Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

And it is working for the Republicans on health care in the states.

The Republican's have suggested several things to help reign in the costs of health care. What they don't include is a government run system.

[octothorp]

It'll be a very interesting election from a polling/prediction perspective; last time around, the Conservative victory was by a wider margin than just about any pundit predicted. So the question is whether we'll see the same thing this time around, or whether they will have figured out why they were so wrong last time, and make adjustments to their methodology.

That said, the most recent harris decima polls sure make it look like good timing for the Liberals: Conservatives and Bloc are down in Quebec, Libs are up almost ten points. Ontario still too close to call, but NDP down overall which is good for the Libs. In BC, the Conservatives are down overall with almost all of their loss in support going to the Greens (probably indicates soft conservative support which the cons can win back). Status quo on the prairies and atlantic canada.

Anyway, this is just a move to put out feelers; make it known that they intend to topple the government, and then see how the polls respond. If the polls in Ontario and Quebec don't see a Liberal drop-off over the next few weeks as rhetoric is heightened, then they'll challenge the government first chance they get.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

The Liberals promising to slash the defecit without raising taxes. Does Ignatieff have the stones to pull out of Afghanistan immediately, much to the chagrin of Obama?

Unlikely that he would want to. He has historically had a much more interventionist approach to foreign policy than the Canadian average. He's definitely to the right of his own party in that regards. If pulling out of Afghanistan does become part of the Liberal campaign, it's a sign that he's not really in control of the agenda.

[flamesfever]

I'm wondering if the decision by the Liberals, to have a Fall election, has a lot to do with economic timing. If or when the stock market starts into the usual Fall doldrums, the Liberals can say, "Look... the Conservative policies are failing".

I think that would also be an unwise motive for an election, as the Conservatives could counter with, "Look what your election call has done to our economy...it's stalled our rise out of recession".

I still think Ignatieff is a pretty clever person, however, I get the feeling he doesn't have control, and is being pressured by the party to go for an election, before the economy improves early next year.

As most have said, I think the biggest reason against an election is the instability it could cause.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Can I assume that in actuality you find this sort of nativist nonsense despicable and you just forgot the green text?

You'd better hope Harper has got better weapons than that in his arsenal. That pretty much defines "weak."

I'll add this: Harper's panicked ad campaign accused Ignatieff of being "American." But it's Harper who is injecting the American rhetorical style into our politics--attack ads that are devoid of content, making nakedly jingoistic emotional appeals in an attempt to grab the moral low ground before anyone else can get there. That defines everything that is wrong with American political culture.

Let's remember that we're better than that.

Remember that the Liberal's were highly effective with their attack ads and attack retoric from long before the conservatives really stole their playbook.

Lets not paint the Conservatives as the creator of the attack ads or the out of control rhetorical style politics.

Remember the scary west, if you elect a reform party member your giving the west a seat at the table.

Remember the cross burnings in Kelowna

Remember the Troops on the street

Or Harper marching into a room to very nazi style music

The only reason why the liberals lost their edge in attack ads is because they had no money, not because they didn't want to.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FFR

Ignatieff says he will eliminate the debt without raising taxes. How you might ask? "Wait and See"

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

"Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff pledged Wednesday to erase the projected $50-billion federal deficit if elected into government -- and to do so without raising taxes."

"When pressed on how he would do that, Ignatieff would only say: "wait and see." "

That's some good politics there. This is what we're going to do. But we're not going to tell you how we're going to do it. You'll just have to trust us.

Wow thats out of the Paul Martin playbook. He tried the same thing in his last election with the whole "We have a plan" statement that he couldn't back up.

[CaptainCrunch]

I just want to see a 1 on 1 brawl debate between Harper and Ignatieff. No Bloc, No NDP No Green

Just a one on on brawl between a politically saavy prime minister and a former harvard professor.

[Devils'Advocate]

Since there seems to be a lot of:
"The Canadian public will be upset at yet ANOTHER election and it will backfire against the Liberals"
and
"The Liberals have no platform"
and
"The economy is getting better, which is advantageous to the Conservatives"

I am extending my previous offer.

I currently have a bet with Troutman for $100. I say that the Liberals will GAIN in popular support *AND* GAIN seats from last election. If either of those predictions is wrong, Troutman gets the $100, if both predictions are right I get $100.

I'll take up to 4 others. PM if interested. Also willing to do forum donation bets (if I win $100 goes to the Devils forum I frequent; if I lose, my $100 goes to CP).

[CaptainCrunch]

Sorry I don't gamble when it comes to the collective predictability of the average Canadian voter.

For all we know, a Rat fresh off the boat from China could get elected because he wears a shiny collar.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

For all we know, a Rat fresh off the boat from China could get elected because he wears a shiny collar.

interesting... I'm intrigued by this new candidate. How shiny is the collar and how much does this rat hate america?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Nope. Simply that we're not "better than that", and that nobody complaining about Harper's "Ignatief is an American" ads, or any others from any party, is occupying any moral high ground.

Well, speak for yourself I guess. I'm pretty comfortable with my moral high ground!

In all seriousness, the first attack ads I can remember in Canadian politics came from the Conservative Party under Kim Campbell. The party was punished at the polls by voters in spite of the ad being pretty tame by American standards. If we stop punishing parties at the polls for those tactics, the parties will keep using them.

I'll make this commitment: if a party uses attack ads in the next election cycle they will not get my vote. I'll vote Green if I have to, though lord knows I'd rather not. I want civility in my politics and I want my political debates to be about issues, not image. My vote goes to the party that can present a constructive, positive vision for Canada without resorting to infantile attack ads directed at voters too stupid to evaluate them critically.

I'll agree wholeheartedly that the Liberal ads against Harper were ridiculous. They were also ineffective, and smacked of desperation. And they did backfire--because people didn't watch them and believe their message, they watched them and correctly perceived them as a cynical attempt to smear an opponent.

And now it's up to us to make sure the same tactic backfires on Harper. If we don't, you can be sure he'll trot out the same, stupid, nativist rhetoric again and again.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Since there seems to be a lot of:
"The Canadian public will be upset at yet ANOTHER election and it will backfire against the Liberals"
and
"The Liberals have no platform"
and
"The economy is getting better, which is advantageous to the Conservatives"

I am extending my previous offer.

I currently have a bet with Troutman for $100. I say that the Liberals will GAIN in popular support *AND* GAIN seats from last election. If either of those predictions is wrong, Troutman gets the $100, if both predictions are right I get $100.

I'll take up to 4 others. PM if interested. Also willing to do forum donation bets (if I win $100 goes to the Devils forum I frequent; if I lose, my $100 goes to CP).

There's no election yet; does the bet still stand if the election isn't until next fall?

If it's THIS fall I might take you up. I think this would be a disastrous move; though I note that no-one in the upper echelons of the LPC has asked for my opinion.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, speak for yourself I guess. I'm pretty comfortable with my moral high ground!

In all seriousness, the first attack ads I can remember in Canadian politics came from the Conservative Party under Kim Campbell. The party was punished at the polls by voters in spite of the ad being pretty tame by American standards. If we stop punishing parties at the polls for those tactics, the parties will keep using them.

I'll make this commitment: if a party uses attack ads in the next election cycle they will not get my vote. I'll vote Green if I have to, though lord knows I'd rather not. I want civility in my politics and I want my political debates to be about issues, not image. My vote goes to the party that can present a constructive, positive vision for Canada without resorting to infantile attack ads directed at voters too stupid to evaluate them critically.

I'll agree wholeheartedly that the Liberal ads against Harper were ridiculous. They were also ineffective, and smacked of desperation. And they did backfire--because people didn't watch them and believe their message, they watched them and correctly perceived them as a cynical attempt to smear an opponent.

And now it's up to us to make sure the same tactic backfires on Harper. If we don't, you can be sure he'll trot out the same, stupid, nativist rhetoric again and again.

Yeah those ads against Kim Campbell were lame. Do you remember the Conservative party's ads against Chretien (sp?)? They had a bunch of still images of him showing his half-paralyzed face looking its worst. Those were very weak and backfired as well.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, speak for yourself I guess. I'm pretty comfortable with my moral high ground!

In all seriousness, the first attack ads I can remember in Canadian politics came from the Conservative Party under Kim Campbell. The party was punished at the polls by voters in spite of the ad being pretty tame by American standards. If we stop punishing parties at the polls for those tactics, the parties will keep using them.

I'll make this commitment: if a party uses attack ads in the next election cycle they will not get my vote. I'll vote Green if I have to, though lord knows I'd rather not. I want civility in my politics and I want my political debates to be about issues, not image. My vote goes to the party that can present a constructive, positive vision for Canada without resorting to infantile attack ads directed at voters too stupid to evaluate them critically.

I'll agree wholeheartedly that the Liberal ads against Harper were ridiculous. They were also ineffective, and smacked of desperation. And they did backfire--because people didn't watch them and believe their message, they watched them and correctly perceived them as a cynical attempt to smear an opponent.

And now it's up to us to make sure the same tactic backfires on Harper. If we don't, you can be sure he'll trot out the same, stupid, nativist rhetoric again and again.

Yeah, well... If you've ever watched the parliament channel you know that the people we send to the HoC are a bunch of children. Just try watching it for more than 5 minutes. Bet your head explodes from a stupidity overdose.

[starseed]

This just in from LPC head office: this morning the party signed up its 100,000th member. This is no small achievement for a party that started the year with under 30,000 members.

There’s no doubt about it – as Liberals in Sudbury prepare for the official opening of National Caucus today – we’re heading into the next session of Parliament with real momentum.

We haven’t just grown the party. With our combined Q1 and Q2 fundraising results at $5.7 million we’ve already raised more funds than in all of 2008 – that doesn't even include what National Director Rocco Rossi called our “"best August (fundraising results) in a very, very long time." Our Q2 result outpaced the Conservatives.

http://www.liberal.ca/en/blog/16246_...00-member-mark

That is pretty crazy...

The Liberals took themselves out of debt by the convention in may, and are now starting to exceed the conservatives in fundraising? That is incredible.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by FFR

Ignatieff says he will eliminate the debt without raising taxes. How you might ask? "Wait and See"

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

"Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff pledged Wednesday to erase the projected $50-billion federal deficit if elected into government -- and to do so without raising taxes."

"When pressed on how he would do that, Ignatieff would only say: "wait and see." "

That's some good politics there. This is what we're going to do. But we're not going to tell you how we're going to do it. You'll just have to trust us.

Well thats good enough for me.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FFR

"When pressed on how he would do that, Ignatieff would only say: "wait and see." "

Just watch me

- P.E. Trudeau

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Wookie

I totally disagree on this. If you want to be PM you should love this country. I question how much someone loves this country if they live elsewhere, especially since he has said he'd go back to Harvard if he doesn't win (joke or not).

*I* love this country, but not because I have some mythical connection to the land - I love it because it is a place where political plurality is part of the culture; where people are treated as citizens with rights, not faceless workers or useful resources; where official corruption is guarded against and prosecuted, not accepted or ignored; where the lawful refugee is given asylum and help. Yet I also love America, and Britain, and France, and Brazil, and Israel, and India - any nation where the primacy of the liberal democratic ideal has been accepted.

As long as you believe in that primacy, and in those ideals, questions of ethnicity or residence are immaterial. I vastly prefer a patriotism of the mind and not the land, and for a cosmopolitan view of citizenship over a parochial one. Patriotism of the latter kind is nothing more than a refined version of tribalism and is a negative, not a positive force.

Originally Posted by Wookie

I also don't agree with the "Harper from Alberta and Ignatieff living in the US" to be the same argument at all. Alberta is in Canada. If Harper loses he's coming back to Calgary probably.

You miss the entire point of my comparison. In both cases, the man is perceived as an outsider and thus automatically unworthy of trust.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

There's no election yet; does the bet still stand if the election isn't until next fall?

If it's THIS fall I might take you up. I think this would be a disastrous move; though I note that no-one in the upper echelons of the LPC has asked for my opinion.

You are like me in that you can start reading too much into the polling data. Polls are useful tools but they are not gospel truth. A large part about politics is just simply rolling the dice and running a good campaign.

Whether the Liberals are capable of that or not is a question but I don't see disaster in this move just yet.

It could all blow up in their face but the CPC has been lucky in that they've been up against two of the worst Liberal campaigns in modern history. The first, Martin's downfalls, was run at the height of one of the biggest corruption scandals in Canadian history. The other, was against one of the worst federal leaders in Canadian history. The fact that the Liberals weren't completely routed shows long standing deep support for them.

Now that they have money and what seems to be alot of their backroom talent back in the mix along with a strong-ish leader maybe they've realized that it's now or never time.

It's been a long time that we've had two leaders duke it out in a campaign and alot can happen over the course of six weeks. Remember the Quebec sovereignty referendum? In the first two weeks the 'Yes' (federalist) side was polling upper 60s. Then a concerted campaign eroded that support to an essentially neck and neck result.

What will the dominant issue be of the election. In most elections the dominant issue isn't the one that gets the most press leading up to the writ being dropped. It's usually something else, something smaller. Last election it was the arts funding that ended up costing the Conservatives a shot at a majority. This election? The economy in my mind will play less and something else is going to emerge. Which party it sticks to and how it helps/hurts them will be interesting. The poitn is that these things are inherently unpredictable.

If I were to guess, my rational poll watching brain would lead me to believe in another Conservative minority. But, with 4 elections now with Jack Layton how committed are NDP voters and how will that vote break? Will they go Liberal and add another 5 seats? How will Quebec break, can the liberals make up 15 seats there? Are voters tired of Duceppe?

Then how does Ontario shake down? Who knows what could happen. Everything is really up in the air.

[North East Goon]

Well, if Ignatieff can erase our debt, increase cash stimulation into the economy as well as speed up EI claims all with out raising any taxes. He has my vote for Prime Minister of the entire Milky Way! Otherwise known as the old I will be voting for a Conservative yet again routine!