DISQUS

Unconditionally?

They want to support the Kyoto agreement without any conditions whatsoever? They don't even want "economic viability" as a condition?

I also notice that the large majority of their policy proposals involve taxing Canadians ("provide financial support to" = taxes).

Hush! Obama is perfect in every way! Haven't you been listening to the news???

"Joining up with the NDP erodes the brand of both parties and upsets each ideological base."

Not necessarily. For a lot of their ideological base nothing is more important that defeating conservatives (like Harper). Working to defeat Harper might be just the glue they need to keep their party together.

Take, for example, the uniting of the right. The glue that brought (and held) the Tories together was a desire to end the Liberal dictatorship. Sure, they lost Orchards, Bachands and Brisons, but mostly survived intact. Why couldn't the left do the same? They certainly hate Harper and crave power at least as much as the Tories/Alliance did.

Wait a minute ... Carlin is accusing the 66 complainants of being partisan? Classy! That man is all class!

Also the word "naive" comes to mind. Is he naive enough to think that Erickson is actually unbiased, or is he naive enough to think that we are naive enough to believe it?

Typical CBC. Hey Flaherty, I know something you can sell to save a little money ...

Yes, but Dion has the support of all zero Green MPs. What a coup!

"Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and no will to effectively address this crisis."

Did they have the plan, competence and/or will during the election?
If yes: What changed in two months?
If no: The voters were obviously comfortable with that, so on what grounds can you replace them?

The coalition really owes the voters answers before doing something so drastic without asking us for a mandate.

They agree they want power.
They agree they hate Stephen Harper and Conservatives.

Beyond that, they don't agree on anything!

Layton wants to increase taxes, Dion thinks that's a reckless thing to do going in a recession.
Layton wants to spend $30 billion, Dion just criticised the Conservatives for spending their way into deficit.
Layton wants out of Afghanistan, Dion wants to complete the mission.

Of course, this is politics. And in politics, people change their minds.
Harper changed his mind about taxing income trusts, floor crossing, appointing members to Cabinet, fixed elections dates, etc.
Dion is changing his mind about negotiating with separatists, making distinctions between Canadians and Quebecers being different people, creating coalitions with the NDP, etc.
Duceppe changed his mind about leaving to lead the Parti Quebecois, and whether you can vote on something multiple times if you didn't like the initial result.
Layton is certainly entitled to change his mind about raising taxes in a recession, isn't he?

Agreed. Worst possible move.

We grant Quebec "nation" status, transfer 8.35 billion in equalization payments, and they vote Bloc Quebecois because we stopped increasing the investment into arts the culture? Please!

Liberals need to worry less about how to get elected and a lot more on how to become electable.

Stopping the characterization of one's peers as brainwashing propagandists would be a great start.

Don't you consider the use of the term LIEberal as insulting?

It is completely inappropriate for a Canadian federal party to take sides in a foreign election. Completely inappropriate. I'm surprised it's even legal.

It's also curious that they'd cheer on the Democrats when the Liberals just criticized Democrat policies when they were spoken by Liberal opponents in our own 2008 election.

Stephen, you should contact someone in the Liberal party about this - it's simply not appropriate, and wouldn't Stephane Dion agree?

The obvious thing for the Liberals to do is to unite the four parties of the left.

2008 was the worst Liberal campaign? No way. 2006 was worse. And 1984 Turner is in a whole different ballpark!

I'd sooner expect the Liberal party itself to endorse Harper before the Toronto Star would. The only other group that will more dependably support the Liberals is the CBC itself.

Admitting he doesn't understand something and asking for help from his team aren't exactly bad qualities.

Then again, understanding so little and needing so much help aren't good qualities.

It's amazing how US economics, over which one has no control, plays the largest factor in a prime minister's electoral fortunes.

Until now, I had no idea that attacking the policies of a neighbouring country was the key to an opposition party's electoral success.

Nope, these will backfire.

Don't get me wrong, these are very interesting, but they will backfire. Have to find another way to get this information to Canadians.

I missed this. I was too busy watching CBC, where every night's "Reality Check" concludes that the Conservatives are lying about everything they say.

I'm paying 100% for first-year undergrads? This sort of stuff frightens me.

This one little thing doesn't frighten me, but it's part of a pattern. A pattern of more and more people becoming dependent on the government for more and more things.

I don't like the government using money to make us do what they want. If some of these platforms were put in as written, you might have to surrender your children to daycare, your grandparents to a home care, your kids to a certain University (or curriculum). You might have to change jobs, or even industries - or even move! You might have to trade in your vehicle, and even your light bulbs, all because the financial incentives and disincentives the government has imposed to control your behaviour are so great that you can't afford to choose differently.

It's frightening to me. That policy may seem harmless, but it's part of a pattern that quite frankly scares the crap out of me.

Let people go to University, and be dependent only upon themselves, their talents, and their hard work.

Sorry Stephen, I know that wasn't the point of your post but I'm started to get really annoyed with a couple of weeks of politicians offering our money to some people, and taking it away from others.

I'm glad they're dropping it. As long as they promoted a costly environmental plan that only focuses on the least important environmental issue (and in a highly regionalized way), I simply could not even consider voting for them. If they agree to drop it, then maybe I'll listen to their other policies.

Is he going to rename his dog, too?

As a Hollywood celebrity, Matt Damon has far more authority to speak about politics than you, Stephen. As a millionaire paid to pretend to be other people on camera, he is obviously in a far better position to speak for the common person than you and me.

What does half of that have to do with the environment? This is more a socialist platform than an environmentalist platform. And we already have a socialist party. What is this, NDP Jr.?

P.S. Holy massive spending increase, Batman!

Why only a windfall profit tax on the oil industry? Why not a windfall profit tax on all industries? I never understood why we wanted to single out and punish the industry responsible for heat and transportation in a big, cold country ...