Ibbitson: A Primary system for Liberal Leadership?

John Ibbitson put forward a radical idea today for renewing the Liberal Party in his Globe & Mail article... how about opening up the Liberal Leadership process to an open and national primary system? And you know what? I honestly think that's a GREAT idea!

Most of my readers will know, of course, that I'm a card-carrying Tory, and that I'm committed to the DESTRUCTION of the Liberal Party of Canada... IN IT'S PRESENT INCARNATION, that is. Fundamentally, on a vast majority of the issues, I actually fall more to the left side of the Conservative Party... other than key SoCon issues of course, but I'm actually a lot more "Red Tory" than most people realize. (for example, most long-time readers will recall that I'm not a big fan of "small government"... I'm more a fan of "SMALLER Government", but do think that the Government should indeed be in charge of more sectors than my Libertarian friends do...)

All that being said, I do believe that Canada needs a true "centrist" option, but one that's NOT powerful enough to be able to form a Government on it's own. I think having a smaller rump of a party, say 20-40 seats, that could be a governing partner on either side of the political spectrum, would be a healthy thing for Canada. The problem is that the current LPC doesn't really care about the issues, they care only about POWER... and as such, spends more time trying to score political points with issues, instead of articulating an actual VISION that keeps the Party consistent. (one of the reasons I hate the current LPC so much is that they have the political consistency of JELLO... wobbly, slippery, and impossible to nail to a wall) So an idea that will force the LPC to actually define a more consistent VISION, even one that changes with the changing of it's leadership, (instead of changing on an issue by issue, week to week basis) could be beneficial to Canadians. (And it might help to end the trend of mindless peons who simply vote Liberal because their families have ALWAYS voted Liberal, because people would actually have to start THINKING before they vote for their "default" family option...)

This idea might actually lead to a true "centrist" Canadian party, instead of a leftist/statist conglomerate of special interest groups that Canadian voters soundly rejected in the last election. Imagine... average voters, who want to have a say but don't want to pay a membership or join a Party, being able to pick the "vision" from a field of candidates that most closely aligns to their own. It would result in LESS power for the special interest groups that currently hold the Liberal Party hostage, and create a more "Canadian" centrist party than currently exists. Because you see, right now the Libs think that only what they deem as "Canadian values" are the only values that are legitimate... this would end that notion, because real CANADIANS, and not special interest groups, would be telling the LPC what "Canadian" values really are.

As a result of that, their platform would be RADICALLY different than their most recent offerings. It would be a more realistic reflection on what Canadians are actually thinking, and not what the various LPC Grand Poobahs try to LECTURE Canadians on how they should think. (by the way... how's that strategy working for you guys these days?) Hey, if the regular Joe Canadian was able to have a say like that, they may even come up with a vision that I'd be willing to vote for! (Of course, I'm talking about when Harper retires after his FOURTH CONSECUTIVE MAJORITY MANDATE!

Of course, you all know why I like Harper so much... clearly RIGHT, but pragmatically so, and as such able to make decisions for the good of the WHOLE COUNRTY, not being held captive to the influence of one or two special interest groups. He lines up with my vision of the country perfectly... someone who's clearly "conservative", but can govern a nation filled with people of ALL political stripes. Yea, I'm hoping he sticks around for a few terms.

But back to the Liberal Party... I actually voted for them in 1997. NOT for the LPC of course, but for my LOCAL candidate. I'd met him a number of times, and he more closely aligned with my vision and values than the "used car salesman" that the Reform had put forward, or the "dead man walking" that the PC's had put forward. (plus there was that whole "get your act together before I vote for you guys" attitiue that I had for both parties on the right back in those days...)

So personally, I'm a fan of Ibbitson's idea. Just imagine with me for a few moments... various candidates with truly differing visions, travelling around the country from province to province, with different provinces voting on different days, weeks apart like in the US primaries. Have two "divisions" of provinces, with the smaller ones slated to go first, and the three most populous ones later in the process, to ensure that the Big Three don't get to decide who the leading candidates are before the rest of the country has had their say. Instead of having set dates within each division, have a randomly assigned order every cycle, so that you don't get a PEI or New Brunswick always going first, and thus avoiding a perpetually and overly important New Hampshire or Iowa primary. This would also ensure that no one of the Big Three gets to set the agenda for the other two, which would certainly NOT be helpful to national unity.

By having such a process in place, and allowing ANY Canadian to have their say, it would not only renew the Liberal Party, but it would have a profound impact on the other parties as well... the Conservative Party would thereby define themselves with a truly "RIGHT" vision, and the NDP would more likely define themselves with a truly "LEFT" vision. Once the votes are cast in the General Election, Canadians will have more clearly indicated where they want the country to go, and opening up the potential for true coalition governments that would likely more accurately reflect the political will of the people.

For the record, it would actually be NICE to have a real CHOICE when it comes to voting... because right now, I don't have much choice at all. If I don't want to vote Conservative, I don't have an option... there's no way I'd give the NDP the keys to 24 Sussex (though I do think you're a nice guy and all Jack...) and I know the current Liberal Party would simply continue their pattern of social destruction that started way back in 1968. (fortunately, I've got it easy these days, with Harper in charge... cause I actually WANT him to be leading the country. As for the next leader? Who knows... a Mike Harris or Bernard Lord sure, but a Kim Campbell, a Jean Charest, or maybe a Libertarian? Not a chance!)

And I'm being serious here guys... this isn't some nefarious post, secretly wishing that they take my advice and completely destroy themselves... this is an honest evaluation of the idea. It's an idea that I'd very likely partake in... and if I don't like the result of the Leadership contest, I've still got the Conservatives as an option! But I think such an idea would offer real CHOICE to Canadian voters, and would allow for an open, honest, and regularly renewed Liberal Party of Canada. Which is, if I'm correct, what they're aiming for this time around. Well, at least that's what many Liberal voters are hoping for... but as for the current crop of Party insiders, I'm not holding my breath.

VIDEO: "Enter the (Political) Matrix"

Got an e-mail from Tyrone, with a heads up on another winner of a spoof... this time with "Joe Canadian" as Neo, and PM Harper as Morpheus from the Matrix. Enjoy!



Also saw this one on his page, pretty funny... I've never been much of a Monty Python fan, but I still enjoyed it. Those of you who are Python fans should enjoy it even more.

LiberalExpress theme song - Pulp's "Common People"

Oh man, when even the media on the bus are mocking you...

According to Brian Lilley via Twitter, the media on the JustVisitingExpress (err, I mean the LiberalExpress) have selected a "theme song" for the tour... Pulp's "Common People". You HAVE to give it a listen...



Check this rather appropriate part of the lyrics...

I want to live like common people,
I want to do whatever common people do...
Hummm... or one might just say, "I want to meet 'The Canadians'..."

Sing along with the common people,
sing along and it might just get you through,
laugh along with the common people,
laugh along even though they're laughing at you,
and the stupid things that you do.
Because you think that poor is cool.

Ouch...

Coyne - "The End of the Liberal Empire"

FANTASTIC article called "The End of the Liberal Empire" written by Maclean's Andrew Coyne. A MUST READ for any political junkie in Canada... of all stripes.

Here's to real reform our our democratic system... DEATH TO THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA!!!

NB Liberals - "NO Canada"?

And Liberals wonder why we think they're "unpatriotic"... everyone remember that little incident back in January where a New Brunswick school principal decided not ban "O Canada" in his school?

Well, it looks like it's now become a festering cancer throughout the New Brunswick school system... according to CFRB's John Moore, 40 New Brunswick schools have now decided to "opt out" of singing "O Canada" in their schools in the morning. On an interesting note that does not bode well for national unity, almost all of these schools are apparently French speaking ones.

Did a little digging, and according to Aaron Wherry at Maclean's, the New Brunswick government supposedly mandated the singing of "O Canada" after that little incident. But according to John Moore this morning on CFRB, that's not happening.

What on earth is the Graham government up to on this one? Was the singing of "O Canada" indeed mandated for all New Brunswick schools this fall? If so, why are they allowing these 40 schools to get away with defying the government's directive?

Here's a great opportunity to prove themselves... if the Liberals in New Brunswick really are as patriotic as they say they are, (hang on, anyone actually have a quote from any NB Liberals on whether or not they actually "Love Canada"?) they can stand up for this great nation of ours and ensure that their schools are continuing to foster a patriotic environment for our kids to grow up in.

I mean, we can all see how unpatriotic Canada is becoming... after all, the Liberals are putting forward an American/Brit for Prime Minister...

This one oughta throw you all for a loop

Many people seem to think they know where I stand on all the issues, based on my blog name... www.ChristianConservative.ca.

Took one of those online "Political Spectrum" quizes. Check the results and discuss... (and maybe take the quiz yourself to see where you fall, see if the quiz is just whacked out)

My Political Views
I am a centrist social authoritarian
Right: 0.24, Authoritarian: 6.64

Political Spectrum Quiz

Guelph Liberal Frank says, "Let's unite the left!"

In what was most likely the biggest bombshell of the Guelph by-election, Liberal candidate Frank Valeriote came out and openly advocated for a unification of the political left in Canada.

Frank Valeriote, when asked what he would do if the Liberal Party ceased to exist (which it may well do, with their current financial situation), used his answer to openly advocate for a unification of the political left in Canada... one of the first Liberals to openly take such a position. His shocking statement was quoted in today's Guelph Mercury as having said, "I would work at building bridges with the Greens and the NDP. The right did it; I'm not sure why we can't do it."

But as they say these days... if it didn't happen on YouTube, it didn't happen. Therefore... enjoy!


With other NDP notables like former Ontario NDP Premier Bob Rae (who is also a former NDP MP, I might add... it just took him a very long time to finally cross the floor), and former BC NDP Premier Ujjal Dosanjh now gracing the ranks of the Liberal Party of Canada, one has to wonder about the decidedly leftward shift that the Liberal Party is currently taking. Once the bastion of the "centrist" vote in Canada, the apparent rise of socialist thought within the Liberal Party ought to give the Canadian voter a reason to think twice before voting Liberal.

It also raises a fundamental question of policital realignment in this country... if Mr. Valeriote thinks that the NDP, the Greens and his own party are so close in thought, then why do we still need the Liberal Party of Canada at all, after the years of scandal and broken promises they've subjected the Canadian people to?

Then of course there's the alliance between the Greens and the Liberals in Central Nova, along with the jumping of former Liberal MP Blair Wilson to the Greens... all of which are further signs of the deepening irrelevance of the party once known as "Canada's Natural Governing Party".

Uniting the left... getting rid of the Liberal Party of Canada... sounds like a great idea Frank!

NOTE: I extend my sincere thanks the Liberal blogger Jeff Davidson, who decided to "out" me the other week... but it seems that he's inadvertantly given me a whole new freedom, more of which you'll be hearing about in the coming week. Stay tuned! And thanks Jeff! ;-)

Plotting the death of the Liberal beast?

He's playing chess my friends... playing chess indeed.

A former chief of staff to Harper suggests there's more to this seemingly self-evident, benign response than meets the eye.

Tom Flanagan, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, believes Harper would be satisfied to return with a strengthened minority -- a result that would throw the Liberals into chaos, thereby advancing the prime minister's longterm strategy of destroying Canada's so-called natural governing party.

"I don't think Harper has to be thinking about a majority at all," Flanagan said in an interview.

"Strategically, this is sort of a prolonged war of attrition."

As Flanagan sees it, the first major battle in this incremental war occurred in 2004, when Harper managed to reduce Paul Martin's Liberals to a minority. In the second clash in 2006, Harper won his own Conservative minority.

The third skirmish, which Harper appears set to launch next week, likely won't kill what Flanagan jokingly refers to as "the evil empire." But, if the Tories can win a few more seats at the Liberals' expense -- an outcome Flanagan considers realistic given Harper's superior campaign skills and the Tories' fatter war chest -- he predicted that would be enough to throw the Grits into a longterm tailspin that could eventually lead to their demise.

"You can fight a war with some objective less than total victory," he said of the coming campaign.

I've long said that Canada won't be able to reach it's full potential until the Liberal Party of Canada is either ripped appart, or is forced into realignment. Once that occurs, there will be a realignment within all the other parties as well, potentially carving them up into three main players, each with more or less equaul support levels, along with two or three other smaller parties who will hold the balance of power in a minority situation.

In my opinion, it's the only sort of electoral reform that will work in this country, and will allow for coalition governments of various stripes, which will allow Canadians voices to be better heard in Ottawa, and better reflected in the House of Commons.

Who knows... it may even allow the NDP (or it's lefist sucessor) to one day form Government.

h/t to Warren

G&M; - "A new vision for the country?"

The Globe & Mail's Lawrence Martin as an interesting piece in yesterday's paper, entitled, "A new vision for the country?", where he offers his two cents on the apparent Conservative plan to correct some of the "political imbalance" (my own new word) that has existed for far too long... where Ottawa has been controlled by Toronto's wishes and interests, rather than the interests of the country as a whole.

An interesting section:

"But do these long-held harmonies [the usual Liberal attacks on decentralizaion] still hold? Or are they outmoded, in need of overhaul? Has the country not moved beyond its vulnerable adolescent era to the point where now, like a normal family, it can entrust its members with more responsibilities? After 141 years, is there not a new sense of trust and maturity in the land?

Identity? History is identity. If you don't know who you are at 141, if you still think some provinces have stars and stripes in their eyes, the shrink is in the waiting room.

Now even Liberals don't think the new Canada is as dependent on the centre as the old. The old parts were fragile, in need of nurturing, in need of national and protectionist policies. But now there is more wealth and more equality, a levelling of the braying fields. Little guys like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, with their newfound riches, are no longer little guys. They are not as beholden and their new level of maturity requires new thinking in Ottawa. Treat them like teenagers and they'll be more inclined to rebel. Give them space and they'll be more inclined to be part of the whole.

[...]

All part of growing up. But now? Noteworthy is that while in more recent times we have seen a trend away from centralized powers, unity is now well intact. Many would argue the country is more unified today than at any time since 1967.

The big centre is still needed. It's still needed for infrastructure, uniform social programs, defence and multifarious other initiatives. But, with the old family having a better sense of its bearings, it isn't needed the way it was before.

For more on the proposed Conservative initive, read this article in Wednesday's G&M;.

The Globe misses the point

An interesting article in today's Globe & Mail, recommending that the best course of action for Mr. Harper regarding the Cadman lawsuit against the Liberals would be to simply drop it. In their view, the author thinks that Mr. Harper can get more mileage, and look better in the public's eye, by withdrawing his case, and slamming the Liberals on the issue in the House, not the courts.

However, the author misses one thing that makes the lawsuit far more important than public opinion... the bankrupting of the Liberal Party of Canada.

So far, we've managed to pressure them to give back $1.14 million dollars of the multiple millions they received from the Sponsorship Scandal. Their corporate funding has been cut off thanks to Mr. Chreiten, and their current fundrasing levels are dismal... with a couple million in leadership race debt still to be paid off.

This is just another Liberal provided opportunity for us to do what's in the best interest of the nation... riding it of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of Liberalism as a whole... just it's current and corrupt incarnation of it. I still think that this country would be best served by having the leftists in the Liberal Party form up with a more centre-left NDP (or newly merged entity), a solid but mid-sized and truly centrist party, and a solid centre-right party.

I personally think that would be much better for Canada... it would provide reasonable ebbs and flows in governing for all the various voices in Canada. It may even keep us in the realm of minority government for some time, but it would have the advantage of making the party in power work with the other parties to move their agenda forward. It may even lead to the rise of other smaller parties, like the Green Party, and allow them to finally get some seats, and allow for their supporters voices to finally be heard.

So you see, I'm not some partisan jerk... I just hate the Liberal Party, and how it stands in the way of real democratic progress in this nation.

Good summary on problems with conservatism

Terence Corcoran put together a good analysis of what's wrong with "conservatism" today, as seen on the Federal and Provincial (Ontario and Alberta) scenes. Basically, he echos the points made by Tom Flanagan the other week... for Conservatives to succeed in Canada, we can't keep on trying to pander to the mushy middle... we need to be conservative.

I can't find it at the National Post online, so here's the article.

LESSONS FROM A RED TORY
TERENCE CORCORAN - National Post
tcorcoran@nationalpost.com

Nobody expected John Tory to lead the charge for a new conservatism in Ontario. He never said he would. Instead, being a good moderate Conservative of the old Red Tory school, he played the game according to the old rules: Don’t rock the boat, keep a middle course, hew occasionally left if necessary and fight a clean fight.

And so Ontario Tories today wake up to an entirely predictable electoral disappointment. Some will blame John Tory’s ill-conceived plan to fund religious schools. But his defeat was in the air long before the schools gaffe. Political strategists in both the Liberal and Conservative camps saw yesterday’s results coming as long as a year ago. “Tory has no hope,” said a Liberal insider last January. “He simply has not connected, no matter how hard he tries. McGuinty may be a bit of a disaster in terms of consistency and personality, but Tory is not in the chase.”

John Tory, achingly sincere and blandly articulate, could not catch Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, an uncharismatic politician whose churchy self-righteousness could turn nuns into streetwalkers. Tory could not overtake McGuinty because he failed to do what professional Conservatives today refuse to do across Canada: shift to the economic right and move the goalposts of political debate.

The leading theory of current Conservative political strategy was recently spelled out by Tom Flanagan. In an article in the online magazine C2C, reproduced on these pages last month, the former advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled what could be called the Flanagan Rules for Conservative Engagement. The title of his piece was “Incremental Conservatism.”

Flanagan put the strategy into a one-sentence nugget: “My vision of incremental conservatism means endorsing even very small steps if they are in the right direction, and accepting inaction in areas that can’t feasibly be changed right now, but opposing government initiatives that are clearly going the wrong way.” While Flanagan is here describing the goslow Conservatism of the Harper government in Ottawa, it also fits the John Tory Conservative opposition in Ontario. Another jurisdiction that meets the Flanagan rules is Alberta, where Ed Stelmach’s Conservatives are flying the flag of incrementalism to a political disaster.

In fact, it seems to be a pattern. Wherever incrementalism reigns as strategy, moving a bit here and giving up a bit there, Conservative parties slumber in the polls, and go down to defeat. Stephen Harper’s Tories are nationally stuck in the mid-30% range, despite weak opposition. Ed Stelmach’s ruling Conservatives, now flirting with new royalty taxes, are at disastrously low support levels in Calgary and Edmonton. And now, with John Tory’s defeat in Ontario, we have a trifecta of evidence that riding the middle of the road and avoiding conservative economic policies is a dead-end political strategy: Incremental disasterism.

To be sure, Ontario Conservatives ran a particularly slow version of incrementalism. Under the Tory plan, it would have taken 100 years just to get the government out of the liquor business, and that would be about it. The Conservative platform was an alien document to conservatives — and one suspects to large numbers of Liberals who know in their hearts that Dalton McGuinty’s big-spending, high-tax blundering Liberal government is a train on track to a wreck. Give us something else to vote for!

But the Tory Tories delivered nothing. The official platform was a relentless catalogue of more spending, special-interest cash dropoffs, generalized waffles and copies of the latest conventional policy wisdom on anything and everything. On health care, the plan reached new levels of meaninglessness: “Invest in training and education programs for health care professionals,” and “improve long term planning with accurate forecasts of current health human resources shortages and future health care demands.”

Buried here and there were the occasional hints at what Flanagan calls “very small steps” in the right direction toward private delivery of care. “As long as universal accessibility is always protected and no one can buy access to better health care in Ontario, we will involve the private sector where there are opportunities to shorten waiting lists and improve access.” Not much there for a conservative to chew on.

Ontario Conservative fiscal plans promised more spending than the Liberals and NDP. As for tax cuts, the best Tory could do was promise to roll back Liberal tax increases. His accompanying attacks on McGuinty as a promise-breaker inevitably fell flat. No party leader has won an election anywhere in the last 50 years by accusing his opponent of breaking election promises. What else do politicians do?

On energy policy, where he should have taken a leadership role, Tory was more Liberal than McGuinty. He abandoned all previous Conservative ideas on market operation of electricity markets. Instead, he attacked McGuinty for not closing coal plans as planned — even though closing the plants remains a dangerous energy policy that could leave Ontario in the dark in years to come. Tory’s plan was for the same policy, only more of it.

In short, there was nothing to Tory Conservativism that could not have been endorsed by any Liberal, and nothing to appeal to the bedrock conservatives who must be seen as the heart of the Conservative party. They want less government, lower taxes, reduced dependence on government, more frequent initiatives to change the direction of policy.

The lesson from yesterday’s Ontario vote and the sliding fortunes of Alberta’s Conservatives must be that incremental conservatism is a flawed strategy that can, indeed has, produced disastrous results for those who play the game of either deceiving themselves or the voters.

It’s a fate that could befall federal Conservatives. Flanagan’s assessment was that the Harper government had taken a few small steps in the right direction, put off others and perhaps edged a little too far in the wrong direction now and then.

But the record is much bleaker than that from a conservative perspective. Federal spending is soaring, budget surpluses are piling up, tax cuts never get beyond the rumour stage and more than a few “wrong way” programs have emerged.

Flanagan, for example, is particularly apologetic for the fact that the Conservatives have become enthusiastic public backers of farm supply-management programs. It’s irrational, he says, to insist that the government commit political suicide by alienating the farm vote. Even granting that point, was it really necessary to add to farm lobby dependence by bringing in massive ethanol subsidies?

Maybe the Harper Tories will reverse their backtracking ways with the Throne Speech next week and a taxcutting budget, thus putting an end to incremental conservatism, a strategy that so far looks like a policy failure in three jurisdictions. For millions of Canadians whose politics favour less government, reduced regulation and significantly lower tax rates, there is nothing in incremental conservatism but small steps, inaction and too many forays heading the wrong way down a one-way street.

Liberal Idiocy

This is some of the most idiotic, partisan garbage I've seen in a long time... and I see lots of it on a regular basis.

The Liberals have complained that Mr. Harper, in his internations dealings, has damaged Canada's reputation in the world, damaged our relations with China, etc. How's this for a partisan shot... “Mr. Harper should give precedence to principle, rather than his Reform Party ideology, in Canada’s international policy.”

Give me a break. THIS is one of the many reasons why I never again want to see the Liberal Party of Canada returned to power.

In regards to China, Mr. Harper has done what the Liberals refused to do... call China on the carpet for their human rights abuses. In regards to Columbia, their human rights issues are nowhere near as bad as China's... and they're in the middle of an armed conflict, with leftist forces trying to pull a Hugo Chaves on the nation... of COURSE there's going to be issues with militias on both sides.

As for the accusation of Mr. Harper's lack of "consistency", I'll give that one to the Liberals... he's NOT consistant with the Liberal policy of ignoring violations of leftists, while screaming and shouting bloody murder when someone on the right steps even a little bit out of line.

Hypocrites. I'm 100% behind Mr. Harper and his international dealings.

And once again, the Liberals show their utter lack of respect for anyone and anything that does not promote the Liberal brand... trying to resurect the "scary Reform/Conservative Alliance" label once again. Garbage. Total and utter garbage. Disgusting. It's things like this that make me sick of them, and make me want even more to ensure that they never again govern this great nation.

So much for Liberals being "principled".

Entitlements - it's time for change

An absolutely fantastic article about Liberals and the entitlement culture, written by "Sandy" at "Crux-of-the-Matter"... "Time to change our “entitlement culture".

Well said Sandy! So many points are spot on, it's hard to pick a few favorite quotes...

"But, is that what Canadians really want? I would like to say no, but actions speak louder than words. Cynapse, at Cynics Unlimited, ran an excellent article the other day titled “The Victim-Beggar Complex.” He explains why all the usual suspects (activists and the media) cry foul everytime there is a conservative government in power. Why? Because, basically they are afraid their privileges will be taken away.

Which is why you hear conservatives being called every unpleasant name in the book: neo-con, right winger, intolerant, racist, bigot, homophobe. Think about it, what are you reading in newspapers and on the Internet? What are you hearing and seeing on television? Day after day the media is bombarding us with the rights and privileges that are being questioned or changed. As Cynapse implies, any change, or threat of change, in the status quo brings on the hysteria."


"Yet, when has a Liberal government ever done the right thing and made tough decisions that the population didn’t like? Apart from raising taxes (which the Ontario Liberals promised they wouldn’t do) I can’t think of a time in recent memory when tough decisions were made that would have affected those with the victim-beggar complex. No, they are too busy giving all the special interest groups exactly what they want, not necessarily want they need, just so they can stay in power."

Liberals don't understand CWB question

This just in from the Liberal Party of Canada... and I'm left scratching my head.

Wayne Easter is quoted as saying "The CWB Barley plebiscite question is 'manipulative'". Huh? The options look pretty clear and straightforward to me...

1) The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets;

2) I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer;

3) The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley.

Of course, if you are a "CWB ONLY" supporter, then I guess you would want to raise any kind of flag that you could in order to try and discredit the vote.

It's a false delemna to propose that there are only two possible options. As many Manitoba famers seem to support the Board, they can sell their grain to the Board, while other farmers have the option to look elsewhere, should they so choose. (having the option being the key) It would give the Manitoba farmers the ability to pool their resourses to get a fair price for high volumes on the open market, while Alberta farmers, if they so choose, can swing a deal with others on the world stage. It also opens the door to more specialty products, should farmers find a market for it.

It seems to me that Liberals, and most on the left in general, are really opposed to choice, not just in this, but in many areas. It's a "my way or the highway" approach to life, that many Conservatives, and a rising number of Canadians in general, are getting (if not already) sick and tired of.

It's like Childcare... institutionalized socialist daycare is NOT the only viable option for a large percentage of people... stop trying to prevent me from getting financial assistance for rasing my own kids at home. (oh, silly me, that won't allow the "childcare advocacy groups" from getting massive government grants... okay, scratch that idea)

Healthcare... there are means of providing some services, still paid for by the Province, outside of the traditional Hospital environment. And much cheaper options at that. (oops, right... I forgot, it's really about protecting unionized jobs and high paid Liberal-connected executive positions... sorry, my bad)

And now, the Wheat Board. They won't allow farmers to have a say in it... but it's not just the Wheat Board where choice is denied. Here in Ontario, there's a fight going on about milk production... some famers want the option of selling raw milk in a monitored and regulated fashion. But most (not all) Liberals in Queens Park don't want to even have the discussion... so discrimination continues.

I thought the "Party of Trudeau" was about maximizing the freedom of the individual, and preventing government oppression? Well, that's what he said he believed, according to his "Memiors"... which I own, for the record.

Humm... seems to me he, and most modern day Liberals, are pretty selective as to which freedoms that philosophy gets to be applied to.


"Liberalism"... an untenable political philiosophy which needs to be rooted out of our nation as soon as possible.