lefty side by saying so.

      Delete
    8. Yannick writes:

      Eh. I dunno, it makes sense that those who profit the most from the system also maintain it...

      ...but that's my point: they do. Indeed, I feel that the U.S. rich contribute in taxes over and above the call of duty.

      And the statistics bear this out.

      Delete
    9. How so, Tony, since the nominal tax rate on the richest has never been this low? I'd like for you to explain your position.

      Delete
    10. Yannick asks:

      How so, Tony, since the nominal tax rate on the richest has never been this low? I'd like for you to explain your position.

      Sometimes, when you put tax rates lower, you actually collect more in taxes. Ronald Reagan demonstrated that in the '80s.

      The Laffer Curve postulates the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. See: The Laffer Curve

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  18. While I agree with you that the Liberal party needs rebuilding, I strongly believe that Bob Rae is the man to do it. I don't think associating him with "losership" is an accurate or mature analysis of his political strategicness or popularity.
    In terms of Quebec politics, I think a recreation of the New Democratic Party of Quebec is vital. With political tensions on the rise, we need a middleman to ensure the PQ will not govern again any time soon, and, if it does, at least not for long enough to do significant damage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I welcome a PQ victory.

      Let this separatist thing come to a head...once and for all.

      Delete
    2. Tony,

      You speak the truth for a spell and then wreck it with this PQ remark. They aren’t even in power yet continuously sabotage our country. How can you want those xenophobes back?
      Just because you left the swimming pool that is Canada don’t mean you have to dump raw sewage in it!

      Delete
    3. Of course, nothing excludes a possible majority of NDP MPs from Quebec in Ottawa and a majority PQ MNAs in Quebec City. What makes you so sure that that couldn't happen? We already voted (cocurrently) for Trudeau and Lévesque...

      Delete
    4. "I welcome a PQ victory."


      Yes, Quebec has to decide to either fish or cut bait. Same for the ROC with respect to the Quebec issue. The status quo in its current form must end.

      Delete
    5. The PQ needs to be kept at bay for 1 or 2 more provincial elections for demographic changes to continue in the Montreal area the way they are doing so.

      Delete
    6. "How can you want those xenophobes back?"

      Simple. He wrote a book and desperately wants his thesis vindicated.

      Although I have arrived at a conclusion similar to Tony's that Canada would do itself a favor by distancing itself from Quebec and that it will probably happen in the future, I still find Tony's "desperation" on the matter peculiar.

      Also contrary to Tony, I don't think the PQ's true intention is separation. Just look at the 2 referendum questions, at their claims that they'll keep Canadian currency, passport, unobstructed trade as if there was no border, maintain privileges for the dairy industry, etc...The PQ wants a mandate to pursue an increasingly more aggressive policy of concessions, privilege and asymmetry. And I don't want these crazed nationalist hacks in power for a day.

      The key to the problem is Canada. Canadian elites need new blood. The current elite is too stale, too engrained in the current system and profits from the status quo too much to effectuate any change. The new elites, on the other hand, could turn their backs on QC and treat it as a mere province. That kind of treatment could get QC to leave even under a PLQiste govt, so that PQists wouldn't even have to assume power. Or alternatively, it could get QC to reach a conclusion that the free ride is over and now it's time to reorient the policy to different issues.

      So the bottom line is that it's Canada that should separate (politically or just in attitude) from QC, not the other way around.

      Delete
    7. "Canadian elites need new blood"

      Pourquoi pas vous Adski?Vous me semblez la personne toute désignée pour ce job avec vos idées politiques révolutionnaires.

      Delete
    8. Apparatchik writes:

      Of course, nothing excludes a possible majority of NDP MPs from Quebec in Ottawa and a majority PQ MNAs in Quebec City. What makes you so sure that that couldn't happen? We already voted (cocurrently) for Trudeau and Lévesque...

      Not sure, Apparatchik, whether you are addressing that to me...but it is a scenario that I think it entirely possible. Indeed, I wrote a whole piece on the Huffingtonpost envisioning precisely that.

      See: Quebec could soon be gone.

      Delete
  19. "...for demographic changes..."

    La démographie ne changera rien à votre situation,c'est le manque de courage votre problème.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "La démographie ne changera rien à votre situation,c'est le manque de courage votre problème."

      Non monsiuer, Demographics is Destiny.

      Delete
  20. "Non monsiuer, Demographics is Destiny"

    Combien de millions d'anglos ça prend pour créer un parti politique?

    ReplyDelete
  21. How long did it take the Pur Laine chauvanists to create the Parti Quebecois despite huge advantage in Quebecois birthrates?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Notre cas est différent car nous sommes sous-éduqués mais vous...

      Delete
  22. 'I welcome a PQ victory.
    Let this separatist thing come to a head...once and for all.'

    I couldn't agree more. As long as we have the Libs in power it makes it easy for Federal governments to sweep Quebec issues under the rug as far as the ROC is concerned and maintain the illusion of a free and democratic Canada. It's a farce and a lie when it harbors a province like Quebec. The only way out of this is open conflict. Quebecers must be forced to chose between being Canadian ( and a return to bilingualism in the province and equality), or if they really want to be a separate political entity without Canadian money or support.
    Screw federal appeasement and provincial Liberal pandering at the table for scraps just because they won't hold a referendum. The politics of extortion have to end.
    If the PQ wins a referendum, send the province packing with the exception of Canadian interests in the province, the island of Montreal, its port and the corridor to Ontario.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Anonymous (although I have to be politically correct and say that I hope that any "open conflict" is not of the violent kind).

      Delete
  23. 'c'est le manque de courage votre problème.'

    Truth! 50 years of cowards in Ottawa and in the province of Quebec have sold out Canadian ideals of multiculturalism, equality and inclusion for all ethnicities living in this country. The federal government bears the brunt of the responsibility for how far the situation in Quebec has progressed. It's time to put an end to it.
    But the shame lies equally with the Quebecois who refused to rise on the side of equality but opted for the politics of exclusion and race. It's shameful to be a coward and ugly to be an intolerant bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Take away from Uncle Tom Mulcair and Pauline Antoinette Marois, the separatist plastic knife from the throat of Canada and watch Montreal overtake Toronto in less than a dacade!

    When you diss on Quebec, remember Montreal and some surrounding areas despite all that institutionalized racism, still kick ass! Those kinds of odds few have even wanted to overcome. Montreal is doing it alone!

    Time for TheEleventhProvince!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ça par exemple...

    "Courchesne hausse les subventions à des écoles privées délinquantes"

    http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/351891/courchesne-hausse-les-subventions-a-des-ecoles-privees-delinquantes

    ReplyDelete
  26. Seeing as there will be rapidly more asian languages in canada than francophone, why are we wasting time with french? After all, if this is about fairness and population, french is not at all the other lanuage that should be used in canada to be both fair and useful at all. Why are we even bothering? Where are the Cantonese modifiers on all our signs? Qc is so busy being racist against the british 'english' and also self absorbed they do not seem to notice that the rest of the population isnt becoming british or unilingually english at all... lol fail.

    ReplyDelete