So it looks like Iggy has decided he wants some attention and so he is threatening to take us to the polls this Fall.
He has now completely lost any hope of gaining my vote. Does anyone actually believe there is a reason to go to the polls now other then to give Iggy a shot at becoming PM before the economy improves and Harper's government stands to become more popular.
He already backed down on the EI issue. What issue could he possibility take us to the polls on that has arisen since then?
Hell at this point the NDP look like a more rationale alternative.
I'm not too fussed about the timing of an election, election strategy being what it is.
Is timing the election such a big issue that it overrides any other concerns, or where you always inclined against Iggy and this is just the last straw?
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2009, 05:10:31 PM
I'm not too fussed about the timing of an election, election strategy being what it is.
Is timing the election such a big issue that it overrides any other concerns, or where you always inclined against Iggy and this is just the last straw?
Its not so much the timing as the fact that there is no issue to fight over. I dont mind politicians being crafty - in fact I would be disappointed if they were not. But this isnt crafty. This is desperation.
I had high hopes for Iggy. I thought he would be an intellectual powerhouse who would raise the level of political debate and bring fundamental issues of government to the fore. That is after all why he said he left his ivory tower to enter the bear pit of politics. But he has been a complete disappointment. He does not appear to have any innovative ideas. I suppose this is very much a last straw thing for me.
BQ needs more MPs anyway.
Let's not blame Iggy. This election, if there will be one, will be Harper's fault as much as Iggy.
Let's not forget: Harper did not have to call an election last fall. He was early. He thought he could win a majority. He wanted an election before the Recession. Talk about desperation.
When he failed and the opposition called him on it, he went crying to mommy and refused to open Parliament. Mommy finally called the opposition and said.."Give him a chance."
So they did.
It's been a year. Iggy is only doing what oppositiion parties of any minority gov't in democracy do.
He's trying to topple the gov't.
That's really what he's paid to do.
As far as not having any innovative ideas. You're talking about Harper as well, right? I'll be bipartisan here. Neither Iggy nor Harper have done anything particularly innovative in the past nine months.
barring unforseen events, it really doesn't matter. the next government will be a minority government. Harper has been moving a bit left, Iggy is positioned a bit right, so there will be no substantial change in government policy, no matter who is elected.
mark me as unenthused.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2009, 04:52:33 PM
So it looks like Iggy has decided he wants some attention and so he is threatening to take us to the polls this Fall.
They've been talking shit like this for the last month or so.
So long as Harper is still polling so much better than Ignatieff, it's all talk. If the economy starts to improve, Ignatieff will probably go back to the US before the numbers get within range.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 01, 2009, 06:26:26 PM
barring unforseen events, it really doesn't matter. the next government will be a minority government. Harper has been moving a bit left, Iggy is positioned a bit right, so there will be no substantial change in government policy, no matter who is elected.
mark me as unenthused.
:metoo:
I'm on the unenthused wagon
This thread prompted me to check something which I have never bothered to do before.
QuoteTo qualify to vote, you must have been residing outside Canada for less than five consecutive years immediately before making the application.
Reference: Paragraph 222(1)(b), Canada Elections Act
Mono, according to Wen Jiabao you'll be able to have this kind of thread (discussing national multi-party politics) in twenty years. :hug:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/29/chinese.premier.transcript/#cnnSTCText (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/29/chinese.premier.transcript/#cnnSTCText)
Quote from: saskganesh on September 01, 2009, 06:26:26 PM
barring unforseen events, it really doesn't matter. the next government will be a minority government. Mark me as unenthused.
Which makes this all utterly pointless.
I'm not yet fully convinced this will happen yet.
even the NDP are keeping their options open and hinting they may yet make a deal with the devil, or Harper or whatever.
Quote from: Josephus on September 01, 2009, 06:21:41 PM
He wanted an election before the Recession. Talk about desperation.
Are you reading off your latest NDP mailer? :rolleyes: I suppose it was nice of the NDP to suggest that Harper was the one man in the world who saw all this coming. We would be crazy not to keep someone with that kind of economic insight in power. :P
QuoteWhen he failed and the opposition called him on it, he went crying to mommy and refused to open Parliament. Mommy finally called the opposition and said.."Give him a chance."
Now I know you are reading off NDP propaganda. Dion, having bungled the last election made foolish deal with the BQ and Layten went along because it was the only chance in the history of this Country to get an Federal NDP member into cabinet. Harper outmaneuvered them which caused Dion to have to step down in complete disgrace ushering in Iggy without even a vote by the Libs.
Score one for Harper and a big defeat for the Libs.
QuoteIt's been a year. Iggy is only doing what oppositiion parties of any minority gov't in democracy do.
Exactly. Whereas he promised he was something new and innovative. Instead he is the same old style Liberal who thinks he should be elected because he is a Liberal.
QuoteHe's trying to topple the gov't.
No he's not. He had the chance to do that over the EI issue. Your political memory is very short. Remember how Iggy backed down on that one too. Remember how the media started calling him the new Dion? Remember how he had to retreat to obscurity for a couple months until everyone forgot about that.
QuoteThat's really what he's paid to do.
He is paid to bring the Liberals back to power. If he keeps this up he is going to get a pink slip.
QuoteAs far as not having any innovative ideas. You're talking about Harper as well, right? I'll be bipartisan here. Neither Iggy nor Harper have done anything particularly innovative in the past nine months.
No I am pretty sure I was only talking about Iggy but nice try at a deflection. If you want to talk about Harper. Sure. He brought in an independant observer of the budget process who is responsible to Parliament and not the ruling party. This comes immediately to mind given the budget debacle we just experienced in BC and the fact that the provincial NDP here are holding Harper's "innovative policy" up as something that should be done in this province. :P
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 11:09:11 AM
I'm not yet fully convinced this will happen yet.
even the NDP are keeping their options open and hinting they may yet make a deal with the devil, or Harper or whatever.
The NDP come out of this looking reasonable.
If they keep this up they might even form opposition next time.
I'm pretty sure Harper's economic advisers told him that the economy was heading for a downslide. The Economist, for one, was warning of it last summer. So I am quite convinced that Harper did call the election a year before necessary because he was worried about what a potential economic downfall could do.
But that said, I agree that if Iggy calls an election he's completley off his mark. Most Canadians do not want one yet. Nor do I think, he's got the support of enough people to actually win. But I dont' think Iggy would get his pink slip yet. The Liberals are still short of money and they can't afford another leadership race.
All I was saying, though, is we shouldn't be surprised. Minority governments tend to fall. It's the nature of the system. We'll see what the NDP does.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 11:11:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 11:09:11 AM
I'm not yet fully convinced this will happen yet.
even the NDP are keeping their options open and hinting they may yet make a deal with the devil, or Harper or whatever.
The NDP come out of this looking reasonable.
If they keep this up they might even form opposition next time.
If that's the case, then we will likely have a Con majority, so Harper will want this election, even though publically, it's in his best interest to say it's very important that we not have one.
so he "wins" either way.
and an NDP opposition would be a huge victory for Layton. Of course, he's commited to voting against the government, but at the same time, he may find some ways to work with them in order to "bring down" the Liberals
So we might see some strange maneuvering leading up to the confidence vote.
It'd be nice though if the parties actually governed, rather than all these delays, elections, etc that are deflecting the real issues. Meanwhile places like BC are fooked now. I may have to move to Trawna.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 02, 2009, 11:59:04 AM
It'd be nice though if the parties actually governed, rather than all these delays, elections, etc that are deflecting the real issues.
The problem with democracy.
Agreed Sask, if the NDP can manuever Iggy into forcing an unpopular election the Libs could endure the same political wilderness the Conservatives went through for so many years.
@ buddha .... I think we are in a small recovery bump here, but it's still pretty tight. If you have a job, you are likely alright, if not, it's very competitive.
my advice to anyone would be to stay where you are and really max out your network.
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 12:13:23 PM
The problem with democracy.
You mean its the problem with a dysfunctional democracy.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 02, 2009, 11:59:04 AM
I may have to move to Trawna.
From the frying pan into the fire?
You better look hard before you leap.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 02, 2009, 11:59:04 AM
I may have to move to Trawna.
From the frying pan into the fire?
You better look hard before you leap.
always: I have a much bigger family support network in TO than here. But actually I likely will go nowhere without winning the lotto (which I rarely play) in fact.
exaggerating for effect. I'm still disappointed in the Libs here even though I've never voted for them. As an entrenched Gov they have a chance to do some good, but they are just continuing their attacks through taxation etc on everyone who isn't a land developer, and or politician. Worst old boys club in North America... imho
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 02, 2009, 12:22:15 PM
exaggerating for effect. I'm still disappointed in the Libs here even though I've never voted for them. As an entrenched Gov they have a chance to do some good, but they are just continuing their attacks through taxation etc on everyone who isn't a land developer, and or politician. Worst old boys club in North America... imho
Actually their worst attack with the HST is on land developers.
My prediction is that Campbell is going through the process of making himself so unpopular that the next Leader will look like a saint in comparison. How else is one to explain the budget day revelation that has come out.
Well I suppose pure stupidity is another explanation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 12:15:49 PMYou mean its the problem with a dysfunctional democracy.
Dysfunctional? Really? Because we might have an election according to our rules and conventions when the majority of people would find having an election kind of annoying?
I don't know, to me dysfunctional democracy is what we see in California right now and worse. Someone maneuvering (aptly or not) for political advantage isn't dysfunctional. Yes, some of the politicking perhaps delayed the response to the economic crisis back around Christmas but we did okay in the end - pretty functional if you ask me (you didn't, of course). This doesn't even rate, in my opinion.
I'd be curious what you deem to be the characteristics that indicate that Canadian democracy is dysfunctional.
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2009, 12:38:08 PM
Dysfunctional? Really? Because we might have an election according to our rules and conventions when the majority of people would find having an election kind of annoying?
At one point Italians were having elections every change of season. All the elections were made under their rules but that did not make their democracy any less dysfunctional.
They may well have been functional in form but certainly not in substance.
The strength of a minority government is that the minority parties can push to have their
ideas implemented. In that regard I have to say the NDP are the most effective. The Liberals have taken a different tact. They simple cry out "we can do better" and hope people will vote them in without actually presenting any idea as to how they might do things differently.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 12:46:21 PMAt one point Italians were having elections every change of season. All the elections were made under their rules but that did not make their democracy any less dysfunctional.
They may well have been functional in form but certainly not in substance.
Yeah, Italy is another democracy which seems pretty dysfunctional. But we're far from dysfunctional.
QuoteThe strength of a minority government is that the minority parties can push to have their ideas implemented. In that regard I have to say the NDP are the most effective. The Liberals have taken a different tact. They simple cry out "we can do better" and hope people will vote them in without actually presenting any idea as to how they might do things differently.
Without putting too much into it, I'll concede that maybe the Liberal party is being weak, ineffectual and missing their chance. That doesn't make our democracy dysfunctional, it just means one of the parties is being weak and ineffectual at the moment.
Maybe you have a much lower bar for dysfunctional than I do. This sort of thing, to me, seems to simply be part of the process.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 12:15:49 PM
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 12:13:23 PM
The problem with democracy.
You mean its the problem with a dysfunctional democracy.
Is there a functional democracy, though? Even in America, it seems like they're always on the campaign trail.
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 12:57:41 PM
Is there a functional democracy, though? Even in America, it seems like they're always on the campaign trail.
That is by design which is its own kind of dysfunctionality.
I am not familiar enough with the systems in other jurisdictions to declare them functional. All I can say is that I am less then pleased with the quality of government we now enjoy here in Canada.
On that, we both agree, CC. :)
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2009, 12:51:15 PM
Maybe you have a much lower bar for dysfunctional than I do. This sort of thing, to me, seems to simply be part of the process.
It is the process that I find to be dysfunctional and so it isnt very pursuasive to me to say that people are just following the process.
Minority governments (all parliamentary governments for that matter) should be more like debating societies where the merits of policy are considered.
All we have now is a system where power is concentrated in the executive with an eager few seeking to take the position of PM.
BTW, slightly off topic, but related to.
The New Yorker magazine has an eight page profile on Iggy, by Adam Gopnik. I'll link it, but you need a subscription to view the whole article.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_gopnik (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_gopnik)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 01:06:27 PMI am not familiar enough with the systems in other jurisdictions to declare them functional. All I can say is that I am less then pleased with the quality of government we now enjoy here in Canada.
QuoteIt is the process that I find to be dysfunctional and so it isnt very pursuasive to me to say that people are just following the process.
Minority governments (all parliamentary governments for that matter) should be more like debating societies where the merits of policy are considered.
All we have now is a system where power is concentrated in the executive with an eager few seeking to take the position of PM.
There's that quote by Churchill about democracy....
In any case, far be it from me to suggest that the system could not be improved. It can. From my point of view some sort of proportional representation is the way to go, but I think that cause got killed dead recently for the foreseeable future.
But suggesting the system could be improved and providing concrete suggestions is one thing, complaining that the system is rotten and... just leaving it at that, is another.
I'm not saying it's what you're doing, but I'm not very impressed by complaints of "our system sucks and politicians suck and it just sucks". To me that's the sound of washing hands and abnegating any responsibility.
If the system is dysfunctional, let's talk about how to make it functional.
If the results are unsatisfying, let's talk about how to make them satisfying, but let's keep in mind there's a big difference between results individuals find satisfying and results that are satisfying for the polity as a whole.
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2009, 01:34:23 PM
I'm not saying it's what you're doing, but I'm not very impressed by complaints of "our system sucks and politicians suck and it just sucks". To me that's the sound of washing hands and abnegating any responsibility.
What I can do is be very critical of a politician which falls clearly within that defintion in the hopes that I can pursuade others not to vote for him. That my friend is democracy.
You will note that my criticism has been squarely directed at Iggy for forcing an election for no purpose other then to attempt to seize power. There is no issue which has prompted this. The only issue he had was EI but he backed away on that.
In the circumstances the best way to fix the system is to make sure politicians are punished for this kind of silliness. Hence the reason for me starting this thread.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 01:40:57 PMWhat I can do it be very critical of a politician which falls clearly within that defintion in the hopes that I can pursuade others not to vote for him. That my friend is democracy.
Absoloutely, and more power to you :)
QuoteYou will note that my criticism has been squarely directed at Iggy for forcing an election for no purpose other then to attempt to seize power. There is no issue which has prompted this. The only issue he had was EI but he backed away on that.
In the circumstances the best way to fix the system is to make sure politicians are punished for this kind of silliness. Hence the reason for me starting this thread.
I'm all for that.
You think Iggy's being a douche, that he's being a douche because the systems is less tuned for good governance than you'd like and that you advocate punishing him for his douchery in part as an effort to encourage the system and its participants to be less douchy. Fair enough, and no complaints from my corner.
My concern was the possible interpretation of your words where the ending was "... but our system is dysfunctional and we can't do anything so I'll just sit here and piss and moan." But that's not what you meant, so it's all good. In that case take my words to be aimed more at Buddha's world-weary cynical "they're all a bunch of evil crooks" schtick ;)
For my part, I don't think this particular move is that douchy (though I haven't followed things that closely, so I reserve the right to change my mind :)) and thus I don't think it's an indication of a part of the system that needs tuning in this instance.
How it turns out depends, more or less, on to what degree Canadians agree with me or you and the system will adjust itself accordingly. To me, that's an indication that the system, broadly viewed, is working though I definitely agree that it can do with the continual fine-tuning that results from this sort of process.
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 01:27:35 PM
BTW, slightly off topic, but related to.
The New Yorker magazine has an eight page profile on Iggy, by Adam Gopnik. I'll link it, but you need a subscription to view the whole article.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_gopnik (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_gopnik)
I stopped reading here. If the reporter thinks Iggy is on the brink of "power" then I am not sure the rest of the article is worth my time.
QuoteWhat has led a man who has been called the perfect non-Jewish Jewish intellectual to the brink of power in a model liberal country?
QuoteWhat has led a man who has been called the perfect non-Jewish Jewish intellectual to the brink of power in a model liberal country?
Maybe he meant on the brink of having the power to enjoy the leadership of Stephen Harper?
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 02:13:43 PM
Maybe he meant on the brink of having the power to enjoy the leadership of Stephen Harper?
:lol:
Something Dion was accused of and probably the reason Iggy thinks he has to rattle the election chains.
Ok, I will be an equal opportunity complainer today.
QuoteMr. Kenney however appeared to rule out a deal with the NDP, saying there's little to be gained from the Conservatives negotiating with a left-wing party.
"They never deal with real peoples' money. It's all an abstraction for them and at the end of the day, it's not in the NDP's interest to have an election. They're down in the polls; so are the Liberals."
Its this kind of BS reactionary comment by Conservative types that upsets me and makes my wonder why I voted for them
Wouldnt a more reasonable thing be to say "Although we have major policy differences between us, we are always open to constuctive suggestions from the opposition."
This playground name calling BS isnt good for anyone. They're worse then Languish for goodness sakes.
Adam Radwanski of the Globe has piece which describes my problem with Iggy. He quotes from Iggy's speach yesterday and then a news report today saying that he was cancelling his trip to China and then concludes:
QuoteI'm no expert. But I'm pretty sure that if you're trying to get past criticism that you lack convictions and are prone to adopting positions of convenience, this might not be the best way.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/radwanski/china-is-so-yesterday/article1273448/
today's Jeffrey Simpson's column charged that he's not serious about the election threat because he's going to China instead of getting ready for the campaign...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/if-we-must-go-to-the-polls-please-no-more-minority-governments/article1272528/
so he gets hit either way you want to write the punchline.
and I guess we can assume the Globe will endorse Harper yet again.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 01:20:08 PM
Minority governments (all parliamentary governments for that matter) should be more like debating societies where the merits of policy are considered.
In that case, the best solution would be to pass a law preventing any political party from having more than 30 MPs. That way, no single party could dominate discourse, there would be more flexibility within Parliament and there would be more than two potential Prime Ministers at any one time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 03:52:54 PM
Its this kind of BS reactionary comment by Conservative types that upsets me and makes my wonder why I voted for them
Wouldnt a more reasonable thing be to say "Although we have major policy differences between us, we are always open to constuctive suggestions from the opposition."
This playground name calling BS isnt good for anyone. They're worse then Languish for goodness sakes.
Yeah, that's pretty weak. Granted, I don't actually think there's anything to be gained by negotiating with the NDP, but there's no need to spit in their faces, other than to play to the base.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 12:46:21 PM
The strength of a minority government is that the minority parties can push to have their ideas implemented. In that regard I have to say the NDP are the most effective. The Liberals have taken a different tact. They simple cry out "we can do better" and hope people will vote them in without actually presenting any idea as to how they might do things differently.
Indeed, but in this case, I would say that it is more a factor of:
a) both the Libs and the Cons dream about having a majority government. In the mean time, they are both biding their time. In a system where - or in the event that - parties expect to *have* to form coalition, all parties know they are going to make concessions, and they write that balancing act in their own politics. I think that is partly why you see the NDP as more effective: their dreams of being a majority gov. is too far-fetched for them to turn their back at concession-making.
b) both the Libs and the Cons having little to distinguish themselves right now. The Cons seem to me now as more ideological but forced to turn it down a notch. My biggest problem with them is how they lack the guts to do this openly (*here is what we want, here is what we are going to do, and here is how we are going to leave stuff out until we get a majority govnt), and seem to maneuver the pleasing of their base in the small print of the bills.
c) we are in an age where politics seem to boil down to accounting, and the current context reinforces this trend. In this regard, Libs and Cons more or less feel they have to spout the same thing about balanced budget and fiscal responsibility. This has been the new Apple Pie, which everyone say they love, and everyone will accuse their neighbour to dislike, so that, in effect, it means nothing. Because of that, the quality of the choice is lessened, and make elections more and more about political games rather than a healthy mix of political game and ideology.
Good points Oex.
Btw Josephus, the world has truly gone crazy. I heard Libby Davies interviewed on the radio yesterday in relation to the move by Iggy to try to make the NDP the arbitors of whether we go to the polls and I agreed with everything she had to say.
heh.
crazy canuck= socialism in one country
:)
Have you ever seen her website? libbydavies.ca?
It's so.........pink
According to the papers this morning:
"a Fall federal election is a virtual certainty."
You know, I think this is Harper's best --and last--shot for that elusive majority. I have a funny feeling he might get it. The conditions just are not there for the Liberals to steal this one away. Recent polls give the edge to the Conservatives, and the NDP have enough support to split many ridings. And there's no telling what those Greens will do.
The recession just, in my opinion hasn't lived up to its billing. I think the majority of those who voted Conservative last time have no reason to abandon them now...and many fence sitters will probably just want a stable gov't for the next four years.
So hats off to all of you and bon chance.
Harper just needs any one party to support him in a forced confidence vote.
or any 15 members of the opposition can stay at home citing swine flu or important constituency business and the government will survive.
I think the opps should punt, and look at the election in spring 2010.
Yeah, I can't see a big upside to any opposition party pulling the plug at this point.
But I can see the dilemma too - there's no real upside to supporting the government either. It's kind of like a 3-way game of chicken. Each of the parties hopes another one blinks.
Yeah I'm getting a bit bored by all the posturing (and I don't mean here on Languish) stop the name calling and start working together in a bi-partisan way to get some things done. There is no such thing as governing without making some compromises. You'd think the leaders of 3 national parties would know that.
Yes to voting #7 since I turned 18. :yeah:
I think the NDP are being very clever here. They have pulled out one issue they want addressed by the government and it looks like the government will do it.
Both will come out looking good while the Liberals will come out of it splattered with mud - potential headlines (NDP wins concessions Liberals failed to obtain) or something along those lines.
Meanwhile the BQ continues to look good by standing by the easy and age old mantra "if its good for Quebec we will support it"
I see no win in this for the Liberals in the short or long term.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 12:21:16 PM
Yes to voting #7 since I turned 18. :yeah:
Does BQ always have the #7 line?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 12:25:02 PM
I think the NDP are being very clever here. They have pulled out one issue they want addressed by the government and it looks like the government will do it.
Both will come out looking good while the Liberals will come out of it splattered with mud - potential headlines (NDP wins concessions Liberals failed to obtain) or something along those lines.
Meanwhile the BQ continues to look good by standing by the easy and age old mantra "if its good for Quebec we will support it"
I see no win in this for the Liberals in the short or long term.
Ya I think Iggy is the wrong guy for the job at the wrong time. (he's better suited to being a critic on TV or in print etc)
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 09, 2009, 12:34:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 12:25:02 PM
I think the NDP are being very clever here. They have pulled out one issue they want addressed by the government and it looks like the government will do it.
Both will come out looking good while the Liberals will come out of it splattered with mud - potential headlines (NDP wins concessions Liberals failed to obtain) or something along those lines.
Meanwhile the BQ continues to look good by standing by the easy and age old mantra "if its good for Quebec we will support it"
I see no win in this for the Liberals in the short or long term.
Ya I think Iggy is the wrong guy for the job at the wrong time. (he's better suited to being a critic on TV or in print etc)
Nah. Leader of the opposition is always a hard role, and every leader of the opposition gets tagged with the "not up to be PM" label. I bet Iggy would be a fine PM. He (and nearly any Liberal leader) is just in a nearly impossible situation. Your base does not like Harper, and gets discouraged every time you say anything even a little bit positive about him. But the wider population wants you to work with him. But every time you do work with him it is Harper, not yourself, that gets the credit. But if you pull the plug on this parliament Harper runs a good chance of doing even better (plus you have no money in the bank).
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 12:25:47 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 12:21:16 PM
Yes to voting #7 since I turned 18. :yeah:
Does BQ always have the #7 line?
They are by Alphabetical order with the Candidates last names.
I meant it will be the 7th time I'm going to vote. It's alot, I only turned 18, 7 years ago.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 01:01:29 PM
They are by Alphabetical order with the Candidates last names.
Same as here, then.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 01:01:29 PM
I meant it will be the 7th time I'm going to vote. It's alot, I only turned 18, 7 years ago.
Wuss. I voted 5 times last year (and all Georgians had the same 5 chances, with one state house district adding another 2 chances):
Presidential Preference Primary
General Primary
General Primary Runoff
General Election
General Election Runoff
I suspect the main problem for the Liberals is that the recession in Canada hasn't been nearly as bad as everyone feared (at least so far), and hasn't had the expected political effect of making Harper look like Herbert Hoover.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 12:21:16 PM
Yes to voting #7 since I turned 18. :yeah:
and you're what, 19? :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2009, 12:25:02 PM
I think the NDP are being very clever here. They have pulled out one issue they want addressed by the government and it looks like the government will do it.
Both will come out looking good while the Liberals will come out of it splattered with mud - potential headlines (NDP wins concessions Liberals failed to obtain) or something along those lines.
Meanwhile the BQ continues to look good by standing by the easy and age old mantra "if its good for Quebec we will support it"
I see no win in this for the Liberals in the short or long term.
very good analysis.
I think the pressure inside the Liberal Party must have been enormous for Ignatief to make such a bold move. 'Cause he's really painted himself in a corner and can't get out of there without looking like a fool.
At best, the Libs will say the NDP lacked convictions when it really mattered, but do they really gain from this? Under Dion, the party was seen as competing with the left to gain votes. Under Ignatieff, the party is seen as a right-wing contender (despite having basically the same ideas&values). Would the moderate left still support the Libs? doubtful.
Lose-lose situation for the party, and they created it themselves. Harper did not even have to move on anything and he looks like the victim here, something people always seem to love.
The good thing about Harper is that he's an idiot. That's why I don't understand his popularity. I can understand people agreeing with the ideology. But Harper is an arrogant little buffoon.
The editorial balloons on this CBC report are not mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MG049D7Zls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MG049D7Zls)
Let's take a step back, and carefully analyze what he says:
- He says the Bloc is a seperatist party.
- He says the NDP is a socialist party.
Is that false?
He also tries to boost morale of his troops saying if the Libs win or form a coallition of the left, they'll place leftists ideologues everywhere.
Again is that false?
Didn't we have sufficient problems with that over the 12 years of liberal government?
Harper also says he's proud of having bought new equipment for the armed forces. Is that wrong? Already many lives have been wasted in various missions because of lack of proper equipment. Not having helicopters for the current mission in Afghanistan is a big problem, and a cause of so many deaths that could have been avoided. Exactly who decided we didn't need helicopters to transport our troops?
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2009, 09:03:48 AM
Let's take a step back, and carefully analyze what he says:
- He says the Bloc is a seperatist party.
- He says the NDP is a socialist party.
Is that false?
Yeah. The NDP is not a socialist party. In fact, socialism is not a political system, i it is an economic system.Nowhere in ithe NDP agenda does it talk about workers taking over factories and destroying capitalism. So yeah, it's false. But it's a nice word to use cause people, obviously, don't have a clue what socialism means. They just know it's a bad word.
The rest of what you say, is fine. I agree...he's talking ideology to a group of supporters.
But he wouldn't say those things in front of media . Which is my point. He's an idiot. This isn't 1965. He's got to know that everything he says is being recorded by someone.
The other thing is his contemptuous disregard for all the other parties, lumping them all as "leftist ideologues."
And then he wonders why the opposition does not want to work with him? As Iggy said:
"He treats every adversary as a public enemy who has to be destroyed, and so you wonder why it's difficult for me to continue to support him?" .As an NDP dude said:
He's got a public discourse where he says he's trying to work with the other parties," said deputy New Democrat leader Thomas Mulcair. "But then in private we find out he's the same sectarian, narrow-minded, venom-spewing Stephen Harper that we've always known."Like I said earlier....I'm not in favour of another election. I think it's stupid. But Harper sometimes comes across as an arrogant SOB. He's not very diplomatic.
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 08:41:27 AM
The good thing about Harper is that he's an idiot.
If an idiot can successfully unite the Reform and PC's in a new party, become PM, hold a bunch of rookie MPs together into a cohesive unit, stare down sure defeat when the opposition was about to form a coalition (and win), survive the worst economic downturn in living memory and still be ahead in the polls - give my an idiot every time. :P
Fact of the matter is he is highly intelligent. And if you were to be fair about this you would recognize that the tape came from a partisan rally. Every political leader says things in those kinds of settings that they would not say to the general public. For example I have heard rhetoric come out of NDP people (when they know the media isnt listening) that make Harper's comments extremely tame in comparison.
The reason the NDP comments never get reported is because:
a) they will never form government so who really cares;
b) we all know the NDP is home to a lot of loons so in a sense its expected.
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 09:27:35 AM
Yeah. The NDP is not a socialist party. In fact, socialism is not a political system, i it is an economic system.Nowhere in ithe NDP agenda does it talk about workers taking over factories and destroying capitalism. So yeah, it's false. But it's a nice word to use cause people, obviously, don't have a clue what socialism means. They just know it's a bad word.
While you are technically correct there are a lot of NDP people who self identify themselves as socialists. They are quiet about that now since the label is highly unpopular at the moment but surely you are old enough to remember when the NDP wore the socialist badge proudly?
The common perception of Harper among people I talk to is that he's unlikeable, uncharismatic and abrasive (even abusive) but competent, a fighter, and not personally corrupt.
As long as people keep believing the latter three attributes are true, they'll keep holding their noses and voting him into office, no matter how big an asshole he is.
That's why, for example, the ads the Cons ran depicting Harper as a lovable guy in a sweater aroused widespread scorn, yet didn't sink him.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2009, 10:37:09 AM
The common perception of Harper among people I talk to is that he's unlikeable, uncharismatic and abrasive (even abusive) but competent, a fighter, and not personally corrupt.
As long as people keep believing the latter three attributes are true, they'll keep holding their noses and voting him into office, no matter how big an asshole he is.
That's why, for example, the ads the Cons ran depicting Harper as a lovable guy in a sweater aroused widespread scorn, yet didn't sink him.
I think that is a good analysis.
meh. The NDP is a happy member of the Socialist International...maybe a middle of the road . "liberal" version (like the UK's Labour Party), but they are still, at the end of the day, socialists.
I think we are back to having to define "socialism" again. luckily :P this has already been done. http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31ed
anyhow, to sum up, modern socialism is now about certain shared human values, not about a specific economic ideology/strategy.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 11, 2009, 10:45:04 AM
anyhow, to sum up, modern socialism is now about certain shared human values, not about a specific economic ideology/strategy.
That very much depends on what group of socialist you talk to. One thing that has always characterized the left is the degree to which they can disagree on what they are and what they stand for. I am not saying that doesnt also happen throughout the political spectrum also but disagreement seems to punctuate the history of the left.
I'll retract the "idiot" statement. I didn't mean he was "stupid." I'll agree with Malthus that Harper is "competent."
I used "idiot" more in an insulting fashion. Sort of like calling a centre-left party "socialist".
Didn't we have the debate over "socialist" before, and didn't I bring up Socialist International before? :huh:
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 10:51:03 AM
I used "idiot" more in an insulting fashion. Sort of like calling a centre-left party "socialist".
I am interested in your wish to dissassociate the NDP from the word. When would you say the NDP moved away from the label?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2009, 10:41:01 AM
I think that is a good analysis.
My biggest problem with his is not that he believes in things I do not believe in, it is because he has, in the last years, showed a disturbing tendency to enjoy making things from the shadows, without ever engaging in a frank debate on issues which he supposedly really believes in.
If the journalists, the judges and the civil service is really such a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, you'd think you'd want to denounce it in the open (or Harper could still do what he did, and defend his policies on an American network...) rather than keep it for internal consumption.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2009, 09:03:48 AM
Let's take a step back, and carefully analyze what he says:
- He says the Bloc is a seperatist party.
- He says the NDP is a socialist party.
Is that false?
almost... NDP is only socialist in leaning.... haven't been truly left since Broadbent. (and well it's very easy to be "socialist" as 3rd chair.)
Quote
He also tries to boost morale of his troops saying if the Libs win or form a coallition of the left, they'll place leftists ideologues everywhere.
Again is that false?
Yes Blatantly... The "Liberals" are about as far "left" as the Tories. Having a vague social consciousness and being prone to corruption is not just a "lefty" thing.
Quote
Didn't we have sufficient problems with that over the 12 years of liberal government?
Yes, Yes we did. And will have similar issues when the Tories 12 years (or however long it sis before we need as a nation to demolish that party again)... what else is new?
Quote
Harper also says he's proud of having bought new equipment for the armed forces. Is that wrong? Already many lives have been wasted in various missions because of lack of proper equipment. Not having helicopters for the current mission in Afghanistan is a big problem, and a cause of so many deaths that could have been avoided. Exactly who decided we didn't need helicopters to transport our troops?
Helicopters only exist as a thing to cry about in Canuck politics. Canadian Strawman of the Highest Order. (like Senatorial Reform/Patronage.)
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 11, 2009, 10:55:56 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2009, 10:41:01 AM
I think that is a good analysis.
My biggest problem with his is not that he believes in things I do not believe in, it is because he has, in the last years, showed a disturbing tendency to enjoy making things from the shadows, without ever engaging in a frank debate on issues which he supposedly really believes in.
If the journalists, the judges and the civil service is really such a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, you'd think you'd want to denounce it in the open (or Harper could still do what he did, and defend his policies on an American network...) rather than keep it for internal consumption.
ya this is why I don't buy the "left-wingness" of media. In Canada at least the media is fairly sympathetic to whoever is governing. Will that change as CBC becomes Fox-itized?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 11, 2009, 10:55:56 AM
If the journalists, the judges and the civil service is really such a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, you'd think you'd want to denounce it in the open (or Harper could still do what he did, and defend his policies on an American network...) rather than keep it for internal consumption.
As I have argued in past threads when he had the chance to put right wing ideologues into the Courts he didnt.
I am judging him on is what he does, not what he says to a partisan crowd.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 11, 2009, 10:55:56 AM
If the journalists, the judges and the civil service is really such a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, you'd think you'd want to denounce it in the open (or Harper could still do what he did, and defend his policies on an American network...) rather than keep it for internal consumption.
As I have argued in past threads when he had the chance to put right wing ideologues into the Courts he didnt.
I am judging him on is what he does, not what he says to a partisan crowd.
The difference between judicial appointments in Canada and the US is striking to say the least - not just in the case of Haper, but generally. The Canadian ones are not politicized to nearly the same degree, in spite of the uproar caused over the last two decades by the introduction of the Charter and cries of judicial activism.
Ya I'd say the most partisan-ish appointments (from eirther Libs, or Tories) has to be The Senate. Judges, I'm sure have political leanings, but you don't hear about patronage as much.
Is that because our legal system is different from the US, or is there less of a culture of Politicized lawyers/Judges in Canada? I'm not sure I'd know one way or the other.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2009, 10:54:56 AM
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 10:51:03 AM
I used "idiot" more in an insulting fashion. Sort of like calling a centre-left party "socialist".
I am interested in your wish to dissassociate the NDP from the word. When would you say the NDP moved away from the label?
CC. I don't know specifically when they moved away from that label. It probably did not happen overnight, but was a gradual shift. If I had to pick one leader, though, I would say Alexa McDonough, or whatever her name was, back in the late 90s who tried to reorganize a then-battered NDP into something more like Blair's Labour Party and moved the party's base closer to the centre. This was around the time that Unions and The CAW stopped supporting the NDP.
But in any case I don't have a problem with the label. But it is bandied about as an insult. Adn the majority of Canadians, present company excepted, hear the word "Socialist" and immediatley start thinking the NDP wants to turn Canada into North Korea....or maybe present company not excepted. ;)
The NDP knows that it cannot change that brand. So, it has to distance itself from "socialism" .
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 12:03:34 PM
But in any case I don't have a problem with the label. But it is bandied about as an insult. Adn the majority of Canadians, present company excepted, hear the word "Socialist" and immediatley start thinking the NDP wants to turn Canada into North Korea....or maybe present company not excepted. ;)
North Korea wouldn't be so bad. It's wanting to turn us into smarmy, bike-riding mustched Torontonians that I object to.
What'sa matter, Neil, you can't grow a moustache? ;)
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 12:20:37 PM
What'sa matter, Neil, you can't grow a moustache? ;)
Actually, I have an ever-so-trendy goatee.
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 09:27:35 AM
Yeah. The NDP is not a socialist party. In fact, socialism is not a political system, i it is an economic system.Nowhere in ithe NDP agenda does it talk about workers taking over factories and destroying capitalism. So yeah, it's false. But it's a nice word to use cause people, obviously, don't have a clue what socialism means. They just know it's a bad word.
Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_interventionism) and economic rationalization (usually in the form of economic planning), sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformism) and revolutionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_socialism) on how a socialist economy should be established.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
That fits the profile of the NDP.
Quote
The rest of what you say, is fine. I agree...he's talking ideology to a group of supporters. But he wouldn't say those things in front of media . Which is my point. He's an idiot. This isn't 1965. He's got to know that everything he says is being recorded by someone.
He may not have known he was filmed, but it's not that gigantic conspiracy you guys are talking about. In fact, what he says is not really different then what he said last fall when the Libs wanted to enter a coallition with the NDP and the Bloc, after the election.
Quote
The other thing is his contemptuous disregard for all the other parties, lumping them all as "leftist ideologues." And then he wonders why the opposition does not want to work with him?
No. He brands the people who will be nominated to higher spheres of power "leftist ideologues".
Quote
As Iggy said:
"He treats every adversary as a public enemy who has to be destroyed, and so you wonder why it's difficult for me to continue to support him?" .
Post-facto justification.
Iggy first decided the government needed to be removed, then he found a justification.
Quote
As an NDP dude said:
He's got a public discourse where he says he's trying to work with the other parties," said deputy New Democrat leader Thomas Mulcair. "But then in private we find out he's the same sectarian, narrow-minded, venom-spewing Stephen Harper that we've always known."
And do the other parties even attemp to work with the Conservatives? If so, I haven't seen it, except when they believe themselves to be too weak to undergo another electoral campaign.
Really, the opposition is no different than the government.
Quote
Like I said earlier....I'm not in favour of another election. I think it's stupid. But Harper sometimes comes across as an arrogant SOB. He's not very diplomatic.
He's got the plurality of votes. Wich means a majority of the voters decided they liked the Conservatives better than another party.
As such, if he is to govern according to what the other parties want, I do wonder why did I bothered to vote in the first place? What's the point of having a party in power if he can't enact its electoral platform for wich people voted for.
Harper is the Prime Minister after all.
That the opposition does not like some of its bills project, that I can understand. But that they never seek to compromise on their own agendas, I fail to see how they are supposedly better than the elected government.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 11, 2009, 10:55:56 AM
My biggest problem with his is not that he believes in things I do not believe in, it is because he has, in the last years, showed a disturbing tendency to enjoy making things from the shadows, without ever engaging in a frank debate on issues which he supposedly really believes in.
Actually, it's been debated before, and there are interviews with the PM where he expresses his belief, but generally speaking, the left always believe he's lying or hiding something.
Quote
If the journalists, the judges and the civil service is really such a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, you'd think you'd want to denounce it in the open (or Harper could still do what he did, and defend his policies on an American network...) rather than keep it for internal consumption.
It's not about being a vast left-wing conspiracy, but a party in power will put his people in power.
Everyone accuses the Cons of putting their "horrible people in place", I've seem some accusing the Cons of manipulating the judge selection process to fit in people opposed to abortion.
Can we deny that the many of the current judges comes from Liberal background and the new ones nominated by the Cons don't?
Wasn't the Senate filled with Liberals at some point, before they retired and Harper put some other people there?
We know the Conservatives hate what they call "activist judges" who in their mind rewrite the policies of Canada (gay marriage, Omar Khadr, etc) instead of the Parliament. It is their position.
And it is shared by the Bloc and other sovereignist parties whenever the court don't do what they like (the Clarity act, for example, from wich I remember a lot of people saying the Supreme Court had no business studying this and that the SC was always leaning against Quebec, etc, etc). And when I read our dear friend Niptium talking about the courts, they are the courts of the Federal government (the Sikh case, most notably) as they are filled with judges nominated by the ennemy: The Feds. ;)
So, where is the difference?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 11, 2009, 10:56:10 AM
Yes, Yes we did. And will have similar issues when the Tories 12 years (or however long it sis before we need as a nation to demolish that party again)... what else is new?
Maybe, maybe not.
We never know until they've been in power with a majority.
And then it's only 5 years top, and if we don't like them, we have other options.
Currently, there are no valid options for me besides the Conservatives. I don't like part of their agenda, I don't like part of their ads, but I see nothing better when it comes to economics, wich is the most important issue to me.
Quote
Helicopters only exist as a thing to cry about in Canuck politics. Canadian Strawman of the Highest Order. (like Senatorial Reform/Patronage.)
helicopter, tanks, proper uniforms, etc. All things that we didn't have with the Libs while they were in power.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
As I have argued in past threads when he had the chance to put right wing ideologues into the Courts he didnt.
We had our annual "bench and bar" session yesterday. Guest speakers included Rothstein J. (SCC) and Fraankel J. (BCCA) - both of whom were Harper appointments. I appeared in front of Frankel very briefly this past spring, but we haven't had any federal appointments up here yet so I haven't had an opportunity to assess how he's done.
I found both of the Justice's very interesting, and in their own way, very small "C" conservative. Rothstein in particular was talking about conflicts, but spent a lot of time talking about "unintended consequences" and the limits of the court's power. It was music to my ears. :wub:
Frankel I know more by reputation, as he was a DOJ/FPS lawyer for 30+ years, and I saw his name on a number of emails when I first joined the department.
So based on a sample size of two, I'm quite impressed with Harper's appointments. They are in no way doctrinaire appointments, and follow very closely to precedent. But they are also appointments that Martin or Chretien would be unlikely to make.
It's not all superior court judge's, but I know more than a few that were appointed on the basis of long-standing support to the Liberal (or PC) Party.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2009, 01:26:03 PM
Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_interventionism) and economic rationalization
That fits the profile of the NDP.
Well of course it does. That has to be the vaguest definition I've ever read. Where did you find that?
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Gotcha!
Quote
Really, the opposition is no different than the government.
Well....can't disagree you with there. They're all politicians.
QuoteWhat's the point of having a party in power if he can't enact its electoral platform for wich people voted for. Harper is the Prime Minister after all.
Sorry...but this has nothing to do with anything. You're arguing about Canada's electoral system. We've had this discussion last year. While Harper got a plurality, he failed to get enough votes. More people voted for other parties. It sucks. I agree.
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 03:01:29 PM
More people voted for other parties.
Yeah, but only one of those other parties counts. The Liberals were defeated. Thus, by right of tradition, Harper should wield absolute power over Canada, and all who oppose him should be imprisoned or executed.
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2009, 06:41:43 PM
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 03:01:29 PM
More people voted for other parties.
Yeah, but only one of those other parties counts. The Liberals were defeated. Thus, by right of tradition, Harper should wield absolute power over Canada, and all who oppose him should be imprisoned or executed.
Once again, it would be much more interesting if you would actually debate politics as they are... :(
It
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 09:27:35 AM
As Iggy said:
"He treats every adversary as a public enemy who has to be destroyed, and so you wonder why it's difficult for me to continue to support him?" .
So Ignatief intends to have an election called because Harper is a meanie?
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2009, 06:41:43 PM
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 03:01:29 PM
More people voted for other parties.
Yeah, but only one of those other parties counts. The Liberals were defeated. Thus, by right of tradition, Harper should wield absolute power over Canada, and all who oppose him should be imprisoned or executed.
Well...since you put it that way. I'm convinced. ;)
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2009, 12:34:12 PM
Quote from: Josephus on September 11, 2009, 12:20:37 PM
What'sa matter, Neil, you can't grow a moustache? ;)
Actually, I have an ever-so-trendy goatee.
Welcome to 1993. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2009, 02:02:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
As I have argued in past threads when he had the chance to put right wing ideologues into the Courts he didnt.
We had our annual "bench and bar" session yesterday. Guest speakers included Rothstein J. (SCC) and Fraankel J. (BCCA) - both of whom were Harper appointments. I appeared in front of Frankel very briefly this past spring, but we haven't had any federal appointments up here yet so I haven't had an opportunity to assess how he's done.
I found both of the Justice's very interesting, and in their own way, very small "C" conservative. Rothstein in particular was talking about conflicts, but spent a lot of time talking about "unintended consequences" and the limits of the court's power. It was music to my ears. :wub:
Frankel I know more by reputation, as he was a DOJ/FPS lawyer for 30+ years, and I saw his name on a number of emails when I first joined the department.
So based on a sample size of two, I'm quite impressed with Harper's appointments. They are in no way doctrinaire appointments, and follow very closely to precedent. But they are also appointments that Martin or Chretien would be unlikely to make.
It's not all superior court judge's, but I know more than a few that were appointed on the basis of long-standing support to the Liberal (or PC) Party.
I was in a constitutional case opposite Frankel. In a word, he was Brilliant. We had the case won and then he started to talk....
I heard Moe Sihota (a BC NDP heavyweight) talking this morning being complimentary about the Federal conservatives budget and their willingness to live with deficits for longer and saying the Iggy was an idiot for trying to force this election.
Translation - the NDP won't let this government fall and they will look good doing it because the Conservatives will give them some EI reform in return.
Is Moe still in the thick of it? I thought he was exiled to Vancouver Island TV. I think it's the right move for the NDP. Governance instead of posturing. If the Cons are willing to compromise, the others should be too. Personalities aside. plz. :p
So Harper is making a deal with THE SOCIALISTS is he now? :D
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 10:10:43 AM
So Harper is making a deal with THE SOCIALISTS is he now? :D
That's what the Liberals are trying to tell us.
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 10:10:43 AM
So Harper is making a deal with THE SOCIALISTS is he now? :D
Now that they are not acting like socialists.... :D
Getting all kinds of conflicting reports in the media as to what is actually happening between the Conservatives and NDP. If they both drop the ball on this and send us to the polls I will be very unhappy with both of them.
Of course the NDP has nothing to lose by that since it is very unlikely they would ever get my vote and I can't see myself voting for Iggy so I suppose the Conservatives have little to lose as well.
Just another meaningless election I suppose.
So if you won't vote NDP, Iggy or the Conservatives...whom would you vote for?
Oh, God, not the Greens?
The Cons are sensing majority territory so they might be happy to let the Government fall - but if they do that they might end up sharing the blame for creating an election and wasting all that money on an election.
And as for the Cons working with the NDP... that's a two way street - it's just as negative for the NDP who have been seen to stand against Harper at every turn.
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 12:05:14 PM
So if you won't vote NDP, Iggy or the Conservatives...whom would you vote for?
Oh, God, not the Greens?
They are as good a place as any to place a protest vote.
I see that politics is making strange bed-fellows again. ;)
Cons majority? How is that going to happen? Has Ontario gone bonkers?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 15, 2009, 01:30:02 PM
Cons majority? How is that going to happen? Has Ontario gone bonkers?
Dont think it can happen. If it does it would have meant that Quebec gave the Cons some seats as well and the likelihood of that is......
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2009, 01:04:52 PM
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 12:05:14 PM
So if you won't vote NDP, Iggy or the Conservatives...whom would you vote for?
Oh, God, not the Greens?
They are as good a place as any to place a protest vote.
Nah...vote Liberterian instead.
Do you have any of those wacky Leninist/Marxists in your riding? Or Trotskyists?
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
Nah...vote Liberterian instead.
Do you have any of those wacky Leninist/Marxists in your riding? Or Trotskyists?
I couldnt vote Liberterian even as a protest vote. If an election does come I will have to carefully consider who screwed up the most and then punish them as best I can.
So far the leading contender for Head Idiot is Iggy since he precipitated all this. I will keep an open mind to see if anyone can match his idiocy.
Now it looks like the BQ is going to support the gov't. At least on this vote. I guess the BQ supporters view this election as being as pointless too.
SO THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE ALLIED WITH THE HATED SOCIALISTS AND THE SEPARATISTS :lmfao:
Harper owes them. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2009, 02:28:27 PM
So far the leading contender for Head Idiot is Iggy since he precipitated all this. I will keep an open mind to see if anyone can match his idiocy.
I am not going to belabour this point but I'll say it once.
If we do have an October election, and it's not likely now, it would be Harper's fault that we're having our fourth one in five years.
Remember we were scheduled to have one this fall under Harper's own "Fixed Election Date" rule. Remember that?
He called an election last year when we did not need one. Do not forget that!
This whole last year-- Election--Coaliton--Prorouging--Crying to GG-- Ignatieff---has all been Harper's fault and could have been avoided. If he didn't call an election last year, we'd still be talking about the Green Shift :lol:
Last year's election was good and necessary. Dion needed to be destroyed, as he was proposing concrete action on the environment. Canadians believe that environmentalism is important, but they also believe that it should be completely painless.
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 04:49:23 PM
SO THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE ALLIED WITH THE HATED SOCIALISTS AND THE SEPARATISTS :lmfao:
Harper owes them. :)
Could a coalition be far behind.... :lol:
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 04:52:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2009, 02:28:27 PM
So far the leading contender for Head Idiot is Iggy since he precipitated all this. I will keep an open mind to see if anyone can match his idiocy.
I am not going to belabour this point but I'll say it once.
If we do have an October election, and it's not likely now, it would be Harper's fault that we're having our fourth one in five years.
Remember we were scheduled to have one this fall under Harper's own "Fixed Election Date" rule. Remember that?
He called an election last year when we did not need one. Do not forget that!
This whole last year-- Election--Coaliton--Prorouging--Crying to GG-- Ignatieff---has all been Harper's fault and could have been avoided. If he didn't call an election last year, we'd still be talking about the Green Shift :lol:
We have already crossed swords on those points so I wont bore you with repeating myself.
My simple point here is that the only reason anyone is talking about an election right now is because Iggy decided he was looking too much like a Dion clone and needed to make "a stand" by sounding tough saying he would not support the government. Why he cant do that at this point, who knows.
fair enough.
I think by the end of this year, Iggy's probably gonna regret the whole Liberal Leadership thing and wish he was back in.....wherever he came from.
Still think they should have gone with Trudeau Jr.
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Still think they should have gone with Trudeau Jr.
I think I might have to hurt you.
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Still think they should have gone with Trudeau Jr.
That's just crazy talk.
Come on. Let's have some fun. And the Cons can run Mulroney's son, the guy from Canadian Idol....or, no. Wait. His daughter, what's her name? I'd vote for her. ;)
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 09:20:47 PM
Come on. Let's have some fun. And the Cons can run Mulroney's son
I am really really going to have to hurt you.
Quote from: Josephus on September 15, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Still think they should have gone with Trudeau Jr.
It's comments like this that show you have a disconnect with the reality of Canadian politics rivalled only by grallon. -_-
Ok, so this all seems much ado about nothing now.
Where does that leave Iggy?
Iggy sticks around for another year. After that he resigns as Liberal leader. If there is an election within the next year and when he inevitablely loses, he resigns as Liberal leader at that point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2009, 02:06:27 PM
Where does that leave Iggy?
he stays the leader up until he loses to the Conservatives. Then he leaves.
Or, he's elected Prime Minister at some point and we're good for another 12 years of federal-provincial squabbles.
A few days old, but,
Harper sings the Beatles with Yo Yo Ma:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOt2Qp0H9G8
I like it. :)
Quote from: viper37 on September 16, 2009, 02:21:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2009, 02:06:27 PM
Where does that leave Iggy?
he stays the leader up until he loses to the Conservatives. Then he leaves.
Or, he's elected Prime Minister at some point and we're good for another 12 years of federal-provincial squabbles.
:yes:
Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2009, 01:35:03 AM
A few days old, but,
Harper sings the Beatles with Yo Yo Ma:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOt2Qp0H9G8
I like it. :)
Any attempt to win back the artists I guess. "See, I may want to cut off funding...but I can sing!"
Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2009, 07:16:28 AM
Any attempt to win back the artists I guess. "See, I may want to cut off funding...but I can sing!"
The artists are irrelevant. Those sick-brained retards are strung out between the Liberals (those who were born into money), the NDP (those who were radicalized in college) and the Greens (those who are still in college). Harper is doing what he always does: Trying to appeal to ordinary people. In fact, that's what got him into trouble with the artists to begin with.
The more important story is that Iggy is sinking fast. The Globe is running stories about where he went wrong. the knives appear to be out before he even has a chance to fight an election and hand the Conservatives a majority.
But the question is, who else do they have who can become leader and reverse this slide? My own view is that the answer is no one and they need to spend more time in the political wilderness without any prospect of forming government so they have time to remake themselves.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2009, 08:56:46 AM
The more important story is that Iggy is sinking fast. The Globe is running stories about where he went wrong. the knives appear to be out before he even has a chance to fight an election and hand the Conservatives a majority.
But the question is, who else do they have who can become leader and reverse this slide? My own view is that the answer is no one and they need to spend more time in the political wilderness without any prospect of forming government so they have time to remake themselves.
Yup. I agree. In fact, Harper may regret that Iggy didn't topple his gov't. Since he'll probably never have a better chance of a majority government than he does now.
Future Liberal Leaders? Trudeau is waiting in the wings. But it won't happen yet. The Liberals can't afford another leadership convention, both financially and politically. Like you said, the Liberals are now in the wilderness the way the Cons were after Mulroney.
Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2009, 09:16:12 AM
Like you said, the Liberals are now in the wilderness the way the Cons were after Mulroney.
Not quite yet. The Liberals still hold onto the thread of hope that they can bring a minority government down. To be truly in the wilderness they need to suffer through being opposition (or the third party) with a Conservative party controlling Parliament.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2009, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2009, 09:16:12 AM
Like you said, the Liberals are now in the wilderness the way the Cons were after Mulroney.
Not quite yet. The Liberals still hold onto the thread of hope that they can bring a minority government down. To be truly in the wilderness they need to suffer through being opposition (or the third party) with a Conservative party controlling Parliament.
I could see them ending up as a third party. The funny part tho is that The Bloc would likely end up opposition. I don't see a "grassroots" "Liberal" party starting anytime soon either, like the various hayseed parties that raped the corpse of the PC party and started wearing their skin as a trophy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2009, 08:56:46 AM
But the question is, who else do they have who can become leader and reverse this slide? My own view is that the answer is no one and they need to spend more time in the political wilderness without any prospect of forming government so they have time to remake themselves.
Denis Coderre.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 06, 2009, 11:19:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2009, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2009, 09:16:12 AM
Like you said, the Liberals are now in the wilderness the way the Cons were after Mulroney.
Not quite yet. The Liberals still hold onto the thread of hope that they can bring a minority government down. To be truly in the wilderness they need to suffer through being opposition (or the third party) with a Conservative party controlling Parliament.
I could see them ending up as a third party. The funny part tho is that The Bloc would likely end up opposition. I don't see a "grassroots" "Liberal" party starting anytime soon either, like the various hayseed parties that raped the corpse of the PC party and started wearing their skin as a trophy.
:lol:
Good turn of phrase, that.
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2009, 12:27:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2009, 08:56:46 AM
But the question is, who else do they have who can become leader and reverse this slide? My own view is that the answer is no one and they need to spend more time in the political wilderness without any prospect of forming government so they have time to remake themselves.
Denis Coderre.
Well, after Ignatief is gone, it will be Quebec's turn to be Liberal leader again. I don't think Coderre can do it though.
Coderre doesnt have much profile outside Quebec. I doubt he could do anything to help Liberal fortunes in the rest of the Country. Here he will be seen as one of the old style Liberals.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2009, 01:48:08 PM
Coderre doesnt have much profile outside Quebec. I doubt he could do anything to help Liberal fortunes in the rest of the Country. Here he will be seen as one of the old style Liberals.
Given the ill-repute of Chretien and Dion, someone from the Quebec machine might not be the best ambassador from the party to Canada.
Quote from: Neil on October 06, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
Given the ill-repute of Chretien and Dion, someone from the Quebec machine might not be the best ambassador from the party to Canada.
I agree. They thought they were getting a new face in Iggy but he has fizzled. Well worse then fizzled. He may be the only person in the country that could make Harper look hip by comparison.
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2009, 12:27:17 PM
Denis Coderre.
Please! The fool burned himself up in that latest drama the Qc Liberals had last week. I'd bet Martin Cauchon, who's got the support of Chrétien, and who might end up replacing Coderre as Lieutenant in Qc.
Still won't help the Liberals in here though; they simply have nothing worthwhile to offer us.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2009, 02:08:12 PM
Still won't help the Liberals in here though; they simply have nothing worthwhile to offer us.
G.
Number one reason the Liberals wont go with someone from Quebec. They cant deliver any seats there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2009, 02:11:42 PM
Number one reason the Liberals wont go with someone from Quebec. They cant deliver any seats there.
If an anglo leader means to finally move away from the ideological Trudeau nostalgia more power to them.
G.
Quote from: Neil on October 06, 2009, 12:37:19 PM
Denis Coderre.
Well, after Ignatief is gone, it will be Quebec's turn to be Liberal leader again. I don't think Coderre can do it though.
I was merely joking guys :)
Coderre is well known for being this ambitious guy who has basically no chance of ever reaching the top.
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2009, 02:08:12 PM
Please! The fool burned himself up in that latest drama the Qc Liberals had last week. I'd bet Martin Cauchon, who's got the support of Chrétien, and who might end up replacing Coderre as Lieutenant in Qc.
don't you have any love for poor Denis?
Quote
Still won't help the Liberals in here though; they simply have nothing worthwhile to offer us.
True.
Ignatief could have helped them, but for some reason, he seems to think he'll be elected PM just because he's a Liberal and that should be enough for us. Bad move.
G.
[/quote]
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2009, 05:33:13 PM
don't you have any love for poor Denis?
Au secour! He's the sleaziest used car salesman one can imagine - a far cry from the charismatic leader!
Quote
Ignatief could have helped them, but for some reason, he seems to think he'll be elected PM just because he's a Liberal and that should be enough for us. Bad move.
Natural Liberal arrogance - and that's precisely what they need to purge themselves from. Ignatieff can no doubt return to his friends in Boston - he'll be able to entertain them with his anecdotes on quaint canadian (read provincial) political mores. Meanwhile we're left with Harper... What a depressing prospect!
I keep thinking Duceppe should present Bloc candiates in other provinces. Now wouldn't that be a coup!? A separatist party governing Canada? The ultimate cooptation!
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2009, 08:26:55 PM
I keep thinking Duceppe should present Bloc candiates in other provinces. Now wouldn't that be a coup!? A separatist party governing Canada? The ultimate cooptation!
Except it would be Canada co-opting the Bloc.
If you take away the militant provincialism from Bloc, you're left with the NDP. That's not a formula for governing anything.
Quote from: Neil on October 06, 2009, 08:38:04 PM
If you take away the militant provincialism from Bloc, you're left with the NDP. That's not a formula for governing anything.
Actually, a party of the left with strong support in Quebec would have a significant chance of forming government - especially if the Liberals and Conservatives split the vote.
The problem for the Bloc and the NDP is that the Bloc cannot move out of Quebec and the NDP cannot move into Quebec.
You guys seem to be ignoring the real person behind all this in the Liberal party & that's Bob Ray.
Dude won't stop untill he's the leader & destroys the party/nation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2009, 10:16:28 AM
The problem for the Bloc and the NDP is that the Bloc cannot move out of Quebec and the NDP cannot move into Quebec.
Cannot? I keep reading and hearing Duceppe as a leader has some popularity outside of Qc... Is there any truth to that?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 07, 2009, 10:52:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2009, 10:16:28 AM
The problem for the Bloc and the NDP is that the Bloc cannot move out of Quebec and the NDP cannot move into Quebec.
Cannot? I keep reading and hearing Duceppe as a leader has some popularity outside of Qc... Is there any truth to that?
G.
Why on earth would anyone outside Quebec vote for a party expressly designed to promote Quebec's interests?
Quote from: Grallon on October 07, 2009, 10:52:34 AM
Cannot? I keep reading and hearing Duceppe as a leader has some popularity outside of Qc... Is there any truth to that?
G.
Dont confuse likeability with support. There is no chance a separatist outside of Quebec would get any support.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 10:54:19 AM
Quote from: Grallon on October 07, 2009, 10:52:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2009, 10:16:28 AM
The problem for the Bloc and the NDP is that the Bloc cannot move out of Quebec and the NDP cannot move into Quebec.
Cannot? I keep reading and hearing Duceppe as a leader has some popularity outside of Qc... Is there any truth to that?
G.
Why on earth would anyone outside Quebec vote for a party expressly designed to promote Quebec's interests?
But what about for Duceppe himself? The man could promote everyones interests?
Altho, he's still inline to be the next PQ leader. Well if Coderre doesn't steal his place.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2009, 11:17:47 AM
But what about for Duceppe himself? The man could promote everyones interests?
He is a one trick pony. Whenever a difficult issue comes up all he has to say is "we will vote in the best intersts of Quebec".
Take that answer away from him and then see how well he does.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 10:54:19 AM
Why on earth would anyone outside Quebec vote for a party expressly designed to promote Quebec's interests?
People always vote for parties that don't represent their interests.
I mean...otherwise would the Conservatives have that much support? ;)
Quote from: Josephus on October 07, 2009, 12:53:39 PM
I mean...otherwise would the Conservatives have that much support? ;)
Because everyone would like to have a government that keeps taxes low and increases the ability of business to generate more jobs. :P
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2009, 08:26:55 PM
Meanwhile we're left with Harper... What a depressing prospect!
not really.
Quote from: viper37 on October 07, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2009, 08:26:55 PM
Meanwhile we're left with Harper... What a depressing prospect!
not really.
You obviously haven't heard him butcher the Beatles.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 10:54:19 AM
Why on earth would anyone outside Quebec vote for a party expressly designed to promote Quebec's interests?
ask the leftists.
Quote from: viper37 on October 07, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 06, 2009, 08:26:55 PM
Meanwhile we're left with Harper... What a depressing prospect!
not really.
Since when did you become a seperatist?
Quote from: viper37 on October 07, 2009, 01:26:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 10:54:19 AM
Why on earth would anyone outside Quebec vote for a party expressly designed to promote Quebec's interests?
ask the leftists.
there are no leftists left in this country except wingnut commies standing on the corner selling daily worker papers. That's an urban legend. (that Canada is "Left" )
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 07, 2009, 01:26:40 PM
You obviously haven't heard him butcher the Beatles.
I heard about it, but didn't really listen to it.
do yourself a favour and don't. unless you are easily takenm in by smarm. I am only impressed that he could play the piano. That is a good thing in a leader.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 07, 2009, 01:37:07 PM
do yourself a favour and don't. unless you are easily takenm in by smarm. I am only impressed that he could play the piano. That is a good thing in a leader.
I was impressed that he pulled it off as well as he did.
That took a lot of guts and it sounded pretty good.
You are the first person I have heard that panned the performance.
Did he censor himself for "I get HIGH with a little help from my friends.."
Quote from: PRC on October 07, 2009, 02:21:13 PM
Did he censor himself for "I get HIGH with a little help from my friends.."
No he belted that out. Surprised me too. :lol:
Quote from: Grallon on October 07, 2009, 10:52:34 AM
Cannot? I keep reading and hearing Duceppe as a leader has some popularity outside of Qc... Is there any truth to that?
Not at all. People don't hate him (at least not all of them), and I've heard people talking about voting for the Bloc, but always in the context of a protest vote. If the Bloc carried a single riding (other than perhaps one of the more Francophone regions of Ontario or New Brunswick) I would be shocked.
No, Duceppe is mostly a strange and exotic figure that doesn't really enter into political calculations in most of Canada.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2009, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 07, 2009, 01:37:07 PM
do yourself a favour and don't. unless you are easily takenm in by smarm. I am only impressed that he could play the piano. That is a good thing in a leader.
I was impressed that he pulled it off as well as he did.
That took a lot of guts and it sounded pretty good.
You are the first person I have heard that panned the performance.
Consider the source.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2009, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 07, 2009, 01:37:07 PM
do yourself a favour and don't. unless you are easily takenm in by smarm. I am only impressed that he could play the piano. That is a good thing in a leader.
I was impressed that he pulled it off as well as he did.
That took a lot of guts and it sounded pretty good.
You are the first person I have heard that panned the performance.
meh I couldn't even watch the whole thing. I do however give him props for actually going through with something like that. Executive privilege: Our leaders ought to be able to act out their more harmless fantasies when given a chance. perks, and all.
And I am very glad he didn't censor any of the words. If he had I would have been really annoyed. However it doesn't change my mind re: his ability to actually govern, rather than spend all his time in bitch fights with equally boring opposition leaders. Get off the MF-ing campaign trail and do stuff. Otherwise he's going to have to do more than give Layton & the NDP back handed compliments to keep from plunging Canada into an election no one wants.
(except asshole politicians who don't think that it's any big deal to spend millions on yearly elections during a global recession.)
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 01:28:52 AM
meh I couldn't even watch the whole thing. I do however give him props for actually going through with something like that. Executive privilege: Our leaders ought to be able to act out their more harmless fantasies when given a chance. perks, and all.
And I am very glad he didn't censor any of the words. If he had I would have been really annoyed. However it doesn't change my mind re: his ability to actually govern, rather than spend all his time in bitch fights with equally boring opposition leaders. Get off the MF-ing campaign trail and do stuff. Otherwise he's going to have to do more than give Layton & the NDP back handed compliments to keep from plunging Canada into an election no one wants.
(except asshole politicians who don't think that it's any big deal to spend millions on yearly elections during a global recession.)
Apparently the rest of Canada disagrees with your assessment. A poll released this morning says Harper enjoyed a 7% bump. The pollster interviewed on the radio said he thought it had a lot to do with Harper's performance that night in stark contrast to the increasingly unappealing Iggy.
While I respect Josephus and Buddha's opinions and thoughts on these things, I have to say they are both terrible prognosticators when it comes to how the rest of Canada will view things.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 07, 2009, 01:29:15 PM
there are no leftists left in this country except wingnut commies standing on the corner selling daily worker papers. That's an urban legend. (that Canada is "Left" )
Vip isn't a reliable source on this particular topic - he sees lefties (whatever that means nowadays) in every corner.
As for Harper-the-piano-man, is there anyone here who believes this was nothing but a tactical move?! The masses may think this has revealed a suddenly warm and compassionate PM (the intended effect) - but we know it's a smoke screen; when the majority comes, Harper will revert to being the cold and ruthless control freak he is.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 08, 2009, 11:29:06 AM
As for Harper-the-piano-man, is there anyone here who believes this was nothing but a tactical move?! The masses may think this has revealed a suddenly warm and compassionate PM (the intended effect) - but we know it's a smoke screen; when the majority comes, Harper will revert to being the cold and ruthless control freak he is.
G.
So, Canada does still have wacky lefties.... :P
Do you really think that the PM learned how to sing and play the piano so that he could make a "surprise" appearance. Or do you think it more likely that it happened just as they say it did and that he does know how to play the piano, that he can carry a tune and that his wife suggested to him that he do it? If he was faking, he did a really great job.
Quote from: Grallon on October 08, 2009, 11:29:06 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 07, 2009, 01:29:15 PM
there are no leftists left in this country except wingnut commies standing on the corner selling daily worker papers. That's an urban legend. (that Canada is "Left" )
Vip isn't a reliable source on this particular topic - he sees lefties (whatever that means nowadays) in every corner.
As for Harper-the-piano-man, is there anyone here who believes this was nothing but a tactical move?! The masses may think this has revealed a suddenly warm and compassionate PM (the intended effect) - but we know it's a smoke screen; when the majority comes, Harper will revert to being the cold and ruthless control freak he is.
I can't find the article right now, but I read an article in the Globe that said the whole thing was Laureen harper's idea. She suggested it a few times (and commented how Stephen likes to play the piano at home to unwind), and he finally agreed.
I'd also like to point out that Harper sent out no press releases, no news conference. The only video of the event seems to be from people in the audience, and that uploaded it to Youtube. HArper apparently took a bow afterwards, but then quickly left stage.
Quote from: Grallon on October 08, 2009, 11:29:06 AM
Vip isn't a reliable source on this particular topic - he sees lefties (whatever that means nowadays) in every corner.
I see them because they are there ;)
The main difference between the right and the left is that the left reacts on emotions instead of critical tought. The left would prefer to see everyone on the Titanic perish because we can't save everyone.
Quote
As for Harper-the-piano-man, is there anyone here who believes this was nothing but a tactical move?! The masses may think this has revealed a suddenly warm and compassionate PM (the intended effect) - but we know it's a smoke screen; when the majority comes, Harper will revert to being the cold and ruthless control freak he is.
He didn't learn the song and the piano just for that.
However, doing so in public, while there are cameras is a publicity stunt for sure.
Doesn't change anything about what I think of him, wouldn't change anything of what I think about Duceppe if he was playing the bass on
For Whom The Bell Tolls.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2009, 11:49:45 AM
However, doing so in public, while there are cameras is a publicity stunt for sure.
There were no cameras ;) The only reason we have the footage is because people can take clips with their cell phones. FYI, the best video I saw was taken by someone who was in the orchestra behind him.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 08, 2009, 11:53:38 AM
There were no cameras ;) The only reason we have the footage is because people can take clips with their cell phones. FYI, the best video I saw was taken by someone who was in the orchestra behind him.
ah, ok, sorry then, I was mistaken :)
Still believe it is part of his strategy to look more "human" though, whatever that means.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2009, 11:56:10 AM
Still believe it is part of his strategy to look more "human" though, whatever that means.
I am sure that is what his wife had in mind. If the left has to stoop to colouring that as some kind of right wing conspiracy then I suppose that is as good an explanation as any for why the left is so low in the polls atm.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2009, 11:49:45 AM
I see them because they are there ;)
We can't let the righties destroy our Nation without atleast crying about it.
I'm impressed he pulled that off. His poll numbers have jumped.
Heh. I guess it's also true that Yo Yo Ma will play will anybody. ;)
Harper is also supposed to be writing a book about hockey. Based on his pianoman turn, maybe he is actually writing it. If he gets that out soon, he'll have his majority.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2009, 11:49:45 AM
The main difference between the right and the left is that the left reacts on emotions instead of critical tought. The left would prefer to see everyone on the Titanic perish because we can't save everyone.
:rolleyes: I'll simply refer you to all the conservative pundits and militants in the States, who've been screaming for months about death panels, Obama nazi police and other absurdities in the healthcare reform debate. Critical thinking indeed!
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 08, 2009, 01:39:02 PM
:rolleyes: I'll simply refer you to all the conservative pundits and militants in the States, who've been screaming for months about death panels, Obama nazi police and other absurdities in the healthcare reform debate. Critical thinking indeed!
Very few people are capable of critical thinking when it comes to health care. It is an issue that provokes histrionics in all sorts.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 08, 2009, 11:34:16 AM
Do you really think that the PM learned how to sing and play the piano so that he could make a "surprise" appearance. Or do you think it more likely that it happened just as they say it did and that he does know how to play the piano, that he can carry a tune and that his wife suggested to him that he do it? If he was faking, he did a really great job.
Why do you insist on being disingenuous? Did I say fake? No. I said staged. You're simply being your hypocritical self as usual. I'll remind you that when there's a function where the PM is invited there's bound to be someone with a camcell phone. This was staged, and timed, to leak into the media in the wake of the Liberal discomfiture. It's a prepup for the elections.
G.
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 11:07:17 AM
While I respect Josephus and Buddha's opinions and thoughts on these things, I have to say they are both terrible prognosticators when it comes to how the rest of Canada will view things.
So you think most Canadians want yearly elections that cost untold millions? I hope not. But what I also said in that post was that this will help him get his majority and plunge us into 12 years of being ruled by people I personally think are tools. Of course if he somehow bungles it and Iggy wins (unlikely) then we have 12 years of tools who think they are smarter than everyone else. Harper just thinks he's better than everyone, not necessarily smarter. Intelligence has never been the hallmark of conservatism.
I don't believe in any of our leaders right now. I reserve the right to be cynical about people I do not trust. Playing piano on a lark does not make him seem more human to me... it makes him seem like he's trying to be more human. That's a good step in the right direction. But If this and his Hockey book give him a Majority, what are the odds he'll have policies that have any of my interests at heart? ZERO.
Quote from: Grallon on October 08, 2009, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 08, 2009, 11:34:16 AM
Do you really think that the PM learned how to sing and play the piano so that he could make a "surprise" appearance. Or do you think it more likely that it happened just as they say it did and that he does know how to play the piano, that he can carry a tune and that his wife suggested to him that he do it? If he was faking, he did a really great job.
Why do you insist on being disingenuous? Did I say fake? No. I said staged. You're simply being your hypocritical self as usual. I'll remind you that when there's a function where the PM is invited there's bound to be someone with a camcell phone. This was staged, and timed, to leak into the media in the wake of the Liberal discomfiture. It's a prepup for the elections.
So it's staged because it involves the Prime Minister?
By that reasoning everything the Prime Minister ever does in public is staged. I'm not sure that label is very helpful then.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 01:57:21 PM
Intelligence has never been the hallmark of conservatism.
I am conservative. Am I not the most intelligent of us all?
QuoteI don't believe in any of our leaders right now. I reserve the right to be cynical about people I do not trust. Playing piano on a lark does not make him seem more human to me... it makes him seem like he's trying to be more human. That's a good step in the right direction. But If this and his Hockey book give him a Majority, what are the odds he'll have policies that have any of my interests at heart? ZERO.
Perhaps you should attempt to have more normal interests then.
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2009, 02:03:21 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 01:57:21 PM
Intelligence has never been the hallmark of conservatism.
I am conservative. Am I not the most intelligent of us all?
QuoteI don't believe in any of our leaders right now. I reserve the right to be cynical about people I do not trust. Playing piano on a lark does not make him seem more human to me... it makes him seem like he's trying to be more human. That's a good step in the right direction. But If this and his Hockey book give him a Majority, what are the odds he'll have policies that have any of my interests at heart? ZERO.
Perhaps you should attempt to have more normal interests then.
1. No. No you are not.
2. My interests are: Movies, Books, and Hockey. totally abnormal?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:06:08 PM
1. No. No you are not.
2. My interests are: Movies, Books, and Hockey. totally abnormal?
1. Incorrect. I am. By far.
2. And you feel that Harper's policies are damaging to movies, books and hockey?
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 11:07:17 AM
While I respect Josephus and Buddha's opinions and thoughts on these things, I have to say they are both terrible prognosticators when it comes to how the rest of Canada will view things.
That's not entirely fair. I have said, and have been saying, that the Conservatives are polling well and have been saying for a couple months that if an election is called, Harper will get as close to a majority as he ever will.
I just don't understand WHY the rest of Canada views things the way they do. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 01:58:42 PM
By that reasoning everything the Prime Minister ever does in public is staged. I'm not sure that label is very helpful then.
I"m sure everythign the prime minister does in public is staged yeah. Scripted even. That's not a dig against Harper. It's the way things are.
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2009, 02:08:50 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:06:08 PM
1. No. No you are not.
2. My interests are: Movies, Books, and Hockey. totally abnormal?
1. Incorrect. I am. By far.
2. And you feel that Harper's policies are damaging to movies, books and hockey?
like the robots running BC Harper is all about cuts to the arts (movies/books etc) Hockey is always safe in Canada. It's the one stable thing in this country.
as to the former. You actually have no idea if that's true except in your own view of things. I'm not saying you aren't smart though, I'm saying it's not a hallmark of Conservatism. There is a difference.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:16:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2009, 02:08:50 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:06:08 PM
1. No. No you are not.
2. My interests are: Movies, Books, and Hockey. totally abnormal?
1. Incorrect. I am. By far.
2. And you feel that Harper's policies are damaging to movies, books and hockey?
like the robots running BC Harper is all about cuts to the arts (movies/books etc) Hockey is always safe in Canada. It's the one stable thing in this country.
as to the former. You actually have no idea if that's true except in your own view of things. I'm not saying you aren't smart though, I'm saying it's not a hallmark of Conservatism. There is a difference.
Cuts to the arts funding don't actually affect books and movies, because books and movies are made by large US-based corporations.
Intelligence isn't the hallmark of any political ideology, except for Neilism.
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2009, 02:12:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 01:58:42 PM
By that reasoning everything the Prime Minister ever does in public is staged. I'm not sure that label is very helpful then.
I"m sure everythign the prime minister does in public is staged yeah. Scripted even. That's not a dig against Harper. It's the way things are.
My comment was a response to Grallon, who seemed to criticize the song for being "staged".
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:16:47 PM
as to the former. You actually have no idea if that's true except in your own view of things. I'm not saying you aren't smart though, I'm saying it's not a hallmark of Conservatism. There is a difference.
Tell me - do you think that intelligence *is* a hallmark of some other ideology?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 01:57:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 11:07:17 AM
While I respect Josephus and Buddha's opinions and thoughts on these things, I have to say they are both terrible prognosticators when it comes to how the rest of Canada will view things.
So you think most Canadians want yearly elections that cost untold millions?
You may have noticed that the folks who where trying to force an election were the Liberals and their polling numbers show how successful that strategy was for them. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 08, 2009, 11:59:50 AM
I am sure that is what his wife had in mind. If the left has to stoop to colouring that as some kind of right wing conspiracy then I suppose that is as good an explanation as any for why the left is so low in the polls atm.
Iggy will strike back. :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamanager.oc3.generationflash.com%2Fclient_utils%2F_resize_picture_portal.php%3Fmember%3Dcp%26amp%3Bw%3D800%26amp%3Bh%3D800%26amp%3Bimg%3D051_6988_169881.jpg&hash=63dfe182e797f2c8d6e5719375a3527d4ac946b0)
Quote from: Grallon on October 08, 2009, 01:39:02 PM
:rolleyes: I'll simply refer you to all the conservative pundits and militants in the States, who've been screaming for months about death panels, Obama nazi police and other absurdities in the healthcare reform debate. Critical thinking indeed!
There are idiots everywhere who let their emotions interfere with their judgement.
Quote from: Grallon on October 08, 2009, 01:51:14 PM
Why do you insist on being disingenuous? Did I say fake? No. I said staged. You're simply being your hypocritical self as usual. I'll remind you that when there's a function where the PM is invited there's bound to be someone with a camcell phone. This was staged, and timed, to leak into the media in the wake of the Liberal discomfiture. It's a prepup for the elections.
I tend to agree with you, re: the event in itself. I think he knew piano and I think he did say before he likes the Beatles. That's like Clinton playing Sax on whaterver Tonight Show he appeared back when he was running for presidency.
Of course he knew he would be filmed, and that would be leaked to the media. I doubt he had his people film it and leak it themselves though.
Harper is a very intelligent man, that's what I like about him. If playing some music is gonna gain him some votes, so be it.
Here is an article from the Globe today saying the Tories are reaching 41% in the polls and would have a clear majority. It doesnt surprise me that the dissatisfaction with Iggy which prompted me to make the OP is shared by a lot of Canadians but it does surprise me how fast and far the Liberals have dropped and even more surprised that the NPD were not able to benefit from that at all.
QuoteJane Taber
Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
Published on Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009 12:12PM EDT
Last updated on Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009 12:16PM EDT
Stephen Harper, the piano man and economic manager, is making Canadians so comfortable they want to see him win a majority government, according to a new national public opinion poll.
The EKOS Research survey conducted for the CBC shows that the Conservatives' substantial lead over Michael Ignatieff's Liberals is solidifying – a lead that now has the Tories knocking on the door of a majority government.
According to EKOS, the Tories now enjoy 40.7 per cent support compared to 25.5 per cent for the Liberals, 14.3 per cent for the NDP, 10.5 per cent for the Green Party and 9.1 per cent for the Bloc.
Two polls last week showed the same upward movement for the Conservatives, edging them into majority territory.
But EKOS has gone farther by plugging their numbers into a seat projection model that gives the Harper Conservatives 167 seats, a clear majority. They now have 143 seats.
The projections – all hypothetical – do not bode well for Mr. Ignatieff and his Liberals. It would give them 68 seats, meaning he would do worse than his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, who won 77 seats in the 2008 election.
The EKOS model gives the Bloc 50 seats, up from 47; the NDP 23 seats, which is a decrease of 13; and the Green Party would be shut out once again.
The poll of 2,729 Canadians was conducted between Oct. 7 and Oct. 13. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
"They're really taking off," EKOS president Frank Graves said of the Tories. Describing it as "fascinating," he noted as well that the pattern of Canadians retreating from the Tories when they see them moving into majority territory is not being repeated in his poll
And I read the Liberals are at it again: plotting to unseat their leader in the hope of getting one that will appeal to a majority and give them back what they see as their god-given right: to rule Canada. Personally I think such a move would simply disaffect even more canadians. Perhaps an electoral defeat in the order of that of the conservatives in 1993 is what the LPC really needs to rethink itself?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 15, 2009, 11:55:59 AM
And I read the Liberals are at it again: plotting to unseat their leader in the hope of getting one that will appeal to a majority and give them back what they see as their god-given right: to rule Canada. Personally I think such a move would simply disaffect even more canadians. Perhaps an electoral defeat in the order of that of the conservatives in 1993 is what the LPC really needs to rethink itself?
G.
I agree with everything you said.
Yeah, 41% is pretty much instant majority territory.
I wonder if the Liberals are so keen to bring down the government now?
Gawd, who will save us?
Barack!
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 15, 2009, 12:04:13 PM
Gawd, who will save us?
Barack!
Why do we need saving from the pianoman?
He'll destroy Canada.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 15, 2009, 12:12:55 PM
He'll destroy Canada.
Barak is still busy with the US. Nothing to fear from him here.
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:16:47 PM
as to the former. You actually have no idea if that's true except in your own view of things. I'm not saying you aren't smart though, I'm saying it's not a hallmark of Conservatism. There is a difference.
Tell me - do you think that intelligence *is* a hallmark of some other ideology?
No and that either/or assumption though is a hallmark of narrow mindedness.
I love how you guys try to pigeonhole everything... if I criticize the Cons, I must be Pro Liberal? Nein. I don't like Iggy and his cadre of rich lawyers anymore than I do Harper and his. Equally depraved assholes not looking out for the huddled masses before their own hides. There are never only two choices politically.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2009, 04:49:53 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 08, 2009, 01:39:02 PM
:rolleyes: I'll simply refer you to all the conservative pundits and militants in the States, who've been screaming for months about death panels, Obama nazi police and other absurdities in the healthcare reform debate. Critical thinking indeed!
There are idiots everywhere who let their emotions interfere with their judgement.
:yes: This is the most intelligent thing you have ever said on this board.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 15, 2009, 12:28:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:16:47 PM
as to the former. You actually have no idea if that's true except in your own view of things. I'm not saying you aren't smart though, I'm saying it's not a hallmark of Conservatism. There is a difference.
Tell me - do you think that intelligence *is* a hallmark of some other ideology?
No and that either/or assumption though is a hallmark of narrow mindedness.
I love how you guys try to pigeonhole everything... if I criticize the Cons, I must be Pro Liberal? Nein. I don't like Iggy and his cadre of rich lawyers anymore than I do Harper and his. Equally depraved assholes not looking out for the huddled masses before their own hides. There are never only two choices politically.
Sure there are. There are only two possible prime ministers of Canada right now: Harper and Iggy.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 15, 2009, 12:28:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:16:47 PM
as to the former. You actually have no idea if that's true except in your own view of things. I'm not saying you aren't smart though, I'm saying it's not a hallmark of Conservatism. There is a difference.
Tell me - do you think that intelligence *is* a hallmark of some other ideology?
No and that either/or assumption though is a hallmark of narrow mindedness.
I love how you guys try to pigeonhole everything... if I criticize the Cons, I must be Pro Liberal? Nein. I don't like Iggy and his cadre of rich lawyers anymore than I do Harper and his. Equally depraved assholes not looking out for the huddled masses before their own hides. There are never only two choices politically.
You have established your creditentials as a political nihilist for quite some time. I dont think anyone mistakes you as a supporter of anyone.
Btw, whats the problem with rich lawyers? :mad:
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 11:57:28 AM
Yeah, 41% is pretty much instant majority territory.
I wonder if the Liberals are so keen to bring down the government now?
Wouldn't surprise me if Harper breaks his own "fixed election date" rule yet again, and dissolve the government. :lol:
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 15, 2009, 12:28:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:16:47 PM
as to the former. You actually have no idea if that's true except in your own view of things. I'm not saying you aren't smart though, I'm saying it's not a hallmark of Conservatism. There is a difference.
Tell me - do you think that intelligence *is* a hallmark of some other ideology?
No and that either/or assumption though is a hallmark of narrow mindedness.
I love how you guys try to pigeonhole everything... if I criticize the Cons, I must be Pro Liberal? Nein. I don't like Iggy and his cadre of rich lawyers anymore than I do Harper and his. Equally depraved assholes not looking out for the huddled masses before their own hides. There are never only two choices politically.
Sure there are. There are only two possible prime ministers of Canada right now: Harper and Iggy.
doesn't mean either of them (or any of the other lesser parties either) are the right man for the job. Seems to me it;s a voting for the lesser evil scenario. For me personally it's not hard to choose however as locally which is the only way I can vote, neither the Libs or the Cons have any profile whatsoever. My riding is Orangier than an actual orange. So I'll vote NDP, because none of the other parties has an ice cube's chance in hell of getting more than a smattering of votes.
If there's actually another election this year. I may not vote for the first time ever. That's how much I dislike the whole bunch on the Hill however.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2009, 12:43:01 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 15, 2009, 12:28:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2009, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:16:47 PM
as to the former. You actually have no idea if that's true except in your own view of things. I'm not saying you aren't smart though, I'm saying it's not a hallmark of Conservatism. There is a difference.
Tell me - do you think that intelligence *is* a hallmark of some other ideology?
No and that either/or assumption though is a hallmark of narrow mindedness.
I love how you guys try to pigeonhole everything... if I criticize the Cons, I must be Pro Liberal? Nein. I don't like Iggy and his cadre of rich lawyers anymore than I do Harper and his. Equally depraved assholes not looking out for the huddled masses before their own hides. There are never only two choices politically.
You have established your creditentials as a political nihilist for quite some time. I dont think anyone mistakes you as a supporter of anyone.
Btw, whats the problem with rich lawyers? :mad:
Nothing when they are being lawyers, but when the become MPs/MLAs they seem intent on taking away everything I love about Canada * see my incoherent rants about arts cuts, and undeserved raises while the country/province is running deficit. Maybe they feel they deserve those raises because had they stayed practicing instead of governing, they'd be making more probably. but no one is forced into public service.
Politicians should be setting examples in tough times and good times, not raising our tax burden to line their pockets and their friends' pockets (big business)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2009, 12:43:01 PM
Btw, whats the problem with rich lawyers? :mad:
That I'm not one of them. :mad:
well how would the rich lawyers be able to measure their success without you Beeb. You do have a role. :p
seriously though... I think being a Prosecutor is a pretty darned tough Lawyer-y thing to do. Maybe the hardest, in human terms. So I'm glad You are doing it, as you seem to be tough but fair minded.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 15, 2009, 12:59:29 PM
well how would the rich lawyers be able to measure their success without you Beeb. You do have a role. :p
seriously though... I think being a Prosecutor is a pretty darned tough Lawyer-y thing to do. Maybe the hardest, in human terms. So I'm glad You are doing it, as you seem to be tough but fair minded.
What's with all the damn compliments recently. Have you guys heard something that I haven't? :unsure:
You have prostate cancer.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 15, 2009, 01:34:00 PM
You have prostate cancer.
I knew it! Why didn't you tell me earlier?
You haven't asked until now.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 15, 2009, 12:43:34 PM
doesn't mean either of them (or any of the other lesser parties either) are the right man for the job. Seems to me it;s a voting for the lesser evil scenario. For me personally it's not hard to choose however as locally which is the only way I can vote, neither the Libs or the Cons have any profile whatsoever. My riding is Orangier than an actual orange. So I'll vote NDP, because none of the other parties has an ice cube's chance in hell of getting more than a smattering of votes.
If there's actually another election this year. I may not vote for the first time ever. That's how much I dislike the whole bunch on the Hill however.
One of them has to be the right man for the job, because there's no one else applying.
At any rate, giving money to big business is probably a better overall investment than giving it to the arts. Big business tends to employ large numbers of people. The arts do not.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 01:07:15 PM
What's with all the damn compliments recently.
Dont worry, the pendulem will swing back again.
Lets start a pool to guess how long it will take for Iggy to find a reason to go back to Academia. He likely thought he was walking into the top job and now he may go down in history as being worse then Dion...
My guess is he leaves before the next election. He will find some personal reason for necessitating his departure.
Denis Coderre triumphant return or will the Liberal party perish at the hands of Bob Ray?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2009, 11:58:12 AM
...
My guess is he leaves before the next election. He will find some personal reason for necessitating his departure.
I quite enjoyed the jabs Dion's wife took at him on Facebook last friday. Apparently she's deleted her Facebook account since. :lol:
She said the Liberal Party was going nowhere; the party leaders chose Iggy more for his hability to waltz through cocktail parties than for any other reasons; that the Party will become like those shrivelled little things one sees in Europe, always dependant on coalitions to survive... and more besides.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 23, 2009, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2009, 11:58:12 AM
...
My guess is he leaves before the next election. He will find some personal reason for necessitating his departure.
I quite enjoyed the jabs Dion's wife took at him on Facebook last friday. Apparently she's deleted her Facebook account since. :lol:
She said the Liberal Party was going nowhere; the party leaders chose Iggy more for his hability to waltz through cocktail parties than for any other reasons; that the Party will become like those shrivelled little things one sees in Europe, always dependant on coalitions to survive... and more besides.
G.
Heh, yet another Facebook catfight to make the papers.
It's a sad commentary that this seems to be the most interesting thing about the Libs in some time.
The problem is, we as a country
need the Libs, or at least something analogous to them - there isn't another party in Canada that has national reach and a serious chance of forming a government *without* being "dependant on coalitions to survive".
What I realy fear is unrelieved decades of Con hegemony. That will work out just as well as unrelieved decades of Lib hegemony - that is, not great. For that reason, I seriously hope the Libs find a voice and some guts soon.
Both Iggy and Dion are symptoms, not causes, of a more basic problem: the Libs are no longer sure about what they stand for. Trudeau's vision (love it or hate it) of a Canada centred on an equal partnership of English and French Canada under a strong federal gov't isn't as relevant to modern Canada, due to the fragmentation of English Canada; official multiculturalism isn't a replacement, since it merely recognizes that fragmentation without articulating a strong set of shared values.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
Both Iggy and Dion are symptoms, not causes, of a more basic problem: the Libs are no longer sure about what they stand for. Trudeau's vision (love it or hate it) of a Canada centred on an equal partnership of English and French Canada under a strong federal gov't isn't as relevant to modern Canada, due to the fragmentation of English Canada; official multiculturalism isn't a replacement, since it merely recognizes that fragmentation without articulating a strong set of shared values.
Under Chretien the Liberals came to believe the moniker of "Natural Governing Party" would guarrantee them electorale success. Over time the Liberals lost the ability to provide any good reason for voting for them other then "We arent the Conservatives". But , despite efforts to demonize Harper, that doesn't play as well as it once did.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
Both Iggy and Dion are symptoms, not causes, of a more basic problem: the Libs are no longer sure about what they stand for. Trudeau's vision (love it or hate it) of a Canada centred on an equal partnership of English and French Canada under a strong federal gov't isn't as relevant to modern Canada, due to the fragmentation of English Canada; official multiculturalism isn't a replacement, since it merely recognizes that fragmentation without articulating a strong set of shared values.
Under Chretien the Liberals came to believe the moniker of "Natural Governing Party" would guarrantee them electorale success. Over time the Liberals lost the ability to provide any good reason for voting for them other then "We arent the Conservatives". But , despite efforts to demonize Harper, that doesn't play as well as it once did.
Yeah if the Libs plan on rebuilding and actually governing any time soon, they need an out of left field (not literally, more of a centre fielder in reality but you see what i'm saying) kind of leader, an Obama type, young dynamic, interesting. No one I can see on the horizon. Maybe they should adjust that to the 20th century natural governing party?
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
...Trudeau's vision (love it or hate it) of a Canada centred on an equal partnership of English and French Canada under a strong federal gov't isn't as relevant to modern Canada, due to the fragmentation of English Canada; official multiculturalism isn't a replacement, since it merely recognizes that fragmentation without articulating a strong set of shared values.
I'm glad to see even a torontonian realize Trudeau's vision has failed to produce the kind of national identity it was meant to create. Official multiculturalism is the last remnant of that and if we are to go by the latest document 'presenting' Canada to immigrants, where it is stated that canadians do not condone 'barbaric customs', I'd say a few more years of conservative rule should see the dismantling of that debilitating ideology.
G.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
What I realy fear is unrelieved decades of Con hegemony. That will work out just as well as unrelieved decades of Lib hegemony - that is, not great. For that reason, I seriously hope the Libs find a voice and some guts soon.
:lol:
Harper still hasn't won a single majority, and yet you're worried about "unrelieved decades of Con hegemony"?
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 01:18:38 PM
:lol:
Harper still hasn't won a single majority, and yet you're worried about "unrelieved decades of Con hegemony"?
Yeah, I think we need to see at least one majority before people start fretting about that problem.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 23, 2009, 01:17:11 PM
Yeah if the Libs plan on rebuilding and actually governing any time soon, they need an out of left field (not literally, more of a centre fielder in reality but you see what i'm saying) kind of leader, an Obama type, young dynamic, interesting. No one I can see on the horizon. Maybe they should adjust that to the 20th century natural governing party?
COUGH****Justin***COUGH
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 01:18:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
What I realy fear is unrelieved decades of Con hegemony. That will work out just as well as unrelieved decades of Lib hegemony - that is, not great. For that reason, I seriously hope the Libs find a voice and some guts soon.
:lol:
Harper still hasn't won a single majority, and yet you're worried about "unrelieved decades of Con hegemony"?
Yup.
The Cons have proved that you can govern just fine with a minority - as long as your opposition is fragmented, leaderless and disunited.
The problem here isn't Con strength, it's Lib
weakness - a weakness that shows no sign of being resolved; nor is there any viable options to replace 'em (Greens? NDP?)
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 01:33:29 PM
COUGH****Justin***COUGH
Leaders who don't have *some* substance don't last long. And Justin is a no talent empty shell with no charisma. All he has is a name whose value is more nostalgic than anything else. Coderre would do if the Liberals wanted a buffoon as leader... And Bob Ray can't quite wash the stain of his NDP premiership away.
G.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 23, 2009, 01:17:11 PM
Yeah if the Libs plan on rebuilding and actually governing any time soon, they need an out of left field (not literally, more of a centre fielder in reality but you see what i'm saying) kind of leader, an Obama type, young dynamic, interesting. No one I can see on the horizon. Maybe they should adjust that to the 20th century natural governing party?
Liberal problems are not one of leadership. Both Dion and Ignatieff are decent men.
I agree their main problem is in lacking much in the way of an identity. Without an identity people don't vounteer, they don't donate, they don't go through hundreds of rubber chicken dinners to get elected. You can see this problem in liberal fundraising efforts, which have been anemic for years.
Harper isn't "young, dynamic, interesting", and look how well he's done. CHretien wasn't "young, dynamic, interesting", and he was very successful.
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 01:33:29 PM
COUGH****Justin***COUGH
I trust you were having an allergic reaction just saying the name.
Seriously though, I can think of no single candidate the Liberals could choose that would stand a better chance of relegating it to being an Ontario only party. I simply cant see him getting any meaningful support in Quebec, the West or the Maritimes. And I suspect Ontario would be hard for him as well. Being the son of a great man just doesnt sell the way it used to.
I have big problems calling Ignatieff a "decent" man. I think he is a snake.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 02:38:21 PM
I have big problems calling Ignatieff a "decent" man. I think he is a snake.
How so? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 02:38:21 PM
I have big problems calling Ignatieff a "decent" man. I think he is a snake.
How so? :huh:
Purely in terms of politics, his constituents were not happy with him being "parachuted" into a safe Liberal riding.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2009, 02:53:46 PM
Purely in terms of politics, his constituents were not happy with him being "parachuted" into a safe Liberal riding.
Understandable, but that's the way it has been ever since the ability of the central party to fundraise became more important than the local machine's ability to organize.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 02:38:21 PM
I have big problems calling Ignatieff a "decent" man. I think he is a snake.
How so? :huh:
flip flops on torture, Iraq and oilsands, depending on who is listening. he has few convictions.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 03:25:18 PM
flip flops on torture, Iraq and oilsands, depending on who is listening. he has few convictions.
How was the poor man to know that he wasnt going to walk in and talk the position of PM by acclamation. Isnt that what drew him here in the first place? And now you want him to have ideas beyond simply being our philosopher king?
You are a hard hard man.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2009, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 01:33:29 PM
COUGH****Justin***COUGH
I trust you were having an allergic reaction just saying the name.
Seriously though, I can think of no single candidate the Liberals could choose that would stand a better chance of relegating it to being an Ontario only party. I simply cant see him getting any meaningful support in Quebec, the West or the Maritimes. And I suspect Ontario would be hard for him as well. Being the son of a great man just doesnt sell the way it used to.
True. And yeah, I'm not really a Trudeau fan, old or young. However, to comment on what you said. Is there any point in the Liberals trying to win in the West or in Quebec? Seems to me, Harper and the Bloc have those areas secured. Maybe if they can find someone, who at least can consolidate their Ontario vote, they might stand a chance.
It's said to say, but Canada is becoming increasing fragmented.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 03:25:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 02:38:21 PM
I have big problems calling Ignatieff a "decent" man. I think he is a snake.
How so? :huh:
flip flops on torture, Iraq and oilsands, depending on who is listening. he has few convictions.
Harper has also flip flopped. Flip flopping is part of politics in a democracy. I'm sure, for instance, that Layton wears flip flops to work.
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 03:36:53 PM
Is there any point in the Liberals trying to win in the West or in Quebec? Seems to me, Harper and the Bloc have those areas secured. Maybe if they can find someone, who at least can consolidate their Ontario vote, they might stand a chance.
It's said to say, but Canada is becoming increasing fragmented.
Of course there is.
The Liberal Party has a fair bit of support in the West. It elects MPs in significant numbers in SK and MB, and decent numbers in BC. Alberta is a bit of an oddball by being so overwhelmingly Conservative.
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 03:36:53 PM
True. And yeah, I'm not really a Trudeau fan, old or young. However, to comment on what you said. Is there any point in the Liberals trying to win in the West or in Quebec? Seems to me, Harper and the Bloc have those areas secured. Maybe if they can find someone, who at least can consolidate their Ontario vote, they might stand a chance.
It's said to say, but Canada is becoming increasing fragmented.
What BB said. With the right kind of leader/platform/candidates the Liberals could do well everywhere in the West with the exception of Alberta. Alberta and Quebec are special political cases with their own dynamics.
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 03:38:45 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 03:25:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 02:38:21 PM
I have big problems calling Ignatieff a "decent" man. I think he is a snake.
How so? :huh:
flip flops on torture, Iraq and oilsands, depending on who is listening. he has few convictions.
Harper has also flip flopped. Flip flopping is part of politics in a democracy. I'm sure, for instance, that Layton wears flip flops to work.
I have never voted for Harper so his flops and flips don't effect me the same way. But I am a potential Iggy voter by default of being a somewhat centrist, so it matters more to me if the leader of the centrist part is actually a conservative.
... Canada's demise is very premature.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 05:38:05 PM
by default of being a somewhat centrist,
:lmfao:
I love ya sasks, but you're no centrist. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 05:40:30 PMI love ya sasks, but you're no centrist. :hug:
Who are Canadian centrists in your estimation?
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2009, 05:43:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 05:40:30 PMI love ya sasks, but you're no centrist. :hug:
Who are Canadian centrists in your estimation?
Malthus and CC come to mind. Grey Fox perhaps, although he doesn't talk enough serious politics for me to be sure. HVC I think.
Pretty much everyone else comes down on one side of the spectrum or the other.
Left:
you, buddha, sasks, josephus
Right:
me, Neil, Viper,
Grallon of course is off in his own unique little corner.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 05:47:51 PM
Malthus and CC come to mind. Grey Fox perhaps, although he doesn't talk enough serious politics for me to be sure. HVC I think.
Pretty much everyone else comes down on one side of the spectrum or the other.
Left:
you, buddha, sasks, josephus
Right:
me, Neil, Viper,
Grallon of course is off in his own unique little corner.
I thought that would be your answer. It seems you see the "centre" as being somewhere between the Cons and the Libs and so people who swing between those two are centrists.
I think if you include CC and Malthus (potential Lib and Con voters) you have to put those who are potential Lib or NDP voters as part of that continuum. Basically, anyone who might vote Liberal (federally) is a centrist, those who'd never consider it are either right wingers or left wingers depending whether they vote Conservative on one hand or NDP or Green on the other.
That's the Anglo analysis anyhow, not sure how it looks in Quebec.
If you didn't have any other information that would be a way to try and describe people's political views. But since we actually have years of political musings from people to go by, I would base my assessment on people's actual politics, not their voting patterns.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 06:11:49 PM
If you didn't have any other information that would be a way to try and describe people's political views. But since we actually have years of political musings from people to go by, I would base my assessment on people's actual politics, not their voting patterns.
Well... yeah... you make a good point :)
Personally I'd class CC and Malthus as slightly right of centre and Sask as being further left of centre than CC and Malthus are right but still acceptably within the "somewhat centrist" moniker, even if he is in the left side of that field. He's in favour of actually funding the Canadian military better, I believe (not uncommon amongst strategy gamers, I think) which can hardly be classified as "left of centre".
A concession of sorts? On languish? :o
At the end of the day of course there's no absolute right or wrong answer to such a classification. But Sasks has certainly struck me, both in person and on the boar, as being firmly left-of-centre.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 06:27:00 PM
A concession of sorts? On languish? :o
At the end of the day of course there's no absolute right or wrong answer to such a classification. But Sasks has certainly struck me, both in person and on the boar, as being firmly left-of-centre.
Anybody on a boar will look a bit off-centre. :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2009, 06:28:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 06:27:00 PM
A concession of sorts? On languish? :o
At the end of the day of course there's no absolute right or wrong answer to such a classification. But Sasks has certainly struck me, both in person and on the boar, as being firmly left-of-centre.
Anybody on a boar will look a bit off-centre. :D
Not a trained boar-rider.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2009, 05:56:12 PMBasically, anyone who might vote Liberal (federally) is a centrist, those who'd never consider it are either right wingers or left wingers depending whether they vote Conservative on one hand or NDP or Green on the other.
That's the Anglo analysis anyhow, not sure how it looks in Quebec.
Is the Green Party a leftist party? They confuse me, as they do many people, I think. Other than their tree hugging, most of their platform is pretty right wing.
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 10:37:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2009, 05:56:12 PMBasically, anyone who might vote Liberal (federally) is a centrist, those who'd never consider it are either right wingers or left wingers depending whether they vote Conservative on one hand or NDP or Green on the other.
That's the Anglo analysis anyhow, not sure how it looks in Quebec.
Is the Green Party a leftist party? They confuse me, as they do many people, I think. Other than their tree hugging, most of their platform is pretty right wing.
The previous leader IIRC took a fairly market-friendly approach to environmental issues. My brother, who sort-of shares my politics, got involved with them around that time. That being said May is pretty staunchly left wing, as is most of their membership, so it's pretty fair to call them a left wing party despite what some of their written policies are.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 05:47:51 PM
Grallon of course is off in his own unique little corner.
It's called totalitarianism. ^_^
G.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 10:39:33 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 10:37:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2009, 05:56:12 PMBasically, anyone who might vote Liberal (federally) is a centrist, those who'd never consider it are either right wingers or left wingers depending whether they vote Conservative on one hand or NDP or Green on the other.
That's the Anglo analysis anyhow, not sure how it looks in Quebec.
Is the Green Party a leftist party? They confuse me, as they do many people, I think. Other than their tree hugging, most of their platform is pretty right wing.
The previous leader IIRC took a fairly market-friendly approach to environmental issues. My brother, who sort-of shares my politics, got involved with them around that time. That being said May is pretty staunchly left wing, as is most of their membership, so it's pretty fair to call them a left wing party despite what some of their written policies are.
Maybe. To be honest, I don't pay much attention to them, and I wish they'd disappear.
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 10:42:02 PM
Maybe. To be honest, I don't pay much attention to them, and I wish they'd disappear.
I at least wish Elizabeth May would disappear. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Josephus on November 23, 2009, 01:33:29 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 23, 2009, 01:17:11 PM
Yeah if the Libs plan on rebuilding and actually governing any time soon, they need an out of left field (not literally, more of a centre fielder in reality but you see what i'm saying) kind of leader, an Obama type, young dynamic, interesting. No one I can see on the horizon. Maybe they should adjust that to the 20th century natural governing party?
COUGH****Justin***COUGH
Gonna be awhile before that happens if it does.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2009, 05:43:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2009, 05:40:30 PMI love ya sasks, but you're no centrist. :hug:
Who are Canadian centrists in your estimation?
Malthus and CC come to mind. Grey Fox perhaps, although he doesn't talk enough serious politics for me to be sure. HVC I think.
Pretty much everyone else comes down on one side of the spectrum or the other.
Left:
you, buddha, sasks, josephus
Right:
me, Neil, Viper,
Grallon of course is off in his own unique little corner.
I've voted Tory. Also Liberal, NDP and a plethora of weirdo fringe parties as well. I like to spread the love around.
I am on the far left side of the centre or the hard right wing of the left.
I thought Gary Doer was a successful and good premier. When Janice MacKinnon speaks, I will listen to her. When Charlie Angus votes against the long gun registry, I think he's justified.
and... awesome:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.guardian.co.uk%2Ffood%2Fboar_440.jpg&hash=073196ee2684e203ce567169c98fe836c4475d25)
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 10:53:53 PM
I thought Gary Doer was a successful and good premier.
:bash:
:lol:
certainly a good enough premier for Mister Harper to make him the key ambassador for his administration. :P
Quote from: saskganesh on November 23, 2009, 10:59:42 PM
certainly a good enough premier for Mister Harper to make him the key ambassador for his administration. :P
It took out a political opponent. :shifty:
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2009, 05:56:12 PM
That's the Anglo analysis anyhow, not sure how it looks in Quebec.
Quebec is rarely seperated on a Left vs Right basis.
It's either a Separatist vs Federalist or ROC vs us.
I'd say I'm a left leaning centrist. Altho, not sure I would seriously consider voting for the Liberals.
I wish there was a party for me.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 24, 2009, 08:53:42 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2009, 05:56:12 PM
That's the Anglo analysis anyhow, not sure how it looks in Quebec.
Quebec is rarely seperated on a Left vs Right basis.
It's either a Separatist vs Federalist or ROC vs us.
I'd say I'm a left leaning centrist. Altho, not sure I would seriously consider voting for the Liberals.
I wish there was a party for me.
The Liberals have fucked Quebec over so many times here's to hope we see them disappear altogether in Quebec. :contract:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 24, 2009, 11:58:32 AM
The Liberals have fucked Quebec over so many times here's to hope we see them disappear altogether in Quebec. :contract:
Always the dreamer.
Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2009, 12:56:26 PM
Always the dreamer.
Why do you think I'm such a cynic?
G.
Apparently Saskatchwan has surpassed Ontario in terms of living standard.
Is it possible that our own sask was holding them back, and his move to Ontario has devastated that province? It's quite a coincidence.
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2009, 02:44:43 PM
Apparently Saskatchwan has surpassed Ontario in terms of living standard.
Is it possible that our own sask was holding them back, and his move to Ontario has devastated that province? It's quite a coincidence.
You are a real glass half full kind of guy. Clearly what has occured is that Sask's work was done and Saskatchewan is reaping the benefits. He has now moved on to try to help the poor sods in Ontario.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2009, 03:31:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2009, 02:44:43 PM
Apparently Saskatchwan has surpassed Ontario in terms of living standard.
Is it possible that our own sask was holding them back, and his move to Ontario has devastated that province? It's quite a coincidence.
You are a real glass half full kind of guy. Clearly what has occured is that Sask's work was done and Saskatchewan is reaping the benefits. He has now moved on to try to help the poor sods in Ontario.
I suppose that's possible, although it'll take more than hemp fibre to save Ontario.
Ontario needs lots of help, tho I have to say I am doing my part in bringing living standards done at the moment.
I got laid off, and am owed back pay I do not think I can recoup. It's pretty ugly for me at the moment. So it goes.
Ouch. Sorry to hear that, Sask.
Well, the Supremes have declared that they haven't the power to try and force the government to get terrorist Omar Khadr out of Guantanamo. It's a shocking ruling.
Quote from: Neil on January 29, 2010, 10:43:17 AM
Well, the Supremes have declared that they haven't the power to try and force the government to get terrorist Omar Khadr out of Guantanamo. It's a shocking ruling.
Well yeah Diana Ross is getting a bit long in the tooth. Probably not as strong as she used to be. aren't the rest of them dead now? :p
Quote from: Neil on January 29, 2010, 10:43:17 AM
Well, the Supremes have declared that they haven't the power to try and force the government to get terrorist Omar Khadr out of Guantanamo. It's a shocking ruling.
Question to BB:
If Ottawa decided to rapatriate Omar Khadr, would a case stand in court for him to be prosecuted for high treason under Section 46.1.b and 46.1.c of the Criminal Code, as an active participant in a party making war on Canadian Armed Forces, even if he hasn't killed any Canadian per se?
Mayor Rob Ford's crack-travaganza is back on. 500 page warrant was released to the public today. Press conference going on now I think
You guys are using the wrong thread.
I couldn't remember which one it was :(
Quote from: HVC on October 31, 2013, 10:57:24 AM
Mayor Rob Ford's crack-travaganza is back on. 500 page warrant was released to the public today. Press conference going on now I think
I wish Ford was involved with a drug that had a different name. :lol: