Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[Dan02]

That's what i don't get either, how could you possibly vote for someone who has barely lived in the country for any of his adult life?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Dan02

That's what i don't get either, how could you possibly vote for someone who has barely lived in the country for any of his adult life?

That makes me suspect of his intentions. IMO he wants to be PM so bad that he's like some kid in a candy shop. I just hope Eastern Canada doesn't fall for his bait.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Dion

Sorry to disappoint you but it wasn't me

I found it while surfing the net and thought it was hilarious

There, true to my word, I got another "thanks" in!!!

From the LOLcats thread, which some didn't get, but is more appropriate now...

[Dion]

[jammies]

I'm not a big fan of the Liberals, but I really don't see the problem with Ignatieff not being "Canadian" enough. What does that have to do with how good a job he can do as PM?

It's the same kind of "logic" that gets people all riled up out East about Harper because he's a neo-con from Alberta. I don't care where you're from or where you've been, I just want someone competent who will stand up for Canada internationally and work harmoniously with the provinces domestically. Judge Ignatieff on what he says and does, not where he's been.

[starseed]

Naturally, there will always be people who will blindly follow a party and leader without looking at who they are and what their plans for the country are. You can stick as many labels as you want to political leaders, but in the end, you had better make sure those BS arguments have no impact on your final decision.

This election is about what values and ideals you most adhere to. What direction you want the country to take. Taking a blindly partisan stand is damaging to democracy.

I strongly disagree with Harper's vision for Canada, but I acknowledge that he has done good things. I like his commitment to the military, this is one of the biggest issues I have with the federal government. Our military has suffered greatly because of budget cuts and a lack of emphasis on its importance.

Our international reputation has been declining for the past few decades, and it has been getting a whole lot worse under Harper's direction. We used to be a country that was admired for 'punching above its weight', we were leaders on the world stage. We stood for a lot of things, but now we dont seem to stand for anything. Pearson would be saddened to see how small we have become... how we have no ambition.

I love how Harper has started to aggressively stake our claim in the north, I believe this is vital going forward. I hate how we have been acting like the Edmonton Oilers in living in the glory of our past commitment to peacekeeping and a strong, worldwide diplomatic corps. We have become an afterthought.

I do not like where we have been heading, and I do not like Harper's vision of Canada.

Ignatieff said this:

We can choose a small Canada—a diminished, mean, and petty country. A Canada that lets down its citizens at home and fails them abroad. A Canada that’s absent on the world stage.

That’s Stephen Harper’s Canada.

While that is true, Harper is not the only one to blame. We have been heading down this road since Mulroney and Chretien. Chretien tried to make a commitment to providing Canadian leadership in Africa, but it was largely for show... his group gave out Canadian flags to kids in Africa, then took them back as they left. That pretty much sums up our attitude towards international affairs. Its all smoke and mirrors.

There is no substance, no ambition, no optimistic vision for the country.

Ignatieff has shown to me that he recognizes this, and has convinced me that he will work to change that.

I can think of no better time to bring in a new, broader, more ambitious vision for the country than right before the world comes to our doorstep in Vancouver.

Ignatieff has said that he would not only increase our military presence in the arctic, but also greatly improve infrastructure. He has preached over and over again that he does not believe in the politics of division. He has not talked badly about Alberta or talk about the mythical 'Alberta tar sands' that the far left keeps warning us about. Many people have criticised him for standing up for the Athabasca oil sands, but it shows that he will tone down the partisan rhetoric and work with the provinces. He knows the best he could hope for in Alberta is one seat in Edmonton, yet he still knows not to play division politics against Alberta... even if it makes him less popular in the east.

These elections keep happening for one reason... and that is that two thirds of Canada do not want a right wing government. There is a left majority in parliament, and there is no way Harper is going to keep them happy. He tried to force his agenda through parliament, and it ended up almost causing another election just a couple months after the last one. The only way Parliament will be stable for a few years is if the left is in power. That is the bottom line. If Canada would have accepted a Right wing majority, it would have been when Dion was the leader.

As for the economy, Ignatieff is not saying Harper is responsible for the recession, he is saying he is not the leader we need right now... this is what he is actually saying:

In fact, only two hundred of the twelve hundred infrastructure projects that the Conservatives announced in Ontario have actually received the funding they were promised. Only Stephen Harper could count that as being 80% underway.

Third, we demanded a credible plan to get Canada out of deficit. Stephen Harper’s response has been: “Don’t worry, give it a few years, and the books will balance themselves.” You can put that next to his promise not to run deficits in the first place. Or his promise not to tax income trusts. Or his promise not to appoint Senators.

For a decade, under liberal governments, Canada led the world in debt reduction. We had the best fiscal performance in the G8. But the conservatives put us back in the red, even before the recession. And now they can’t even tell us how deep a hole they’ve put us in, let alone their plan for getting us out of it.

[Dion]

The NDP and Liberals were complaining at the start of the last parliamentary session that the CPC was not spending enough "to stimulate the economy".

And when they spend, those same people still complain.

It seems to be what they do best. Hopefully most Canadians can see the hypocrisy for what it is.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Dion

Hopefully most Canadians can see the hypocrisy for what it is.

There's hypocrisy on both sides... Harper proposed a coalition with the Bloc in 2004, and Stockwell day did the same before him in 2000. Oh, but when the Liberals consider it, well, they would "destroy Canada".

[Dion]

Originally Posted by SebC

There's hypocrisy on both sides... Harper proposed a coalition with the Bloc in 2004, and Stockwell day did the same before him in 2000. Oh, but when the Liberals consider it, well, they would "destroy Canada".

IIRC it was an alliance to bring down the Martin govt and not form power as the 3 stoogies tried to do last fall.

[Thor]

Every election I want to punch someone when they ask me who I'm voting for.

Am I the only one who hates all our parties?

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Dion

IIRC it was an alliance to bring down the Martin govt and not form power as the 3 stoogies tried to do last fall.

Harper himself signed a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, claiming the right to form a government if Paul Martin's minority Liberals could be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons.
His ostensible partners would have been NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe -- now derided by Harper as the "socialist" and the "separatist" in Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's coalition.
"I was just as much a sovereigntist then as I am now," Duceppe sniffed Thursday in a reference to Harper's new-found aversion to any deals with the Bloc.
Such facts are conveniently forgotten by some members of Harper's cabinet who have been even more vocal than their boss in the current crisis.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...4?hub=Politics


I think this move by Ignatieff has a lot to do with the fact that Harper could gain control of the senate in January.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

In my mind, I think the Conservatives have done enough good things to get re-elected:

1. creating the TFSA to enhance the ability of people to finance their retirement.

- honestly not aware enough to judge this.

2. prudent monetary policy

- not sure what that means, generally fiscal conservatism turns my crank, so I'm usually happy with conservative fiscal policy.

3. tieing help for the auto industry to what is done in the US.

- Again seems logical, we rely a lot in Ontario on the auto industry, this has probably saved a lot of jobs and helped our industrial output. Again, I'm not an expert on the details.

3. maintaining our military commitment in Afganistan

- I'm fully for continuing our commitment in Afganistan for reasons of human rights, especially women rights and the hope we can get this nation to a point where it can defend itself from extremism. This IS a fight worth dying for, unlike others we waste our troops and lives for.

4. doing more in the North to influence our Arctic Sovereignty

You couldn't find a Canadian not willing to support this idea, I doubt NDP, Liberal, Conservative, Marijuana party would not be all for this.

5. creating work with the home renovation tax credit

Again, this was an idea pushed by the public, the fact is liberal or conservative would have supported this.

However, I would like to see:

1. incentives to encourage people to be more carbon neutral

Agree fully, but the KEY is details, and actions are required. Its such a topic without action that its beyond frustrating to hear this idea being fronted when so few polititians have any strategic ideas/plans for it.

2. the Federal Government become more assertive with the Yanks, particularly when it comes to NAFTA

- Lets be honest. NAFTA is at the behest of the US, we can try to whine, but ultimately we are a minnow in a huge ocean of the US of A. Our legitimate beefs need to be fully brought up and engaged by the leadership of the US, but we'll always be bottom of the pecking order in regards to the result.

3. the Federal Government become more protective of its citizens travelling abroad, whether they are in trouble with the law or not

- The irony of this is, its mostly middle eastern, islamic/muslim travelers that are in trouble. I always fully support the government stepping in when its deemed righteous to defend out citizens, but we can't be ignorant that the cases in the last few years are involving islamic nations, muslim Canadians.

4. the abolishment of the manditory registration of long guns.

I'm fully for gun rights, I think liberal ideas that suggest tough gun laws reduce crime rates are ludicrous. In fact responsible gun ownership in a happy healthy society are no more a danger to society than too much chicken mcnuggets.

The problem in the US is way more complex than gun laws, its much more about social inequality, lack of social support, and hopelessness.

5. letting us know what the plan is for Afganistan to survive economically, long term, when we and others pull our troops out.

- I agree, people that suggest we next month pull our troops out are completely out of touch. We definately cannot win a war in Afghanistan. What we can do is train and stabilize their government, army and police forces to handle the terrorists and insurgents.

If we pulled out today it would be utterly disasterous and would be a huge benefit to recruitment of extremist terrorist activity.

[Royal Eagle]

Originally Posted by rubecube

...And there goes me ever voting for the Liberals again. I hoep the Liberal MP in my riding is getting ready to pack his bags. He won the riding by less than 100 votes (my vote being one of them).

While the Liberals should not expect to receive favourable public opinion for getting us into another election, the CPC has brought all this on themselves with their continued hyper-partisanship and disregard for ministerial competence, as evidenced by the several scandals involving Conservative cabinet ministers.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. Despite partially helping the economy grow and reinforced Canada's position in foreign affairs, to a certain extent(claiming and defending our sovereignty up north, and beefing up military presence in Afghanistan) most Canadians do not feel he has done enough to get re-elected with a majority government. And seeing how partisan politics in Ottawa have gone worse during Harper's regime....

[Wookie]

I was chatting to a senior policy advisor in Ottawa yesterday.

Basically the strategy the liberals are pulling is as such:

Ignatieff gets a freebie loss. He can have an election and lose once and the party nor public give him a hard time about it. So they do this, he loses or just wins.

If he loses Harper gets a minority AGAIN!

This causes infighting in the conservative ranks. Harper having had 4 tries now and 4 minorities is done or should be.

Problems arise in conservative party. Leadership stuff begins with Prentice and Some other guy I can't remember name. Both are polar opposites and have roots dating back to the two different parties. Mess ensues and the conservatives are a wreck.

If Ignatieff wins. Then who cares (other than conservatives obviously).

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm not a big fan of the Liberals, but I really don't see the problem with Ignatieff not being "Canadian" enough. What does that have to do with how good a job he can do as PM?

It's the same kind of "logic" that gets people all riled up out East about Harper because he's a neo-con from Alberta. I don't care where you're from or where you've been, I just want someone competent who will stand up for Canada internationally and work harmoniously with the provinces domestically. Judge Ignatieff on what he says and does, not where he's been.

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 call bull on the joke. 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.

Sure I'll judge him on what he says and does, which coincide with what I just said above.

[Byrns]

I don't think an American citizen should be the PM of Canada. (or a French citizen for that matter)

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by starseed

I do not like where we have been heading, and I do not like Harper's vision of Canada.


There is no substance, no ambition, no optimistic vision for the country.

I can think of no better time to bring in a new, broader, more ambitious vision for the country than right before the world comes to our doorstep in Vancouver.

I think the second you start mentioning maternal words like 'vision,' you've lost the battle to election politiking and spin. Politics is a bloodsport, if it takes saying some things in an emotive way to win then that's what politicians of all stripes will do.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Wookie

I was chatting to a senior policy advisor in Ottawa yesterday.

Basically the strategy the liberals are pulling is as such:

Ignatieff gets a freebie loss. He can have an election and lose once and the party nor public give him a hard time about it. So they do this, he loses or just wins.

If he loses Harper gets a minority AGAIN!

This causes infighting in the conservative ranks. Harper having had 4 tries now and 4 minorities is done or should be.

Problems arise in conservative party. Leadership stuff begins with Prentice and Some other guy I can't remember name. Both are polar opposites and have roots dating back to the two different parties. Mess ensues and the conservatives are a wreck.

If Ignatieff wins. Then who cares (other than conservatives obviously).

Jim Prentice employs some fulltime staff already. He's already got his eye on the prize. This is maddening because I think this whole, "you've only won minorities, get the F out" attitude by the Conservative party can only really be sucessfully employed by the natural governing party. If you're the Tories simply being in government in a country as far left as Canada should be considered a sucess. The Conservatives are only in power now because Stephen Harper is viewed by the public as a stronger leader than a bumbling former academic, a dithering ambitious shmuck and a grandstanding idiot. I don't see how trading in someone who has a public perception as being a strong leader for an arrogrant ambitious type keeps the Conservative party above the competition leaderwise, especially when the Liberals traded in a Bumbling academic for a much more well-spoken one.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Wookie

I totally disagree on this. If you want to be PM you should love this country.

Originally Posted by Byrns

I don't think an American citizen should be the PM of Canada. (or a French citizen for that matter)

If and when this election happens I certainly hope any debate doesn't devolve into flag pins, birth certificates and the like...

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You don't remember right. His polling average never went above 38%, and if you eliminate outliers he had a solid minority government well in hand both before and after the "economic free fall."

Actually, I do remember right.

As per the link below he was polling very strong heading into early September . . . . . then as the economic meltdown picked up speed, the wheels started to fall off.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-majority.aspx

Others may suggest different reasons for losing traction but I'll stick with the obvious economic one . . . . . that was a pretty strong headwind for any government anywhere in the world at that time.

In the last week of September and the first week of October, as an example, I think the S&P 500 lost 33%, with other global market matching that.

Cowperson