Will Ignatieff Pull The Plug On Harper Monday?

[Brandon716]

I am all for Iggy taking on Harper on his own. I just rather not have Jack and Gilles riding his coattails.

Just like you were all for Harper in the last election against Dion?

 

[jade_lee]

I respect Jack and Gilles but I don't respect Harper and I can't wait for his defeat.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just like you were all for Harper in the last election against Dion?

I told you then that I wasn't some comitted ideologue. And that hasn't changed. Dion I didn't like. Iggy is more of a centrist, one that i can support.

 

[Brandon716]

I told you then that I wasn't some comitted ideologue. And that hasn't changed. Dion I didn't like. Iggy is more of a centrist, one that i can support.

The point remains that you supported a non-centrist right winger, Stephen Harper, when you didn't like who was leading the Liberal party.

Yet when I throw some ideas onto the discussion table you say I don't understand what I'm talking about?

What we have is a disagreement about what is healthy for reviving the left and centre-left in Canada, not that I have a grave misunderstanding of the Canadian system. I still think the coalition idea is the best way to unite the left and centre-left and show Canada they can seriously govern while retaining separate party identities with slightly different philosophies.

On the topic at hand, I think Iggy will back the Conservative government tomorrow. We shall see how it ends up.

Edit: I think it was interesting that you and hydrogen chose to react to my comments line-by-line, basically saying that I'm just ignorant and unknowing of the Canadian system, instead of making your own statements. I'm proud to engage in discussion with new ideas, and I was flattered that yet again people chose to take my comments on line-by-line in a reactionary way instead of giving their own opinion. It kind of solidifies my belief that the left and centre-left in Canada needs some fresh ideas.

And if all I am doing is rousing reactionary attention from centre-right "liberals" who backed Harper when they found it convenient, or vehemently deny global warming and climate change are a reality, then I'm actually amused.

I find it more than amusing that someone who backed Harper in the last election against the Liberals is sitting here telling me they understand what is the death of the Liberal party, or that Canada has some secret NDP silent majority that will magically come out because a coalition is forged.

Its downright hilarious! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Hydrogen]

What we have is a disagreement about what is healthy for reviving the left and centre-left in Canada, not that I have a grave misunderstanding of the Canadian system. I still think the coalition idea is the best way to unite the left and centre-left and show Canada they can seriously govern while retaining separate party identities with slightly different philosophies.

And what you clearly misunderstand is that many people in Canada see no need to unite the left and centre left and to create a gulf in the middle - regardless of your opinions on topics you have no experience in.

Edit: I think it was interesting that you and hydrogen chose to react to my comments line-by-line, basically saying that I'm just ignorant and unknowing of the Canadian system, instead of making your own statements.

I've noted that you've failed to answer one single criticism. You make hollow statements and fail to back them up with any content. Your claim to having "fresh ideas" is highly specious in this regard.

And if all I am doing is rousing reactionary attention from centre-right "liberals" who backed Harper when they found it convenient, or vehemently deny global warming and climate change are a reality, then I'm actually amused.

Your mixing up of topics here suggests deep confusion on your part. It's unfortunate for you that you find your own befuddlement amusing.

Remember Brandon, Canadian voters cast their ballots for the CPC. As much as you wish to heap your uninformed scorn that a Conservative party is somehow un-Canadian, Conservatives have been part of the national political landscape since the inception of this country (and before).

 

[Brandon716]

Oh Hydrogen, where did you hear me say that voting Conservative is 'unCanadian'? I didn't say anything of the sort anywhere in this thread. Go back and re-read the comments my friend. Read them carefully.

My ideas for discussion are about how to revive the left and centre-left. You guys apparently (based on what I've observed) want to get rid of any left tendencies in the Liberal party and make it a centre-right party to align beside the right wing Conservative party. We have a different philosophy. I happen to believe the Liberal party is a centre-left party, not a centre-right party in its core. I'd align with the Chretien and Trudeau wing of the party, not the right leaning faction that would support Harper just to kill Dion or a vehement 'global warming is a myth' advocate such as you hydrogen.

And who made you ambassador of all Canadians, someone who has the authority to say that Canadians "don't want" to see a viable left and centre-left? I never pretended to know what all Canadians wanted, what I am offering are ideas to make the left and centre-left attractive enough to be wanted.

Its amazing just the ideas being thrown around apparently bother you so much that the only argument you have is that someone is too ignorant to post their ideas.

BTW, if you want to repeat that Canadians cast ballots in Canada, you've just reduced your discussion to the lowest possible sum I've ever heard of. I know that Canadians vote in Canada and elect Canadian politicians. That is really a given.

EDIT: And if you want to bring the fact up that I'm a native born American up again, I'd like to set the record straight. I'm having to prove to the Canadian government my worthiness of becoming a Canadian. I've had to spend years walking through legal code and nonsense just to prove I care about Canada. Personally I don't like the US that much, otherwise I wouldn't be putting so much effort into being in Canada. You've got the luxury of being a Canadian by birth, you don't have to prove anything to anyone. If I didn't care about Canada, would I even bother participating in these kinds of discussions? Do you really think I'm that unknowing of the Canadian system? If not, stop with the ignorant, lowest common denominator comments.

I will never say that right wing Canadians aren't Canadians just because they vote for Harper. What you will hear me say is that I hope they stop winning elections and give you my opinion on how to stop them from winning. That's neither ignorant or unknowing, its just disagreeing with you.

 

[adma]

And who made you ambassador of all Canadians, someone who has the authority to say that Canadians "don't want" to see a viable left and centre-left alternative? I never pretended to know what all Canadians wanted, what I am offering are ideas to make the left and centre-left attractive enough to be wanted.

Except that it's *not* so easy in practice--besides, maybe the existing Liberal and NDP are already "attractive enough to be wanted" in and of themselves, more so than if they were conglomerated into one.

But beyond that, why must it be a "coalition"? Why can't it be a simple Liberal minority government, supported by the NDP--just like Pearson in the 60s, Trudeau in '72, Ontario's Peterson/Rae deal in 1985? The only reason why that hasn't happened lately is because unlike in the past, Grit + NDP haven't had enough combined seats for a true minority; and the recent "coalition" stunting is because the Liberals by themselves have been reduced to too few seats. But there's an absolutely realistic prospect of, after the next election, the Liberals and NDP combined finally crossing the 154-seat threshold--which is enough to validate a Pearson/Trudeau-style "true" minority, without having to gesticulate about a coalition...

 

[afransen]

And what you clearly misunderstand is that many people in Canada see no need to unite the left and centre left and to create a gulf in the middle - regardless of your opinions on topics you have no experience in.

In the interests of keeping the forum friendly and open, I think it'd be beneficial if you didn't so imperiously stomp on others' viewpoints. Something about disagreeing without being disagreeable.

On the substance, I agree. I'd much rather see electoral reform that makes vote splitting moot. It's a shame that it's too late to save the Progressive Conservative centre-right party. The CPC as constituted will always be beholden to some extent to a right wing fringe that's just as harmful as having the NDP and Liberals merge. The Reform party was actually a useful influence while it was around, even if it would never form government. It certainly helped Chretien/Martin implement necessary reforms in the 1990s as they were a voice saying "More! Faster!" when the rest of the political parties were moaning about every cut.

 

[Hydrogen]

Oh Hydrogen, where did you hear me say that voting Conservative is 'unCanadian'? I didn't say anything of the sort anywhere in this thread. Go back and re-read the comments my friend. Read them carefully.

Please Brandon, your allusions are quite transparent throughout your posts. Uniting the left for "common Canadian" purpose by itself suggests that any person with conservative politics falls outside the envelope of what you deem as being "Canadian." Yours comes off as divisive politics, nothing more. You assume a very specific national attitude, and trump it as being Canadian - to the exclusion of others.

My ideas for discussion are about how to revive the left and centre-left. You guys apparently (based on what I've observed) want to get rid of any left tendencies in the Liberal party and make it a centre-right party to align beside the right wing Conservative party.

Your discussions are based on a false presumptions. There is no need to revive the centre left. It's already there.

And as for what the "guys" think, you should not presume that your assumptions are what other people think.

Its amazing just the ideas being thrown around apparently bother you so much that the only argument you have is that someone is too ignorant to post their ideas.

You're sounding terribly thin-skinned here. You appear to expect that anything posted by you will go without comment.

And who made you ambassador of all Canadians, someone who has the authority to say that Canadians "don't want" to see a viable left and centre-left? I never pretended to know what all Canadians wanted, what I am offering are ideas to make the left and centre-left attractive enough to be wanted.

If you want to toss out old and marginal ideas under the guise that they are somehow "fresh," be my guest. First of all, these "ideas" are not "fresh" at all, and clearly they have not been selected as a viable political strategy. If you think that you were the very first person in history to come up with this notion, then think again. However, do note that no one has acted on them in all that time.

Its amazing just the ideas being thrown around apparently bother you so much that the only argument you have is that someone is too ignorant to post their ideas.

Tough. As noted, your presumed "fresh idea" is hardly new.

And if you want to bring the fact up that I'm a native born American up again, I'd like to set the record straight. I'm having to prove to the Canadian government my worthiness of becoming a Canadian. I've had to spend years walking through legal code and nonsense just to prove I care about Canada. Personally I don't like the US that much, otherwise I wouldn't be putting so much effort into being in Canada. You've got the luxury of being a Canadian by birth, you don't have to prove anything to anyone. If I didn't care about Canada, would I even bother participating in these kinds of discussions? Do you really think I'm that unknowing of the Canadian system? If not, stop with the ignorant, lowest common denominator comments.

If you are calling me ignorant for pointing out that your ideas are weak, that is a misfortunate comment derived from your own political sensitivities. Saying that you "know" a system is one thing, living it is something else. You'll see that when you finally move here and experience it.

You appear to be too sensitive with respect to political debate. Get over it. Politics is rough and tumble in all democratic societies. People take the issues seriously, so don't expect self-censorship in order to prevent your feelings from being hurt. Your ideas are not "fresh" nor are they advantageous to the Liberal party (or even the NDP for that matter). Your trying to sell this and I'm not buying it.

 

[Hydrogen]

In the interests of keeping the forum friendly and open, I think it'd be beneficial if you didn't so imperiously stomp on others' viewpoints. Something about disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Speaking of sounding imperious...

For your information, I am commenting. If you find my comments "disagreeable," then allow me to point out that you have been equally guilty of this quality yourself at other times and on other threads. I've broken no forum rules. If you believe that I have, report me to a moderator.

 

[unimaginative2]

Well, back on topic, Ignatieff has decided to demand that Harper change his policies on several areas, including EI, and to provide a proper report on how much money is actually being spent. I'd have preferred that he denounce that pathetic infomercial for what it was right away rather than implying by spending a weekend reading it that there was actually something to read. Ignatieff's a decent guy, though, and he couldn't bring down the government without at least reading for himself what they actually had to say. At this point, he seems to have made the right choice. In the unlikely event that he gets real concessions out of Harper, fine. If not, the blame for an election will rest solely where it belongs: on a Prime Minister who is absolutely allergic to the idea of co-operation with anybody.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Ignatieff's a decent guy, though, and he couldn't bring down the government without at least reading for himself what they actually had to say. .

No offense, but this sounds a bit naive. I can guarantee you that Iggy's weekend had less to do with reading the "report", and more to do with polls and strategy. By forcing Harper to meet his demands or else, Iggy look Prime-Ministerial, and the blame for a summer election may lie at the feet of Haper. It's communications 101.

They are politicians, so unfortunately everything is considered within the context of gaining power.

 

[Brandon716]

Hydrogen, I misspoke if you interpreted me as calling you ignorant. I said your 'ignorant' comments as meaning the comments you called me ignorant about. Enough said, I'm not interested in debating with you as its not really a debate. All you've done is respond to what I've said without making your own statements or ideas, and you've called me ignorant along the entire way... All the while 'informing' me that Canadian citizens vote for Canadian politicians, as if I didn't already know. Not much of a discussion with you, IMO.

Btw, Roy, Iggy's team definitely read Harper's report and then after they read the report they used polls and applied political strategy. THAT is probably what really happened, which is to be expected of a politician.

 

[Brandon716]

Except that it's *not* so easy in practice--besides, maybe the existing Liberal and NDP are already "attractive enough to be wanted" in and of themselves, more so than if they were conglomerated into one.

But beyond that, why must it be a "coalition"? Why can't it be a simple Liberal minority government, supported by the NDP--just like Pearson in the 60s, Trudeau in '72, Ontario's Peterson/Rae deal in 1985? The only reason why that hasn't happened lately is because unlike in the past, Grit + NDP haven't had enough combined seats for a true minority; and the recent "coalition" stunting is because the Liberals by themselves have been reduced to too few seats. But there's an absolutely realistic prospect of, after the next election, the Liberals and NDP combined finally crossing the 154-seat threshold--which is enough to validate a Pearson/Trudeau-style "true" minority, without having to gesticulate about a coalition...

In this particular instance, its purely to avoid another needless election. It would be the 3rd election in 3 years if one is triggered this year. That's money both the NDP and Liberals do not have, partially because of the Harper plan to hurt competing parties on public financing.

The NDP and Liberal parties will need to rebuild their finances to fight Harper in a new election and I don't think right now is the time for that.

 

[unimaginative2]

No offense, but this sounds a bit naive. I can guarantee you that Iggy's weekend had less to do with reading the "report", and more to do with polls and strategy. By forcing Harper to meet his demands or else, Iggy look Prime-Ministerial, and the blame for a summer election may lie at the feet of Haper. It's communications 101.

They are politicians, so unfortunately everything is considered within the context of gaining power.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with wanting to gain power. If Ignatieff didn't think the Liberals would provide a better government than the Tories, he wouldn't be a Liberal and certainly shouldn't be leader.

Secondly, the polls were already out. The Liberals are in the lead, especially in key areas of Quebec and Ontario. If he was purely looking out for partisan advantage, he would have forced an election right away.