looks like the rats r starting to jump ship....and i was hoping to campaign against backpack and bike boys....oh well, anything the moonbats elect will be a joke anyway

Beautiful....

Check this little gem out at Jack's Newswatch as well.

http://www.jacksnewswatch.com/2006/12/19/mail-call-welcome-to-the-conservative-party-december-19th-2006/#comment-24062

As a Torontonian who's been subjected to Jack! Layton's antics for years, nothing would please me more than to see this idjits political career dashed on the rocks.

"We are the party of Tommy Douglas and JS Woodworth, of unabashed determination and irreconcilable ideals, not of fleeting notions and abandoned goals."

The problem is not Jack Layton, it's your Party's outmoded dogma. The "ideals" you speak of have simply proved impractical in real life application, and just like their big brother, Communism, are against human nature, thus bound to fail.

What fringe parties across this country need to do is choose one of the two mainstream parties with whose policies they (mostly) agree, and join up.

This Monty Python skit we call our political system, is impractical, unworkable,costly, and excessively cumbersome.

Our electoral debates are a farce, with "Leaders" who have no chance whatsoever of leading the country, expounding on what they'd do if elected PM.

And excoriating JL for his inability to hijack the media lately,speaks loudly about this Party's obsession with optics rather than workable real world policies.

Jack Layton would probably make a fine mayor in some small town in Ontario, say, Caledonia, where his great skill in negotiating could be put to use.
As the national leader of anything more important than the Howdy Doody fan club, he has little credibility.

heheh

Yes, the NDP are scared. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc are The Left. The Conservatives have moved into the Centre. And the Liberals have gradually, as they moved more and more into a Power-By-Bribery mode of existence, moved into the left. That's where you take a lot of taxes and hand it out as bribes to special interest groups in return for their votes.

I will say that the NDP did believe in their utopian ideology - and it's easy to live in a utopian fantasy land when you know that you will never, ever, have to transform those ideals into pragmatic realities.

The Liberals, however, have an agenda, not of articulating utopia, but of Power. That is their only agenda. Chretien said it - "it's about winning'. Dion said it - "it's about winning'. They do not focus on utopian ideals but on tactics to bribe the electorate into voting for them. They will use any means, any rhetoric (scrap the GST! Soldiers in our streets!) - to attain that singular goal. They have no policies, no agenda for the good of Canadians. They are true to their singular goal. Power.

So- they have moved into the NDP rhetoric because it is utopian, idealistic, emotional. It's also unrealistic but it 'grabs you' and envelops you in its groupism.

The NDP find that the Liberals, having lost power, are now in the unique situation of having to regain power rather than just telling the voters to Vote For Us Because We Are Canadian. WIth the rise of the CPC, they can't get away with achieving electoral power by means of a split opposition.

Now - the Opposition is split! And, the Liberal's chief enemy is this split opposition. So, they are using the NDP rhetoric of hope and purity - and are moving into their territory. The Liberals want to swallow the NDP - and the Bloc - in order to regain Their Rightful Place as the Puppet Masters of we Canadians-who-are-their-puppets.

I can imagine the NDP is scared stiff. The Liberals can't make much headway against the CPC, whose hold on their share of the votes seems firm. Their only way to regain power is to 'unite the opposition' - either in fact or by stealth.

kingstonlad said anything the moonbats elect will be a joke anyway

Yes, you are absolutely correct. But, honestly I had been hoping that the NDP would remain solid with the Weasel and their place in the polls...at least until the next election.

Assuming that the NDP will remain close to the 19-20% mark when it comes to votes...this can only help the Conservatives. If the NDP falls apart right now, many disenfranchised Dippers will probably end up supporting the Lieberals by default...which I don't think is good right now.

Oh yes, with Libby Davies at the helm, the NDP would be more able to beat the other parties in an elction..good grief!..where can one buy whatever this person is smoking?

"where can one buy whatever this person is smoking?"

Just about anywhere in downtown Vancouver.

The Babblers say it's a hoax....

Here is a message from the president of the NDP Abitibi--Témiscamingue riding association, concerning an e-mail that was sent out across the country, supposedly from her.

Bonjour,
Je viens d´être informée qu´un courriel circule depuis ce matin en mon nom, à titre de présidente du NPD Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Je tiens à vous aviser que ce courriel est un canular. Je n´ai ni signé, ni écris ce texte. Je suis outrée par cet acte odieux qui est d´une bassesse qui en dit long sur son ou ses concepteurs.

Soyez rassurés, mon allégeance au NPD n´est nullement ébranlée. D´ailleurs, je suis fière d'avoir un chef comme Jack Layton et que je lui donne tout mon appui.

Sachez que je continue de croire que Jack Layton et le NPD sont toujours le meilleur choix pour les citoyennes et citoyens de ma circonscription comme pour le reste des canadiens et canadiennes.

En toute solidarité,
Jennifer Bernier
jennifer.bernier@laposte.net
Présidente, NPD Abitibi--Témiscamingue

My translation:

Hello,
I have just been informed that an e-mail has been circulating since this morning [Tuesday], signed with my name as president of NDP Abitibi--Témiscamingue. I want to let you know that this e-mail is a hoax. I did not sign nor write this text. I am outraged by this contemptible act, which speaks volumes about its unscrupulous author or authors.

Please be assured that my allegiance to the NDP has not at all changed. I am also very proud to have Jack Layton as leader and I wholeheartedly support him.

Please know that I continue to believe that Jack Layton and the NDP are the best choice for the citizens of my riding and for all Canadians.

In solidarity,
Jennifer Bernier
jennifer.bernier@laposte.net
President, NDP Abitibi--Témiscamingue

Jack Layton and Olivia Chow are the quintessential socialists.
Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom Federally subsidized apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000.
By the tone of the dissidents letter (above) Jack & Olivia have difficulty balancing the ND's chequebook, imagine what they would do with the countrie's finances if by misfortune Layton had the chance.
All while waving a Taliban yellow flag.
Go Libby, go!
Geez!

Jennifer,
If you really want strong, effective, results-oriented leadership, I nominate:

Josef Stalin
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung

Sadly, they're no longer available.

But there are two individuals still alive that you could say operate strictly by the NDP policy book and are loved by their followers:

Kim Jong Il
Hugo Chavez

And by the way, don't worry about the dual citizenship probelm. It might make them a little sad when the sheeple of Canada elect them as their new PM, but that's all.

It's really time for the NDP to go the way of te Berlin wall.

dmorris:

You've hit the nail squarely on the head in your first post. The NDP must be at least somewhat demoralized since it has been shown absolutely that socialism does not work in building a vibrant, modern economy. In that case, what then for the NDP? The old guard will continue to mouth the usual platitudes, half heartedly since everyone knows those policies don't work.

RUN JACK RUN!! What a loser. I'd love to see Stephen Lewis run for the job. He would be able to scoop up all the lefties that might otherwise be forced into voting for the Libranos.

ET. Great summation of the political ideologies of the parties of and for the Sheeple of Canada.

"Fearing a bad response from the public, Jack Layton chose not to advance any issue.."

Isn't this the fundamental problem for the Dippers? The people don't want socialism.

joe sums it up correctly...middle class teat suckers living in subsidized housing....had the same thing here in kingston, except it was a moonbat lawyer taking a spot that should have went to some poor family....these left wing idiots make me sick to my stomach....get a real job, real life, and pay your fair share.....MOONBAT IDIOTS!

I think that the reports of Jack Layton's imminent demise are greatly overblown. He's not going to roll over and play dead when confronted with the spectre of Stephane Dion.

I'm listening to Dion on CJOB right now and he just proffered a confusing explanation of how carbon-trading will work. He completely lost me, and I suspect I wasn't the only one. I can't see how Layton would have much difficulty regaining lost ground for the NDP, especially on the issue of the environment.

Considering that Dion has nixed the possibility of a spring election, Layton will have time to recover.

I share JCL's assessment of Jack's "little gem"; here it is:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a good NDP-er, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking her how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”

She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA . She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Conservative Party”.

O/T. Sorry Kate.

Check out the volcano cam on the left of the main page.

Yesterday morning I noticed what looked like two red eyes staring out of Mt. St. Helens and now the snow in that same area is melted. I think the volcano burped.

Only four years ago? Seems soooo much longer!

He's more annoying that anything. Kind of like a mosquito that won't leave you alone.

This has nothing to do with anything, but has anyone noticed now small and delicate his hands are when he does his gesturing during Question Period?

Everything about him, including his Lenin-like look, bugs me.

Interesting post ET - especially this part: "The Conservatives have moved into the Centre". I bet that would come as a surprise to the conservatives! Perhaps your view of the "centre" is skewed by the fact that your ideology is so far to the right that any move to the left is the "centre" to you.

I have an idea - why don't you come to Alberta and tell the voters there all about how the conservatives are now in the centre of the political spectrum - that place that, according to you, was "once" occupied by the liberals. Then Alberta can revolt and start another grassroots right wing party.

Your posts usually are well thought out and articulate, but I think you dropped the ball on this one.

And bryceman - it will not be disenchanted dippers voting for the liberals. You see, in the last election it was disenchanted liberals who voted for the NDP, and now those liberals are coming back. If some disenchanted dippers come along for the ride that is OK too.

The Conservatives have moved into the Centre

thanks for the chuckle. mean-spirited spending cuts aimed at every group that tight-assed cons view as a threat to their one dimensional world-view may pass as centrist in alberta but nowhere else.

Jennifer said: " The new election of Dion has pushed the Liberals greatly ahead of the Conservatives."
What are you raving about Ms. Bernier? On what poll results are you basing this statement.

Gayle.

The conservatives have indeed moved to the center. Witness such socialist programs as child daycare money. The conservatives have pretty much wrapped up the environmental agenda as well depsite what the media tells you. The liberals did absolutely nothing regarding the environment, while the conservatives have captured this concern.

http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_281.html

Here's a recent Dec 6 poll showing the cons ahead of the Libranos by 7 percent with the Dippers down to 16 percent. The cons have made huge gains in Ont.

Jeff.

Cutting spending to hard left interest groups that do NOT represent Canadian values OR interests can hardly be considered mean-spirited. In fact, it IS mean-spirited for these hate filled groups to be accessing my hard earned tax dollars to fight their ideological battles that most Canadians do not agree with.

Why should the NDP blame Jack Layton? He is their perfect embodiment. The NDP need new, good ideas. They haven't had many since Karl Marx was a baby. They are brain dead. To start with they might look at the needs of real working people. These needs most emphatically do NOT include a fanatical environmentalism which would destroy the economic structure of this country, and create massive unemployment. Sensible pollution controls make sense, and the Tories want to strengthen them, against the NDP's wishes. A forward policy in Afghanistan makes sense, so that we aren't all murdered in our beds. That is the Tory policy, opposed by Jack Lenin ... excuse me, there is a facial resemblance. The NDP need to understand economics. Etc. etc. etc. etc.

Jack is no worse than his predecessors, the media just pay him more attention. The problem is with the NDP. and I don't think there is any cure for it except not to vote for it.

I care not one whit whether or not the letter is a hoax.

What I'm waiting for is the usual contribution from Budd Campbell to puff himself up to try to look important and start spewing his socialist crap.

C'mon, Budd ..... let's hear it.

Libby Davies or better yet, Svend Robinson for new NDP leader!

Interesting poll johnboy - from an organization I have never heard of, with a poll that is vastly different from every neutral poll taken at the same time. I noticed that the commentary at the bottom was decidedly editorialized. You will forgive me if I am not convinced by this one. You are aware that some polsters use their polls to push a particular agenda. I prefer to rely on SES and Ipsos. Thanks anyway.

The so-called daycare plan of the conservatives is hardly a socialist program. You have just proven my point that someone with an extreme right wing perspective believes any move to the left places a party in the middle of the political spectrum. As for the environment - seems everyone in Canada except the posters here know the conservatives have no environmental plan. Hmmm, I wonder what is going to happen to Rona Ambrose today...

Has anyone else noticed that silly and childish terms such as "mean" and "mean-spirited" have become the terms most favoured by the left these days when they're attempting political analysis?
I don't like you, you're mean!!!
Don't kid yourself, next it will be hair pulling!

I should add that environmental policy is not exclusive to a central or left wing party. Indeed, the Green party is extremely fiscally conservative - hardly a "left wing" party.

Bring back the Bobber! With the experience he gained trying to be Liberal leader added to all the qualifications he already had, Bob Rae would lead the NDP to another glorious third place finish.

...mean-spirited spending cuts...

Mean spirited is what socialists are. Those parasites steal the wages of hard-working men and women in order to fund their idiot schemes.

For those bringing up the polls, it's called a convention bounce. There is no way Ignatieff, with as much power as he has now, will be able to keep his mouth shut between now and an election.

Folks, even if this is true, this a President of a Quebec NDP riding assocation. Anyone who thinks that an NDP MP will ever come from that riding must give me what they're smoking, because it would have to be amazingly strong.

Poor Jack Layton. He's really getting a big squeeze with the Greenies and the Libranos jostling for positions on the environment poop wagon.

He has to deal with Elizabeth May, she knows her stuff, and Steffawn Deeyawn, Librano's chief Air Freshener, who professes to be an expert on the environment though he did nothing while in charge.
Afraid Jack will be doing a lot of sniffing through his mustache in the coming months.

An implosion of the Dippers is not in the interest of Cons. Cons want the left vote distributed nice and even across the Libs/Dippers/Greenies/Bloc.

If Layton had been receiving good advice he would have pre-emptively hijacked the greenie vote off of (the yet to be chosen) Beaker and the Green Party about a year ago. But Layton instead choose to embark on his unsuccessful little troop trashing escapade.

Hard to know whether the Dippers have time to change Layton out for someone more electorally effective. Probably not.

"Bob Rae would lead the NDP to another glorious third place finish."

You mean another 4th place finish.

ET, you are so right when you say centrist. When I was young, I was a fire breathing new democrat, was even called a commie by EB Osler himself. Over the years all parties shifted left and lo and behold, it was the Liberals that matched my leanings. Amazing, my views had not changed but the choices around me had. Then one day, I realized it had happened again. The parties had again morphed to the left and the Conservatives gained my support, again without any appreciable change in my personal politics. I am now villified as a facist, mean spirited neocon, when in fact my political spectro analysis shows that I am pretty much exactly where I was 35 years ago, except that I am no longer called a communist.

Bruce said," A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, .........snip.......
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Conservative Party”."

That is great, I hope you don't mind if I use that!!

Trev

Did the morons who elected him Party leader not look at his record in Toronto politics at all? Jack didn't do jack in Toronto, he couldn't point to anything that he accomplished to make the city a better place. And he's carried on exactly the same way in federal politics, so what did these people expect?

christopher:

During the Liberal leadership campaign, Dryden kept saying that the Harper government lacked generosity.

Note to Ken: You can only be generous with your own money. Being generous with other people's money is a malapropism.

Call it redistribution, call it progressive, call it socialism, just don't call me at home for your vote.

Gayle,

Thanks for making the point that only someone with an extremely left wing perspective would conclude that the government handing out my tax money to fund "social" programs is not socialism.

Are you saying that pollsters that hold significant contracts with CBC, CTV, Libranos etc are more "reliable" than those who don't??

"Steffawn Deeyawn, Librano's chief Air Freshener, who professes to be an expert on the environment though he did nothing while in charge."

Hey . . he named his dog "Kyoto", that has to count for something !!

ET said: "The Liberals want to swallow the NDP - and the Bloc".

The Poisonous Apples Of Liberalism in Canada:

Look back to W.M.L. King, Liberal PM of Canada, to see how the Liberal "swallowing" of the United Farmers-Progressives worked. This, of course, was aided and abetted by the socialists-communists of Woodsworth, Douglas, et al.

King, with the duplicitous tongue of the serpent, beguiled/divided the voters of Canada using fear, envy, class-jealousy, etc. What's new? Quid nunc?

King, of course,was a labour expert; a minion of the Rockefellers from.... the United States.

The Bernier letter is a hoax.

http://www.progressivebloggers.ca/blog/diary.php?cmd=view&id=1662

I find it rather funny.

The Liberals are now run by two cloistered professors. One a French citizen, the other an American academic.

The NDP is also run by a professor. And a failed city councillor.

With all these utopian ideologues, how far from reality and the average Canadian can you get?

Bruce: Great story. Rational thought versus inculcation.

And ET. Your're right. When you've got three parties on the left and only one on the right, it's only a matter of time before the one on right occupies the middle.

But more importantly, it's democracy we're talking about. The parties on the left have proven they don't believe in it. SSM is a case example. So it Kyoto. And health care. And child care. And...

Democracy must work for everybody. Not just some people. That's something the Libs and NDP don't get. They assume and arrogantly declare that they speak for "All Canadians." This is the height of hypocrisy. It must be recognised that not everybody wants or needs the same thing. One size does not fit all. Yet we are still all Canadians. This is how we will define ourselves. Let's care about the other person and attempt to make this country work for all as a true democracy.

Bruce, Thanks for the anecdote, it ranks right up there with the ten men in the restaurant. Anyone that doesn't understand these two examples of socialism deserves to vote for the left because their brain dead.

Sorry, "their" should have been "they're"

"where can one buy whatever this person is smoking?"

All good crack heads come to Toronto.

Most come on over to Jack and Olivia's riding ,(China Town) Toronto, you can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a meth-head, and the cops are on order to write more parking tickets.
Jack's old riding office is four doors down from a grow-op.
Just make sure you put money in the meter and lock everything in the trunk.
Everything!

Just to reiterate, the parable about the college girl is from Jack's Newswatch...he wrote it, not me (I wish)

Gayle said: "Indeed, the Green party is extremely fiscally conservative - hardly a "left wing" party."

It's the Red-Green Show: deja vu, already.
...-

Green Party of Ontario | Green Means Go
6, 2006 – The Green Party of Ontario (GPO) applauds and supports the stand taken by ... "We want to attain left-wing goals with right-wing means," he said. ...
www.greenparty.on.ca/

More: From the Red-Green Show; scripted by Red-Green May:

E. May said: Moi, and Dion, citoyen de la France, are Green/Vert with envy of parliamentarians.

May hoped/hopes to become a parliamentarian; to become an ignoramus. When May opens her mouth, both of her green feet fall out.

Quote from May:

"Mr. Stockwell Day sums up what David Suzuki said about
parliamentarians, that they're all ignoramuses,'' May said in a
telephone interview."

The election of Elizabeth May as Green leader guarantees that the party will not be perceived as "fiscally conservative" for much longer. Former leader Jim Harris was a former Tory with some interesting ideas. May, despite having worked for the Mulroney government and some supposedly "conservative" views on abortion, is a socialist through and through.

The 'Green Party' is the political equivalent of the Pet Rock. And Gayle is the poster boy of everything wrong.

Gayle, to label any of our political parties "extremist" is very silly, and betrays a lack of understanding of ideology and the political spectrum - not very useful when determining preferences.

All of the Canadian political parties, even the Greens, occupy the middle of the spectrum, when compared to political parties worldwide. Back in the late 80s, when I studied politics in university, the only significant voting "cleavage" was religion, which likely isn't even the case today. No reasonable person would argue that most or all members of trade unions, for example, vote NDP, or that women vote for this or that party. Both of their voting patterns match overall preferences. There is some regionality to voting, but this is fluid and can change dramatically between elections.

The NDP,Liberals and Bloc are social democrats (slightly left of centre), while the Conservatives are Classical Liberal/Libertarian (centre or slightly right of centre). The NDP is influenced by Union elites, while the influence of business elites is stronger with the LPC and CPC. The Bloc is the closest thing we have to an ethnic/tribal approach, but is more of a regional party, as was the original Reform party.

All our parties are pluralistic, don't engage in race or class politics (despite the rhetoric from some NDPers). Of course, there are "extremist" elements (off the mainstream of political thought) in each of our main parties. I don't know enough about the Greens to make this conclusion, but it is likely true also.

One of these days, maybe, we will stop labelling each other and take a reasoned look at policy differences. The debate in Canada is how much of a role should government take in our society.

Besides, the linear left/right political spectrum isn't very useful anymore. Many Canadians (most?) are fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal." If I have no problem with gay marriage, but believe government that governs the least governs the best, does that make me extreme? We tend to judge others' ideas through the prism of whether or not we agree with them.

johnboy, you chucklehead, robbins sce research? roflmao!!!

Wow Jeff. Great argument. I don't think anyone can argue with your logical thinking on that one. I can only assume that you were a member of your high school socialist debating club.

"Many Canadians are fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal."

I think most Canadians think of themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Whether they actually are is another story all together. Balancing the budget does not necessarily make you a fiscal conservative. Supporting the idea of a state-run monopoly on childcare (as many Canadians do) almost certainly excludes one from being a fiscal conservative. With Ontario now in the post-Harris years, Alberta gushing cash, and the federal deficit under control, fiscal conservatism seems have gone out of fashion. Not even Conservatives are champions of conservatism anymore.

Shamrock

I agree to a point - and thank you for a well thought out and reasoned response. It is much more convincing than simply stating something as truth and mocking anyone who questions it (and that applies to people who fall in all aspects of the political spectrum). If you go back and re-read my posts, you will see that I was not calling the CPC extreme, I was simply posing the possibility that the reason ET and johnboy believe the CPC is in the centre is because of their own extreme right wing beliefs. You have already acknowledged that individuals do hold extreme beliefs. As for the Green party, I believe that one of their policies is to get rid of income tax altogether. To me. that is extreme.

While you are correct that in comparison to world politics, Canadian parties are in the middle, ET was not comparing the conservatives to the rest of the world, he was comparing Canadian political parties.

We can go around and around in circles on this one, but I simply do not agree that the CPC are in the middle of the Canadian political spectrum. That is because fiscally, socially and politically, they support right wing policies.

And, quite frankly, who cares if they do? That is what they stand for and they have never said otherwise. I do not believe they are holding themselves out as some middle of the spectrum party.

Now, I have yet to hear from anyone WHY they believe the conservatives have moved to the left to take over the middle of the spectrum from the liberals. Perhaps I can be convinced, but so far I have read nothing but assertions this is so, without any evidence to support that.

"high school socialist debating club."

Where they only debate against each other and everybody loses.

Shamrock:

Good assessment. I've long been annoyed at the way the political spectrum is abused these days.

An interesting modern development is how many progressive liberals have abandoned
classic liberalism, and how many modern conservatives have adopted it. Thus many
conservatives are more liberal than the liberals!

A 2D political spectrum test is available at

http://politicalcompass.org

I test as "lower central", half way between Friedman and Ghandi. I don't know whether to be complemented or not.

Gayle.

Conservatives have moved towards the middle of the political spectrum in order to pick up votes from moderate Canadians that may not be in favour of some of the more "conservative" policies of the old reform/Alliance party. Westerners TEND to be more independently minded and in favour of smaller government than people of say Quebec or Toronto. (I know I'm generalizing). This worked well for the smaller and accountable government policies of the reform and is a reason why they held so many seats in Western Canada.

The Conservatives of today have moved to the center to pick up votes from mainly disgruntled Liberals and Bloc voters knowing that they would not lose a significant amount of right wing voters as there is nobody else on that side of the politiical spectrum to lose votes to.

The Liberals feeling this squeeze are moving more and more left trying to steal NDP votes.

Just my opinion.

Incidentally, Robbins research has a sound polling scientific method and is not influenced by any of the MSM outlets or political parties by having contracts with them. If anyone would care to point out to me how their polling methods are not sound I would like to hear them.

left, right, middle...a load of bs....it comes down to 2 groups...those that support themselves, and those that require the state to do it for them....the teat sucking and trough wallowing that goes on in this country is mind-boggling..and if you dare demand a say in how your own money is spent, they label you a fascist...MOONBAT IDIOTS!!!!i am atheist, pro-abortion, pro legalization of marijuana, so how can i be a neo-con?????but i'll be damned if i would ever think of voting anything but conservative!

Kingstonlad.

I agree that arguing about who is left or right is largely irrelavant when talking about specific policies. I would rather people decide to look after themselves than have the Jack Laytons and Stephane Dions of the world wipe their ass for them at my expense. If that makes me extremely right wing--so be it.

An interesting Freudian slip in the purported e-mail (even if it proves to be a hoax).

Check the third reason for getting rid of Layton. It says "No Lasting Campaigns. The recent Afghanistan campaign conducted by Jack Layton has largely been abandoned, as it has by the rest of the media...."

The "rest" of the media? In addition to what - the NDP? Or just Jack?

Freudian it may be, but it does seem to reinforce the idea of a natural (if informal) alliance among the anyone-other-than-the-Conservatives crowd.

JWP:

I so agree with your comments about parties "morphing to the left" and thus, if your political position remains the same, then over time, you must change your party allegiance.

What was considered a "liberal" concept in the past usually becomes "conservative" as time goes on because conservatives do generally like to keep things as they are. And if, "as they are" means "the way things have been for the past 50 years", then that means it's yesterday's "liberal" idea. Take, for example, Free Trade.

Liberals and NDPers positively freak out when you say that the CPC is the "new center"...but it really is...mostly because, over the past 13 years, the Liberals moved the goal posts so far to the left that people have a hard time figuring out what is center anymore.

I have made this point several times...but I will make it again:

The CPC has the same position of social issues (abortion, gun control, and SSM) as the Socialist Part of France. Only in Canada can this be called "extreme" or "far right-wing".

The truth is that no one on Earth (except Canadian leftists) would describe the CPC as right wing.

Seems to me that it is the Libs and Dippers who are stuck in the past - about 50 years ago.

Kingstonlad:

Dead-on.

A perfect example of this is the CWB. Look at how the Dippers and Libs are prepared to fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo monopoly power of the marketing of wheat and barley in Western Canada.

How they can look grain farmers in Western Canada straight in the eye and say "we know what is best for you and how it has to be done" even though it is the individual farmer who takes the financial risk is absolutely beyond comprehension.

It speaks volumes for what they think of the Western Canadian food producer, the lions share of which I would suggest have untapped marketing savvy and the willingness to express it to improve their enterprise's bottom line.

Please, oh please, give Robert McClelland an actual position in the official NDP organization, then sit back and watch the self-immolation begin!!

Johnboy - I understand why you believe conservatives have moved to the left, and that may be true, but as you know, I do not think they are in the "middle" (though, as many people pointed out here, what does that mean anyway). I must disagree with one of your points though. The only reason why we have the current incarnation of the conservatives (born from the inception of the Reform party) is that Albertans grew disillusioned with the federal conservatives under Mulroney. Do not make the mistake of believing there is no competition from the right - the whole reason why the liberals were able to dominate politically during the 90's is because that competition on the right between the conservatives and the reform. This is why I suggested ET come to Alberta and tell voters here that the conservatives have moved to the middle.

One of Harper's biggest obstacles is keeping the party base happy, while wooing voters from Ontario and Quebec. This is why, in my opinion, he is not being more specific on Senate reform. To placate Albertans he will have to advocate for a Triple E Senate - something that is not likely to fly in Ontario and Quebec.

So far he has performed this task brilliantly - but at some point things are going to come to a head. Either that, or ALbertans will see the light and move to the left along with the rest of the country.

Just my thoughts.

Now I must retire for the season. To you, and everyone else here I wish you all a very Merry Christmas. See you in the New Year!

Kingstonlad. While I agree that left and right labels are irrelevant, extreme terms like extreme are my annoyance. Like I said, for some, if you agree with something, then it is progressive, if not then it's extreme. I think we must debate issues, unless we want to go back to the dolittle era of Chretien. Canadians are susceptible to language like "mean-spirited" and, for some reason, "neo-conservative." The CPC is a moderate political party by a reasonable standard, unless all things markedly diffent, for example your view on the efficacy of government, can be labelled progressive or extreme. So, it's important so we cannot let the "left" get with away with this labelling, or be drawn in .

I know most Canadians are disengaged, but the best results happen on the margin anyway, for instance, in large Canadian cities. Good debate is good, muckraking is uselss, unless one has nothing else to work with.

"When I was young, I was a fire breathing new democrat, was even called a commie by EB Osler himself."
Posted by: jwp at December 20, 2006 12:07 PM

I thought most everyone had forgotten about old "EB". What a unique and wonderful old character he was. When did he call you a commie?

"When did he call you a commie?"

In 1972 at a high school meet the candidate thing at John Taylor in Winnipeg. I asked my question, which I think was "how does it feel to campaign knowing you are going to lose to some one like Dan McKenzie" (who was a PC, but remember I was a dipper) For some weird reason he called me a communist. Could never understand that one!

Funny you got the fake email too. And posted under the guise of the non.partisan 'coverage'. The only person who is fearing another election is Mr Harper. And for good reason.

"The only person who is fearing another election is Mr Harper. And for good reason."

What's to fear, gassy Jack and peppy lepew? Too funny.
Stevie Wonder could see through these two, but apparently some Canadians can't.

The fact that the Libs are polling ahead of Harper really has to make me question the validity of these polling companies. Harper is the best thing to happen to Canada since hockey, beer, and beaver.( I mean beavers)

eRuoy:

The only person who is fearing another election is Mr Harper.

Knowing Harper, the Conservatives already have their election policies, strategies, and war chest ready to go. They dropped in the polls during the Liberal convention, but most of that was temporary. Harper has also proven to be a damn good campaigner.

The Liberals don't have their policies and strategies in place due to their recent change in leadership. Dion desparately needs time to organize and assert himself.

The NDP are currently in a tailspin, and would likely get slaughtered in an election right now. They need time to do, well, something.

The Greens and Bloc don't look to be in bad shape for an election, although the Greens do have a new leader.

Sorry, but your conclusion doesn't make much sense.

Both the libranos and dippers are in dire financial straits and it is doubtful that they can mount a credible campaign. Canadians are tired of Layton's meaningless jibberish. Furthermore, Canada is only allowed one Prime Minister that cannot speak comrehensibly per Century, and fortunately Chretien used up both centuries so that lets out stephane (meet my dog Kyoto) Dion. For all intents and purposes Harper is running a majority government, albeit one that requires some stick handling.

Another strike against the libs and new moonbat party is that the public is beginning to wise up to the left spinning MSM and are not only showing antipathy to the MSM but are beginning to think they are on par with Liberals and lawyers for ethics, (particularly the CBC and more and more CTV)

I would really like to see the public start to get up in arms about scuttling the CBC altogether.

Layton resign? Wishful thinking. I don't think he'll go any easier than other recent egomaniacs.

Duceppe was expected to go too after the last election and his poor results.

IFFFF Layton did resign; would there have be a party vote or could he name his replacement? (ie: Olivia)

"The only person who is fearing another election is Mr Harper."

If that's true why aren't we already in an election? The opposition can force one at any time. The Liberals are probably terrified of an election because at this point Dion can only disappoint. You can rest assured Dion won't have it easy like he did in the Liberal leadership race where no one paid any attention to him.

Just a few thoughts, triggered by the many insightful comments:

The CPC is indeed moving toward the political centre. Barring major error(s) by LPC (another big scandal would do), this is necessary to gain seats in Ontario. The reason that they CAN do so, is that the LPC has partially ceeded the centre by moving left. This has invaded weak NDP base support that likely strategically votes liberal to shut out CPC candidates in the close ridings. It is reasonably safe for the CPC to move towards the centre, since their base is unlikely to vote for anyone else. The only alternative party for "right-wing" voters is the CHP (who only captured 0.2% of the vote in 2006, down from a high of 0.8% in 1988).

We are in a situation similar to what the British found themselves in about a decade ago, but we are more politically placid than they, so corresponding change will take longer. Dion MAY have a hope of leading a minority government, but the longer he waits, the less likely it will become.

Should be interesting...

Tenebris, I agree with most of what you say. I don't think Dion has a snowball's chance in hell of taking on Harper though. The more I see of these two the more impressive is Harper and the more laughable is Dion. Harper would eat Dion for lunch in a debate and could probably even get him to cry and/or wet himself in true French tradition.

eruoy,
The difference between a conservative and a Lefty is that principals are more important than winning. If the PM decides to go down on the Afghanistan issue or the CWB issue at least he will fall because he stood for something. The Liberals will say anything and do anything to get elected and corruption is theri modus operandi.
A conservative writer once said that the difference between a Liberal and a conservative is the fact that:
A Liberal will identify with the perpetrator of a crime and try to find a way for him not take a responsibility for it.
A conservative will identify with the victim of the crime and assist in finding the culprit and assist in that persons recovery.
Liberals of late tend to have principals made of mush and are proud of it.

"Erouy lla seztup", or actually:
"Youre all putzes"

You must be typing while looking in a mirror...it explains your blogging name and your message nicely. You've got everything backwards...Dion and Layton are the ones who should be worried.

They've got nothing but empty rhetoric to sell...just more hot air...no substance. And they're going up against a man of substance.

By the way, Eruoy, there's no "e" in "your"...uoy tiwt.

To be fair
"you're" sl. contraction for "you are" in a sentence, "You're never going to believe the BS that Dion is laying down about the wheat board!"
"your".. belonging to, as in "your house" or "your health" in a sentence "Shall we drink to your health or mine?"

"Critics often accuse me of offering only the viewpoints of conservatives in the Canadian political debate."

That's kind of like calling the pope catholic.

"I trust that this goes at least partway towards a new commitment at SDA to provide balance."

I'm not going to defend Layton because I don't paticularly like him but so long as you go out of your way to only show what you percieve to be "the other side" in the most negative light possible (terrorist enabling traitors anyone?). If you're going to serve up politicaly partisan red meat (and let's face it, that's what people read SDA for) don't bother with the pretenses.

Yb hsog, er'uoy thgir, sesoM! I ezigolopa eruoy. Er'uoy llits a tiwt, hguoht.

Sorry Kate, that's enough from me.

The differance between a Conservative and Liberal is a Conservative tells you what they think and a Liberal tells you what they think you want to hear.

I'm surprised to discover that Taliban Jack hasn't sat down to negotiate with his various opponents. That's supposed to work, isn't it Jack? Come on Jack, show us how it's done, show us how effectively you can negotiate a peaceful end to this little conflict.

Loss of credibility. Issues like the environment, child care and Afghanistan have all been supplanted by other party leaders or abandoned by Jack.

Poor Jack. Out-commied by the Conservatives.

The question is, unless you're a Conservative politician, party hack, lobbyist or government contractor with the right connections, why would this be any reason to celebrate?

On the environment, the fraudulent hysteria over CO2 was ignored in favor of a fraudulent hysteria over "really toxic" chemicals. Government will still expand, but different lobbyists and bagmen will be able to bring home the bacon depending on whose hype the public falls for.

Jack's child-care platform - boot camps for tax slaves - was supplanted by government cheques mailed directly to those who are entitled to their entitlements. While I prefer families and grandmothers to get the money over unionized professional nannies, I can smell pork sizzling as well as anybody.

Afghanistan is harder to figure out. As far as I can tell, the major political parties all have the same goal - to expand the Trudeaupian welfare state into central Asia using billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money. The only difference is that the NDP want to negotiate with the people over there who don't want this to happen, whereas the Conservatives want to kill them. But this disagreement would be understandable if it turned out that the NDP receive a lot of financial and political backing from the welfare industry, and the Conservatives have a special relationship with the defense industry. Because as you all know, you people who are constantly carping about boondoggles like the NEP, CWB, the Gun Registry, etc. it's never "the people" who benefit from Big Government. It's "the people with connections".

IMO the Conservatives ARE in the centre. It's just that compared with the ComDips, they seem right wing...it's all relative I guess.

PaulStuff hit the mark!

Joe Molnar:

Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom Federally subsidized apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000.

This is a lie. They do not live in a subsidized apartment. They live in a co-op and pay market rate rent. People who pay market-rate rent in co-ops help subsidize those who pay the lower subsidized rates. This is a blatant, outright lie.

new democraps are in serious pathological denial.

really pasted in the byelection here in the biggest hick town on the continent despite much showing of dipper faces.

at the very VERY best, socialism is a means to an end, a way of prompting some fine tuning and minor adjustments in social policy and government priorities. gawd help anyone who gives them full reign, just look at other socialist countries and our own ndp induced fever with the duplicious bob rae.

you simply cannot continue to draw blood from rock; there has to be extremely long term underpinning of the economy based on wealth generation and entrepreneurialship. government owned enterprises are DESIGNED to lose money regardless if there are privately held competitors.

new democraps dont go below 12% or above 16% in the polls which is an indication of their hard line support plus a rough proportion of the perpetually undecided.

lieberals are even worse.

Slab- yes, you're right, it's not a subsidized apartment. But, the intent of the housing development was to provide low-cost housing for people making considerably less than $120,000/year. By taking up residence and paying "market rate", they are still taking up a space that was intended for someone of less means. Layton's, and your, position is a dodge. It ignores the concept of consequences. It's no different than the way other limousine socialists like Bono operate. Jet-set around the world haranguing the middle class to pay more taxes for their pet socialist projects, while successfully avoiding paying any taxes themselves. Here's my suggestion-Tell the Bono's (and Jack Layton's) of the world- when you are donating so much of your hard earned money to good causes that you are living off of the same net-net income (after tax, after gas, after groceries, after mortgage) as the avrage middle class Canadian family, I'll start to pay attention. Until then, go pee up a rope.

THICKSLAB -

Look it up in Wikipedia!
Under jack Layton.

"I asked my question, which I think was "how does it feel to campaign knowing you are going to lose to some one like Dan McKenzie" (who was a PC, but remember I was a dipper) For some weird reason he called me a communist. Could never understand that one!

Posted by: jwp at December 20, 2006 04:18 PM"

You probably said something particularly nasty about the guy EB was about to lose to. Dan Mackenzie did have a reputation among the Winnipeg lefties for being about as extreme a public Conservative as could be found in Winnipeg at that time.

Brings back old memories. And you were right about your prediction. I would not have considered EB a Trudeaupian, but he was a one term wonder (1968 to 1972) swept in partly because of "Trudeau-mania"; then went on to be an amateur historian. The other guy in the election was the Rev. Harvey Moats, an early head of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

Canadian federal election, 1972
Party Candidate Votes Winnipeg South Centre
Progressive Conservative Dan McKenzie 25,550
Liberal E.B. Osler 20,516
New Democrat Harvey H. Moats 10,460

Joe Molnar,

You are still a liar. Co-ops function because they mixed-income tenants, some paying market rent and others paying rent geared to income. Layton and Chow were paying market rent.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Bill Greenwood

Look - it's not a dodge. Co-ops are *intended* to have a mix of incomes, and Layton was not taking a space intended for someone of low income. A certain number of units are set aside for people with low income, and a certain number for people to pay market rent. People who live in market rent units don't take units away from those of lesser income.

You obviously have no clue how mixed-income co-op buildings work.

Market rents in Toronto by all accounts for three bedrooms were at least three to five hundred hundred dollars more per month than Layton & Chow were paying to live in a government subsidized co-op housing project.
Those were the facts. Not lies.
The history of the situation cannot be revised by co-op housing rationalization or name calling.

An email was a hoax? *gasp* that must like never barely ever happen?

Joe Molnar: It's not rationalization, it's the way co-op housing works - and you are a liar.

Most of us have bashed the french at least once, but they do have one good policy re elections. If no candidate gets 50%+1 of the vote, the losers are dropped off the ballot, (like a leadership vote) and a runoff election is held the following week with the two top candidates on the ballot. Sure would work in Canada when some ridings have 7-8 candidates running. Either that, or a take off on the US primary system. Each riding votes on a party to enter a candidate. Top three can run. I am tired of a house full of MPs that are only there because more people voted against them than for them, then try to tell us the majority of cdns voted for them. Maybe that would increase voter turnout. Another choice would be 2 ballots, one for PM and one for your MP. Imagine taliban jack as PM, with nothing but non ndp mps. As for the coward dion, how long was he environment minister, and what did he do, and he is praised. How long has Rona been the minister, and why is she vilified. At least Credits are being talked about now, and dion could not explain how they work or what they would cost, or how they would be paid for. When will the truth re the Green party be told, that it is one party with headquarters in europe and branches in many countries. Policy is set in Europe. Remember, Greens lied (DDT) and millions died.

Thickslab, Jack Layton started paying an extra 300/mth(I think -maybe more) after a Toronto newspaper reported that he was living in subsidized housing. Even then he was still not paying near true market value. A real good deal for a couple raking in well over 100,000/yr. By the way thickslab, real nice moniker. Do you put cheese on that?

Market rents in Toronto by all accounts for three bedrooms were at least three to five hundred hundred dollars more per month than Layton & Chow were paying to live in a government subsidized co-op housing project. Those were the facts. Not lies.

Even if this were a fact (it's not; see below), it's not a particularly incriminating one. By their very nature, rental rates for co-ops are generally lower than market rates for equivalent apartments. One reason is that residents contribute monthly volunteer hours towards building maintenance, thus reducing expenses, then reducing rents. Another is that co-ops usually lack fancy amenities. A third is that, yes, the mortgage is subsidized. Which is why the Laytons paid a voluntary $325 rent supplement that counterbalanced the subsidy. According to CMHC data, the average monthly rent for a 3-bedroom in Toronto in October 1989 was $782; the Laytons were paying $1125.

Be honest, Mr. Molnar: how much of your quibbling is motivated by a genuine concern about the deplorable state of affordable housing among low-income families in Canada (the fault for which lies with provincial and federal governments, past and present), and how much is motivated by partisan resentment towards the Laytons?

Gayle said: "Interesting post ET - especially this part: "The Conservatives have moved into the Centre". I bet that would come as a surprise to the conservatives! Perhaps your view of the "centre" is skewed by the fact that your ideology is so far to the right that any move to the left is the "centre" to you.

I have an idea - why don't you come to Alberta and tell the voters there all about how the conservatives are now in the centre of the political spectrum - that place that, according to you, was "once" occupied by the liberals. Then Alberta can revolt and start another grassroots right wing party. "

Actually Gayle, as an Albertan, I have to say that the Conservative Party is as much (l)liberal as it is (c)conservative. They truly are a centrist party in Canadian terms. Compare them to the US and they'd be considered liberal Democrats.

oopsie... should have read further... seems Gayle had already been spanked...

AwCrap! See what happens when I work all damned day? I miss all the good arguments!

Gayle said: "I should add that environmental policy is not exclusive to a central or left wing party. Indeed, the Green party is extremely fiscally conservative - hardly a "left wing" party."

Perhaps Gayle would like to remind us how the Green Party supports eugenics, unrestricted abortion and state sponsored (directed) euthanasia in order to maintain planetary sustainability.

Soylent Green anyone? It's good for you and good for the planet too!!!

Lynn: Jack Layton started paying an extra 300/mth(I think -maybe more) after a Toronto newspaper reported that he was living in subsidized housing.

Not so. The story broke on 14 June 1990 in a Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr. The Laytons had been paying an extra $325/month since March of that year. They were also subsequently cleared by City staff and T.O. police of any hint of corruption or conflicts of interest. Many, including respected housing advocate Michael Shapcott and both the Co-op's board and fellow residents, came to their defense.

Incidentally, the Laytons were singled out because, as public servants, their incomes can be disclosed. Other residents in the Hazelburn Co-op included lawyers, academics, accountants, business executives, and other professionals, along with lower-income individuals and families. The purpose of co-ops, as Thickslab already mentioned, is to encourage the development of mixed-income neighbourhoods. Many who have thought deeply about urban vitality and social cohesion issues agree that such heterogeneity is necessary to prevent ghetto-ization on the one hand and unfettered middle-class gentrification on the other. At the time, it was noted that only 10 percent of co-op residents across Canada earned $50K+, and only 1 percent earned in excess of $100K+. The Hazelburn incident was a non-scandal initiated by City councillor Tom Jakobek (no stranger to scandals himself), among others.

Clinging to a 16-year old incident that even then amounted to nothing is hardly the best way to criticize Mr. Layton and/or the NDP. Try focusing on their political activities instead (there's much to criticize there).

"Please, oh please, give Robert McClelland an actual position in the official NDP organization, then sit back and watch the self-immolation begin!!"

Any chance McClelland is behind the e-mail? Just askin'...

"Johnboy - I understand why you believe conservatives have moved to the left, and that may be true, but as you know, I do not think they are in the "middle" (though, as many people pointed out here, what does that mean anyway)"

Jebuzz, the middle means the middle! Get a bloody dictionary!

Notice how the socialists like to change the meaning of words when the outcome isn't one that they like...

Further to my post, above, regarding the Chow/Layton rent issue, that does not go away because some silly dippers still insist their man jack is such a saint, consider the fact that he paid the 325 AFTER THE STORY BROKE. jack makes it look like he's paying out of the goodness of his bleeding little heart. What the hell is a politician, later living with his spouse, doing living in a co-op when they have a combined income of 120,000 dollars? If I showed up at this complex with my spouse with a combined income of 120,000 dollars, I would get the same deal? NOT. Shame, shame, shame, shame. I don't live in subsidized housing. After expenses which are too numerous to list I barely have 2 pennies to rub together. You socialists all think alike; you think tax money that pays for these schemes is yours before it even comes off our paychecks.

Dion. The new election of Dion has pushed the Liberals greatly ahead of the Conservatives. At this point, both the Conservatives and the NDP want to wait until better times before they dissolve parliament.

Hoax eh. Who but a liberal would actually believe this? Liberals ... viral campaign ... is this how they work?

just test soft-a :))))

Lynn writes: consider the fact that he paid the 325 AFTER THE STORY BROKE.

[sigh] So, what? You're just going to ignore any facts that contradict your worldview? To repeat:
1. March 1990 - rent supplement payments begin.
2. June 14, 1990 - story breaks in the Toronto Star (you know, that bastion of socialist mainstream journalism).

If I showed up at this complex with my spouse with a combined income of 120,000 dollars, I would get the same deal? NOT.

The Hazelburn Co-ops are currently accepting applications for two- and three-bedroom apartments. Best of luck!

RE: - Many who have thought deeply about urban vitality and social cohesion issues agree that such heterogeneity is necessary to prevent ghetto-ization on the one hand and unfettered middle-class gentrification on the other.-

Wow. There is a mouthful. But the fact is Vancouver is all condos, with no rentals built since the 1970s, because of the tax code. The Dippers and the developers seem to have come to terms on that issue. No new apartments for rent allows the Dips to point to "the deplorable state of low income housing" and the lack of rentals allows the developers to charge more for condos. Just cross the border to Bellingham and there many new apartment buildings with units available at a reasonable rent.

Also -unfettered middle-class gentrification- makes it sound like the middle class is the enemy. A house allows a family to grow and prosper. But taxes now are very often as much or more than the rent or the mortgage is.

As for low cost housing, the building code guarantees there is a cetain amount that a house will cost. And it is not low. And the Dips in BC drove the cost of subdividing any land up so high that most young people cannot buy a house for their families. So, no husbands, no wives, no kids, no marriages, no homes of their own. This is the legacy for many young people today. And IMO it is the end result of a selfish and short sighted left wing coupled with an unsustainable surplus of overpaid government do gooders.

But the fact is Vancouver is all condos, with no rentals built since the 1970s, because of the tax code...Also -unfettered middle-class gentrification- makes it sound like the middle class is the enemy. A house allows a family to grow and prosper. But taxes now are very often as much or more than the rent or the mortgage is...And the Dips in BC drove the cost of subdividing any land up so high that most young people cannot buy a house for their families. So, no husbands, no wives, no kids, no marriages, no homes of their own.

I'm not defending the NDP, I'm defending co-ops and other forms of mixed-income communities. Homogeneity of poverty = ghettos. Homogeneity of wealth = gentrification (the bad kind), then gated communities (the metaphorical kind). Heterogeneity guards against both. The middle class is indeed the "enemy" if gentrification means converting a low-income neighbourhood entirely into a middle-income neighbourhood, at the expense of current low-income residents (i.e., exchanging one form of homogeneity for another).

I don't know too much about Vancouver's rental market history, but I know that no political party has done enough to provide adequate affordable housing where it's needed. The NDP has the rhetoric, but not much by way of necessary action. The other parties don't have much of either. Are broken promises worse than indifference? Who cares? Until somebody--anybody--musters the political will to commit to an affordable/RGI housing program, it's all just partisan squabbling and passing the buck.

Dear Richard - I AM an Albertan, born and raised, and as such I remember something that you seem to have forgotten. The Reform party was a grassroots party started out of a frustration and contempt for the federal conservative party - which moved TOO FAR TO THE LEFT for many Albertans. The complaint was that the conservatives had to cater to Ontario and Quebec, at the expense of what some Albertans wanted. Perhaps you forgot all about that once the Reform took over the conservatives, but some of us did not.

My comment to ET was merely a tongue in cheek remark as a reminder of our history.

While I am at it, let me suggest you actually read the posts, not only by me, but by others, so that you can see there is an acutal context to what I have written (perhaps you missed all that talk about political spectrums in your eagerness to seek and destroy my points).

And, finally, as I said before, who cares what you say about where the CPC sits on the political spectrum. I have yet to hear anyone from the conservative party claim they are anything but a right wing party. Why are all of you so defensive? There is nothing wrong with being right wing. There is nothing sacred about occupying the "middle". People will vote for your party, or not, based on its policies, not on whether they feel it is "right wing". Some of you get so twisted out of shape at the mere suggestion the CPC is right wing, yet in the same posts you are calling the liberals "socialists". "loonie lefties" and, my personal favorite, "lieberals". Funny how it is so wrong to call you right wing but just fine to call me a socialist (and, for the record, I am not a socialist, nor, for that matter, am I a liberal.)

RE: -The middle class is indeed the "enemy"-

Thanks. We all know (by their policies) that is what the left really believes but it is rare to hear one come right out and say it. According to that belief, it would indeed be terrible if the ghettos were developed, thereby raising the neighborhoods income levels and supply of good housing and jobs. That would be so unfair. /s

And there is no program that will solve the fact that a company that builds rental apartments will be taxed much more than one building condos for sale or hotels or ANY other business you care to name. So why would anyone build rental apartments? The answer is they won't and they don't. It has led to a real shortage of apartments. Those who do not like living in a worn out building from the 60's or the 70's must rent a small over priced condo from a private owner.

RE-but I know that no political party has done enough to provide adequate affordable housing where it's needed.-

Very true. And it is also a fact most politicians can't build worth a damn. Watch any one of them try to use a shovel or swing a hammer at a charity event for "affordable" housing. It is usually not a pretty sight. But even worse their policies have hindered the housing market and have kept many of the poor in Canada from becoming the "enemy" i.e., middle class.

Fake, real - there's a difference in politics? The email in question seems far more plausible, and certainly more desirable, than any else that comes out of the NDP. I going with the fake one, it seems more real to me. Pass it on.

Gayle said: "Dear Richard - I AM an Albertan, born and raised, and as such I remember something that you seem to have forgotten. The Reform party was a grassroots party started out of a frustration and contempt for the federal conservative party - which moved TOO FAR TO THE LEFT for many Albertans. The complaint was that the conservatives had to cater to Ontario and Quebec, at the expense of what some Albertans wanted. Perhaps you forgot all about that once the Reform took over the conservatives, but some of us did not."

Richard sez: Twit! That's exactly my point! the Conservative Party has moved just as far to the left as the old PC Party! Yes, I remember the history and I see the exact same thing happening right now.

Gayle sez: "My comment to ET was merely a tongue in cheek remark as a reminder of our history."

So you were reminding ET that history has, in fact, repeated itself? Wow, you're clever...

Gayle says: "While I am at it, let me suggest you actually read the posts, not only by me, but by others, so that you can see there is an acutal context to what I have written (perhaps you missed all that talk about political spectrums in your eagerness to seek and destroy my points)."

I did read the posts and adjust my perspective to the context in which they were contained. My only failing is in that I didn't read the thread to the end to see you getting spanked prior to spanking you myself.

Gayle said: "And, finally, as I said before, who cares what you say about where the CPC sits on the political spectrum. I have yet to hear anyone from the conservative party claim they are anything but a right wing party. Why are all of you so defensive?"

Folks like me are the grassroots of the conservative movement. You may not think we matter but other, more educated, individuals are paying attention.

Gayle said: "There is nothing wrong with being right wing."

I agree!

Gayle said: "People will vote for your party, or not, based on its policies, not on whether they feel it is "right wing"."

That's Bull! This site and many like it have chronicled, time after time, how the lib-left in North America refuse to even look at a party's policies because they may somehow be associated with "right-wing". Please pull your head out of your ass.

"Some of you get so twisted out of shape at the mere suggestion the CPC is right wing..."

Because that's an inaccurate description.

"yet in the same posts you are calling the liberals "socialists". "loonie lefties" and, my personal favorite, "lieberals"."

Because that really is an accurate description.

"Funny how it is so wrong to call you right wing..."

It's not wrong at all. I'm right-wing and proud of it. Please, call me right-wing whenever the feeling calls...

"...but just fine to call me a socialist (and, for the record, I am not a socialist, nor, for that matter, am I a liberal.

I disagree. It seems completely accurate to call you a socialist based on your previous comments. I'll do you a favor here Gayle. Prove to me how your positions aren't socialist and I'll agree to not refer to you as a socialist. Fair enough?

A:

http://www.graphicsteck.ca/vb/showpost.php?p=130642&postcount=22

- The main reason rents are low at the Hazelburn Co-op is that CMHC provides co-ops with a mortgage - without down payment - at a bargain 2 per cent interest rate SUBSIDIZED by the taxpayer.

KEY WORD: INTEREST RATES ARE SUBSIDIZED BY THE TAX PAYER.

- Tom Clement, head of the Co-Operative Housing Association of Ontario, said he doesn't know of any family in that income bracket living in the more than 500 co-ops in the province.

HOW COULD ANY HONEST, CONSCIONABLE PERSON/COUPLE SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING WHEN THEY ARE MAKING $120000/YR?

- Layton (Ward 6) couldn't recall when he started making the extra payMent to bring his rent up to $1,124 a month for his seven-room (three bedrooms, kitchen, living room, dining room and den) apartment.

HOW CONVENIENT; HE FORGOT.

A:

FROM THE TORONTO STAR: TOM KERR JUNE 14, 1990

- The main reason rents are low at the Hazelburn Co-op is that CMHC provides co-ops with a mortgage - without down payment - at a bargain 2 per cent interest rate SUBSIDIZED by the taxpayer.

KEY WORD: INTEREST RATES ARE SUBSIDIZED BY THE TAX PAYER.

- Tom Clement, head of the Co-Operative Housing Association of Ontario, said he doesn't know of any family in that income bracket living in the more than 500 co-ops in the province.

HOW COULD ANY HONEST, CONSCIONABLE PERSON/COUPLE SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING WHEN THEY ARE MAKING $120000/YR?

- Layton (Ward 6) couldn't recall when he started making the extra payMent to bring his rent up to $1,124 a month for his seven-room (three bedrooms, kitchen, living room, dining room and den) apartment.

HOW CONVENIENT; HE FORGOT.

Normally, when someone makes an accusation, that person is the one who has to prove it. Here is the definition of socialist. You prove to me that I am one.

"so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

I am all for private ownership and not at all for state ownership. Ergo, I am not a socialist.

I certainly do believe that the wealthy have an obligation to care for people less fortunate - but that has nothing to do with state control over production and distribution.

When a right wing party moves to the left, that does not mean they automatically occupy the centre. That just means they are not as right wing as they used to be. I did actually say that above, but apparently it bears repeating.

The CPC believe in less centralized government - they want to decentralize and decrease the powers of the federal government. Last I heard that was a right wing idea.

The CPC want to limit social programs, which they have already done by cutting off funding to literacy programs. They see the solution to crime as being higher sentences in order to punish, rather than social programs in order to prevent. Again, this is a right wing idea.

(And this is not about whether those policies are right (as in correct) or wrong, this is just about whether they are "right" or "middle").

Of course, if you are correct, then we shall soon see the grassroots in Alberta rise again with another right wing political party to take over from that almost socialist, left moving, middle of the spectrum occupying conservative party. As you say, you are right wing, and your party apparently no longer is, so I am not sure how it reflects your views anymore.

By the way, there is nothing this site "chronicles" that is actually convincing. Bias exists in many forms my friend - even here...

See, I did all that without calling you names. If you were actually confident in what you were saying, you would not need to stoop to that level. People who rely on name calling tend to do so because they know their arguments do not really hold any water.

I wasn't name-calling Gayle, it was simply another accurate description...

Lynn, thanks for those quotations. Here's a few others:

From a 19 June 1990 Toronto Star article, also by Tom Kerr:

The Hazelburn board of directors feel a Toronto Star story last month about the well-to-do Laytons living in subsidized housing reflected badly on their co-op. They say Hazelburn is one of the best-run co-ops in Metro and attribute that success to the mix of skills found among the residents: lawyers, academics, civil servants, journalists, politicians and non-professionals working in a variety of fields. The government would be wrong, they say, to establish a maximum-income level for tenants as some critics are demanding, because that would ruin the mix of people that makes co-ops successful...Since March, [the Laytons] have been paying an extra $325 a month to offset the mortgage subsidy provided by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the federal government's housing agency.

Take-home message: by paying the supplement, the Laytons' apartment was effectively no longer subsidized.

A 22 June TO Star article by Susan Pigg notes that:

At least 40 per cent of co-op tenants get rent subsidies so they don't have to pay more than 25 per cent of their income for rent. Layton does not live in one of those units. He lives in what is called a "market" unit. Rents in those units are low because government funds co-op mortgages down to 2 per cent. Also, tenants do all their own "chores" from maintenance to lawn cutting, which keeps operating costs down. Yes, a 2 per cent mortgage is a government "subsidy" of sorts [but not for the Laytons, who paid a voluntary supplement]. But it's important to realize that very little private rental housing is being built in this city right now without massive government subsidies...And that's not including the billions that government has given private developers over the years to build rental housing, most of which is now well out of reach of low- and moderate-income people...Co-op subsidies are just as legitimate: They help create pleasant and affordable communities for those who can't afford to buy a home. It is fallacious to suggest that, if Layton moved out, a poor mother with three children would have a place to live. That mother would need a rent subsidy and Layton's "market" unit doesn't qualify.

And along similar lines, a 23 October TO Star article by Noreen Dunphy points out that:

One can count many direct and indirect ways in which the public has subsidized homeowners. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners have received direct mortgage loans by the federal government at below market rates. In the late '50s and early '60s, 27,000 homeowners annually were granted these subsidized mortgages...Federal CMHC insurance for homeowners is subsidized by the taxpayers...homeownership assistance programs such as H.O.M.E., AHOP, and the First Time Homebuyers Grants Program...The federal government (Ontario also had its own) created six new subsidy programs in the '70s and four in the early '80s, all for homeowners. Three of these cost taxpayers $1 billion...But by far the most expensive housing subsidy program is the granting of tax-free status for capital gains on the sale of one's principal residence. It's estimated that the cost to the taxpayers for non-taxation of capital gains has reached $3-4 billion each year...The private rental sector has also been the beneficiary of provincial and federal largess. Since the mid-'70s, there have been four federal and two provincial direct subsidy programs on top of the ongoing costs for special tax shelter programs. A CMHC paper written in 1985 noted that "the federal government has devoted considerable resources...(spending) an estimated $4-5 billion in support of rental production."

Wow Richard - good comeback. I guess your complete silence on the rest of my post means you concede.

I see my work here is done.

Awgeeze...

"I guess your complete silence on the rest of my post means you concede."

No, it means that my wife was dragging me to bed and responding to your points would have taken time that I didn't have to give. This morning's continued silence on the same means that I have "one of those job thingies" which also limits my time.

You'll just have to wait.

Actually, I would not bother. I gave you a chance to elevate your argument to that of a mature adult, but you insist on behaving like you are arguing with someone on the soccer field outside your junior high school.

Hopefully someday you will learn that arguments are much more effective when they are backed up with facts, rather than insults. I would like to help you out with that but I am rather busy at the moment. Maybe you can just scroll up and learn from Shamrock. I wish you luck.

Have a good Christmas.

Merry Christmas Gayle!

A,

There should be some kind of auditing procedure.

thanks for writing back. Have a nice Christmas.

Lynn.

PS. While researching this, I read somewhere that there are very long waiting lists, and my take on it is, it's one heck of a good deal - provided that you get in early enough and that the gov't can and is willing to pay for these schemes. One thing to consider is that there is nothing stopping a co-op from simply dissolving. I read somewhere, maybe in Kerr's article, that proceeds are supposed to go to charity, but legally, the individual members can keep the proceeds from the sale....sounds like a pyramid scheme... There should be some kind of public auditing procedure; I don't see why co-ops should be immune.

I don't blog too much anymore for the simple reason that I believe people should use their own name when they right. Criticism is fair, it is a free expression, but it is best when people stand up and say who they are and how they feel.

Thanks for the vote of confidence JohnBoy. We have worked very hard to be unique and at the same time keep a good standard for our numbers. The return on investment relationship between mainstream pollsters and the press is something we were never comfortable with, and although the polling association of Canada (or whatever they are called) was kind enough to invite us to join, we knew we had it going on the way we were doing things, and we knew we could get the numbers and set real trends about real public opinion. We have never believed that Canadian opinion has been properly depicted. In particular we believe that Quebec public opinion has been distorted conveniently for a kind of divid and conquer approach to 'swizz' public opinion.

I have never been given the impression that Quebec is so Kyoto over the rest of the country, or so against Afghanistan than the rest of the country. I am confident that Afghanistan is split amongst Canadians. Our Canadian perception of our role there is not the same as our perception of Americans in Iraq. Even in the 'editorial' areas we are trying to convey the public sentiment admittedly within a type of 'true spin' or at least as well as that can be managed. Numbers speak for themselves, and callers are encouraged (and bonused) for commentary.

Sometimes we obtain some unique patterns or sub-patterns of comments relative to questions (that we did not expect or could not have predicted), and the unique editorialized part (which attracts criticism because it isn't what the status q is used to) gives us an opportunity to convey this (even if it is undered my name). Much of what I say under my name personally is not necessarily what I believe or sometimes isn't near my opinion at all, though I have interviewed so many respondents myself, that I have become almost neutral in opinion, because listening to so many sides of debates forces you to be that way.

Also, I have received thousands of emails and thousands upon thousands of 'searches' without much if any negativity in terms of inquiry. Most people who email actually use their real names. I wonder sometimes what the relative value of blogging is when it remains anonymous. We have tracked so many bloggers back to government agencies of provinces etc. or other where there is a strong bias. In that sense blogging is to some extent dishonest in my opinion.

I personally believe that all federal leaders are exceptionally good, including Jack Layton. His problem is that the Conservatives are renewed (government), the Liberals are renewed (mostly save for the PowerCorp relationship which will hold the Liberals up this time around), and the Greens have taken a fresh step. There is huge interest from my site (internally) in an NDP MP named Pat Martin (I mean huge). I don't know where this new interest starts, but I do see him on TV more, and the interest from my site (internally) is very very high. He is an MP from Manitoba if memory serves me.

I believe that Harper is closer to a majority than people are saying though he is short the requisite number of seats. Will he be happy with 140?

I don't blog too much anymore for the simple reason that I believe people should use their own name when they right. Criticism is fair, it is a free expression, but it is best when people stand up and say who they are and how they feel.

Thanks for the vote of confidence JohnBoy. We have worked very hard to be unique and at the same time keep a good standard for our numbers. The return on investment relationship between mainstream pollsters and the press is something we were never comfortable with, and although the polling association of Canada (or whatever they are called) was kind enough to invite us to join, we knew we had it going on the way we were doing things, and we knew we could get the numbers and set real trends about real public opinion. We have never believed that Canadian opinion has been properly depicted. In particular we believe that Quebec public opinion has been distorted conveniently for a kind of divid and conquer approach to 'swizz' public opinion.

I have never been given the impression that Quebec is so Kyoto over the rest of the country, or so against Afghanistan than the rest of the country. I am confident that Afghanistan is split amongst Canadians. Our Canadian perception of our role there is not the same as our perception of Americans in Iraq. Even in the 'editorial' areas we are trying to convey the public sentiment admittedly within a type of 'true spin' or at least as well as that can be managed. Numbers speak for themselves, and callers are encouraged (and bonused) for commentary.

Sometimes we obtain some unique patterns or sub-patterns of comments relative to questions (that we did not expect or could not have predicted), and the unique editorialized part (which attracts criticism because it isn't what the status q is used to) gives us an opportunity to convey this (even if it is undered my name). Much of what I say under my name personally is not necessarily what I believe or sometimes isn't near my opinion at all, though I have interviewed so many respondents myself, that I have become almost neutral in opinion, because listening to so many sides of debates forces you to be that way.

Also, I have received thousands of emails and thousands upon thousands of 'searches' without much if any negativity in terms of inquiry. Most people who email actually use their real names. I wonder sometimes what the relative value of blogging is when it remains anonymous. We have tracked so many bloggers back to government agencies of provinces etc. or other where there is a strong bias. In that sense blogging is to some extent dishonest in my opinion.

I personally believe that all federal leaders are exceptionally good, including Jack Layton. His problem is that the Conservatives are renewed (government), the Liberals are renewed (mostly save for the PowerCorp relationship which will hold the Liberals up this time around), and the Greens have taken a fresh step. There is huge interest from my site (internally) in an NDP MP named Pat Martin (I mean huge). I don't know where this new interest starts, but I do see him on TV more, and the interest from my site (internally) is very very high. He is an MP from Manitoba if memory serves me.

I believe that Harper is closer to a majority than people are saying though he is short the requisite number of seats. Will he be happy with 140?