Has Iggy lost his Groove?

[pegger]

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.

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.

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...

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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).

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.

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!

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.

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]

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]

Tories, Ignatieff battle on Grit's writings on Ukrainians

By PAUL TURENNE, 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]

All I can say is according to the internet skeletons is in everybody’s closet.

http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=5251&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=2

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/06/vic-toews-has-reason-to-feel-insulted

http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/tag/vic-toews

http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/misc-hansard/2003051403.php

 

[Liberalman]

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]

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: Demographics of Alberta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saskatchewan
German 28.6%
Canadian 25.0%
English 24.5%
Scottish 17.9%
Irish 14.5%
Ukrainian 12.6%
French 11.4%
North American Indian 10.6%
Norwegian 6.3% (the highest proportion of Canadians of Norwegian descent of any province)
Polish 5.3%
Métis 4.2%
Dutch (Netherlands) 3.4%
Swedish 3.1%
Russian 2.9%
Hungarian (Magyar) 2.5%
Austrian 1.5%
Welsh 1.4%
American (USA) 1.2%
Romanian 1.1%
Danish 1.0%
Chinese 1.0%

Manitoba

22.1% English
19.1% German
18.5% Scottish
18.2% Canadian
14.7% Ukrainian
13.4% Irish
13.1% French
10.6% North American Indian
7.3% Polish
6.4% Métis
4.9% Dutch (Netherlands)
4.0% Russian
3.5% Filipino
2.7% Icelandic

_______________________________________
________________________________

 

[YukonJack]

"Has Iggy lost his groove?"

How can you lose something you never had?

 

[Walter]

Dirty, rotten Germans.

 

[Liberalman]

wikipedia where anyone can edit the truth

 

[Walter]

http://esask.uregina.ca/management/app/assets/img/enc2/PDF/Page-386.pdf

Wrong again, Lieberalman.

 

[Walter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

PS - There is a movement afoot to bring about an Ontario Bloq party - DUH?

 

[AnnaG]

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?