Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[zuluking]

Ah, just wait til the campaign starts and Ignatieff starts talking down his nose at Joe Sixpack. He could make some pretty valid statements, but, due to his smarmy, intellectually "holier than thou" presentation, no content will actually be heard. The Liberals have a snowballs chance in hell winning an election with him as the leader. With Harper, everyone already knows what they're getting - a mannequin in a sweater that can run the country pretty well (conservative in name, liberal in execution.)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Ah, just wait til the campaign starts and Ignatieff starts talking down his nose at Joe Sixpack. He could make some pretty valid statements, but, due to his smarmy, intellectually "holier than thou" presentation, no content will actually be heard. The Liberals have a snowballs chance in hell winning an election with him as the leader. With Harper, everyone already knows what they're getting - a mannequin in a sweater that can run the country pretty well (conservative in name, liberal in execution.)

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Have you actually heard Ignatieff speak?

He's very impressive, actually--and has an easy rapport with his audience that makes Harper look like a cold fish. If this election comes down to which leader is more able to connect with his voters, Harper might as well pack it in now.

The thing is, flashy presentation isn't enough, and so far Ignatieff has been a little short on details. Hopefully he does something about that very soon--"wait and see" isn't going to cut it for very long. Harper may be a cold fish, but he is tested, and if there's a ton of mystery about the Liberal platform he might start to seem like the "safe" choice.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Ah, just wait til the campaign starts and Ignatieff starts talking down his nose at Joe Sixpack. He could make some pretty valid statements, but, due to his smarmy, intellectually "holier than thou" presentation, no content will actually be heard. The Liberals have a snowballs chance in hell winning an election with him as the leader. With Harper, everyone already knows what they're getting - a mannequin in a sweater that can run the country pretty well (conservative in name, liberal in execution.)

IFF is right, that's wishful thinking.

Don't mistake Canadian voters for Americans who chose Bush over Gore because (in part) of Gore's intellectualism and Bush's Joe Sixpack everyman appeal. By far the most popular (and, indeed, also the most hated) Canadian PM from the last 50 years was nothing if not an intellectual.

[LChoy]

OT

Iowa, I just want to say that I enjoyed your commentary during the US election thread and the fact you have a similar grasp and scope for Canadian Politics, that's a really rare ability to have here.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

OT

Iowa, I just want to say that I enjoyed your commentary during the US election thread and the fact you have a similar grasp and scope for Canadian Politics, that's a really rare ability to have here.

You're making me blush!

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Have you actually heard Ignatieff speak?

He's very impressive, actually--and has an easy rapport with his audience that makes Harper look like a cold fish. If this election comes down to which leader is more able to connect with his voters, Harper might as well pack it in now.

The thing is, flashy presentation isn't enough, and so far Ignatieff has been a little short on details. Hopefully he does something about that very soon--"wait and see" isn't going to cut it for very long. Harper may be a cold fish, but he is tested, and if there's a ton of mystery about the Liberal platform he might start to seem like the "safe" choice.

First question: No, never, I'm making stuff up.

And so you don't get all embarrassed blushing and stuff, I think you're full of crap.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by zuluking

First question: No, never, I'm making stuff up.

Well, at least you're honest. There are, however, at least two possibilities: 1. You're making stuff up, and 2. You're a very poor evaluator of political talent.

Either is fine with me. You can take your pick.

May I also say what a charming gentleman you seem to be, who handles debate and disagreement with maturity and dignity. Some people act like children when they're contradicted, but not you! I don't want to make you blush though, so I'll stop with the compliments.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Ignatieff is doing damage control on the Home Reno credit:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...ax-credit.html

This is a smart move by Harper. Force the opposition to vote down the tax credit in order to bring down the government, and make the first few weeks of the election all about the tax credit, which will lead well into a messaging campaign that accuses the Liberals of raising taxes. Force the Liberals into damage control mode now, and then control the terms of the debate later on. Very shrewd.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Ignatieff is doing damage control on the Home Reno credit:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...ax-credit.html

This is a smart move by Harper. Force the opposition to vote down the tax credit in order to bring down the government, and make the first few weeks of the election all about the tax credit, which will lead well into a messaging campaign that accuses the Liberals of raising taxes. Force the Liberals into damage control mode now, and then control the terms of the debate later on. Very shrewd.

I saw this one coming as soon as I knew that the reno credit was not fully ratified while the government has been advertizing extensively to get people spending. It's an easy argument to make - Liberals vote against the GST, promise to eliminate it, then keep it anyway. Now they are forced to vote against the credit, promise to reinstate it then, . . .

It's too bad that elections boil down to these kinds of false optics issues. When I evaluate a party's platform, it comes down to eliminating parties whose platforms would be the most ruinous for the Canadian Economy first with every other consideration coming a pretty distant second. I would love it if people actually thought in-depth about what the different options mean but after I have made my decision and begin trying to convince others to vote the same way I do, I am disappointed by the shallowness of the political understanding in the people I talk to.

The first week of the election will be about having yet another election and about the Liberals killing the tax credit. It will be false(ish), but that will be what the story will be about.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Ignatieff is doing damage control on the Home Reno credit:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...ax-credit.html

This is a smart move by Harper. Force the opposition to vote down the tax credit in order to bring down the government, and make the first few weeks of the election all about the tax credit, which will lead well into a messaging campaign that accuses the Liberals of raising taxes. Force the Liberals into damage control mode now, and then control the terms of the debate later on. Very shrewd.

It is too bad the Liberals were not hammering Harper for lying to the Canadian people with his public service ads. He has been telling people for months to have home reno's done, the whole time knowing that it is not the law of the land. You would think a Prime Minister would be more responsible then that, or at least you would hope.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

It is too bad the Liberals were not hammering Harper for lying to the Canadian people with his public service ads. He has been telling people for months to have home reno's done, the whole time knowing that it is not the law of the land. You would think a Prime Minister would be more responsible then that, or at least you would hope.

The plan was passed in the budget (and thus the authority to advertize it) but because the credit doesn't accrue until the end of this fiscal year, final ratification was left to a ways and means motion that would need to be completed this year. The spring budget is never the whole of the Government's spending plan as monies need to be allocated on a regular basis to pay for ongoing and new programs. There's nothing fishy about this other than the manipulation of the timing of the vote, which will be positioned before any opposition days, but that's the Government's perogative.

[Bownesian]

To be clear, the renovation tax credit is not the only spending that needs to be ratified by Parliament and this is how money allocation works in our system.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

The plan was passed in the budget (and thus the authority to advertize it) but because the credit doesn't accrue until the end of this fiscal year, final ratification was left to a ways and means motion that would need to be completed this year. The spring budget is never the whole of the Government's spending plan as monies need to be allocated on a regular basis to pay for ongoing and new programs. There's nothing fishy about this other than the manipulation of the timing of the vote, which will be positioned before any opposition days, but that's the Government's perogative.

It's hard for me to be super-outraged about it because I suspect that the Liberals would do the same thing. Harper is a smooth operator--he lacks charisma or any real vision for change (let's not forget that it was Preston Manning who was the right's true visionary back in the day--Harper has always been more calculating and less ideological) but he has parlayed his slim minority into a pretty solid stint in power. He may not be overly ambitious politically, but he's very shrewd--and understands how to use the parliamentary system for political benefit very well.

And lest I be accused of damning with faint praise, I do mean the above as a compliment.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's hard for me to be super-outraged about it because I suspect that the Liberals would do the same thing. Harper is a smooth operator--he lacks charisma or any real vision for change (let's not forget that it was Preston Manning who was the right's true visionary back in the day--Harper has always been more calculating and less ideological) but he has parlayed his slim minority into a pretty solid stint in power. He may not be overly ambitious politically, but he's very shrewd--and understands how to use the parliamentary system for political benefit very well.

And lest I be accused of damning with faint praise, I do mean the above as a compliment.

It could be argued that Manning did more to implement fiscal conservative governance (by bringing a consistent emphasis on defecit elimination to the national adgenda, subsequently coopted by the Liberals) than Harper has done in 4 years in power.

There are layers within layers in all these parties. The last Liberal government attempted to spend to the limit (Kelowna Accord and the proposed Daycare plan) so as to eliminate any surplus fiscal capacity that the opposition could run attractive platforms against. The current "Conservative" government did the same by reducing a hated tax, thereby forcing the previous Liberal election platform to have a massive redistribution of wealth out of Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC (the Green Shift) so they could fund their social spending. I am not against the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax where carbon taxation on businesses is offset dollar for dollar by business tax cuts, and similarly for personal tax but their plan was to fund social and regional development programs out of that pool that in my opinion do not help macro economic growth.

The Liberals are still stuck in that corner. I don't see how they can have any significant environmental or social agenda when the spending balance is so tight without massive spending cuts, tax hikes, a thinly veiled wealth redistribution like a Green shift or some combination of all three.

[metallicat]

We're in a god damned recession, the ruling party is working to get us out of it, and now they're going to be forced to STOP working while the opposition tries to take over. I'm sick and tired of the BS political games that are going on in this country. Our politicians already take too much time off.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

It could be argued that Manning did more to implement fiscal conservative governance (by bringing a consistent emphasis on defecit elimination to the national adgenda, subsequently coopted by the Liberals) than Harper has done in 4 years in power.

At the time, I couldn't stand Preston Manning, he being the ideological enemy and all that. As I've grown older I've really come to appreciate what he accomplished; he rewrote the Canadian political spectrum, and raised some fundamental questions about our polity that I think we're still trying to answer. Although he never became Prime Minister, I agree: his influence overall is undoubtedly greater than that of Harper, or--say, Paul Martin even.

Most of all--I disagreed with his ideas, but I can't deny that Manning was a visionary, who had a profound sense of mission about making the country he loved a better, more vibrant place--and if that winds up being the lesson of his political career, I think that's very impressive.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Ah, just wait til the campaign starts and Ignatieff starts talking down his nose at Joe Sixpack. He could make some pretty valid statements, but, due to his smarmy, intellectually "holier than thou" presentation, no content will actually be heard. The Liberals have a snowballs chance in hell winning an election with him as the leader. With Harper, everyone already knows what they're getting - a mannequin in a sweater that can run the country pretty well (conservative in name, liberal in execution.)

I don't think we really know how Harper can run a country as he has never had a majorty. He has been forced to compromise with the opposition parties a lot, or at least not act too partisan. That's all good though and the way a minority government should work.

I doubt he would be liberal in execution if he had a majority.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I doubt he would be liberal in execution if he had a majority.

I agree with this statement. Harper isn't exactly a 'leader of men', but he certainly holds conservative views. Look at his history before politics to confirm that.

If anything, he's suppressed his personal views in an effort to appeal to the center-right while the Tories do the minority government dance to hold power.

I also agree with the "mannequin in a sweater" comment. That's pretty accurate, and I take it to be more of an attack of his public persona than his political views.

And I prefer him over Ignatieff as PM wholeheartedly. Unfortunately I live in Rob Anders' riding, so I'll be voting for some fringe candidate instead.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by zuluking

First question: No, never, I'm making stuff up.

And so you don't get all embarrassed blushing and stuff, I think you're full of crap.

someone's a little jealous...

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I agree with this statement. Harper isn't exactly a 'leader of men', but he certainly holds conservative views. Look at his history before politics to confirm that.

If anything, he's suppressed his personal views in an effort to appeal to the center-right while the Tories do the minority government dance to hold power.

I also agree with the "mannequin in a sweater" comment. That's pretty accurate, and I take it to be more of an attack of his public persona than his political views.

And I prefer him over Ignatieff as PM wholeheartedly. Unfortunately I live in Rob Anders' riding, so I'll be voting for some fringe candidate instead.

You know that Rob Anders is about as far from influence as any member of the government, right? He has been an MP for 11 years and has risen to the lofty heights of being the Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee.

He is a bum in a seat who votes with the government on command. He is my MP (being a Bownesian, obviously) and while I know he was a grandstanding idiot is (has he done anything stupid in the last 6 or 7 years?), I have long since accepted the idea that we don't really have a representative democracy in the local sense but instead vote for leaders and party platforms first and direct representatives a distant second.

Though I have voted against him in the past (and have voted against his nomination several times), I made my peace with the idea that a vote for Anders is money towards the party whose platform I least disagreed with.