B
bizorky
Guest
Sorry to date myself, but I can recall government back to the late Trudeau era, and if there is one thing I can say for the Liberals since their return to power under Chretien it is that they have been a huge friend to research in this country. During the Mulroney era, our place in the world in terms of R&D was quite pathetic, and this was vastly improved by the Liberals.
But research policy alone does not make for good government. At the end of the Mulroney era, many of us were more than a little convinced that the country was in danger of going belly-up finacially. We believed that CPP was over, that houses were going to remain unaffordable not because of the price, but because of the interest rates, and that the only way inflation pointed was up. Thirty percent of the budget went to servicing the debt, which was sick.
Now, the Liberals were no angels over all this, and many of the things they did were not so smart. But if I compare the eight years of Progressive Conservative government with the ten years of Liberal government, I would have to say that I'd take the experience under the Liberals any day. Things are much better today than they were back then. But I get really tired when I hear that the exciting issue of the time is tax cuts, or national unity. We've been there and done that, and it is a case of bright lights hanging on an otherwise empty building. As for scandal in politics, well imagine that? This country was built during a time of scandal having to do with railways.
My issue with all the political parties lies with vision. I don't hear anything that excites me. I hear leaders who speak about leadership, but actually talk about management (I'd be glad if they'd make the distinction); I hear leaders who talk about ethics, but never get to the heart of the matter of what they mean by ethics; I hear and see leaders and political strategists talk about staking out their own ground politically, but are always looking to move to the centre for the sake of getting elected and nothing else.
If Harper et al want to be socially conservative, fine. At least have the balls to make a stand and say something that will get people talking. The debate can't hurt. The same for Layton; if you don't want to be a Tony Blair socialist then stake out your ground on the left. Duceppe plays the broken record, with his endless drone of what's good for Quebec is good for Quebec, and that's all that matters. The Liberals have made a career out of sitting in the centre as much as possible. They sit in the middle quite well, but make it as interesting as watching paint dry. If Canada, as Bill Fox once said, is land of radical centrists, then what are the paramount issues for the future of the nation? Are we doomed to have elections about a truly small number of twits who decided to play with public money so obviously that it was only a matter of time until they were caught? I sure hope not.
But research policy alone does not make for good government. At the end of the Mulroney era, many of us were more than a little convinced that the country was in danger of going belly-up finacially. We believed that CPP was over, that houses were going to remain unaffordable not because of the price, but because of the interest rates, and that the only way inflation pointed was up. Thirty percent of the budget went to servicing the debt, which was sick.
Now, the Liberals were no angels over all this, and many of the things they did were not so smart. But if I compare the eight years of Progressive Conservative government with the ten years of Liberal government, I would have to say that I'd take the experience under the Liberals any day. Things are much better today than they were back then. But I get really tired when I hear that the exciting issue of the time is tax cuts, or national unity. We've been there and done that, and it is a case of bright lights hanging on an otherwise empty building. As for scandal in politics, well imagine that? This country was built during a time of scandal having to do with railways.
My issue with all the political parties lies with vision. I don't hear anything that excites me. I hear leaders who speak about leadership, but actually talk about management (I'd be glad if they'd make the distinction); I hear leaders who talk about ethics, but never get to the heart of the matter of what they mean by ethics; I hear and see leaders and political strategists talk about staking out their own ground politically, but are always looking to move to the centre for the sake of getting elected and nothing else.
If Harper et al want to be socially conservative, fine. At least have the balls to make a stand and say something that will get people talking. The debate can't hurt. The same for Layton; if you don't want to be a Tony Blair socialist then stake out your ground on the left. Duceppe plays the broken record, with his endless drone of what's good for Quebec is good for Quebec, and that's all that matters. The Liberals have made a career out of sitting in the centre as much as possible. They sit in the middle quite well, but make it as interesting as watching paint dry. If Canada, as Bill Fox once said, is land of radical centrists, then what are the paramount issues for the future of the nation? Are we doomed to have elections about a truly small number of twits who decided to play with public money so obviously that it was only a matter of time until they were caught? I sure hope not.
