No "drastic cuts" to federal spending in budget: PM - Macleans.ca
 

No “drastic cuts” to federal spending in budget: PM

Harper says provincial transfers, health and education budgets are “protected”


 

Stephen Harper promised on Thursday his government’s upcoming budget wouldn’t include “drastic cuts” to programs or tax increases, even as Ottawa struggles to pay down a record deficit. The prime minister specifically identified transfers to the provinces, as well as spending on health and education, as being shielded from any efforts to reduce public. “We said those things are protected,” Harper told reporters at a forestry funding announcement in Windsor, Que. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is expected to annouce the date his new budget will be presented when Parliament returns on Jan. 31.

CBC News


 
Filed under:

No “drastic cuts” to federal spending in budget: PM

  1. “We said those things are protected”

    Yeah, and "we" said there'd be transparency in government and a whole host of other things that weren't true. Given that Tories seem to think every day is Opposite Day, I won't hold my breath.

    • *yawn*

      • Yeah and that's how this country will go further downhill from where it was 10 years ago.
        Harper has repeatedly lied, reneged on promises and undermined parliamentary process.
        You say yawn, I say you and those like you are as much the problem as the reform group now in power and the opposition who facilitate his miss-management and desecration of this great land.

        • "you and those like you" – ouch!

          "miss-management and desecration" – I suppose this is really the main point where we disagree. I simply don't believe that Harper is destroying our country, nor did I believe that Chretien was destroying our country in the 90s despite the fact that he repeatedly lied, reneged on promises and yes, even undermined parliamentary process in his own way. Those who oppose like to make a big stink, and some even are willing to delude themselves and delude others that everything is going to be irreparably destroyed (whatever that means anyway) if the current head of state gets to continue with their ways. Well, I simply am not convinced, and I think I have history on my side (not to mention common sense and reason).

          And so yeah, I'm rather bored of those who don't like Harper continuing with the same old line: "Oh, he'll just do the opposite of that no doubt!". And, perhaps I'm even fearful of extremists like you harebell who are actually believe our democracy is in jeopardy. Perhaps.

          • Extremist ouch indeed
            Someone who disagrees with you is an extremist now? How very Rovian of you.
            I don't know Harper so I cannot dislike him. I have seen him by-pass parliamentary process repeatedly, hide the truth repeatedly and break his own promises repeatedly. So I do deduce using actual evidence provided by the guy that he is not a trustworthy politician. And unlike you I don't blow it off with a "well they are all at it" attitude.
            Maybe I'm showing my naivete in expecting my politicians to obey the law and to do what they say they would do. I value honesty in a leader and don't mind them making mistakes, but they shouldn't try to hide it.
            An I still extreme?

          • Sigh…and what are those who disagree with you? Oh yeah, they are me and those like me, the one's that are causing our country to go further downhill from where it was 10 years ago.

            Extreme is the view, repeatedly stated and implied by many both in the media and on the comment boards, that Harper does nothing except lie, renege and undermine. Has he acted in those ways on a few issues, yeah sure. There was the income trust reversal/lie, there's the Afghanistan controversy, a few others, sure. Of course, at the end of the day, it depends what glasses your wearing. Those with extreme glasses on tend towards seeing everything that Harper does as being dishonest. Harper appoints Fantino to the ministry – oh, no doubt something despicable is going on there! I would simply challenge you to look back over the record, and note the places where Harper actually kept his promises, so that you cab begin to put some shades of grey into your otherwise stark black and white portrait of our PM.

            And look, if Harper really did lie and renege and undermine in EVERYTHING he did, which so far as I can see simply is not the case despite all the noise to the contrary, then I would not adopt the position that they are just all like that so leave it be. I would be the first one in the voter's booth doing my part to show him the door. Alas, that is simply not the reality of the situation. As well as truthfulness and honesty, I value leaders who are able to make decisions based on changing circumstances. On top of that, there are a lot of other things that I value as well. Again, its not a simply black and white picture, and its certainly not as simple as either honest or liar.

          • You and those like you was a reference to your very short "yawn" response. Given the numbers of our citizens who get involved in elections and other aspects of government and the brevity of your initial response was it unsurprising that one might group you together? Or was that an extremist interpretation of "yawn?"
            Internationally the country has slipped a great deal under this gov. So downhill is definitely an appropriate adjective. The lieing and dishonesty charges are more arguable,
            The taxes on investment vehicles that were specifically ruled out of bounds in pre-election promises started the worry. Stacking of the Senate, when Harper specifically stated that tactic as something he disliked and would reform, showed a huge policy promise broken. Then the passing of legislation that fixed election dates which was then promptly ignored by its instigator. The second prorogation of parliament to prevent the investigation into the detainee handover showed a contempt for parliament, that was exacerbated by the behaviour of ministers in committee.
            These are examples of dishonesty that indicate that Harper does not think that the law and rules of government apply to him and his. This type of dishonesty is more critical to the workings of a Parliamentary democracy than whether an MP is caught having an affair and as such I place greater weight on it. It's not the number of lies that causes me to distrust Harper, it's what he has lied about.

          • Harper cannot reform the senate from his minority position, there was not enough support(untill he started to fill vacancies) and then the opposition was going on and on about senate reform. When push came to shove though the voted it down.

        • Facts are unimportant to most Liberals. It must be a fantasyland or a trough. Canadians are doing much better after they were thrown out.

          It's the economy stupid and Liberals have a track record not worth repeating.

          Starting from a low of 6.8% in the boom year of 2000, the national unemployment rate rose to 7.2% in 2001, in line with the high-tech meltdown. Unemployment peaked in 2002 (7.7%), stalled the following year at 7.6%…

          What did Liberals do to prove they were compassionate? Gut the program, raise EI rates illegally, make it more difficult to collect benefits?

          Look up Canada vs US unemployment rates. When does Canada post better numbers. Hint is was NEVER during the Liberals in government.

          After 13 years of Liberals sound fiscal management of our country our military and provinces were better off?

          Those trade deals into other markets that were needed to diversify our dependency on our American ally to the south?

          The Canadian dollar ( at par $ 0.64-0.69) and our productivity? The crumbling neglect in infrastructure to post a balanced federal budget on the backs of the provinces in transfers in Health, Education and Social Services?

          Chalk River was to be shut down in 2000. Remember the isotope shortage. Look up Maple Three Reactor Liberal boondoggle.

          The annual dance by the Liberals in fixing their small estimated surplus that was missed by ten billion?

          What parliamentary process did the Liberals invoke to shutdown Adscam, Somalia, APEC inquiries?

          What year did Paul Martin begin a series of promises to spend money to fix the neglect from the previous decade of darkness?

        • Facts are unimportant to most Liberals. In what universe did your Liberal utopia exist ten years ago?

          Our dollars was at par, our reserves were not third world, our aging Chalk River reactor slated for decommissioning in 2000. Unemployment rate was better, our military, water treatment, roads, bridges were not in neglect?

          Liberals gave us a federal balanced budget on the backs of EI cuts to the most vulnerable, Health, Education and Social transfers to the provinces. Is that the great record you are boasting about?

          How many trade deals did those Liberals achieve to diversify our economy or after actual reductions after signing Kyoto in 1998?

          That sucking and blowing sound from apologist and revisionists of history is tired. Try some FACTS

          Unemployment, Canadian dollar, Global standing. Feel free to view Kevin Page big ticket items of spending by the government. Hint they were the areas the Liberals gutted in their decade of darkness.

          • The reason I gave 10 years is because that is when I began my life here. (Citizen now)
            Confusing me for a Liberal was you first mistake.
            Why you chose your name puzzles me.

          • Ten years ago our dollar was a basket case, our unemployment was similar and Federal taxation was higher.

            Great you think the CPC should be ideological and have refused to help during the meltdown.

            It was a mistake to extend employment insurance for five weeks.

            Perhaps you can get Paul Martin Liberals to reform a right wing party to gut healthcare, education and social services again to balance those Federal books on the back of provinces.

          • There you go with the Liberal thing again.

            Fiscal conservative, socially liberal there is no party for me, hence unaffiliated.

            But given the deficit history, Liberals have left us in the black, Conservatives in the red, both tend to tell us what to do in the bed room.

          • Minority parliament our PM needs at least ten MPs to skip or support the budget.

            Can you find ten MPs that share your fiscal views from the cheap seats?

            Liberals left us in the black? They did not make the necessary spending in many areas and abandoned "universality" a key plank of Liberalism as defined by them.

            Offloading costs to provinces and failing to spend on our military is not a record I would brag about, but than again Ignatieff believes Rob Ford voters will support him.

          • I'd be hard pushed to name 10 Conservative MPs to actually act like fiscal conservatives and your point is?

            So your point is – not spending money you don't have is bad, spending money you don't have good. So I take it you are a social conservative, while fiscally you lack any discipline.
            How much of the money we spent in ill-considered adventures abroad would have been better spent updating our military and looking after our borders at home?

          • Realist.

            Economic Update, campaign promises platform 2008. Cuts were made. $ 37 billion first 2 years. Need a link?

            Smaller federal government "wait and see" approach of global storm clouds rejected by the majority of MPs.

            Opposition had promised $ 30-50 billion during campaign in 2008 before drop off in December-January 2009.

            Our PM listened to demands of the opposition and returned from his Christmas break after meeting with G20, Premiers in December 2008.

            Two year deal was reached by Fed-Provinces on EAP and BCF was moving forward.

            Liberals agreed the market had changed from Sept 2008. Revisit the numbers and the market in Sept 2008 vs Dec 2008.

            When did numbers stop sliding down slow down or stop May or June 2009?

            Ideology has very little meaning for me in politics. It makes for nice PR.

            Adding five weeks EI benefits during crisis, providing safe drinking water through repairs, replacement of old water main is not a left vs right.

            Neglect in our infrastructure was systemic by the Liberals in their last time in government for a balanced federal budget.

            You call it a lack of discipline, I refer to it as necessary "opportunistic" spending. Spending frozen in markets? Low rates locked in by Fed to fix repair leaky roof. Opportunistic because opposition demanded it. Next two years photo op, large cheques for government courtesy of opposition screaming bloody murder to bail out everything including American auto companies.

            Parades, wasteful NGO's are not necessary. How is the media reporting of the FACTS on the big ticket items vs the pocket change?

            PBO, AG "big ticket items feel free to list the specific wasteful spending priority.

          • hand waving just creates a draft
            the bottom line never lies

          • You may have missed the fact the revenue side fell off a wee bit during the meltdown, with the recovery, profits returning so will our balance sheet.

            By all means suggest federal taxes are NOT lower and policies have been put in place with cooperation from G20-Provinces-Cities.

            This is not a dictatorship but a minority parliament. Opposition parties demanded spending and apparently Liberals minus the Danny William Liberals voted for the two year plan.

            Our PM has the confidence of the Liberals. No other party is talking about restraint or less spending.

            Feel free to start a mythical party Joe Clark may be available.

          • Again with the Liberal thing, you don't read what I reply with do you? Is there something about not being a party member that scares you?

            We are in deficit we owe money, every time the tories leave office we are in deficit, we owe money. They tell us we won't be in deficit but we will be. What is conservative about that?

            I'm more like Groucho on the party thing, would not want to belong to one that would have me as a member, but if I did start one how would it be mythical?

          • I have no problem you like to pin the spending of this minority government on the incumbent and give no praise for their steering us last into the recession and first out. (That was the first clue you think Joe Clark was a great leader)

            I was laughing after you shared your 10 year reference and threw in tory times are tough times line with "deficits"

            I am equally impressed you claim to be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal by attacking the big ticket items: those priorities social policies.

            See PBO, AG, Budget. (Health, Education, Social Services, Transfers to provinces including Equalization) from our PM vs Liberals in the 1990's is a clear divide.

            Our PM did not attack the most vulnerable at home or overseas to post a balanced Federal budget in 2008-2009, 2010.

            Estimates vary it will take another five years before the balance sheet is back to 2007 levels. I find it amusing you have no problem with gutting the big ticket items as Chretien Martin did.

            Clearly your not a Liberal, you just share their ideology.

          • There's a few who would take you to task on the "not targeting the vulnerable" bit. He certainly helped the wealthy through corporate tax cuts. While at the same time he ignored pay equity for women. But I guess that depends on who you define as vulnerable. A catholic school gets 4 million a native community gets told no you can't have a school. Again depends on who you think is vulnerable. Shutting down organisations looking into the disappearance of native and other vulnerable women. Oh yes the Kairos debacle and others who couldn't have been defined as vulnerable folk abroad, because they were ideologically undesirable.
            Those vulnerable corporations though needed that 60B.

            As for the balanced budget – deficit, when did that happen? Just asking.

            Again I'm confused by your name.

          • Your talking points betray your political ties.

            Spending 13 years in the courts fight Pay Equity from Chretien-Martin was more compassionate? (Thanks for clearing it up)
            You mean adopting Pay Equity legislation that mirrors the Ontario-Bob Rae NDP model by the Federal government is less compassionate. Liberals left little presents: Paying five billion to settle that lawsuit is a pattern. Lack of Isotopes, lack of equipment for military.
            You mean doing nothing on Aboriginal Reserves and hosting a party to give five billion called Kelowna Accord. (Feel free to review water treatments and billions spent vs Promises)
            Defending Kairos: Attacking the Oil sands, anti-divestment targeting the only democracy in the middle east. (Shocking)

            Feel free to check the budgets from 2006-2007. Feel free to review the PBO and AG big ticket items.

            They have spent billions fixing the neglect by the Liberals. I am thrilled you tried to spin Pay Equity, Karios.

            Restoring the $ 25 billion in cuts during Chretien-Martin decade of darkness. Reducing EI eligibility, illegally raising EI rates, taking $ 56 billion was more compassionate.

            Just curious you raised Catholic. What did the Catholics think of the tax funded abortions for the Congo as part of Maternal health supported by the opposition parties as a necessity?

          • Keep changing the points, keep guessing as to who I am. You asked me about vulnerable people in 2009 -11. Now you bring up 2007. I bring up how Harper and Co have attacked women's groups you talk oil and how a democracy should be supported even if they commit illegal acts.
            Where did catholic come from?
            It's funny how the worst offenders of a given action accuse others of it.
            I take it you chose your name, because there is no way anybody else would accuse you of being even close to it. it.

          • "A catholic school gets 4 million a native community gets told no you can't have a school. Again depends on who you think is vulnerable. Shutting down organisations looking into the disappearance of native and other vulnerable women"

            NGO's can't be defunded? It must be ideological. (Gotcha) As I have said your talking points are funny because the don't register with the majority of voters as credible. Repeating them demonstrates your bias for the other team press releases.

            Shifting goalposts, rewriting history has been your feat. It has not been difficult to lay facts at your feet that your ignore.
            Your talking points don't match reality. ( Just keep pretending it does)

            Liberals did not govern with more compassion because they posted a balanced budget as a social liberal as you claimed. The massive cuts have not been repeated. That was your revisionist history at work.

            I can see the fiscal conservative point of view for less spending. As a realist in a minority I see the opposition blocking those changes. When they have their majority will their rhetoric match the talking points of fiscal conservatives? Doubt it.

            As I have said this too many Liberals, Red Tories pushing their fake scandals. Most of us get it, this government is much better than the last and the problems of entitlements and waste have not been repeated.

            Kairos was a dead give away. Foreign misadventures for securing our own borders too.

            PET , Chretien-Martin Liberals share your value system. Talk but don't act.

            Pearson, Diefenbaker, Harper do not. They acted in being a responsible citizen on the international stage.

          • So that makes me raised a catholic how?
            Reality, I don't think that means what you think it does.
            Being socially liberal also means something different to your take on it.
            Now for the comment on the deficit, on the one hand you say that the opposition made you do it so it's not Harper's fault, then you claim credit for having done it and shortened the recession. Heads you win, tails they lose hey?
            Any of the machinations to avoid accountability are dismissed as fake scandals, proroguing was a travesty after a complete screw up by Harper.
            Our sovereignty and the ability to defend ourselves could have been secured by spending all that cash at home, not to mention having less of our folk dieing for a cause that has stated it doesn't want us there. (thank you wikileaks for making that public.)
            Harper has been anything but responsible on the international stage and he certainly does not deserve to be mentioned in the company of the other two, who appeared to have been great on the diplomatic front from my reading of history.

          • Wow! You keep trying to bring this back to you. Who cares what political card or religion you have?
            I point out your "social liberal" values don't match tax paid abortion for the Congo. ( See expert opinion yourself, why do you think Liberal are toast with Catholics?)
            I did not expect this government to not listen or be flexible to the conditions of the country and globe. (I have stated our PM is a pretzel)
            I applaud your use of left wing talking points as proof of your fiscal conservatism.

            The problem with your points is they don't match up the facts. Pearson sent our treasure in harms way. Liberals after him refused to step up and pay the note in being a responsible international citizen. They cut foreign aid. They just talk about helping the most vulnerable.

            It is not difficult to look at the big ticket items and compare where the Liberals gutted our spending and this CPC government did not.
            Health, Education, Social Services, transfers to provinces Foreign Aid
            Building Canada Fund and EAP.

            Yes it sucks for left leaning political NGO's and the special interest groups of the left.

            Best of luck on that bandwagon.

            I am glad our PM did not repeat the isolationist and uncaring examples of the Liberals.

          • He has isolated us in all but participation in a conflict in which the subject of which and our major ally wishes we weren't there.
            All the international events that he has attended he has been marginalised, ignored or patronised. The help for women in the thrid world extended well beyond abortion, but that is a talking point that you like.
            An ounce of prevention can save a load of cure, so spending now on improving the lot of those at risk around the globe can save us money in the long term. Contraception etc. are important in reducing diseases and unwanted kids. Given the problem with supplying food to those in the 3rd world this might be apparent. Apparently not, because all you took from it was abortion.

            As for religion/politics it was you who asked if I was a catholic, so I answered then you complained that I made this about me. likewise your accusations of being a Liberal. If you don't want me addressing issues why raise them?

          • You raised religious issue regarding aboriginal funding (nice try suggesting I did)
            You suggest you are a fiscal conservative -social liberal and suggest this current government is extremist.
            The actual spending refutes 100% of your talking points. In my world it is called FACTS.

            In your worldview repeating talking points that don't match FACTS is rhetoric. You are obsessed with repeating rhetoric and oblivious to actual FACTS.

            Last question when did you see your first Unicorn?

          • I believe you raised the topic of MY religion then complained when I asked you about why.
            Notice not one reply to my points just hand waving. Figures.
            Your name again, you chose it didn't you?

        • In what multiverse did your Liberal Utopia exist in 2000?

          Canadian Dollar at Par? Nope
          Unemployment rate comparable to today? Compare Tech meltdown 2000-2002 rate vs Global meltdown. How is Canada doing vs rest of developed economies?

          Mismanagement let's compare Sheila Fraser Reports during Liberals vs CPC last five years.

          What has Kevin Page cited as biggest ticket items of concern? Hint Liberals gutted them to post a balanced budget. How many times did Liberals have to restate their missed surplus?

          During the last meltdown did Liberals increase EI benefits or make it more difficult for those to collect? What about seniors did they offer more help? Pensions?

          Liberals signed Kyoto in 1998 did they do anything? Our military, cut funding?

          Those aboriginal reserves and Chalk River how were they during the Liberal reign of darkness?

      • I see. Harper has been saying one thing and doing another for so long it now bores his fan base. Buck up. He might actually do as he says for once and surprise you!

        • Yes…that's it *shaking head no and giving knowing look to the rest of Harper's "fan base"*

          • Well here's the thing. While you keep saying "no he didn't", you have failed to actually address the facts. You were given a specific example of Harper promising to be more open and accountable. I do not think there is any objective perspective in this country that would say the Harper government is open and accountable. In fact it is rather apparent it is the exact opposite. He created a position for Kevin Paige and ever since has been undermining him and decreasing his budget. He has centralized power more and more in the PMO, which means he has placed it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.

            He promised to make the Senate open and accountable and instead has stacked it with patronage appointments and has even made his appointments promise to support his legislation, making them accountable to him and not to the people they are supposed to be serving.

            But you can continue with your trite meaningless responses if you want. I can understand since they are probably much easier for you than actually addressing the point.

          • In your mind our PM is less accountable than the previous Liberals. Cognitive dissonance.

            Your are free to believe in your talking points.

          • Who cares about imagination. In the real world the current PM promised to be MORE accountable than the previous two. In fact, he is less so.

            You seem to be satisfied with that. I am not.

    • Don't hold your breath, those not consuming the Liberal kool-aid get it.
      http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_i

      The USA has slipped three notches to No. 4 in an annual ranking of nations with the most favorable brand performance, says a new study.

      Climbing to the top spot (from No. 2 in 2009) is Canada, thanks in part to its success in hosting this year's Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Australia and New Zealand rank second and third. Rounding out the top 10 are Switzerland, Japan, France, Finland, the United Kingdom and Sweden.
      http://www.futurebrand.com/news/in-the-news/new-s

      Harper is so politically skillful that the public spotlight has turned mostly on the Liberals since 2006. "It is Dion and now Ignatieff, who have had their flaws so starkly revealed," he writes. "Today, Harper seems less worn than Dion did, less worn than Ignatieff does now."-Ken Dryden

  2. Not a fan of the conservatives, Keith?

  3. So you see, as I said on this site some time back, the Libs would paint themselves into a corner by saying they will not support the budget. Seems this will be the case. Iggy is such a political neophyte. Harper is having him for dinner!

      • Heh. I love the thumbs down for posting an accurate quote of Ignatieff's position. it does not surprise me – conservatives seem to like to "thumbs down" facts.

  4. Exactly why this country badly needs a new party that WILL cut spending, particularly as it relates to the huge, inflated salaries paid to all thosecollecting a taxpayer-fed paycheck from welfare cases to supreme court judges and everyone in between. I know I won't hold my breath but my voting days are over until somebody bites the bullet before it is too late. The conservatives have lost my vote over their spending.

  5. Will KING Harper again stuff everything but the kitchen sink in the new budget (i.e. like in BILL C-9 last year budget … non budget items that deserve separate debates and not to be attached to the Government's non confidence vote of a budget … this is another way KING Harper steals the rights of all our MPs to debate important items and not being accountable (in CHECK) as a MINORITY Government that we the people voted to give him to keep in CHECK) ?

    It must be nice to MAKE UP the rules.

    Canadians should NOT accept this type of abuse of OUR DEMOCRACY.

  6. I don't think you should pretend you are taking the high road here. The post to which you initially responded referred to the lack of accountability from a Prime Minister who promised more. Your response was to yawn. Any comment about the lack of meaningful content in your post was justified.

  7. That is interesting. You completely ignore the point the original poster was making (that Harper promised accountability and did not deliver). That fact makes you yawn. And yet calling you out on that means I am not providing a meaningful response. What an interesting way of seeing things – almost as if rather than simply admit your conduct you want to somehow blame me for your inadequate response.

    Anyway, whether or not centralizing power in the PMO is "drastic" is irrelevant. The fact is Harper has centralized power in the hands of unelected people, which is the opposite of being accountable. Promise made; promise not kept.

    I happen to agree with the point that he never could keep his promise of more accountability, though that certainly does not excuse the fact he promised it in the first place and that he provides less than his predecessors. There was no requirement to centralize power even more given that the country was perfectly fine without doing so.

    As for the senate, I have not overlooked his "attempts" to reform the senate at all. I simply state those were not genuine. Every move he has made on the senate has been with a view to score political points and/or donations. See, what I do believe is that Harper is not interested in hurting Alberta, and an elected, accountable senate where Alberta and other provinces are inadequately represented does harm Alberta. If you take his "reforms" to their logical conclusion, there will be elected senators who, because they are elected, will be more likely to veto legislation they feel will hurt their constituents. Ontario, Quebec, NS and NB have the majority of senators. Power will be centralized in the East and the West loses out.

    No, if Harper were truly interested in senate reform he would first tell the country what he wants a reformed senate to look like, and then he would enter into an adult conversation about it. Finally he would acknowledge constitutional reform is a necessary component of true senate reform.

    Instead he uses it to pay back his supporters with a nice juicy pay-cheque and pension.

  8. Nicely put.

    The whiners can't accept many of us don't take political promises literally from any party. I also have no doubt this is an improvement from the Liberals. Is if far enough NO. Will any political party promising to be fully transparent match their campaign rhetoric?

    I remember the rhetoric from Obama and the democrats. That did not last very long.

    The Internal board of Economy should have all more of their spending including HR problems in the public.

    Lots of room for improvement but I don't expect line for line disclosure any time soon from either party.

    • Oh goodie.

      Please remind all your pals about that next time they whine about Chretien's promise to cut the GST.

      • You usually go through an argument. It is just that what you believe is the right thing to do does not make it the right thing to do.

        Which has what, exactly, to do with my comment again?

        Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.

        You keep demanding our PM be held accountable for his track record including his broken promises and he keeps winning seats.

        Chretien threw Turner under the bus? Martin did the same? Dion left before May convention and Ignatieff's team was not behind it?

        Clearly the Liberals have a SERIOUS problem with getting along. You keep projecting our PM must be more like the Liberals?

        Gayle your team sucks and since the voters have an alternative to the Liberals with a united party under our PM nothing and I mean nothing of your whining is going to change that anytime soon!

        Feel free to tell us about the long form Census change, Helena airport incident or any other "serious" issue on behalf of the Liberals. (The fear mongering is working out well)

        • Which has what, exactly, to do with my comment again?

          Oh yeah, absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.