Liberals catch up to Harper in the polls.

[Pastiche]

Harper has never had a 'real' job in his entire life. I'd take the guy who has worked in multiple disciplines in different countries over a guy who has essentially been a glad handing hack his entire career.

[Pastiche]

As I said before, I don't believe that money was the primary reason why Iggy went into politics. It was power. The power that is bestowed upon the PM.

He went into politics to get power. Wow. What a thought. Geez there Rerun that's quite an insight.

It's kind of like getting married because you love someone. What a horror.

The whole point of politics is getting power. Get a clue.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

As I said before, I don't believe that money was the primary reason why Iggy went into politics. It was power. The power that is bestowed upon the PM.

But, as long as we are talking money, you are correct in you $155,000 salary figure.. but only in as much as that is the base salary of an MP. The PM makes $301,000 and that is the position that Ignatieff covets... not to mention the two state paid for official residences, the private limos, the personal business jets, and all the other perks that go with the office. And that doesn't even take into consideration all the $$$ Iggy will make after he leaves politics (providing he reaches the Holy Grail of the PM office).

Now I know you are going to say that Harper gets all this stuff too so whats the difference? Well, Harper went into politics for the betterment of the country. Iggy went into politics for the betterment of Iggy. You may say otherwise but I just don't believe it. All his life, Iggy has looked after #1. He's just continuing the process, but on a different road now. Canada, and the advancement and improvement of our country, has been an afterthought. Something really snappy to have on his resume now that he's getting close to retirement. Having PM on your resume really helps when you are looking for big bucks on the speaking circuit and I'm sure a few board memberships will come his way too.

Basically, I just don't believe this 11th hour conversion to "I am Canadian!"

I have to tell you, I'm kind of offended by the "11th hour conversion" thing--because I spent 10 years in the US before returning to Calgary last summer. I totally reject the idea that I am less Canadian than you. So if it seems like I won't let that point go, that's part of the reason. You are not more Canadian than I am--nor are you more Canadian than Ignatieff.

If anything, living abroad has taught me an appreciation and love for our country that no-one who has spent their whole life here could understand. I am more Canadian because of the time I've spent abroad. I understand what makes our country better--what makes it special--and what should at all costs be protected. I don't want to be maudlin, but this is actually an emotional topic for me, believe it or not.

Secondly, how on earth can you know why Stephen Harper went into politics in the beginning? He was a teenager: I'm guessing even he didn't know. But more to the point, I think it's worth remembering the split between Harper and Preston Manning in the early 90s--which was ostensibly over spending accounts, but was really about politics and strategy. Manning and Harper were different in one key way: Manning was a visionary who wanted to change the country. Harper was a strategist and an ideologue who wanted power for his party.

We all know how that ended. But history will look more kindly on Manning than Harper in my view. Your rosy view of Harper just isn't supported by his career. Don't get me wrong: I don't think he's a bad person. But he really is a career politician--a very successful one--who has been running for office since 1987, and in that time has adopted many different ideological stances in order to get where he is. Harper was never the "small r" reformer in the Reform movement. He was always the canny operator who managed to maneuver himself into positions of influence within the party. It was Manning who was the "heart" of the party--who had ideas that he valued above political success.

Let's also not forget Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper's manifesto, which was never about ideology and always about strategy. Harper's agenda since he left parliament in 1997 was clearly and completely to put himself in the PMO. It's clear in hindsight that even his work during the short period that he was not in parliament had only this goal in mind--from the Tom Flanagan manifesto to his shrill screeds about the legacy of Trudeau.

I don't love the ideas of the right--socially or economically. However, I'd really prefer Preston Manning. He's a guy who was "in it for the good of the country."

But he's not in the picture any more, is he? Sadly, Harper is a guy that we in Calgary know a lot about--and the picture isn't very pretty. He's someone who has followed a calculated path toward power--and who has had this ambition literally since before he was an adult. He's also completely comfortable with rank hypocrisy, as we've seen with the "coalition" issue, the prorogation of parliament, etc. etc. I somehow doubt Manning (who I judge to be a flawlessly honest person, even if he is ideologically misguided) would be comfortable with the moral compromises that Harper has slipped into like a lukewarm bath.

I really fail to see why I should trust him more than a professor who came late into politics. And... he may covet the 301,000 dollar salary of the PM. But he doesn't have it, and he isn't exactly parking his U-Haul in front of 24 Sussex right now. Harper is the PM for the foreseeable future--he'll be propped up by the NDP for as long as he wants to be. It's very hard to foresee a scenario in which they want an election at the same time as the Liberals do.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Harper has never had a 'real' job in his entire life. I'd take the guy who has worked in multiple disciplines in different countries over a guy who has essentially been a glad handing hack his entire career.

A "real" job eh? Hmmm.. Perhaps you may be right. He has been involved in politics most of his life although mostly in the background.

As for Michael Igantieff? Well he is no shining example of someone who has had a "real" job (whatever that is).

Per Wikipedia...

He was an assistant professor of history at the University of British Columbia from 1976 to 1978. In 1978 he moved to the United Kingdom, where he held a senior research fellowship at King's College, Cambridge until 1984. He then left Cambridge for London, where he began to focus on his career as a writer and journalist. During this time, he travelled extensively. He also continued to lecture at universities in Europe and North America, and held teaching posts at Oxford, the University of London, the London School of Economics, the University of California and in France.
While living in the United Kingdom, Ignatieff became well-known as a broadcaster on radio and television. His best-known television work has been Voices on Channel 4, the BBC 2 discussion programme Thinking Aloud and BBC 2's arts programme, The Late Show. His documentary series Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism aired on BBC in 1993. He was also an editorial columnist for The Observer from 1990 to 1993.
In 2000, Ignatieff accepted a position as the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In 2005, Ignatieff left Harvard to become the Chancellor Jackman Professor in Human Rights Policy at the University of Toronto and a senior fellow of the university's Munk Centre for International Studies.[15]

So basically, Ignatieff's work history is academic, writer, tv/radio commentator, and now politician. All fine stuff mind you, but are any of those a "real" job?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

He went into politics to get power. Wow. What a thought. Geez there Rerun that's quite an insight.

It's kind of like getting married because you love someone. What a horror.

The whole point of politics is getting power. Get a clue.

No need to get rude and insulting. Lets try and be civil ok?


This may surprise you but most people don't get involved in politics for the power. Most have altruistic reasons. They get involved because they don't like the direction that the country is heading and they want to help change the direction, they get involved because they want to do something for their community, they get involved because they believe in the ideals of the party they support, they get involved in politics because they want to make a difference. Power has nothing to do with it. 99% of people involved in politics will have no power at all.... all they hope for is a little bit of influence.

[Rerun]

IFF, you are obviously quite different than Ignatieff. It is quite obvious that your heart has always been in Canada, even if you body hasn't.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the same about Michael Ignatieff. I have no proof... but its what my gut tells me.

I guess basically that is what it comes down to.. impressions and feelings. We all have them and mine tell me that I don't want Michael Ignatieff as my Prime Minister.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

IFF, you are obviously quite different than Ignatieff. It is quite obvious that your heart has always been in Canada, even if you body hasn't.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the same about Michael Ignatieff. I have no proof... but its what my gut tells me.

I guess basically that is what it comes down to.. impressions and feelings. We all have them and mine tell me that I don't want Michael Ignatieff as my Prime Minister.

Fair enough.

And I can appreciate that. My own feeling is that Ignatieff is a great commentator and a brilliant guy, but being PM is more akin to school principal than policy wonk, unfortunately. So I'm not really in love with the guy either, though I'm definitely ready for him to prove me wrong.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Harper has never had a 'real' job in his entire life. I'd take the guy who has worked in multiple disciplines in different countries over a guy who has essentially been a glad handing hack his entire career.

He used to work in the mail room at IOL.

Of course, I believe one of his parents was a big wig at IOL so it might have been an easy job to get.

[Pastiche]

If you can't see the differences in resumes from what you posted to your post here: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=110 then there's no point.

Fact is, one guy is an internationally regarded scholar of history and politics who has worked as a journalist and writer and another has been a partisan political hack for his entire career.

Here's a question, say Ignatieff and Harper were both fired and looking for work tomorrow. What do think would happen? Where would Harper find a job? What would Ignatieff do?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Here's a question, say Ignatieff and Harper were both fired and looking for work tomorrow. What do think would happen? Where would Harper find a job? What would Ignatieff do?

Neither would be unemployed for long. Ignatieff would go back to U of T, Harper would find a policy center out West somewhere.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Neither would be unemployed for long. Ignatieff would go back to U of T, Harper would find a policy center out West somewhere.

Yeah. They'd probably both have an easier time getting a job than you or I would... and probably at much better pay too.

Lets face it. They both have pretty impressive resumes. ... as long as they aren't looking for a job that physical labour is involved.

As for the job of PM... its a matter of opinion who is best suited for the job. I think Harper is. IFF thinks Ignatieff is ... (if those are the only two choices).

To be honest, the person who I would really like to see as PM is Peter MacKay. The the person that I would least likely to see as PM is Bob Rae. I don't count smiling Jack because he doesn't have a hope in hell of EVER becoming PM... as long as he is a member of the NDP.

[octothorp]

New Ekos numbers out today, and the totals haven't moved a lot since last week, but the internals have moved a lot:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...s-poll027.html

In BC, Conservative support was polling at 36, and has now dropped to 33. Liberal support has risen from 27 to 30.

Ontario numbers are the biggest concern for the Tories, where they dropped from 34 to 32, while the Liberals rose to 39.

Liberal pick up 3 points in Quebec, mostly at the expense of the Bloc.

Atlantic Canada is still all over the map, and the Tories look pretty good there in this poll, though you can't tell much without the provincial breakdown. In Manitoba and Sask, both the Tories and Grits picked up ground at the expense of the NDP.

The Alberta numbers are moving the other direction in favour of the Conservatives, which isn't really surprising, as they seemed to be a bit higher than expected last week.

So even though the Tories and Liberals are still neck and neck, the internal numbers - particularly Ontario and BC - look great for the Liberals. Of course, in recent years they've seemed to move in the Tories' favour during elections, so the Liberals need a larger lead in polling before being able to confidently force an election.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

New Ekos numbers out today, and the totals haven't moved a lot since last week, but the internals have moved a lot:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...s-poll027.html

In BC, Conservative support was polling at 36, and has now dropped to 33. Liberal support has risen from 27 to 30.

Ontario numbers are the biggest concern for the Tories, where they dropped from 34 to 32, while the Liberals rose to 39.

Liberal pick up 3 points in Quebec, mostly at the expense of the Bloc.

Atlantic Canada is still all over the map, and the Tories look pretty good there in this poll, though you can't tell much without the provincial breakdown. In Manitoba and Sask, both the Tories and Grits picked up ground at the expense of the NDP.

The Alberta numbers are moving the other direction in favour of the Conservatives, which isn't really surprising, as they seemed to be a bit higher than expected last week.

So even though the Tories and Liberals are still neck and neck, the internal numbers - particularly Ontario and BC - look great for the Liberals. Of course, in recent years they've seemed to move in the Tories' favour during elections, so the Liberals need a larger lead in polling before being able to confidently force an election.

Good post.

One thing to keep in mind is that the sample sizes will be smaller for the regional samples, meaning the margins of error will be larger. So--looking at the numbers with that in mind, it's possible that the internals haven't moved all that much, in which case this poll merely confirms the results of the previous poll--which shows that the Tories have lost a lot of ground since the proroguing of parliament. Around 15 points or so, which is absolutely huge.

Harper was on the cusp of a majority, and he may have pissed it away. Time will tell. Once the numbers drop like this, they can be hard to move. The interesting question will be whether the Liberals can actually gain some real traction as a legitimate alternative--and it doesn't look like they've done that yet, though it's hard to tell so far from an election.

No matter how you look at it, this isn't good news for Harper, though.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So basically, Ignatieff's work history is academic, writer, tv/radio commentator, and now politician. All fine stuff mind you, but are any of those a "real" job?

Hmmm... they basically all sound like real jobs, except for being a politician. What's a 'real job', lumberjack?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I guess basically that is what it comes down to.. impressions and feelings. We all have them and mine tell me that I don't want Michael Ignatieff as my Prime Minister.

Instead of going on your gut, why don't you educate your brain and let that organ do the deciding?

[EddyBeers]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1452478/

Another poll shows it as a dead heat, with the Grits pulling away from the Cons in Ontario and Quebec

Mr. Gregg lays the blame on Stephen Harper. He said the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament has added to what has always been a character issue.

“It's about a guy who looks a little sneaky and un-Canadian in some respects, pressing an advantage like a bully.”

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1452478/

Another poll shows it as a dead heat, with the Grits pulling away from the Cons in Ontario and Quebec

Interesting. These numbers are starting to gel a little, and that will probably embolden the Grits going into the summer. Particularly given the regional gains, these are the kind of numbers that put Ignatieff into 24 Sussex--albeit with a narrow minority.

I'd sure love to know what the MOE on those regional samples is, though.