Saying its not possible says that the bureacracy participates in out and out fraud. It would be nice to see this excuse, for both sides, stripped away by those who question them, voters, media watchdogs etc.

You've got to be kidding me.

Of course he'd say that.

This is pretty good, but it gives the lie to the label "conservative" for today's "convservatives." There was a great deal more collective responsibility in the past, and the State was much more intrusive. The conservatism of rewarding personal responsibility is actually the innovation here: it's Whiggery, basically.

Accepting your definition, then, we go straight to the corollary: "conservatives" believe that everybody is capable of more or less total personal responsibility, "liberals" do not. The "conservative" is thus either something of an idealist regarding the perfectibility of human nature, or he doesn't care about collective results, i.e. he's not much of a patriot. (I prefer the former interpretation, as the Randian "to hell with the weak" school of conservatism hardly exists in Canada.)

But it follows that if "conservatives" greatly overestimate citizens' capacity for personal responsibility, their will to weaken the government's power to enforce collective responsibility will leave a lot of people hung out to dry. As I say, I do not think this is generally the intention of non-Randian "conservatives": rather, they extrapolate from their own experience, thinking they are capable of a great deal of personal responsibility, and presume that everybody else is. This strikes me as a) again very idealistic, b) not based on a serious evaluation of human fallibility, c) somewhat narcissistic.

This is pretty good, but it gives the lie to the label "conservative" for today's "convservatives." There was a great deal more collective responsibility in the past, and the State was much more intrusive. The conservatism of rewarding personal responsibility is actually the innovation here: it's Whiggery, basically.

Accepting your definition, then, we go straight to the corollary: "conservatives" believe that everybody is capable of more or less total personal responsibility, "liberals" do not. The "conservative" is thus either something of an idealist regarding the perfectibility of human nature, or he doesn't care about collective results, i.e. he's not much of a patriot. (I prefer the latter interpretation, as the Randian "to hell with the weak" school of conservatism hardly exists in Canada.)

But it follows that if "conservatives" greatly overestimate citizens' capacity for personal responsibility, their will to weaken the government's power to enforce collective responsibility will leave a lot of people hung out to dry. As I say, I do not think this is generally the intention of non-Randian "conservatives": rather, they extrapolate from their own experience, thinking they are capable of a great deal of personal responsibility, and presume that everybody else is. This strikes me as a) again very idealistic, b) not based on a serious evaluation of human fallibility, c) somewhat narcissistic.

That didnt stop Chretien from upping our Kyoto committment at the conference to one up the Americans, no analysis, no study not thought to it….

But he would have a number thats for sure….

Indeed, Oxford Dictionary defines "dinner" as “main meal of the day, either at midday or in the evening.”

I believe that midday is more often the norm in rural areas. Although Ignatieff did give his speech in an urban setting, I think that Wells was a bit excessive in noting the lunch/dinner thing three times in a single column.

Point is, I thought it reflected a steely side of his character which would end by making the charge look ridiculous as the campaign went on, not unlike how the anti-Chretien stuff backfired badly in '93. (Shows how much I know.)

As for the Green Shift, well, if you're worried about the policy chops and political judgment that thought that little beauty up, remember that the carbon tax was first hauled onto the national political stage by one Michael Ignatieff, during his first run for the leadership. (Along with "Quebec = a nation" in the constitution, "not losing sleep" vs. "une crime de guerre" on Israel, and a few other fun things.)

But. It's quite possible that Ignatieff is flexible enough that he will avoid Dion-esque faceplants, and therefore push Stephen Harper to an early retirement. Having read the last one so badly, I'm very hesitant about my predictive powers for the next one. (My inability to read the public's mood may reach John Tory-esque levels.)

But I thought the point re Harper getting away with it rang true enough to repeat.

Some people just do. Ever see Steyn's review of Chretien's bio? He posits what would have happened, had Chretien stuck around to deal with Adscam:
http://bit.ly/15SWSP

"What would Chrétien have done? He'd have said, "Waal, da scam is da scam and, when you got da good scam, dat da scam. Me, I like da scam-and-eggs wid da home fries at da Auberge Grand-Mère every Sunday morning. And Aline, she always spray da pepper on it. Like Popeye say, I scam what I scam. Don' make me give you da ol' Shawiniscam handshake …" Etc., etc., until it all dribbled away into a fog of artfully constructed incoherence, and the heads of the last two journalists following the story exploded, and he won his fourth term."

Anyway, we'll see.

Or they are just stuck in the Iggy-doesn't-stand-for-anything narrative. I have to admit that this was how I felt about him until the Board of Trade speech. Mind you, when I hear Iggy's ads about Canadians not needing to choose between the environment and the economy after his lovefest at the Tar Sands earlier this year, I can't be sure if he meant any of it.

In any case, I agree with you. His speech and the vision he outlined for Canada's economic growth was excellent and showed how utterly devoid of economic sense Harper really is.

I actually like your definition, especially as a generalization. To take that generalization and expand on it a bit, I would say that large portions of both the left and the right actually believe in both elements of personal and collective responsibility.

The difference is more along the lines that the left often believes that pushing greater responsibility as the main solution to the problem at hand – whatever it may be – will not bring significant resolution to that problem and that we have reached the point where collective action is required; the right believes that there is still a lot of improvement that can come from advancing personal responsibility, and therefore forgoes any collective action.

And I also wouldn't mind trading the liberal / conservative labels for the right / left labels, except that those other labels seem to be the preferred labels, at least on this site.

I actually like your definition, especially as a generalization. To take that generalization and expand on it a bit, I would say that large portions of both the left and the right actually believe in both elements of personal and collective responsibility.

The difference is more along the lines that the left often believes that pushing greater responsibility as the main solution to the problem at hand – whatever it may be – will not bring significant resolution to that problem and that we have reached the point where collective action is required; the right believes that there is still a lot of improvement that can come from advancing personal responsibility.

And I also wouldn't mind trading the liberal / conservative labels for the right / left labels, except that those other labels seem to be the preferred labels, at least on this site.

Further, if that credential had come up I'm confident that many voters would have thought something along the lines of "Well yes, on that particular issue Dion did demonstrate the makings of a true leader, but despite that instance I still don't believe he would make a good PM".

And I'm not sure that that resonated with Liberal voters as much as there unwillingness to actually go through with the Green Shift, but that's a different discussion.

- conservatives want no rules regarding how a person earns money or what you should do with it afterward, but they do want rules regarding who you can sleep with (and similar moral issues),
- liberals want no rules regarding who you can sleep with (and similar moral issues), but they do want rules regarding how you can earn money and what you should do with it afterward

Btw, the hidden agenda relates to 'who you can sleep with' and similar rules.

But things can change, and quickly.

Update: All I know is that my judgment on these memes is faulty — I thought in 2007 that "Stephane Dion is not a leader" was a silly line to push that no intelligent person would go along with.

And yet…

Disingenuous is what they do.

Update/edit:
I'm just saying, don't be surprised if Harper gets away with it —
<a href="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomm…” target=”_blank”>http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomm…

"One of the most annoying things about Stephen Harper is that he gets away with it."

"He makes huge gaffes — like mocking arts funding in the middle of an election campaign, or using an economic update to cancel his opponents' main funding mechanism — and escapes with his government intact, if just barely. He's a bit like Pierre Trudeau in that: Trudeau could pull any number of asinine stunts and next time you looked he was still prime minister."

Don't be shocked if he does, in fact, get away with it again.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

PS. I'm pretty sure Harper was all about limited government right up until he became head of the government. Funny, that.