Has Iggy lost his Groove?

Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

What do you suggest should happen?

Everybody should vote for an independent in the next election.That would shake the bastards up. Another option could be that we treat parliament like jury duty. Some of the votes in parliament should come from random people in the country. Every 3 or 4 months a new bunch of names get drawn and those folks get to vote on legislation. A quarter to a third of the votes could be counted this way. Loss of a vote would not be a vote of non-confidence and the ruling party would not have control nor would the opposition parties. The top party would have to hold over 75% of the elected seats in order to be able to do as they choose. With the support of the people, they could get by with one third of the seats in Parliament. In extremely rare cases, the elected MP's could out vote the people if enough of the parties got together.

The main thing is to take control out of the hands of people that seem to want to put themselves and their parties ahead of the country and the people.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
Avatar
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

What Ignatieff needs to do is:
1) stop all the BS postering - don't show your hand until the last. No demands, no lines in the sand...He started off right (in saying that he would take the weekend to read the report, and decide what to do - unlike Layton that knee jerk reacts to vote no)
2) stick to his guns.

I don't blame him for "caving" as others do - but really, Captain, Ron, Cannuck probably won't vote Liberal in the next election - or any election...so I weigh that when I consider their "complaints" agaisnt Ignatieff (I'm sure I get the same consideration from them for my Harper intentions...)

At least, Ignatieff can say he tried to make parliament work. The others can't.

Pegger, I can say with complete honesty that my vote goes to the party that represents my (personal) best interests and also represents a reasonable economic plan. My complaints against the current crop of liberals (that being Dion and Iggy) is primarily based on their character as leaders and on their economic policy.

My beef with Iggy is much the same as I had with Dion.... Don't waste my time with high-profile media threats that are never realized after having multiple opportunities to pull the trigger (this goes towards your points 1 & 2). Both Dion and Iggy have (combined) 79 opportunities to hammer the gvt, but all we really got was a lot of hot air.

The economic policies forwarded by the liberals do not make a helluva lot of sense i my view. Further, going back to public comments or debates, the libs are suggesting policy that seeks to raise taxes at the expense to corporate health - and I think that anyone can understand that if you eliminate the profitably in ventures, fewer ventures are funded and fewer folks employed.

... But more importantly, no one really knows where Iggy stands on the issues nor has he been clear on his policies and direction.

That said, how can anyone support him based on a pig-in-the-poke?
 
Trex
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsleView Post

I agree with you for the most part. Harper knows he doesn't have us either (our island) so we get more phone calls and more mail than we ever wished for, asking us to contribute. They are not likely to get any financial support from anyone who has to give back the OAS pension because they receive a government pension. Give us our full pension and we'll consider voting for and financially supporting the Conservatives. We are conservatives but we will not give them any money until they give ours back. I don't know why anyone would think Ignatieff is brilliant. Loser would fit the bill better.

I think I am derailing my own thread but what the heck.
When did we loose OAS?
How did this happen?

I travel a lot so sometimes I am in the dark for a while on Canadian issues admittedly.
I thought OAS and CPP had remained pretty much unchanged although granted I do not collect either as of yet.
I thought OAS was partially clawed back in relation to income only.
If your yearly retirement income was over a certain threshold than OAS was partially clawed back up to a certain maximum percentage and the rest was then paid out.
So what does a government pension have to do with anything?
And what in regards to the OAS did the present government change or amend?
If Harper screws about with CPP and OAS he risks loosing a huge block of votes.
Including mine.

Trex
 
Trex
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Trex said that Liberalman's polls were out of date. So I posted the newest polls from the same polling firm that Liberalman chose to use. It is not really "but whatever", it very much matters.

It's a bit like apples to oranges when you compare different polling firms numbers, from different polling dates, especially when tracking a trend in public opinion.

If he uses the same polling firm over the period, take Ekos, that's much better.

The reason I said "but whatever" was to indicate that I was not too terribly concerned about discrete polling results.
I posted a long thread starter that contained quite a few opinions of mine.
Obviously I could have cut and pasted polling results as well.
The house is not even sitting right now thus polls at this time are not in, my opinion, that big a deal.
An election, at the moment, is impossible.
I knew, I just knew, people would post "their" rebuttal polls.
Complain about "phone in" as versus"door knocked".
Complain about sample size, question structure, sampling methods, built in errors and biases.
And so on.
Its like haggling over chicken entrails on a daily basis.
So yeh, but whatever.

Triggering an election and running an election are a little bit like waging war.
You need good generals and accurate intelligence.
A rough rule of thumb is that the offence(Iggy) needs a larger army than the defence or incumbent(Harper).
2 to 1 in favour of the offence would be excellent.
Thus if you were looking to the polls Iggy should be polling around 45% to 55% consistently while Harper needs to be mid to high 20's in order for Iggy to launch an effective assault.
The reality is that Iggy is polling roughly dead even with Harper and for Iggy that is terrible news.
It probably means that if Iggy triggered an election this spring or possibly fall he would be quite likely to loose the war.

Tonington is correct when he mentions polling trends.
Trend lines are quite important to determine who has the momentum thus showing who is gaining ground and who is loosing ground.
That is the only reason I mentioned polling in my thread starter.
When Iggy squawked about 4 budget issues it appears that the polling trends show a loss in approval percentages for the Libs.
Thus it could be said tactically that Iggy made a bad move on that issue.
But its no big deal and will be forgotten long before the house sits again.

The only truly vital polls are taken on the run up to an election and during an election.
That is how your campaign managers and back room boys (generals) gather intelligence and monitor the battle.
Polling shows how your advertising and general strategy is working on a real-time, snapshot basis.
It shows riding by riding how your troops and your enemies troops are fairing.
And if you consider focus groups a type of polling it evaluates your forward battle plans.

So right now the only polls that matter in general are the press commissioned ones that show Iggy bogging down alongside Harper.
And for the offensive team that is a disaster.

My thread starter stands.
Iggy is in trouble in my opinion.
He needs to be slice and dicing the Cons in the media on a daily basis.
He needs to be out in front of the issues that matter to Canadians.
He needs to show himself as a visionary leader, not a reactive discontent.
He lost his Groove.

Trex
 
Polygong
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

It's not that making concessions is the wrong thing. It's that drawing a line in the sand and then cratering when Harpo steps over it, is the wrong thing...at least for Iggy and the Libs. It makes him look weak, indecisive and childish. I think it's the best thing for Canadians because it highlights the games that Iggy plays.

I think it highlights Harper's gaming more than anything, but then again, pretty much everything Harper does highlights his gaming, hence why Tory poll numbers are on a falling trend.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by PolygongView Post

I think it highlights Harper's gaming more than anything, but then again, pretty much everything Harper does highlights his gaming, hence why Tory poll numbers are on a falling trend.

*yawns*

I'm not really interested in party politics. Try and up the level of discussion n'kay.
 
pegger
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Everybody should vote for an independent in the next election.That would shake the bastards up.

The main thing is to take control out of the hands of people that seem to want to put themselves and their parties ahead of the country and the people.

Well - the unfortunate reality is that - short of a revolution - it will never happen. When the base of a party is 30% - and they will vote for that party no matter how often it lies directly to their faces, or treats them like idiots - having others vote for independents just effectively hands power over to that party.

Short of a revolution - we are stuck with the system we have.
 
pegger
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Pegger, I can say with complete honesty that my vote goes to the party that represents my (personal) best interests and also represents a reasonable economic plan. My complaints against the current crop of liberals (that being Dion and Iggy) is primarily based on their character as leaders and on their economic policy.

My beef with Iggy is much the same as I had with Dion.... Don't waste my time with high-profile media threats that are never realized after having multiple opportunities to pull the trigger (this goes towards your points 1 & 2). Both Dion and Iggy have (combined) 79 opportunities to hammer the gvt, but all we really got was a lot of hot air.

So Iggy is now responsible for Dion's decisions? Iggy has not pulled the trigger twice. He cannot, and should not, be held accountable for Dion's actions - who already has answered for his mistakes by losing the election, and getting turfed from party leadership.

As to the posturing of Iggy - I don't like a blow-hard anymore than you. I also believe that the chest thumping, and the faux outrage are tiresome. I believe I posted elsewhere that I would be disappointed, and am disappointed that we didn't go to the polls. However, I am also a realist in that I would much rather have a minority government that works together - and so long as it works together, there is no need for an election. Last week (or was it 2 now) was the first time, in a LONG time that I can remember that parliament actually WORKED as it should in a minority situation. And to who's credit is that? The guy that runs attack ads outside of an election writ, whose party spends taxpayer money on useless "10%ers" to inform me that Iggy wants to raise taxes, who misrepresents how our democracy actually works, or the guy that said he would read over what the government gave him, made 4 points that were "election worthy" and then backed off when the government made some concessions?

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The economic policies forwarded by the liberals do not make a helluva lot of sense i my view. Further, going back to public comments or debates, the libs are suggesting policy that seeks to raise taxes at the expense to corporate health - and I think that anyone can understand that if you eliminate the profitably in ventures, fewer ventures are funded and fewer folks employed.

I'll comment below

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

... But more importantly, no one really knows where Iggy stands on the issues nor has he been clear on his policies and direction.

That said, how can anyone support him based on a pig-in-the-poke?

So which is it? The have policies you don't agree with, or they don't have policies?

My main criticism of Ignatieff at this point in time is that I want to see a comprehensive set of policies before I decide if I vote for him, or vote Green (last election there was no independent in my area). However, I also don't expect to see anything until an election is called. Releasing policies before a writ is stupid (as proved by the Green Shift) - in that it allows your opponents to twist what you are presenting - it is even worse for the Liberals as the Conservatives have tons of money to spend to discredit your policies BEFORE the actual election writ, where the Liberals don't have the funds to adequately explain their policies.

As to not knowing where he stands on issues, you need to inform yourself more, and stop relying on the Conservatives for your information.

If you read his debate on torture - he does reject it. Ignatieff's problem is that he actually shows his reasoning in his writings, and argues BOTH sides of the debate before making a conclusion. The problem with it is that it leaves yourself open for opponents to cherry pick, and misquote you - because the majority of the electorate are to damn lazy to bother to inform themselves on anything.

As for me - I don't want to vote for a party that is:

a) unwilling to be honest to me. At the end of the day, whether you like or not, taxes will have to rise, services will have to be cut, or some combination of the two. To attack an opponent that says that is intellectually dishonest - and I for one will not support a "leader" that has his head in the sand. Also, Harper's integrity on "never" doing something is in absolute tatters (i.e. NEVER taxing Income Trusts, NEVER running a deficit)...am I supposed to believe he will NEVER raise taxes now?

b) knowingly pass useless legislation, and then try to act like it's some god-send - ala Fixed election dates (which is meaningless legislation - even admittedly by the Conservatives themselves)

c) making patently false statements against their opponents (ala "tax and spend liberals" - They bash the Liberals for cutting transfers to the province in one breath, and in the next call them tax and spend? Which is it? OR "soft on crime" - although every piece of legislation that the Conservatives have introduced - and that they allowed to go to vote - has passed (because of Liberal support) - and have only died in the Senate because the Conservatives CHOSE to prorogue parliament.

I've said it before also on this forum - if the Conservatives boot Harper from Leadership, I will consider voting for them again - but until that time they will not get my vote so long as he is leading that party.
Last edited by pegger; Jun 29th, 2009 at 09:49 AM..Reason: can't spell worth a damn this AM.
 
Polygong
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

*yawns*

I'm not really interested in party politics. Try and up the level of discussion n'kay.

Kind of hard to do when the only response that you'll provide is the old cliche "yawn" rather than address the points directly. If my points are lame, then you shoul dhave no trouble refuting them.

I find it hard to believe that you have no interest in party politics when your criticism of Iggy stems from him seeming "weak" in making the choice to not trigger an election, which from a non-partisan view is the right one.
Last edited by Polygong; Jun 29th, 2009 at 11:20 AM..
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
Avatar
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

So Iggy is now responsible for Dion's decisions? As to the posturing of Iggy - I don't like a blow-hard anymore than you.


Spare me Pegger - I never said or insinuated that. I stated that they were acting the same and there is no question that they have similar styles.


Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

(RE: minority gvt working together) And to who's credit is that ? The guy that runs attack ads outside of an election writ, whose party spends taxpayer money on useless "10%ers" to inform me that Iggy wants to raise taxes, who misrepresents how our democracy actually works, or the guy that said he would read over what the government gave him, made 4 points that were "election worthy" and then backed off when the government made some concessions?

Working together?.. Please... Iggy dictated his terms, and for the record, Harper didn't capitulate on Iggy's 'demands'. Harper offered to meet with him and after NOT hammering-out a deal, Iggy came away declaring a victory - that isn't what happened. In fact, the liberal's biggest booster called Iggy out on his actions. - You might recall Iggy commenting that the gvt was inaccessible, but when asked (3 times) if he requested any meetings, he had no answers.


Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

So which is it? The have policies you don't agree with, or they don't have policies?


It's both... Iggy and the liberals have had as much, if not more media coverage than the gvt, yet the only 'policy-potential' they have mentioned relates to a carbon tax and raising GST.

That said, I disagree with the limited policies they offer, but in no way do those 2 solitary references represent any form of platform upon which anyone can judge their plan.



Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

However, I also don't expect to see anything until an election is called. Releasing policies before a writ is stupid (as proved by the Green Shift) - in that it allows your opponents to twist what you are presenting


That's a big risk the libs are taking... Allowing for the public and analysts to digest and comment on their policy allowss for time to tweak and refine it. If they want to wait til election-time to release it, it caould back-fire in a big way once the other parties begin to rip it and their no opportunity for the policies to develop any momentum.


Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

it is even worse for the Liberals as the Conservatives have tons of money to spend to discredit your policies BEFORE the actual election writ, where the Liberals don't have the funds to adequately explain their policies.


Do you honestly believe that the liberals wouldn't do the same if they had the cash? Have you forgotten that it was Chretein that gutted the contribution rules in order to submarine Martin?

However, the biggest question re: libe being broke is 'why'?.. It seems that the public at large isn't opening their wallets to them for whatever reason... This being the case, don't blame the Cons for getting donations and spending it on ads - the only thing stopping the libs is their lack of cash and certainly not some form of fair-play or morality.


Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

As to not knowing where he stands on issues, you need to inform yourself more, and stop relying on the Conservatives for your information.


See above. The Libs have had ample opportunity to convey some kind of message about their position. Instead, all that has been delivered are empty threats and demands for 'report cards'.


Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

If you read his debate on torture - he does reject it. Ignatieff's problem is that he actually shows his reasoning in his writings, and argues BOTH sides of the debate before making a conclusion.


Iggy clearly stated that he supported torture under certain circumstances... There is no 'both' sides on this issue. (for the record, I agree with Iggy's logic on this)


Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

As for me - I don't want to vote for a party that is:

a) unwilling to be honest to me. At the end of the day, whether you like or not, taxes will have to rise, services will have to be cut, or some combination of the two. To attack an opponent that says that is intellectually dishonest - and I for one will not support a "leader" that has his head in the sand. Also, Harper's integrity on "never" doing something is in absolute tatters (i.e. NEVER taxing Income Trusts, NEVER running a deficit)...am I supposed to believe he will NEVER raise taxes now?


That sentiment leaves out all political parties. As far as taxes are concerned, my position relative to raising taxes during a recession will have more negative effects. I equate it right up there with Obama's protectionist policies.


Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

b) knowingly pass useless legislation, and then try to act like it's some god-send - ala Fixed election dates (which is meaningless legislation - even admittedly by the Conservatives themselves)


Gun Registry? HRDC Boonoggle? Blocking anti-terrorist legislation?... It's not just Harper that does, or has done this.



Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

c) making patently false statements against their opponents (ala "tax and spend liberals" - They bash the Liberals for cutting transfers to the province in one breath, and in the next call them tax and spend? Which is it? OR "soft on crime" - although every piece of legislation that the Conservatives have introduced - and that they allowed to go to vote - has passed (because of Liberal support) - and have only died in the Senate because the Conservatives CHOSE to prorogue parliament.


Let's see... Iggy describes himself as a tax-and-spend liberal - is it 'false' for the cons to repeat it? As far as cutting the transfer payments, that didn't stop the subsidies from going-on... For that matter, taxes didn't fall despite the cut in transfer payments, did it?

BTW - Proroguing parliament was entirely within the bounds of the charter... If you disagree with that, lobby gvt to remove the process - don't blame someone for using it.
 
pegger
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Spare me Pegger - I never said or insinuated that. I stated that they were acting the same and there is no question that they have similar styles.

Your opinion. I don't agree.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Working together?.. Please... Iggy dictated his terms, and for the record, Harper didn't capitulate on Iggy's 'demands'. Harper offered to meet with him and after NOT hammering-out a deal, Iggy came away declaring a victory - that isn't what happened. In fact, the liberal's biggest booster called Iggy out on his actions. - You might recall Iggy commenting that the gvt was inaccessible, but when asked (3 times) if he requested any meetings, he had no answers.

I disagree with you on that as well - Harper went from never touching EI - to "remembering" some obscure campaign promise (although I can't find any reference to it - the bonus of not releasing a platform, I guess) about adding self-employed people to EI (stupid idea - btw...change it so SE people don't contribute - how does a self-employed person become unemployed?) - to having a group at least discuss it. Granted, Harper could do this as show, and do nothing - but then the whole "parliament not working" would fall back on him.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's both... Iggy and the liberals have had as much, if not more media coverage than the gvt, yet the only 'policy-potential' they have mentioned relates to a carbon tax and raising GST.

That said, I disagree with the limited policies they offer, but in no way do those 2 solitary references represent any form of platform upon which anyone can judge their plan.

I haven't seen anything that is "policy" related, other than the EI thing. I think I said that was my main beef with him...

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

That's a big risk the libs are taking... Allowing for the public and analysts to digest and comment on their policy allowss for time to tweak and refine it. If they want to wait til election-time to release it, it caould back-fire in a big way once the other parties begin to rip it and their no opportunity for the policies to develop any momentum.

Do you honestly believe that the liberals wouldn't do the same if they had the cash? Have you forgotten that it was Chretein that gutted the contribution rules in order to submarine Martin?

I beleive I said that the Libs DON'T have the cash. Given that - they need to act smartly. Releasing their policies, outside of a writ, when your opponent has tonnes more cash than you, is stupid - because you need cash to control the message. that was the problem with Green Shift. Releasing it during the writ means the government either spends their limit bashing your policy - or not. It even the playing field between a rich party, and a poor party.

BTW - If the situation was reversed, I DO beleive the Libs would do the same thing, and I would give the same advise to the Cons (if they were in opposition - and had no cash).

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

However, the biggest question re: libe being broke is 'why'?.. It seems that the public at large isn't opening their wallets to them for whatever reason... This being the case, don't blame the Cons for getting donations and spending it on ads - the only thing stopping the libs is their lack of cash and certainly not some form of fair-play or morality.

And when did Democracy become hinged on how much cash you have? I do not donate to a political party - and never will. I will donate my money to charities instead, because they are not parasites, and at least do good in the world. Does that make my political ideals, thought or musings less relevant?

Also, I do not want our democracy hinged on which party gets more donations. This is why I have a bigger issue with the 75% tax refund to political donations (especially when it's only 35% (or so) with charities) - than with the $1.95 per vote scheme - which I see as more "fair" and less costly to the public treasury.

BTW - If I WAS a donor - and this was how my party was spending the funds, I would be upset.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

That sentiment leaves out all political parties. As far as taxes are concerned, my position relative to raising taxes during a recession will have more negative effects. I equate it right up there with Obama's protectionist policies.

Ignatieff specifically said "after" the recession was over - not "during" the recession.

Again, I will say - taxes will either rise, programs will be cut, or some mix of the two. Harper has said unequivally that he will not raises taxes, ever. So which programs will be cut? Or do you honestly buy the "we will grow out of our structural deficit" BS?

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Gun Registry? HRDC Boonoggle? Blocking anti-terrorist legislation?... It's not just Harper that does, or has done this.

You're right. What happened to those guys? Oh yeah, they got voted out of office....But then again, because others have done it, Harper is completely absolved from trying to be any better.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Let's see... Iggy describes himself as a tax-and-spend liberal - is it 'false' for the cons to repeat it? As far as cutting the transfer payments, that didn't stop the subsidies from going-on... For that matter, taxes didn't fall despite the cut in transfer payments, did it?

Actually - google tax rates in Canada. Martin re-indexed taxes - an effective cut every year, introduced a 4th tax braket (thus cutting taxes for the middle class), raised the personal exemption (cutting taxes again) and cut taxes by 1% befreo getting voted out by the Cons, who reversed that cut. So yeah - they did cut taxes. Maybe not "fast" enough, but we still have + $500 B in debt to pay off.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

BTW - Proroguing parliament was entirely within the bounds of the charter... If you disagree with that, lobby gvt to remove the process - don't blame someone for using it.

Legally right. The fact that in 140 years of Canadian history it was never used to avoid a confidence vote is just sematics, right? Parliamentary precedence means squat, right?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
Avatar
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post


I disagree with you on that as well - Harper went from never touching EI - to "remembering" some obscure campaign promise (although I can't find any reference to it - the bonus of not releasing a platform, I guess) about adding self-employed people to EI (stupid idea - btw...change it so SE people don't contribute - how does a self-employed person become unemployed?) - to having a group at least discuss it. Granted, Harper could do this as show, and do nothing - but then the whole "parliament not working" would fall back on him.


My belief is that Harper stated quite clearly that he would not capitulate to a 45 day qualifying period.

In terms of the self-employed becoming unemployed; small companies that go bankrupt or consultants that can not generate income due to economic contraction (resource/mining sectors especially). Also, as a variety of professional groups (accountants/lawyers) are dependent on the aforementioned, once those self-employed no longer require their services, their business' are impacted as well.



Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

I haven't seen anything that is "policy" related, other than the EI thing. I think I said that was my main beef with him...

I forgot all about Iggy's EI policy position.


Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

Releasing their policies, outside of a writ, when your opponent has tonnes more cash than you, is stupid - because you need cash to control the message. that was the problem with Green Shift. Releasing it during the writ means the government either spends their limit bashing your policy - or not. It even the playing field between a rich party, and a poor party.


I see your logic, but as I mentioned, I think that releasing it too close to an election runs the risk of being seen as ill-prepared or incompetent in the event that it requires significant alterations.



Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

And when did Democracy become hinged on how much cash you have?...... Does that make my political ideals, thought or musings less relevant?


I fully agree, however, any reasonable solution might require a major retro-fit of the entire system. That said, is it practical to assume that it could be done?


Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

Also, I do not want our democracy hinged on which party gets more donations. This is why I have a bigger issue with the 75% tax refund to political donations (especially when it's only 35% (or so) with charities) - than with the $1.95 per vote scheme - which I see as more "fair" and less costly to the public treasury.


You won't hear me argue against your position... I can not really recall a recent election that wasn't won (or dramatically influenced) by the group(s) that spent the most.



Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

Again, I will say - taxes will either rise, programs will be cut, or some mix of the two. Harper has said unequivally that he will not raises taxes, ever. So which programs will be cut? Or do you honestly buy the "we will grow out of our structural deficit" BS?


This addresses a much broader issue. In large part, I see the public demand (often as a right) for increased public services as insatiable. Add to this that by increasing the services, the taxes rise (as you pointed out) to develop and deliver the services. In the end we can have all the services our hearts could ever desire - a hospital in every community and a full compliment of schools every 20 blocks. This is very possible - all it costs is money... That is the sticking point for almost everyone - all want the services, but no one wants to pay.



Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

You're right. What happened to those guys? Oh yeah, they got voted out of office....But then again, because others have done it, Harper is completely absolved from trying to be any better.

My only point was that this is a condition that infects all parties.. None are immune.



Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

Actually - google tax rates in Canada. Martin re-indexed taxes - an effective cut every year, introduced a 4th tax braket (thus cutting taxes for the middle class), raised the personal exemption (cutting taxes again) and cut taxes by 1% befreo getting voted out by the Cons, who reversed that cut. So yeah - they did cut taxes. Maybe not "fast" enough, but we still have + $500 B in debt to pay off.

I loved Martin. He is definitely one politician that (in my opinion) would have guided Canada very well... If he were to run tomorrow - for any party - they'd get my vote in a heartbeat.



Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

Legally right. The fact that in 140 years of Canadian history it was never used to avoid a confidence vote is just sematics, right? Parliamentary precedence means squat, right?

The law is based on precedence. I believe that the option to prorogue is archaic and irrelevant, but then again, I don't see much use for the Senate (as it exists today) and especially the GG, regrettably, like proroguing, it exists nonetheless.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by PolygongView Post

I find it hard to believe that you have no interest in party politics when your criticism of Iggy stems from him seeming "weak" in making the choice to not trigger an election, which from a non-partisan view is the right one.

You are confusing action with intention. If a thief tries to rob a bank but is too incompetent to find one....
 
Tonington
Avatar
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by TrexView Post

The reason I said "but whatever" was to indicate that I was not too terribly concerned about discrete polling results.
I posted a long thread starter that contained quite a few opinions of mine.
Obviously I could have cut and pasted polling results as well.
The house is not even sitting right now thus polls at this time are not in, my opinion, that big a deal.
An election, at the moment, is impossible.
I knew, I just knew, people would post "their" rebuttal polls.
Complain about "phone in" as versus"door knocked".
Complain about sample size, question structure, sampling methods, built in errors and biases.
And so on.
Its like haggling over chicken entrails on a daily basis.
So yeh, but whatever.

Yes, all that is well and good. You were talking about whether or not Iggy lost his groove. If somebody wants to look at poll results, then it's best to track the same poll so that you using the same or roughly the same error, same bias, same method, etc.

Of course it's like hanging chicken entrails, (politics anyways) but as I said to CM, some do it better than others. Some leave the organs intact, and if you're going to compare the entrails, it's obviously best to have a blocking factor (the butcher, in this analogy).

Quote:

Triggering an election and running an election are a little bit like waging war.
You need good generals and accurate intelligence.
A rough rule of thumb is that the offence(Iggy) needs a larger army than the defence or incumbent(Harper).
2 to 1 in favour of the offence would be excellent.
Thus if you were looking to the polls Iggy should be polling around 45% to 55% consistently while Harper needs to be mid to high 20's in order for Iggy to launch an effective assault.

It's pretty standard that polling anywhere around 40% is within the grasp of a majority. Nobody needs that right now, and I doubt we will see any party get that for a while yet. This would take some major poop to swing enough voters.

Quote:

The reality is that Iggy is polling roughly dead even with Harper and for Iggy that is terrible news.
It probably means that if Iggy triggered an election this spring or possibly fall he would be quite likely to loose the war.

A dead heat is pretty bad. There were plenty of Government blunders in the spring. There's enough now for the Liberals to make effective attack ads. But they suck at raising money. Partly due to the fact that they are thieves, and partly due to the fact that the Conservatives are much better at targetting their requests for financial support. Guess what they do better? Statistics!

Quote:

Tonington is correct when he mentions polling trends.
Trend lines are quite important to determine who has the momentum thus showing who is gaining ground and who is loosing ground.
That is the only reason I mentioned polling in my thread starter.

Yup. One new poll doesn't amount to much does it, without the longer term context.

Quote:

My thread starter stands.
Iggy is in trouble in my opinion.
He needs to be slice and dicing the Cons in the media on a daily basis.
He needs to be out in front of the issues that matter to Canadians.
He needs to show himself as a visionary leader, not a reactive discontent.
He lost his Groove.

I agree with all of that.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Everybody should vote for an independent in the next election.That would shake the bastards up. Another option could be that we treat parliament like jury duty. Some of the votes in parliament should come from random people in the country. Every 3 or 4 months a new bunch of names get drawn and those folks get to vote on legislation. A quarter to a third of the votes could be counted this way. Loss of a vote would not be a vote of non-confidence and the ruling party would not have control nor would the opposition parties. The top party would have to hold over 75% of the elected seats in order to be able to do as they choose. With the support of the people, they could get by with one third of the seats in Parliament. In extremely rare cases, the elected MP's could out vote the people if enough of the parties got together.

The main thing is to take control out of the hands of people that seem to want to put themselves and their parties ahead of the country and the people.

I love the idea. I have ever since I read how Switzerland is governed. The pols there are really representing the people.
 
Walter
Avatar
#46
Tories, Ignatieff battle on Grit's writings on Ukrainians

By --, SUN MEDIA

Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff continued to be hounded in Winnipeg yesterday by the Conservatives for comments they claim are anti-Ukrainian.
Hours before Ignatieff was to give a luncheon speech to the Canadian Club of Winnipeg at the Marlborough Hotel yesterday, Ryan Sparrow, head of media relations for the federal Conservatives, sent an e-mail to Winnipeg media highlighting passages from Ignatieff's book deemed by the Tories to be "anti-Ukrainian."
'Misinterpreted'
Following his speech yesterday, Ignatieff in turn accused the Tories of trying to spin his words to pit him against a people whom he says he respects greatly.
"It has been misinterpreted," said Ignatieff. "There are people I would like to offend, people I'd like to attack in public life, and Vic Toews is one of them. But if Vic Toews wants to pit me against the Ukrainian community, he's not going to succeed.
"I'm for Ukrainian independence. I celebrate Ukrainian independence. I have always regarded Ukrainians with respect."
Last month, Toews -- Manitoba's senior cabinet minister -- distributed a pamphlet in his Provencher riding attacking Ignatieff for statements contained in his 1993 book Blood and Belonging.
"Ukrainian independence conjures up images of embroidered peasant shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phoney Cossacks in cloaks and boots, nasty anti-Semites," Ignatieff, an academic of Russian descent, wrote in the book.
"Somewhere inside I'm also what Ukrainians would call a great Russian and there is just a trace of old Russian disdain for these little Russians," he wrote in another passage.
Toews said yesterday he's heard Ignatieff's explanations that his words were twisted or taken out of context, but said he wasn't buying it.
'Never consistent'
"The explanations are never consistent," said Toews. "They are certainly anti-Ukrainian nationalist comments.
"Please tell me what the context for that would be."
Toews said he sent the pamphlet to his constituents because he felt it was important information for them to know.
 
Liberalman
Avatar
#47
All I can say is according to the internet skeletons is in everybody’s closet.

--

--

--

--

 
Liberalman
Avatar
#48
Considering that Ukrainians make up the majority of westerners and is the major supporter of the Conservative party if I was Vic I would try to discredit an intellect too, because the Conservative party is just no match for a professor from Harvard.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
Avatar
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

Considering that Ukrainians make up the majority of westerners and is the major supporter of the Conservative party if I was Vic I would try to discredit an intellect too, because the Conservative party is just no match for a professor from Harvard.


Where do you get your information from? I'm assuming by "Westerner's" you
aren't including B.C. but only the prairies which would be the Conservative
Ukrainian voter base you speak of, right? Would the people of B.C. with a
recently elected Provincial Liberal Government be "Westerner's" too?


Alberta
It prints out funny, so I'll just post a link: --

Saskatchewan
-- 28.6%
-- 25.0%
-- 24.5%
-- 17.9%
-- 14.5%
-- 12.6%
-- 11.4%
-- 10.6%
-- 6.3% (the highest proportion of Canadians of Norwegian descent of any province)
-- 5.3%
-- 4.2%
-- 3.4%
-- 3.1%
-- 2.9%
-- 2.5%
-- 1.5%
-- 1.4%
-- 1.2%
-- 1.1%
-- 1.0%
-- 1.0%

Manitoba

22.1% --
19.1% --
18.5% --
18.2% --
14.7% --
13.4% --
13.1% --
10.6% --
7.3% --
6.4% --
4.9% --
4.0% --
3.5% --
2.7% --

_______________________________________
________________________________
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#50
"Has Iggy lost his groove?"

How can you lose something you never had?
 
Walter
#51
Dirty, rotten Germans.
 
Liberalman
#52
wikipedia where anyone can edit the truth
 
Walter
Avatar
#53
--

Wrong again, Lieberalman.
 
Walter
Avatar
#54
Maybe Iggy has vision problems

By KALVIN REID 9th July 2009


The message Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff should take from the latest poll is clear: It's time to put some policy alternatives in front of Canadians.
Judging by the Strategic Counsel poll numbers, the anointed Liberal leader has come to the end of his honeymoon phase. For the first seven months of his reign, Canadians gave Ignatieff the benefit of the doubt -- so much so that by April his party had overtaken the ruling Conservatives in national polls.
But things change fast in politics. What was a four-point Liberal lead a month ago has become a one-point Conservative lead. While the difference is well within the margin of error, the numbers are telling. In the key battleground of Ontario, the gap is more pronounced. Stephen Harper's Tories have 43% support compared to 39% for Ignatieff's Liberals.
It's time for Ignatieff to change his strategy. Saying the Liberals are a solid alternative to the governing Tories, as Ignatieff again did this past weekend at the Calgary Stampede, is a far cry from saying why the Liberals are a solid alternative.
This is where Ignatieff falls short.
The federal government's stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into communities across the nation. But this means the country is running a significant deficit for the first time in a decade; it's a deficit the parliamentary budget office predicts will be much worse than the government is letting on, and will be institutional in nature.
The government, of course, disputes this analysis.
What we have yet to hear from Ignatieff is how he would have tackled the recession differently.
The government's budget, laden with stimulus spending, was created under pressure from the Liberals and the Liberals supported it. Now the Liberals are criticizing the government's stimulus plan that has caused the deficit to soar, while at the same time calling for costly reforms to the employment insurance system.
It doesn't add up.
It's all well and good to give the government flak over the way it has handled the economy. But it's quite another thing to offer real, plausible solutions.
 
Liberalman
Avatar
#55
Walter

Michael Ignatieff said that this summer he will be on the raod, crossing Canada and listening to the voters.

Michael does not have to say anything untill he gets all the facts.

This fall there a platform will be announced and when it’s out then Conservatives polls will drop like a rock.

All Harper has to do is stay out of the media, which for some reason he has a problem with.

The public humiliation of an inner circle MP for doing her job and not eating a wafer or Body of Christ after he accepted it from a Catholic priest is not helping him just shows that he can’t think for himself.

Walter it’s time for a change.
 
Walter
Avatar
#56
Tories Take Six Point Lead in Canada

July 10, 2009

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - The Conservative party is once again ahead in Canada’s political scene, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 36 per cent of respondents would vote for the governing Tories in the next federal election, up four points since mid-June.
The Liberal party is second with 30 per cent, followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 16 per cent, the Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent, and the Green party with seven per cent.
Source: Angus Reid Strategies
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,005 Canadian adults, conducted on Jun. 17 and Jun. 18, 2009. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

Iggy, your slip is showing.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
Avatar
#57
Heard on the radio yesterday that the Tory's have a 15 point lead over the libs among male voters.

... Not looking good for Iggy, just like Dion, he didn't pull the trigger when he should have.
 
mit
Free Thinker
Avatar
#58
Harper stated after the G8 that he was not raising taxes or cutting services - His economic philosophy is that we were in a surplus before the recession so we should return to surplus again "When" the economy recovers.
He has stepped off the cut the costs of government services platform he originally ran with. He has stepped off the cut wasteful spending platform - He has stepped off the "Strong Survive in business platform" - He has stepped off the strong Navy - strong Arctic sovereignty platform - Too bad the train misses him each time.
 
mit
Free Thinker
#59
PS - There is a movement afoot to bring about an Ontario Bloq party - DUH?
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

Considering that Ukrainians make up the majority of westerners and is the major supporter of the Conservative party if I was Vic I would try to discredit an intellect too, because the Conservative party is just no match for a professor from Harvard.

lol Have you any idea of how many people of Chinese descent are in BC alone? Or Hindu, Pakistani, or Indian? Russian Doukhobor? Aboriginal? in BC and the rest of the west?
 

Similar Threads

81
Bye Bye Iggy Bye Bye -
by Goober | Jan 26th, 2010
29
Iggy or Bob?
by Trex | Nov 17th, 2008
1
Loco Locass - Groove Grave
by cub1c | Jun 7th, 2005
no new posts