Possibly. Unfortunately, pols haven't got very much foresight. IOW, 4 year olds with 4 year vision.
Can Ignatieff distance himself from his past?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Ron had he not done the prorogation of Parliament he would have been a true strategist. But in what he did he missed the best chance he had set up the opposition by locking up the House.. He could no longer effectively do anything until it re-opened. He gave the Liberals the golden chance they needed to rebuild..
Seems you are the one with directional problems good sir, Ignatieff spent only 5 years in the USA, the rest of his time abroad was spent in the UK.
And really, if Wayne Gretzky returned to Canada to seek office, I really don't think the Tories would have the bollocks to call him a Canadian of convenience. I really don't.
Funny thing is, I had a better grasp of what Canada is all about after having spent some time abroad myself.
So...the path that Harper chose wasn't for the benefit of himself or
his party then...and I doubt that he's a dumb man, and the same
would go for his advisors.....he could have pounced (twice) and
had a majority that even us armchair quarterback can clearly
see....so his motivation for the path he chose was???8O
Seems to me PET spent time in Yankeeland, too. I can't really see that as having a bearing on whether a person is any good at governing, though.
Hey, Francis, maybe Harpy likes competition? lol
Hey, Francis, maybe Harpy likes competition? lol
They believed the economy was not in bad shape if you recall while all other parties believed different.. I would imagine bad advising and panic..
And people talk about Ignatieff flip-flopping, meanwhile Harper was all over the Liberals for "getting into bed with separatists", but only a few months later the Tories are kissing up to the Bloc without shame.
There is a major difference between seeking the support of the BQ for individual pieces of legislation, or even for their aid in defeating a gov't.......and de facto including them in a coalition to rule the Country they are out to destroy.....a BIG difference.
Yep. I didn't say the tendency to be a pancake was limited to being a Glib. I could shoot Harpy for a few things. The best reason I'd have for doing that would be to bail out automakers, and cut back research and development. You'd think he owned an oil well or something. 
Though I oppose Ignatieff on more than a few points, I don't see his having lived outside of Canada to be an issue for me. In principle, I believe that a politician who's lived abroad can be just as good as one who's lived in the country all his life, but with different strengths; the one who's lived abroad might be able to look at issues through a fresh point of view, while the one who's always stayed in the country might have more familiarity with the issue.
So while there are plenty of things to criticize about Ignatieff, I really don't see how his having lived out of country plays in all of this.
Also, a party that can do nothing but spew attack adds does not win my vote. If anything, the attack adds lower my respect for the party. But then, seeing that most parties get into this, that's probably the main reason it's sometimes easier to just ignore the arty and vote for the best candidate.
So while there are plenty of things to criticize about Ignatieff, I really don't see how his having lived out of country plays in all of this.
Also, a party that can do nothing but spew attack adds does not win my vote. If anything, the attack adds lower my respect for the party. But then, seeing that most parties get into this, that's probably the main reason it's sometimes easier to just ignore the arty and vote for the best candidate.
Actually, this was a big misunderstanding, It was to be a Liberal-NDP co-alition with the Bloc promissing to give that co-alition its confidence in any confidence vote for a set period of time.
Now where I saw the biggest problem with that is that the Liberals and NDP together are still just as much of a minority as the Conservatives. To make a real, solid and stable majority co-alition, it would have taken a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition, a Conservative-Liberal co-alition, or Conservative-NDP co-alition, or something else of the sort. Without a majority, it can't rule effectively. We're seeing that now. Had the GG been smart, she should have given the government to whatever majority coalition could be formed right after the last election. In fact, that would not be a bad precedent for future minority governments. Had she done that, I could see two likely co-alitions:
1. NDP-Liberal-Bloc or
2. Liberal-Conservative
Though under Dion at the time, it would have been a hard coin toss.
And the excuse for this one was ?
One always says to never burn a bridge and now it seems Harper has done so by having to grovel to the Bloc for support again. So from a Friend and Coalition partner to the Devil back to a friend in need.. You cannot keep trashing the people you need that way..
globeandmail.com: Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance
1) Makes me puke
2) was a War time solution but I don't see it possible today..
:lol:
Actually, the Bloc was not going to be a part of the coalition, they would simply agree to be supportive on legislation for a defined amount of time, the very same kind of support being sought by the Tories at this time.
On the other hand, one could refer to the letter dated Sep-2004 to the Governor General where Stephen Harper seeks a coalition government with the NDP and those same Bloquistes who seek to destroy this country... hyprocrisy from Harper showing no bounds.
You seem to be stating my points in your own words.. Can you come up with new arguments or do you plan on letting me do all the work and post after ?
I replied to his post before reading all the others. Yes, my post is redundant, but does it really matter?
Perhaps this is one of those, "Great Minds Think Alike" sort of things?8O