Now What?

[chuckChuck]

Same old rhetoric from most of the posts.

Still no one answered why supply management marketing board policies fit with Conservative freemarket party policies? It is highly inconsistent to support one but not the other. All the arguments about the performence of the CWB are irelevant to that question.

A few posts had the nerve to blame government regulation for the financial crisis. Apparently when things go bad corporate executives and their apologists have no responsibility! The freemarket rewarded highly risky investments.

Taxpayers bailing out the banks??? Sorry folks the freemarket has failed miserably in regulating itself and it is now time for governments to step in and pick up the pieces. It is lack of regulation and oversight that caused this mess and this will be followed by an era of more regulation.

[TOM4CWB]

chuckChuck;

'Still no one answered why supply management marketing board policies fit with Conservative freemarket party policies? It is highly inconsistent to support one but not the other."

ARE YOU BLIND?

THE CONSERVATIVES... AT NATIONAL POLICY CONVENTION... AS STATED ABOVE;

VOTED AND PAST THESE POLICIES OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA:

1. TO SUPPORT SUPPLY MANAGEMENT;

2. TO PROCEED WITH CWB 'MARKET CHOICE'.

DEMOCRATIC VOTES WERE HELD IN MONTREAL... AFTER DEBATE.

SIMPLE... WHAT DON'T YOU GET?

[chaffmeister]

chuckChuck:

you're choosing to avoid the obvious:

1. The majority of SM farmers "embrace" SM. They like it. It pays well. The Conservatives respect that.

2. The majority of Western Canadian farmers DON'T embrace the single desk of the CWB. They don't like it. It doesn't pay well. The Conservatives respect that.


Sometimes it's not philosophical. It's just a matter of respect.

Why would you say: "All the arguments about the performence of the CWB are irelevant to that question."

[Fransisco]

Chuck, if you are looking for philosophical and intellectual purity I would suggest that political parties are not the place to look for it.

But if you insist on it then maybe you should also be asking why it is that the NDP and the Liberals are not in favour of "nationalizing" the entire economy. It seems to me they are highly inconsistent as well.

[bluefargo]

Chaffmeister

Basically I agree with your 2 points.
It's a nice positive way to look at things.

But you have to admit that philisophically supply management doesn't fit well with the conservative party. I think the liberals support of SM was half hearted too. It is causing Canada a lot of embarrassment in trade negotiations. We look like hippocrites
which ofcourse we are.
The only reason the conservatives support SM is political expediency. No government dare risk the wrath of Ontario and Quebec voters by touching SM. Same for the previos liberal government.
The liberals traded off the western grain farmer in order to defend SM.
But it has come to the point there is nothing left to trade off.

Fortunately the consumer has not figured out what supply management costs them. That would complicate things for any government.

[chaffmeister]

bluefargo:

You're absolutely right.

Another, more cynical, way of spinning this apparent political dichotomy is to say:

1. The Conservatives support SM to gain political support in Quebec.

2. The Conservatives support marketing choice (a voluntary CWB) to gain political support in Western Canada.

Remember, one definition of politics is:

"to deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way".