Liberal Party of Canada

491 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

yes, about 10%

Pondering

Just because many Liberals voted NDP once or twice doesn't mean they now identify as NDPers. Demonizing liberals only serves to alianate potential supporters.

Alberta will separate from Canada before allowing the oilsands to be shut down.

Most Canadians want trade deals even if we are concerned about particular aspects of them.

The Liberal party is the only party that supports legalization of marijuana.

socialdemocrati...

Pondering, is that it? Do you want a Conservative party who also supports legal marijuana? Do you want the same oil sand policies with a nicer spokesman? Or is there some real tangible thing you'd like the government to accomplish?

BTW, pardon my skepticism, but you start to sound like a Liberal hack when you say that Canadians want trade but are concerned with the particulars. That's pretty much the approach of the NDP under Jack Layton and continued under Mulcair. Have the Liberals or Conservatives ever criticized any of the particulars?

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal party is the only party that supports legalization of marijuana.

If they were to form a government in 2015, you can bet the farm that they would renege on this promise, just as they did on all the major promises in the old Red Book. Liberals never keep their election promises.

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Pondering, is that it? Do you want a Conservative party who also supports legal marijuana? Do you want the same oil sand policies with a nicer spokesman? Or is there some real tangible thing you'd like the government to accomplish?

BTW, pardon my skepticism, but you start to sound like a Liberal hack when you say that Canadians want trade but are concerned with the particulars. That's pretty much the approach of the NDP under Jack Layton and continued under Mulcair. Have the Liberals or Conservatives ever criticized any of the particulars?

I don't buy the line that Trudeau is "Harper with a smile".  Trudeau came out against the Northern Gateway and he has complained that the trade deals are too opaque making it impossible for citizens to determine if the deals are good or bad.

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal party is the only party that supports legalization of marijuana.

If they were to form a government in 2015, you can bet the farm that they would renege on this promise, just as they did on all the major promises in the old Red Book. Liberals never keep their election promises.

Liberals have done some great things for Canada and I am not buying the line that they "never" keep their election promises. There is not a government in Canada that ht asn't broken election promises. To get them to keep this commitment we will have to hold their feet to the fire. At least they have declared themselves in favor of legalization and they are the only party to have done so.

PrairieDemocrat15

Pondering wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal party is the only party that supports legalization of marijuana.

If they were to form a government in 2015, you can bet the farm that they would renege on this promise, just as they did on all the major promises in the old Red Book. Liberals never keep their election promises.

Liberals have done some great things for Canada and I am not buying the line that they "never" keep their election promises. There is not a government in Canada that ht asn't broken election promises. To get them to keep this commitment we will have to hold their feet to the fire. At least they have declared themselves in favor of legalization and they are the only party to have done so.

Yes, the Liberal Party has done a lot of great things for this country. However, if people Liberals like Pearson and Trudeau were alaive and in politics today they would probably support the NDP. In fact, I think those two men were left of the post-Broadbent NDP on the political spectrum. The post Turner Liberals have done little to distinguish themselves from the Cons.

Yes, all governments break election promises, but the Red Book was an infamous fib. It was the largest policy book ever put out by a party and contained tons of progressive reforms. That is what Canadians voted for after several long years of Brian. The Liberals did not deliver.

Pondering

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:
Yes, all governments break election promises, but the Red Book was an infamous fib. It was the largest policy book ever put out by a party and contained tons of progressive reforms. That is what Canadians voted for after several long years of Brian. The Liberals did not deliver.

How many leaders ago was that? Most peole are thinking a lot more in the present tense.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

But if the Liberals didn't deliver then, and Paul Martin's people are still very much in control, like the moronic Scott Reid, why would anyone in their right mind want to vote for the Trudeau Liberals and be fooled again?

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Scott+Reid+case+Jean/8527087/story.html

Paul Martin is not in charge; Justin Trudeau is. That he has some of the same people working for him doesn't mean he is the same as Paul Martin. He also has many people working for him who have nothing to do with Paul Martin.

NorthReport

But if the Liberals didn't deliver then, and Paul Martin's people are still very much in control, like the moronic Scott Reid, who spends the better part of his time attacking other Liberals, why would anyone in their right mind want to vote for the Trudeau Liberals and be fooled again?

Ever since Martin enacted the putsch that forced Chretien out, the Liberals have made a very sharp turn to the right, and basically have been joined at the hip with the Harper-Conservatives.

Scott Reid: A case of de-Jean vu In character and circumstance, Harper is looking more and more like Chrétien every day

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Scott+Reid+case+Jean/8527087/story.html

NorthReport

So what?

Paul Martin represented the one percenters and so does Justin.Trudeau. Birds of a feather flock together.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

So what?

Paul Martin represented the one percenters and so does Justin.Trudeau. Birds of a feather flock together.

I don't agree that he represents the one percenters to the exclusion of all others.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

So what?

Paul Martin represented the one percenters and so does Justin.Trudeau. Birds of a feather flock together.

I don't agree that he represents the one percenters to the exclusion of all others.

Pondering

I don't want to be accused of being a "hit and run" driver so as I mentioned when I started posting this will be my last night for awhile. I will still read any responses. I just won't have anything to add.

NorthReport

No kidding!

Justin Trudeau’s speaking fees suggest expertise is overrated

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/17/kelly-mcparland-justin-tr...

janfromthebruce

Like activism, public speaking has no stringent qualifications or demands for previous experience (other than an ability to keep the audience from nodding off).  The same could be said for a political career: the ability to get elected by definition makes one a politician. Trudeau can thus brag of three careers, activist, politician, speaker, which require no particular expertise or background. Given that he made $1.3 million as a speaker, charged $20,000 per appearance, is paid $160,000 as an MP and gets an extra $54,000 as Liberal leader, it tends to suggest the benefits of experience and professional qualifications are drastically overrated.

To wrap it, Trudeau doesn't have any particular experience or qualifications beyond the Trudeau name. For him to judge others, like newly elected youth MPs as unqualified to represent is a bit rich coming from a guy with the liberal silver spoon up his butt. It was that hypercritical judgement that one should be offended by, in my view.

Youth become empowered, who are leaders now, and there should no conditions in your leadership capacity (unless of course you are a newly elected youth NDP MP).

 

socialdemocrati...

When someone's reason for voting Liberal is a series of Liberal talking points, and not any specific issue, I pretty much stop engaging with them. They're not here to discuss. They're here to be the echo chamber.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

When someone's reason for voting NDP is a series of NDP talking points, and not any specific issue I find their analysis brilliant and insightful. Babble keeps me up to date on the NDP talking points.

Wink

If the "talking point" lists are at all comprehensive it seems to me that most political issues would show up as talking points on all the party's lists so no matter what one says it could be said to be some political party's talking point. Is the talking point list in question an official Liberal list and if so could you share it?  Or is it just an informal list that includes any and all positive points about the Liberals.

 

gadar

Libs are promising to legalise marijuana and can not be trusted as they have a track record of breaking promises.NDP is not promising to legalise but they can be expected to do the right thing when/if they are in power.

Meanwhile the people who need the herb to function normally are being systematically deprived of it

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/21/marijuana-health-canada-regulations-growing_n_2735645.html

Quote:

"Right now the cost to me growing is probably a dollar a gram. At $8.80 a gram it's pretty clear I won't be able to afford it. It will leave me without a cheap source of medication."

Now we can go back to discussing how great NDP is and how poor Trudeau's speaking skills are,  as they are more important issues than people being forced to live in pain and misery as the medication they use is being put out of reach. It has become all about the talking points as mentioned above. SMFH

NorthReport

Trudeau's speaking fees are an excellent example of class warfare.

This issue justs continues to point out the growing monstrocity of a gap between the rich and the poor in Canada and we all know whose side the Trudeau Liberals are on.

Media Party spiked Trudeau speech story and now go on attack to defend him

It turns out that the Liberal shills inside the Ottawa Press Gallery originally had the story that the Grace Foundation charity was asking for a refund from Trudeau and decided not to run it but now that it is out, are in full-damage control mode.

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/media-party-spiked-trudeau-speech...

gadar

There is also this but we can ignore it as it wont fit the narrative

"Grace Foundation Charity That Asked For Trudeau Cash Back Has Tory Ties"

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/18/grace-foundation-charity-conservatives-trudeau_n_3459566.html?ref=topbar

Quote:

Grace Foundation board member Judith Baxter's husband, Glendon Baxter, is director of the Fundy Bay Conservative Riding Association. Glendon Baxter has also contributed nearly $700 to the party since 2009..

What’s more, Judith Baxter has twice been appointed by the Harper government to four-year terms on the Canadian Museum of Civilization’s board.

A Facebook photo that may show Judith Baxter and her daughter posing in the prime minister’s office also made the rounds on social media last weekend, though the authenticity of the shot has not been confirmed.

According to a tweet in the article, the picture in question as taken 2 weeks before the letter to Trudeau asking for a refund was sent.

 

NorthReport

My goodness.

This has quickly become a public-relations nightmare for the Liberals.

Trudeau needed to refund all the his speaking fees money yesterday, but trying to do it now I suppose, is better late than never.

This sure sounds like the Liberal Leader needs some new advisers and fast. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Conservative talking points are all brilliant if they effectively attack Trudeau. He should not have kept his speaking business going after he was elected as an MP and he may pay dearly for that greedy lapse in judgement.

I still don't understand the motivation of the groups who hired him. Someone from the groups in question hired him from a list of potential speakers because they thought he would fit their program.  No one forced them to hire him they chose to, presumably for legitimate reasons. Boards of Directors, especially the members who voted in favour of the motion to hire him, are responsible for any negative impacts on their organizations caused by such a partisan and stupid choice.

 

gadar

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Conservative talking points are all brilliant if they effectively attack Trudeau. He should not have kept his speaking business going after he was elected as an MP and he may pay dearly for that greedy lapse in judgement.

I still don't understand the motivation of the groups who hired him. Someone from the groups in question hired him from a list of potential speakers because they thought he would fit their program.  No one forced them to hire him they chose to, presumably for legitimate reasons. Boards of Directors, especially the members who voted in favour of the motion to hire him, are responsible for any negative impacts on their organizations caused by such a partisan and stupid choice.

 

And the talking points are even more brilliant as they can bring the right and the left together, great for unity of the nation.

There are as u pointed out two sides of this story.

First is Trudeau being an MP should have stopped these speaking engagements when he was elected. As NR pointed out this is on him and his advisors.

On the other hand he is not responsible for these people losing money. They made a business decision to hire somebody to speak thinking that it will help them raise funds. It did not. Its not the fault of the person hired that they made a poor choice. Its only coming out at the direction of their political masters as it is alluded to in the HuffPost article linked above.

Sean in Ottawa

janfromthebruce wrote:

yes, about 10%

No, counting the ignorant I'd say closer to 20%-- or 35% of voters. That is what elected the Conservatives-- their grand coalition.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Just because many Liberals voted NDP once or twice doesn't mean they now identify as NDPers. Demonizing liberals only serves to alianate potential supporters.

Alberta will separate from Canada before allowing the oilsands to be shut down.

Most Canadians want trade deals even if we are concerned about particular aspects of them.

The Liberal party is the only party that supports legalization of marijuana.

In short when you get screwed by a right wing party, let it be one that at least will let you get stoned. Well at least we know what the 2015 Red Pamphlet will contain.

gadar

Sean i consider you to be smarter and politically more savvy than I am. But legalisation of marijuana is not limited to just letting people get stoned.

Sean in Ottawa

In fairness I don't think the current Liberals are just the same as the Conservatives.

If we are talking about comparisons from history-- the Conservatives are off the deep end of Canadian politics only comparable to US republicans-- and the recent meaner more right wing ones at that. They simply did not exist in Canada in any numbers when Pierre Trudeau was PM.

The NDP is somewhere between the NDP of old and where the Liberals used to be.

The current Liberals are around where the old Progressive Conservatives used to be. Joe Clark and most of Mulroney's cabinet could be Liberals with Justin today. I imagine some are even voting that way.

So no, Justin is NOT Harper with a smile. He is more like Mulroney with a higher voice. I still want none of it. But thanks.

Sean in Ottawa

gadar wrote:

Sean i consider you to be smarter and politically more savvy than I am. But legalisation of marijuana is not limited to just letting people get stoned.

I certainly know that but as a single defining policy? That was a bit of a joke -- i thought obviously.

NorthReport

Harper is correct. No two ways about it.

PM says Trudeau taking money from charities was inappropriate

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pmo-faces-questions-about-a...

Sean in Ottawa

Let's talk privacy. Download Donottrackme

This tool tells you who is tracking you on each site.

Here you are tracked by 3 companies: Google analytics, Chartbeat and Addthis. We could ask Rabble about that...

Now go to NDP.ca. NDP has google analytics only.

Now go to the conservative site (yeah you can take a shower after) Conservatives have 4 trackers there.

Now try Liberal.ca. Woah Nelly! They have 8 trackers on their site:

The have three social network sites following: Twitterbadge, Google+ and Facebook

Then 5 companies as well: Optimizely, Google analytics (like the NDP), Google adwords conversion, Newrelic, and Chartbeat

Anyway thought that might be interesting.

 

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Harper is correct. No two ways about it.

PM says Trudeau taking money from charities was inappropriate

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pmo-faces-questions-about-a...

Did you read the article?

Sean in Ottawa

Ontario NDP has 3 trackers; Ontario Liberals have 3; Ontario PCs have 7;

BTW the Green only use Google analytics

US republicans have 7 trackers; US democrats have 5

UK labour party has 2; UK Conservatives have 3

Oh and the official communist party of China website-- umm no trackers.

The more right wing you are the more internet trackers you use -- general trend.

 

NorthReport

These are the folks that Trudeau represents - the Power Corp people

Canada's Richest People Saw Wealth Grow 6.8 Per Cent In 2012, RBC, Capgemini Say

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/18/richest-canadians-richer_n_34621...

janfromthebruce

L. Ian MacDonald: Where Trudeau went wrongTuesday, June 18, 2013By L. Ian MacDonald, The Gazette

But while he has been very above board, and set a high standard for transparency, this isn’t about his ethics; it is about his judgment.

In fairness, Trudeau didn’t go looking for these gigs. The clients came to him through his agent, Speakers’ Spotlight.

Sort of true. People phoned his office and they gave them the number for Speakers' Spotlight but that's digressing.

Snip

There are two issues here, and neither is very complicated.

The first is a potential conflict of interest. An MP should not be accepting money, even if earned and unsolicited, from a stakeholder in whose space he’s a shadow critic.

And the second is accepting money from a university in circumstances other than an endowed lecture. Speaking at universities, whether to small class groups or convocations, is generally regarded as part of giving back. It’s an honour.

Snip

But MPs shouldn’t accept paid speaking appearances from charities, non-profits and organizations in the public education or health sectors, or in any regulated segment of the economy.

Sean in Ottawa

Would be good to know who else is doing this.

Anyone check out Lareen Harper? She has high number of charity events-- are they all free? Perhaps they are but worth a look in fairness)

gadar

Harper is always correct, it is also correct that PMO is planting partisan stories in the media while working at the taxpayers dime and asking the media not to identify the source. Since he is the enemy of my enemy he must be my friend. But with a friend like Harper who needs enemies.

Winston

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Would be good to know who else is doing this.

Anyone check out Lareen Harper? She has high number of charity events-- are they all free? Perhaps they are but worth a look in fairness)

 

Laureen Harper is not a paid elected official - big difference between her and JT.  Surely she should not be denied her own individual career, separate from her husband's? 

janfromthebruce

In the leadership race, Cauhon repeatedly brought Trudeau lucrative side business and stating it wasn't right. Or did everyone miss that a partisan liberal leadership hopeful was attacking the great one on his lack of integrity and judgement. Maybe he was in onto with Harper.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The Trudeau controversy was just another Conservative attack tactic

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Charity+demanding+refund+ties+federa...

janfromthebruce

yes, Cauchon was a conservative in disguise. Trudeau showed he was a piker.

Sean in Ottawa

Winston wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Would be good to know who else is doing this.

Anyone check out Lareen Harper? She has high number of charity events-- are they all free? Perhaps they are but worth a look in fairness)

 

Laureen Harper is not a paid elected official - big difference between her and JT.  Surely she should not be denied her own individual career, separate from her husband's? 

They are criticizing Trudeau back before he was an MP.

The issue of getting paid by a charity is wider than just moonlighting as an MP.

On the issue of moonlight-- and there has been some debate without really making the key distinctions.

There is income from work you have done before royalties etc. and there is work that is taking time to do now. That is a key difference. Also there is work that relates to the same you are getting paid as an MP to do-- talking to people. I think Trudeau should not have done any paid gigs after he became an MP. -- For the Record. And the same with any other MP-- If any NDP MP is charging for appearance -- I want them to stop. Fundraisers for the party or public are one thing but they don't get to keep money for that now. As far as other royalty income that's fine by me.

Sean in Ottawa

In spite of that position on Trudeau-- I also think Conservative attack on him was dispicable and that is my reason for asking about Laureen Harper and charities

janfromthebruce

Excellent article by Cohen on "speaking fees". And this does with elected officials

SNIP

Was it wrong for the Conservatives to alert the media to the story?  No. Political parties are entitled to raise concerns about each other’s conduct, where the public interest is involved. Indeed, they have an obligation to do so.

SNIP

Does the Conservatives’ involvement in spreading the story mean it’s not a story? No. The indiscretion of one board member does not mean the whole business was a set-up. And quite apart from the Grace Foundation, there are all those other fees Trudeau accepted.

Does Trudeau’s willingness to repay the fees resolve the issue? Not entirely. His willingness to take the fees tells us something about his character and judgment; his willingness, after his initial refusal, to repay them tells us something again. It’s all useful information, fragments of data for voters to consider, alongside everything else.

Does any of this matter? Yes. It all does. Partisan Liberals denounce the controversy surrounding Trudeau as a distraction from the “real” issue of the Senate expenses scandal. Partisan Tories denounce the media for focusing on the Senate mess for weeks on end, while giving Trudeau a pass. But there is more than one issue in the universe, and more than one day to comment on them.

So the media have been checking out the charities, boards, and say schools Trudeau charged big bucks when he was an elected MP, which is where the focus should be. However, what the media should be doing is asking this wee question: Has the Trudeau staff actually phoned these charities, boards, schools, institutions and so on and asked the question: do you want your money back?

Because perhaps that hasn't been done at all. Trudeau stated he was going to contact all 17 organizations this week. How hard is that to do on Monday and by Tuesday (at the latest). That's a better question. If not, why not? It may show that it was just more spin and good press. Let's see.

janfromthebruce

Instead sadly, I see Liberal operatives attacking a charity - Grace Foundation, and that is most definitely, again, poor optics and shows lack of grace, poor judgement, poor foresight.

This is where one takes the high road.

Reminds of when Trudeau in June 2011, doing his stock Youth and Empowerment stomp speech and proceded afterwards, in Q & A from audience to trash talk newly elected youthful MPs in Quebec.

He showed by his trash talk that youth empowerment without CONDITIONS was just platitudes of lies and just a way to pad his MP salary and millionaire trust fund. Sad really.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Not half as sad as our prison population rising while crime rates are declining.

janfromthebruce

So we ignore one because of another. Unless that is not what you were getting at. So we should talk about what. I am quite aware of the increase in prison population and decline in crime but it's not being talked about right now.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

So we ignore one because of another. Unless that is not what you were getting at. So we should talk about what. I am quite aware of the increase in prison population and decline in crime but it's not being talked about right now.

 

Sure it is..I know it's babble policy to bash the Liberals but they never oppressed the populous like the Cons are doing...The common front should be what we can do to kill the Conservatives...as far as I'm concerned,it should be done at all costs.

BTW,do you really think that the Mulcair NDP would be any different than the Libs when it comes to corporate supremacy?

I'm from Québec...I know Thomas Mulcair and he's not a left winger...he's a centrist.

If I have to live with a government that puts business interests before social interests,atleast the Libs want to decriminalize pot and at this point I'll take anything that gives me something---anything.

mark_alfred

I think it's to Trudeau's credit that he acknowledged that the speaking fees he was charging while an MP were a mistake, and that he stated he'd either repay or make it up somehow to those charities who had complaints of losses due to his speaking fees.

socialdemocrati...

Mulcair has already staked out real differences with the Liberals. Trudeau has ceded the ground on the gun registry, and Mulcair hasn't. Trudeau has ceded the ground on the oil sands, and Mulcair is making a strong argument on the environment -- one of his strong suits. Trudeau has ceded the ground on trade agreements and foreign ownership, while Mulcair has been beating the drum in front of every audience for *fair* trade. And Mulcair has come out strongly for electoral reform, which is so important to me I would even consider voting strategically for a right-wing party that supports it.

And for all the hype about Mulcair ceding the ground on pot -- he didn't. He's for decriminalization. As for legalization, he believes we should start with a study, which isn't exactly the status quo either. Liberals loved taking that Mulcair quote out of context, but never seem to mention the retraction and clarification.

Pages

Topic locked