Re: Has Iggy lost his Groove?
Jun 28th, 2009The 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.

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.

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.

Trex said that Liberalman's polls were out of date.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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

(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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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...

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.

And when did Democracy become hinged on how much cash you have?...... 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.