Who is this Michael Ignatieff guy?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

My question now is, how patient are the Liberal's going to be with Ignatieff. If they do end up going to election in Feb, and the numbers that are showing play out and Ignatieff gets similar or worse results then Dion in a federal election, will they move to replace him.

I think that is a good question to as about both parties.

What are the expectations with Ignatieff at the helm? And I think that question can almost be a 2 parter - if the election was held in March, or if the election was held next fall.

What about Steven Harper? Will his position be safe if he doesn't win a majority next election?

[Slava]

^ I would honestly be pushing hard for Harpers resignation if I were a CPC member. The worst Liberal leader and campaign in decades (if not ever) and the best you can do is a minority? Then to follow it up with this whole debacle....

Anyway, this thread is going to get de-railed pretty quick! Too bad you gave up the membership CC...you could be a Liberal leader from Calgary if you played your cards right!!

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You probably have me here. However I do know that some of the Rae Liberals have been talking about the election of Ignatieff as being contrary to the party's charter in terms of leadership selection.

Yeah, I think it's one of those things where it goes against the spirit of how these things are done - a neutral interim leader would generally make it a fair playing field for all leadership candidates, but as it stands, Ignatieff would have to make some colossal screw-ups between now and then for anyone else to bother opposing him. Seems like absolutely everything that's going on in federal politics right now is 'against the spirit' of what we would like, while staying within the letter of the law.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I would honestly be pushing hard for Harpers resignation if I were a CPC member. The worst Liberal leader and campaign in decades (if not ever) and the best you can do is a minority? Then to follow it up with this whole debacle....

Anyway, this thread is going to get de-railed pretty quick! Too bad you gave up the membership CC...you could be a Liberal leader from Calgary if you played your cards right!!

I think a lot of that had to do with a Liberal-leaning country being bombarded by "Harper = Hitler" ads during both campaigns.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I think that is a good question to as about both parties.

What are the expectations with Ignatieff at the helm? And I think that question can almost be a 2 parter - if the election was held in March, or if the election was held next fall.

The smart move would be to wait a year and work with the government

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

What about Steven Harper? Will his position be safe if he doesn't win a majority next election?

I doubt that they would actively replace him unless he lost the election.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Not at all against the charter. He was merely appointed interim leader. He'll still be up for election in May, and any other party member can run against him at that time, should they so choose. But the party decided that rather than elect a lame-duck interim leader as is often the case, the current circumstances required that they choose an interim leader who could lead the party in case of an election.

It certainly is unusual for an interim leader be someone who intends to run the party long-term, but there is a historical precedent for it: Hugh Guthrie was appointed (not elected) interim leader of the Conservatives in 1926, and remained interim leader for a full year before a leadership convention was held where he put up his name to be the full leader of the party.

Oh come on... I think you would have to admit that to have the front running leadership candidate chosen as the interim leader, pretty well guarantees that he will become the permanent leader in May.
The only way he wouldn't, is if in the 5 months preceding the leadership convention, he was a complete disaster as leader (ala Dion). THAT, is why both Rae and LeBlanc dropped out of the race. They could obviously see the writing on the wall.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Oh come on... I think you would have to admit that to have the front running leadership candidate chosen as the interim leader, pretty well guarantees that he will become the permanent leader in May.
The only way he wouldn't, is if in the 5 months preceding the leadership convention, he was a complete disaster as leader (ala Dion). THAT, is why both Rae and LeBlanc dropped out of the race. They could obviously see the writing on the wall.

Yup, and as I said it may be against the spirit of the charter, but certainly not against either the letter of the law, nor against historical precedent.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, I think it's one of those things where it goes against the spirit of how these things are done - a neutral interim leader would generally make it a fair playing field for all leadership candidates, but as it stands, Ignatieff would have to make some colossal screw-ups between now and then for anyone else to bother opposing him. Seems like absolutely everything that's going on in federal politics right now is 'against the spirit' of what we would like, while staying within the letter of the law.

Exactly.... and what I just said.

[Bobblehead]

If there was some way the CPC could assure the Liberal party that no "overtly partisan" legislation would be introduced before the Liberal leadership convention, I wonder if the Liberals would still appoint Ignatieff?

On a plus side, I do like what Steven Harper is saying about needing to work with the Liberals today.

"Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton want to push the Liberal party into a corner where either they vote against the government no matter what, or they're condemned as sellouts," Mr. Harper said. "But ... smart people in the Liberal party realize we've got significant economic problems and in a minority Parliament, we're only going to deal with them if we sit down and work together.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/fi...615/story.html

This is the type of initiative I can support. The CPC can create the budget, but figure out the most divisive portions and get those issues dealt with before introducing it. I want a parliament of constructive ideas.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I would honestly be pushing hard for Harpers resignation if I were a CPC member. The worst Liberal leader and campaign in decades (if not ever) and the best you can do is a minority? Then to follow it up with this whole debacle....

Anyway, this thread is going to get de-railed pretty quick! Too bad you gave up the membership CC...you could be a Liberal leader from Calgary if you played your cards right!!

With a strong Bloc and Quebec influence who's election values in a lot of ways run counter to the rest of the country, I would say its going to be damn hard to get a majority government in Canada. What pleases the rest of Canada usually seems to piss off Quebec.

As much as I would love to be a party leader and prime minister, I've come to realize three basic truths about myself.

1) I took 12 years of French, and I can ask where the can is.
2) I'm not anywhere near smart enough.
3) My vindictiveness at times makes Harper look like Santa Claus.

[Rerun]

Just a little side note...

I wonder if we'll see Dion in parliament again?

I hope he doesn't decide to take a taxpayer paid vacation, like Paul Martin did, and never show up for work again but still collect his MP pay cheque.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Just a little side note...

I wonder if we'll see Dion in parliament again?

I hope he doesn't decide to take a taxpayer paid vacation, like Paul Martin did, and never show up for work again but still collect his MP pay cheque.

I think the House of Commons should record and publish attendance. Currently I think they only have record of attendance when someone speaks or votes.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I think the House of Commons should record and publish attendance. Currently I think they only have record of attendance when someone speaks or votes.

Yeah. In 2007 the House of Commons sat for 115 days.
I mean, how tough is that to show up for work 115 days out of 365?

In 2008 they sat for 97 days.
In 2006 it was 99.

Your basic MP's salary is $155,400 not counting perks.


FYI...
In 2008, the senate sat for 65 days
In 2007 they sat for 76 days
A senator gets paid $130,400 not counting perks.

but thats all a different kettle of fish all together...

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Yeah. In 2007 the House of Commons sat for 115 days.
I mean, how tough is that to show up for work 115 days out of 365?

In 2008 they sat for 97 days.
In 2006 it was 99.

And Question Period is 45 minutes.

Yeah. I know they supposedly to a lot of constituency work, committee stuff, and so on, but how does the public actually know if they are attending?

My MP (and MLA, for that matter) has been a backbencher for as long as I have lived in the riding, and other than the Annual Christmas message with the picture of them on the Hill, I wouldn't know they had ever actually been to Ottawa.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by habernac

it's called Rae and Ignatieff splitting the vote

We in Alberta know all about how this works, that's how we ended up with our premier.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

We in Alberta know all about how this works, that's how we ended up with our premier.

Is there some way to force a provincial PC leadership change? I've had just about enough of Mr Ed.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Rerun

He also appears to be the most right wing Liberal party leader in decades.
I wonder how this will translate into votes?

I'll tell you how it'll translate into votes. I'm a guy that has voted Reform/CA/Con since I was 18. But I now have an alternative.
I consider myself middle left on social issues and middle right on fiscal issues. The Liberals have historically been the closest thing to that, but their blind hatred of all things America turned me off. Chretien. He was the original reason I wouldn't vote Liberal, and it snowballed from there. Now I'm a staunch Conservative voter, even though I'm not even close to 100% on side with their policies.

The appointment of Ignatieff means that I can finally sit down and consider which party I'm going to vote for based on their policies instead of their leaders. In other words, I no longer hate one of them so much that I'll vote for the other regardless of policy. Though I'm sure that for every person like me who has now warmed up to the Libs a bit, there is a person that still hates the Cons for having Harper as the leader.

As for the earlier comments about Ignatieff's time spent outside of Canada, I can't believe that that would ever be brought up as a knock against a potential Prime Minister. Especially since all this time he spent "away from Canada" was spent in Britain and the US. How is that a bad thing? The guy has close, personal experience with what would be his two most important allies and partners in economy and military. Sounds like a big plus to me.

Ps, sorry if this has already been said. I quoted the post and replied without reading the 30+ posts inbetween.

[metallicat]

Why is Ignatieff a Liberal anyway, rather than a Conservative? Seems his policy views, from what I know of them, would be in line with many MPs for the CPC. If it's only because he figured he would eventually become the de facto PM as leader of the Liberal Party, I don't like it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Why is Ignatieff a Liberal anyway, rather than a Conservative? Seems his policy views, from what I know of them, would be in line with many MPs for the CPC. If it's only because he figured he would eventually become the de facto PM as leader of the Liberal Party, I don't like it.

Well socially he is quite far left, but fiscally he is conservative. He is the prototypical "Blue Liberal" in a lot of ways.