Who do you like for Liberal leader?

[larry Strong]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060830/ignatieff_brison_060830/20060830?hub=Canada


Ignatieff gaffe-prone: Liberal leadership rival
Updated Wed. Aug. 30 2006 11:28 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Michael Ignatieff was portrayed Wednesday as a gaffe-prone amateur by at least one Liberal leadership rival after the presumed front-runner was forced to clarify his latest controversial comment.

In the most pointed broadside yet against the acclaimed academic, Scott Brison said Ignatieff's repeated miscues suggest the rookie MP has poor political judgment and insufficient experience to lead a national party.

"These gaffes are damaging to a leadership campaign but they will be terminal to a national general election campaign," Brison said in an interview.

Brison's attack was prompted by what he called Ignatieff's "gaffe of the week" -- a refusal to commit to running in the next election if he doesn't win the party's leadership.

"Depends who's leader," Ignatieff told the Toronto Star's editorial board, adding that there are "all kinds of ways you can stay committed and involved and active in the Liberal Party of Canada, believe me, without being an MP."

Ignatieff clarified his intentions in an interview Wednesday with The Canadian Press.

"Let's be clear. I am planning to run in the next election in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I love being an MP and I've enjoyed it enormously and I'm looking forward to doing it again," said Ignatieff, who first won election last January.

He added that, whoever wins the leadership race, he will do whatever he can to help him or her defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the next election.

Asked why he didn't say that when the Star first asked, Ignatieff said he considered hypothetical questions about his political future should he lose the leadership contest to be moot.

"I feel I have good reason to believe I'm ahead in the race and I plan to win. So the hypothetical is not going to arise."

Only three weeks ago, Ignatieff had to douse another controversy, after saying he was "not losing sleep" over civilian deaths during the Israeli bombing of the Lebanese village of Qana. He admitted that remark was a mistake.

Still, Ignatieff dismissed suggestions that he's prone to making rookie mistakes.

"I'm running ahead. It doesn't feel like this is a rookie campaign to me."

Brison has made his share of mistakes, the biggest being sending an e-mail to a banker friend about pending changes in income-trust rules, which he admitted was a mistake.

However, Brison said that in nine years in politics he hasn't made as many "retractions and clarifications" as Ignatieff has made in just nine months.

Brison compared Ignatieff to Stockwell Day, who jumped from provincial politics to become leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance without any experience at the federal level.

Day's tenure at the helm of the Alliance, which eventually merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative party, was short-lived and disastrous.

Brison said Ignatieff is "smarter than Stockwell," now Harper's minister of public safety. But he added Ignatieff faces an even steeper learning curve, having spent almost 30 years out of the country as an academic and journalist.

Brison took Ignatieff to task for other recent so-called gaffes, including telling the Star that Canadians "live and operate in a heartless world and you need leadership that understands that."

"When you see the world as being heartless, that helps someone justify ruthless acts," such as Qana, Brison said.

He also chided Ignatieff for saying that Canada's peacekeeping tradition "died" with the genocide in Rwanda.

Brison said that remark could only come from someone who's spent 30 years outside the country and fails to appreciate how important peacekeeping is to Canadians and to Liberals in particular, who view party icon Lester Pearson as the father of peacekeeping.

He also scoffed at Ignatieff's recent admission that he's not sure he's "up to the price you have to pay" to succeed in politics.

"If you go in to have heart surgery and the surgeon says, `I think I'm ready to do this but I've never done it before,' you're probably going to look for a surgeon who's done it before," Brison said.

Gerard Kennedy, another leadership rival, said he's glad Ignatieff has clarified his intention to run for re-election, win or lose the leadership contest.

"You can only do this with a commitment to renewing the party," said Kennedy, who gave up an Ontario cabinet post to jump into the federal leadership race and has vowed to seek a seat in Parliament.

"First and foremost, before asking other people for their commitment, you've got to have your own clearly established."

Kennedy was more charitable than Brison about Ignatieff's lack of experience.

"I don't think Mr. Ignatieff pretends to have a lot of experience, per se. I think that's one of the things he would argue is offset by other attributes."

Another contender for the leadership, Ken Dryden, issued a statement critical of his rival before Ignatieff clarified his remarks.

"This is pitch-in time, get-mad time, do whatever needs to be done time," Dryden said. "Some things are more important than who is party leader ... this isn't a time to pick up your marbles and go home."

Now for the REAL leadership race

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is an excellent piece, from today’s National Post – reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act -  from long time Liberal stalwart Tom Axworthy  (see: http://www.queensu.ca/csd/people.htm )

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=2f13dcab-afdd-409a-83cb-fa4d69f1c2ae

Volunteers must take back the Liberal party


National Post

Thursday, August 31, 2006

To paraphrase Frank Underhill, a founder of the CCF and later a supporter of Lester Pearson, a party is a body of people who have done great things together in the past, and who hope to do great things together in the future. Even the Liberal party's severest critic would acknowledge that it has done great things for Canada in the past, but even the party's sunniest optimist might harbour doubts that the party today is capable of pulling together to do great things in the immediate future.

As the Liberal party heads into the final post-Labour Day leg of its leadership race, it must concern itself with offering Canadians not only a new leader, but also a refreshed policy platform.

Starting in September, party volunteers will begin the serious business of putting themselves forward as delegates in favour of a leadership candidate. Every member of the party will have the opportunity to vote for delegates committed to one or another of the aspirants, with the results to be determined proportionately. So the party is now in the ground-war phase of the leadership contest, in which delegate slates have to be recruited and supporters brought out to over 300 constituency meetings.

Choosing a leader is one of the few remaining functions left to our political parties' memberships. In almost every other domain, the role of the volunteer has been diminished, and that of the full-time professional increased.

Once upon a time, parties decided who would work in the civil service and who was to benefit from public works. In his classic 1930s articles on the functioning of the Canadian party system, Escott Reid wrote that "it was not simply that party workers wanted jobs for themselves; they wanted the feeling of power, which they got from their ability to find jobs for their supporters ... The motives which moved men to work for a political party are mixed: the motive might be money or prestige, or power, or the emotional relief." Reid told the story of a successful Conservative candidate in Nova Scotia in 1911 who received 3,900 votes, and after a fortnight's holiday returned to find 2,200 letters from his constituents asking for favours. But patronage, the overwhelming raison d'etre of parties in Reid's day, has been almost totally eliminated.

Initially, it was replaced with the trinity of leadership votes, candidate selection and policy choice. In 1919, Mackenzie King was the first leader to be elected by delegates rather than caucus; that same year, Liberal delegates approved a progressive policy platform that emphasized social equity.

The party's policy role could sometimes be definitive. In 1961, the Liberal party had a national rally to consider the results of the Kingston Thinkers Conference. As recounted by Tom Kent, pension reform was well down the priority list of the Kingston gathering. But grassroots Liberals at the national rally took up the cause, Lester Pearson listened and the Canada Pension Plan became a centrepiece of the Liberal platform.

This policy function, however, has atrophied. Leaders and their staffs, guided by polls, create policies on the fly and expect the party rank-and-file to acquiesce. Policy democracy has been replaced by leader plebiscites, or "plebocracy."

The central purpose of the Liberal Party Renewal Commission, which will soon come to a close, is to reverse this trend by restoring the policy relevance of the volunteer wing. Over 30 task forces, with an average of 10 active members, have spent months thinking about policy and consulting widely. As many as 2,000-3,000 Canadians have been involved in the process in some way. But the work of these groups is only suggestive: The party as a whole has the right to change, endorse or reject -- just as in 1961. The Renewal Commission has produced policy hors d'oeuvres; it is up to the new leader, the new national executive and the party as a whole to decide upon the main course.

After the new leader is chosen this December, there should be a day of deliberation in which every Liberal riding association meets to discuss the task force reports and to chart its own priorities. An experts' conference (Kingston II) should then flesh out the details of the platform. Finally, and most importantly, the party should hold a national rally to vote on and give legitimacy to the policy launch.

Now in opposition, the Liberal party cannot reform government. But it can reform itself. The best indicator of whether it deserves another chance to govern Canadians will be how it governs itself.

Thomas S. Axworthy is one of the co-chairmen of the Liberal Party Renewal Commission.

© National Post 2006​

I am not a supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada; I did vote Liberal until 1967 because I could not abide Diefenbaker’s populism which leads, inevitably, to what Axworthy calls the plebocricy and I agree with him that it is an abomination.  It drove policy, about 99.5% of it – as far as I could see, in the Trudeau and Chrétien eras; I think it drove 95% of Mulroney’s policies; I don’t think Martin ever had any policies – just poll driven responses.

Like Axworthy I think the Liberal Party of Canada is a great national institution which, overall – even counting Trudeau, has done marginally more good than harm.

I like Axworthy’s prescriptions: riding associations to consider policy and then seize control of their parties, from the back-room boys, then national policy conferences to recommend and national conventions to decide the party’s policies.  Parties – and I include the Conservatives in this – need to go one step farther: they need to adopt one of the populist positions – recall.  The party leadership reviews and conventions must have teeth: the grassroots must regain and then hold control so that the party can select and then retain or reject its leader – even when (s)he is the sitting prime minister.

The problems Axworthy describes are consequences of Lord Acton’s famous dictum: power doesn’t just corrupt, it seeks to become self-sustaining and real policies are, generally, anathema to those who seek power for its own sake.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Hmmmm; two posts in a row.  Oh well, there’s no alternative:

Normally I would never bother anyone with the ravings of the Ottawa Citizen’s resident loony-left wing-nut Susan Riley but she has one good point today.  Her column from 11 Sep 06, with my emphasis added, is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=38da6308-e21e-48f9-a279-215c7c3b6424

Liberals' tower of babble

Susan Riley

The Ottawa Citizen
Monday, September 11, 2006

It is hard to imagine anyone but the most zealous partisan sitting through two hours of a Liberal leadership debate like the one that unrolled in Quebec City yesterday.

Bad enough that there are 10 candidates -- more than enough for a shouting match, but too many for thoughtful discussion of complicated issues. Add the fact that most were functioning (badly) in their second language, and proceedings verged, at times, on farcical. Whenever debate threatened to get interesting, the moderator intoned: "That's all the time we have." Or a secondary candidate would intervene in a French that was equally incomprehensible in the original and in translation.

To inject spark into what has so far been a low-energy affair, the party experimented, for this third encounter among the contenders, with a series of mini-debates, each featuring three of the candidates, chosen by lot. Each triplet was given a different question.

While admirably fair, the system backfired badly. We got Bob Rae's views on child care, but not Michael Ignatieff's. Ignatieff and Stephane Dion faced off (with Hedy Fry interfering persistently) on regional development -- but didn't substantially disagree. Gerard Kennedy, Scott Brison and Ken Dryden did tangle on the environment, with Brison under pressure to say whether he believes Canada can meet its Kyoto commitments. He first said it would be "difficult," then said it might be "possible" before he was saved by the bell.

On the key issue facing the country, however -- Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan -- there was no direct confrontation among presumed front-runners. We know already that Ignatieff supports Stephen Harper's plan to leave troops in Afghanistan until 2009. Rae has called for discussion with our NATO partners about the direction of the mission. And Stephane Dion didn't have much to say on the subject yesterday. Too bad, because voters need help penetrating the nuances of the Liberal position, or positions, on the war.

On the other hand, we know what Fry, Joe Volpe and Martha Hall Findlay think because they got the security question -- and, once again, the unheralded Findlay, an anonymous Toronto lawyer until a few months ago, was impressively plainspoken. (She doesn't think Canada should withdraw unilaterally, but wants to start talks within NATO about what the war is supposed to accomplish .)

Because of the rigidity of the format, candidates are reduced to slipping their wedge issues, or carefully rehearsed knock-out blows, between the cracks.

Ignatieff, for instance, chose his closing remarks to defend his promise to reopen constitutional negotiations to secure Quebec's signature. That drew boos from the audience and, no doubt, private smiles in the Rae and Dion camps. Both speak passionately against reopening the constitutional file for fear of courting another costly failure.

Meanwhile, is there a way of fixing the format before the Vancouver debate next weekend? Yes. Candidates whose French ranges from mediocre to atrocious should withdraw at once. Carolyn Bennett is nervous, unfocused, and cannot speak compellingly in French. She should go. Same with Fry, whose French is bookish and limited. Ditto for Dryden, unless he believes the next Liberal prime minister doesn't have to be at least as fluently bilingual as Harper. That means goodbye and back to language school for Brison, too. Kennedy should pull out as well, not just because of his spotty French, but because of his general lightness of being.

That leaves Rae, easily the most poised, experienced and believable candidate. His problem is that he often behaves more like a bemused observer than a participant in the race. Ignatieff deserves to stay on the strength of his brains, his organization and his bilingualism. His problem is his vision, which seems, by turns, improvised or too conservative. Dion easily has more verve than any of his competitors -- plus a fluid grasp of the issues. His English is stilted, however. As for Joe Volpe and Hall Findlay, every race needs also-rans and both have the poise, and ability in French, to contribute to future debates.

But if the non-bilingual candidates don't co-operate ( and why would they?) the Liberal party will have to do something before its own brand is tainted.

The Quebec debate was amateur hour and must have been an embarassment to the candidates, all of them impressively accomplished. It is hard to see a credible prime minister emerging from such a gong show.

Susan Riley's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email sriley@thecitizen.canwest.com

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006​

First: you must leave aside the fact that Riley is a Bob Rae partisan.

Second you must leave aside the fact that she is biased: Brison’s accented French is unacceptable – it seemed, to Anglo me to be clear and correct, albeit somewhat ”stilted” - but Dion’s fractured English is, somehow, acceptable (“stilted”?, common, Riley, get real, even stumble-mouth Gordon O’Connor seems well spoken by comparison).

That being said the essentially unilingual candidates should withdraw.

IF I was one of Ken Dryden’s advisors, and I, most assuredly, am NOT, here is what I would tell him to say:

Fellow Liberals, fellow Canadians: I regret to announce that I must withdraw from the Liberal leadership campaign.

I do so on one issue, only: language.

I entered this race because I want to make Canada a better country, for all Canadians and I believe the Liberal Party of Canada is the agency most likely to allow someone like me to do that.  I entered this race with good ideas; better ideas, I still believe, than those being proposed by my colleagues.  My problem is that I cannot communicate and explain those ideas to about 20% of Canadians.  I believe in a bilingual Canada and I believe that the leader of the Government of Canada must be able to explain things to all Canadians, in the official language of their choice – not perfect and unaccented, but clearly and comprehensibly.  I cannot do that, neither can some of my colleagues.  As you could see last Sunday I cannot communicate my ideas effectively – not to Canadians, not even to some of the Liberal Members of Parliament I aspired to lead.

I am not announcing my support for any other candidate – not yet, anyway.

There are still many weeks of campaigning left and there are many, many things which my colleagues NEED to address before I will support one or another of them and, I suggest, before Canadians will believe that we Liberals have been open and honest with them.

I want to highlight one of those issues: foreign and defence policy.

Canadians are worried and confused about the direction and implementation of our foreign policy and about the deployment and employment of our Canadian Forces.

I would remind you of Isaiah Berlin’s hedgehog vs. fox analogy: the slow moving, albeit diligent hedgehog has ‘one big idea’ while the quick, bright fox has many.  We need, and Canadians want, a fox-like foreign policy: we do not need the NDP’s hedgehog like focus on one single, albeit double barrelled issue: anti-American/anti-capitalism; nor do we need the Conservative’s equally diligent attempt to support America, right or wrong.

America is, as it must be, at the centre of our foreign policy.  We Liberals have, too often, been too cute by half, trying to ignore the elephant in the bed.  America is the most important country in the world; it will remain so for many years to come.  It is our neighbour and our friend - we must never be afraid to announce, proudly and loudly, that America is our friend.  It is, also, by an overwhelming margin, our most important trading partner.  Our prosperity – the real prosperity of tens of millions of ordinary Canadians - is tied, directly, to our trading relationship with our American friends.

When American policy is right – not just for America, but for Canada, too - as, thankfully, it so often is, we must never be afraid or unwilling to stand up beside our American friends and say: “we’re with you.”  But, President Bush was wrong when he said that countries had to be either for or against America.  Many countries, including Canada, are America’s firm friends but are not willing or able – and are not required – to march along in lock-step when we disagree in principle with America’s policies or when we calculate that policies which might be in America’s best interests are inimical to Canada’s best interests.  Then, as friends, we can, indeed must provide a loyal opposition for our friends: respectfully, but firmly.

I believe we, Liberals, were right to deploy Canadian troops into combat operations in Southern Afghanistan.  I voted against the Conservative motion to extend the mission because I think Stephen Harper called the debate to embarrass Liberals, not to refine Canadian policy.  That being said I believe we do need to stay the course in Afghanistan after we have refined, in our own Parliament and with our allies, the aim and scope of our commitment and after we have satisfied ourselves that the mission and tasks we are assigning to our military people are achievable.

There are many, many good reasons for Canada to support the people and the lawfully elected government of Afghanistan in their struggle to fight off the barbaric Taliban.  They go beyond George W Bush’s poorly conceived war on terror; they go directly to Canadian values like liberty, justice and equality – values we want to share with everyone in the world.

I wish my Liberal colleagues well.  I will be listening carefully to hear how and how well they address all the issues of concern to Canadians.

Riley is right: there are too many unqualified, by the Liberal Party’s own definition, candidates and the Party and the public would be well served if some would withdraw, sooner rather than later.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My view is that Bill Graham and Michael Ignatieff are the only ones with a clue and I hope they don't get in. They should quit and join the CPC or take over the NDP.

 

[RangerRay]

Ken Dryden is incomprehendible in English too!  Listening to him speak is like listening to a university sociology professor on valium!

 

[a_majoor]

What party does Bob Rae belong to again?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060921.wxrae21/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060921.wxrae21

Rae gave money to NDP candidates as recently as 2006
BILL CURRY

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Bob Rae, the man who many Liberals believe will lead their party into the next election, donated money to the New Democratic Party as recently as January.

The donations, made to two NDP candidates in the election of last Jan. 23 and to two other NDP candidates in the 2004 election, surfaced yesterday on the websites of Liberal supporters.

Mr. Rae's leadership bid appears to be facing greater scrutiny in light of a Strategic Counsel survey of Liberal members conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV and released this week. The survey put Mr. Rae in a close second place to Michael Ignatieff in the race for the Liberal leadership, but indicated that Mr. Rae would have more room to grow after the first ballot.

Elections Canada records show that on Jan. 20, Mr. Rae donated $300 to NDP candidate Irene Mathyssen, who won the previously Liberal riding of London-Fanshawe in Southern Ontario. NDP candidate Rochelle Carnegie, who lost to long-time Liberal MP Jim Peterson in Willowdale, Ont., received $250 from Mr. Rae on Dec. 22.

Mr. Rae also donated $300 to Liberal MP John Godfrey in Toronto's Don Valley West riding on Jan. 16 and $500 to the riding association of former foreign-affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew in October of 2005.

In the 2004 campaign, Mr. Rae donated $250 to each of two NDP candidates who are now MPs -- Tony Martin in Sault Ste. Marie and David Christopherson in Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Mathyssen, Mr. Martin and Mr. Christopherson were all NDP members of the Ontario legislature when Mr. Rae was premier between 1990 and 1995.

Mr. Rae was not available to comment on the donations, but campaign spokesman Alex Swann said Mr. Rae considered them to be donations to individuals rather than their party.

"Bob has spoken at length and on many occasions for years about his split with the NDP and what is wrong with that party, so his support for any candidate is the result of personal and not political ties," Mr. Swann said. Several Liberal MPs, including supporters of other candidates, said they were not concerned about the donations.

"I believe our tent is a big tent and we should be welcoming everyone," said Liberal MP Paul Zed, who supports Mr. Ignatieff. "What it says is that a lot of people who have historically supported the New Democratic Party are uncomfortable there." But not all Liberals were as understanding. Leadership rival Gerard Kennedy said he was surprised to hear of the donations.

"I was given to understand . . . that he had disassociated himself with the party some years ago, not just at the start of the race. So I'd be very interested to see what [his] explanation looks like," he said.

Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis also said he has problems with the donations. "Playing the field until you sort of decide where you're going and say, 'There's an opportunity here for me,' I think doesn't sound right by a lot of people," he said.

Ms. Mathyssen said she was under the impression that Mr. Rae donated to her campaign in January because he wanted more NDP MPs in the House of Commons.

"For him to say he believes in NDP candidates and is willing to support them, to switch and go to another party is absolutely unbelievable, unspeakable," she said.

A blogger suggests that Bob Rae may actually be a trojan horse for the Creitien wing of the Liberals. I don't know how probable this is, but people in the know might take a closer look:

http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/08/21/1439

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

My politics tend to be a little left of center.  Especially on socail issues,  but with that said I kind of like the idea of Scott Brison  being the next Prime Minister.  This man not only ran for the Conservative leadership and then crossed the floor,  he is now running for the Liberal leadership!  I like Peter MacKay on a personal level,  but I do get a bit of a kick when I see him make that prune face,  which if Scott Brison  became PM I'd see daily :-D  ( I know it is not a good reason to support anyone,  but since they're all liberals and will do anything they like regardless of their campain promisses,  I say choose the one you know will at least be interesting)  On that note Hedy Fry seems interesting. 

 

[RangerRay]

EDIT: Liberal, NDP, they are two sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned.

A blogger suggests that Bob Rae may actually be a trojan horse for the Creitien wing of the Liberals. I don't know how probable this is, but people in the know might take a closer look:

http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/08/21/1439

Well, Baw Brae does have close connections to the Desmarais/Power Corp. cabal, just as Chretien had, and I've heard that many of Chretien's former backers are now backing Baw Brae...sounds like this race will be a coronation for him.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Bob Rae could pull it off,  inside the Liberal party.  But here in Ontario I still see people (both Liberal and NDP) who look like they want to Spit when they say his name to wash the filth from their mouths.  A bob Ray victory would be heaven sent to the Conservatives,  who could destroy him with his own record.  Also the NDP would enjoy taunting him like they taunted Treadu (another former NDPer)

I still Like Scott Brison.  I don't know much about him,  but I'd laughf so hard id he won.  Who else could defeat the Tories?

 

[TCBF]

"On that note Hedy Fry seems interesting."

- Other than the fact she considers all rural Canadians rascists - do you recall the crosses burning in Prince George fiasco?

"We can just go to British Columbia in Prince George, where crosses are being burned on lawns, as we speak."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060828.wxprofilefry28/BNStory/National/?pageRequested=2

http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex20010327.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1027382920463_22792120//

 

[a_majoor]

"On that note Hedy Fry seems interesting."
-

Perhaps this was in the Chinese sense, as in "May you live in interesting times" (ancient Chinese curse).

 

[a_majoor]

More interesting commentary:

http://conservativeelitist.blogspot.com/2006/09/new-liberal-juggernaut.html

The new Liberal juggernaut?

Liberals are not dumb people, but I have to question if their brains have taken a vacation – there is word Bob Rae may closing in on Ignatieff in the race to replace Bill Graham. Recently, I said Ignatieff won’t win because he is incapable of climbing down from the ivory tower and into the real world, but I also mentioned in the same post that the Liberals would never choose Bob Rae because of his disastrous record. Perhaps some people need remind just how disastrous it was.

1. From 1990-1995 Ontario’s GDP grew by a total of only 7.1%, including 3 years of negative growth. During the previous five years (1985-1989) the economy grew by 20.1% with no years of negative growth.
2. During Rae’s tenure as premier, Ontario’s unemployment rate rose from 6.3%-8.7%, peaking at 10.9% in 1992.
3. The Rae government was the first since the Depression that presided over a five year period where there was a net loss of jobs
4. Ontario families were 6.9% poorer in 1995 than 1990, with average family income decreasing by over $4,000
5. Rae tripled the provincial debt, by running $10-billion+ deficits – placing a massive fiscal burden on Ontario today

Some Rae supporters will say it was the recession, not Bob Rae that caused these problems. They are correct that the recession caused problems, but Bob Rae’s policies made them worse. Under his leadership, Ontario lagged behind the rest of Canada economically.

1. Ontario raised their payroll taxes from about 4.5% - 8% under the Rae government
2. Rae increased the minimum wage by 19%
3. Rae raised welfare benefits so high that some workers were better off on welfare than they were working (a single mother of two would get the equivalent of $10/hour from welfare, while minimum wage was ~6.80)

Raising taxes reduces the money supply, which is about the worst thing a government can do during a recession because people will spend less. (interpolation by me: Incorrect. Raising taxes reduces incentives to work and earn more. The money supply is independent of taxation, and is controlled by the buying and selling of government securities by the Bank of Canada)

Raising the minimum wage creates more unemployment – especially among low income workers. This further hurts the economy.

High welfare benefits cost working people and businesses a lot of money, while providing a disincentive to work. This has disastrous effects on employment and the economy. The proof is in the pudding – during the Rae years small employers were far worse off in Ontario than the rest of Canada. The same is true for almost any other economic statistic over those years.

Clearly new politicians should be judged on their ideas, but seasoned ones should be judged on their record. Bob Rae’s record in high office was a complete disaster, for the people of Ontario – especially low-income working people and small businesses. After a performance like his, Rae should never be in high office again, as he has proven himself utterly incompetent.

The Liberals know all the facts, and they have plenty of choice at the convention. Rae’s support really makes me wonder what’s in the Kool-Aid they’ve been drinking.

If this is the best the Liberals can come up with, the only hope for them is either the Taliban attack the Canadians with nuclear weapons, or Prime Minister Harper makes some kind of huge gaffe like the now former president of the CBC......

 

[a_majoor]

And of course, we must not forget Joe Volpe:

 

[BernDawg]

Liberal...  Leader....  hehe... ha ha ha  BAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

:rofl:

 

[Teflon]

Liberal...  Leader....  hehe... ha ha ha  BAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

:rofl:

+1

 

[Shamrock]

Haven't read the previous seven pages, but will gladly answer the headline.

A Conservative.

 

[TCBF]

I still think Martha Hall Findlay would be the best move they could make.  But, they won't.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I still think Martha Hall Findlay would be the best move they could make.  But, they won't.

You never know - I am waiting for the third ballot...

 

[a_majoor]

If there is any hope for the Liberal party, it lies in the appointed Senators. Evidently, Mr Creitien ensured some quality people were appointed to the upper chamber:

http://socialistgulag.blogspot.com/2006/10/these-are-my-kind-of-liberals_05.html

These are my kind of Liberals

As shocking as it is there are some Liberals who haave a common sense approach on national security. The Liberal-dominated Senate released it's latest report on Canada's foriegn policy, military capabilities & national security. It featured four main points:

1) Canada should sign on to American Missile Defence Shield: This is such a no-brainer that you' have to be a world class dope not to understand the value of BMD, especially in light of the recent reports of North Korea potentially on the verge of initiating a nuclear bomb test. It won't cost us any money, we get the final say on shooting down in coming missiles over Canadian military & it makes Canadaa safer. It's time to act.

2) Canada needs to increase it's military spending even more: The CPC government has made much progress in the area, but there still needs to be more done to properly rebuild the CF. I dunno if we need 30 billion/yr, but we do need more. But more important is to improve the procurement process, which is inefficient as hell, to ensure we get value for the money we spend.

3) Ditch the Navy Arctic Icebreakers: Completely agree again. I think the plan for Navy icebreakers is going kinda overboard. A much better plan is to give the Coast Guard expanded capabilities & to arm CG vessels to let them do the job. They've been doing a good job for years. A more sensible approach would be to expand their mandate.

4) The Defence Minister should have fast track spending authority: This is one thing I strong disagree with. We need strong oversight on how we spend tax dollars. To give this kinda money with virtually no checks on how its spent isn't wise. I've learned my lesson from the AdScam, so should the Senate.

5) Double the Amount Spent on Foriegn Aid: On this I agree too. I'm all for kicking butt & taking names, but I am a results oriented kinda guy first & foremost. We need a comprehensive foriegn policy. Those who suggest that military force is useless in dealing with whatever trouble flares up around the world are fools. But so are those who dismiss foriegn aid. If money isn't spent on schools in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan, then the Islamofascists will move right in, set up a Madrassa & churn out the next generation of terrorists. Aid spending is as important a weapon in the War on Terror as whatever we have in our military arsenal & we shouldn't take its importance lightly.

But from looking over the report, one must wonder what the Liberal left & their MSM sycophants must be feeling right about now. This report, combined with the defence report done for the Liberal Renewal Commission by David Collenette among others, calls for more defence spending, support for the Afghan mission & has dismissed the whole notion of Pearsonian peacekeeping as being relevant in the 21st Century & wondering if the propoganda spewed by the LPC over the years regarding foriegn affairs needs to be stepped up again so that Canadians don't get a dose of reality & realism.

But it appears to me that there is a growing trend of Liberals who are firmly rooted in reality when it comes to the modern world & the threats this country face. Here's hoping they come to dominate the party.

All these points are open to debate, of course, and reasonable people might disagree with some of the stands the Liberal Senators take. I am not a big fan of "Foreign Aid", given it breeds dependency rather than self sufficiency, and I certainly hope "fast track" isn't taken to mean "Carte Blanche". Over all, though, it seems there is a grown up apprieciation towards these matters in the Upper House.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Haven't read the previous seven pages, but will gladly answer the headline.

A Conservative.

:rofl: :cheers: