Thank you, Holly, but there is more than enough silliness to go all the way across the spectrum.
I think a man who made a Hall of Fame impact in the professional sports world, who authored or co-authored commercially successful and award winning books, with a legal degree and ministerial career won't be begging for charity, regardless of a pension, as he could still walk out and earn cash you could never dream of earning. Because if your uncharitable, small minded whinging observationscan only aspire to that tired old line, then my guess is you are not in high demand by your own family.
According to Samara, there hasn't been for some time, not just recently or in the immediate future.
Actually it was serious. From what I can tell, the only thing MPs can act upon in a meaningful way are the bills before them. They speak to people and groups that are impacted by the bill. They speak to departmental officials about wording in the bill and test the intended meaning of the words against how they might really be interpreted or acted upon. MPs do not, at least in any public way, have meaningful impact on developing public policy.
I have read about how opening up the Commons to a "more diverse background" is a good thing. How do we measure the truth of that statement? How much direct input do backbenchers have into public policy? Allison and Samara have also pointed out that this is a concern expressed by past MPs. If public policy isn't being crafted by MPs or significantly influenced by MPs, why do we care if they are of a diverse background? Instead, why don't we care instead that they understand how public policy impacts complex economic, social or legal systems? Why don't we care that they are capable of looking at a bill and accurately analysing its effectiveness in translating public policy into legal expression?
As the patron saint of conservatives everywhere, Don Cherry, would say, "Act like you've been there before."
My favourite line:
"Leave aside the horrifying fact that Republicans, seeking to score some ownership of this triumph, would look to torture as their contribution. Why not the beefed up on-the-ground intelligence from 2005 on? That's Bush's legacy that Obama built on. Besides, there is no evidence that it played any part whatsoever"
So long as Quebec remains in Canada could be an unfortuante linguistic formulation from an ESL speaker, or it could be a very important insight into the mindset of those who ran.
I honestly don't think you are right when you say the Reform Party has accepted that they are Tory conservatives. Tory conservatives have either accepted their new bedfellows for who they are or are fooling themselves. Look at who is in the center ring of power: Harper is surrounded by Harris core politicians and backroomers and all Tories are either completley won over or marginalized. Regardless, soem pretty hard core beliefs, regardless of superficial brands, have been swallowed even by the Reformers to make that coalition work. The only difference is that the Right wing of the right wing is supreme rather than being the butler.
The NDP brand is a shell. Socialism is a joke. Is Jack going to nationalize stuff? Is he going to successfully turn Canada into a true socialist state? Of course not. It's a broken model and not one Canadians believe in, regardless if election results. If they stay divided instead of uniting, the "left" will watch the CPC transform Canadian society in their image of what it should be.
Umm, the Reform/CA were of completely different traditions from that of the PCs. They held deeply seated animous for each other, personally and as parties. They came together after it became painfully obvious that while they stood around arguing over points of doctrine, the Liberals were blithely sailing away to victory on the stregth of their disunity. In other words, their general objectives as parties were being subverted by their own stubborness. At some point inthe future, the Liberals and NDP will either come to the same conclusion, as they see a robust CPC government rolling over and turfing out the institutions they despise and that the Liberals and NDP cherish. The Left will follow the example of the Right and unite under a modified banner and modified credo in order to counteract the overall course they see the country taking. Failing that, the Right will eventually be left with the country they envision and no meaningful opposition in sight.