If you really want to know how the Liberals view the Canadian public, Scott Reid, Paul Martin’s press secretary, captures their attitude perfectly. In criticizing Stephen Harper’s plan to give cash to parents of small children, rather than " daycare spaces", Reid said the plan would result in the cash being frittered away on "beer and popcorn". So it would appear that we finally have an issue that clearly differentiates the Liberals from the Conservatives. The Liberals want to provide cash to the provinces in order to create additional "daycare spaces", while the Conservatives are proposing to give each family with children under the age of six $1,200 per year per child.
The Conservatives’ plan recognizes that only about 13% of the nation’s children receive daycare from government-sanctioned providers, while the other 87% either receive care from a stay-at-home parent, a relative, or an unlicensed daycare provider.
The implications of the Conservatives’ plan are that they believe parents know what’s best for their children and as such want to assist parents directly. The Liberals appear to believe that the government knows what’s best for your children and as such wants to provide government sanctioned "daycare spaces".
Putting aside for a moment the question of whether the government should even be in the business of providing anything to parents with children (unless, of course, the parents are in dire straits), it’s worth examining the two proposals in greater detail.
If you believe that the gun registry, national public health care and the educational system are all flawlessly humming along and doing their job, then you’d be well advised to vote Liberal. If you believe these institutions to be in a downward spiral and functioning poorly, then the Conservative plan would make more sense.
The Liberals’ plan to provide "spaces" bespeaks their commitment to the Nanny State and the belief that individuals are not capable of taking care of themselves or their families. The philosophy such plans imply and the Liberals’ reaction to a plan that offers an alternative is indicative of how contemptuous the party is of the electorate.
The beer-buying analogy isn’t unique to Scott Reid, as Gilles Duceppe reminded reporters on the weekend, Jean Chretien used it some years ago when he famously declared that the unemployed living in the Gaspé just want their UI cheque so they can use it to buy beer. But, then why would Liberals be anything but contemptuous of the voters, given that no matter what they do, they continue to get re-elected?
It appears there is a kind of "Stockholm Syndrome" gripping Canadian voters. Just when you think the Liberal government has overstepped the bounds of propriety in the things they say and do while in government, the voters give them another mandate.
They cancelled a judicial inquiry into the torture and murder of a Somali youth when it became evident that some of the responsibility for this act would stick to Liberal politicians. They made light of the assault ordered by Prime Minister Chretien against legitimate protesters in the aPEC affair. They let a billion dollars slip away through the so-called "HRDC boondoggle". They wasted two billion dollars registering law-abiding citizens’ guns, while our cities’ streets have become a killing ground. They have all but destroyed the famous Canadian health care scheme and are promising more of the same. after each and every one of these "scandals", they were re-elected. Maybe Canadians really are beer-swilling tax drones.
Now the Libs are running on their record of stealing money for their own political furtherance through criminal money laundering and the Canadian voters don’t seem to think that it makes much of a difference.
No wonder the Liberals are contemptuous of the voters. as a nation, we deserve contempt.