elevennevele said:
you are right. only time can tell whether this will work out or not and I personally think that Bill Graham is doing a good job as leader of opposition.
My Political Rant. Have one?
- Thread starter elevennevele
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
you are right. only time can tell whether this will work out or not and I personally think that Bill Graham is doing a good job as leader of opposition.
As with my concerns, the fragmentation with a prolonged leadership race is hurting the Liberals and actually leaving the NDP to in effect act more like the opposition party.
Given what I knew of Harper, I figured he would capitalize on it and not in a passive way. The Liberals, as I worried, felt too secure living with the mentality of once holding leadership over the country. They started off too complacent in their new role as opposition figuring they had all the time in the world to sort out their issues and pick a leader.
With Harper in power, the Liberals have allowed him to define the political landscape, make aggressive policy as though he held a majority because with the Liberals not having a leader, they are in a more difficult situation to define themselves. Sure I’ve support them on policy, but there is no coherent hand to show a more defined determination of what those policies are at this time. As now shown with the Afghan vote, which is Harper playing politics through Afghanistan, we don’t know if we are going to have an Ignatieff Liberal party, or a Liberal Party that takes a more opposing view of the extent of our commitments to this war.
So my political rant is coming true and the media is starting to pick up on this weakness. That in itself does not help the Liberals and as we still wait to know who that leader will be, it’s not going to get any easier for the Liberals.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=07a874aa-4e70-488e-b622-ab611d640a09&k=26718
Harper may have used Afghan vote to ensare Ignatieff
Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, May 18, 2006
OTTAWA -- After narrowly winning the vote to prolong the risky Afghanistan mission, a triumphant Stephen Harper crossed the floor of the Commons and threaded his way to the back of the Liberal benches to shake hands with Michael Ignatieff.
...
Rae, a former Ontario NDP premier, suggested Harper is setting a trap for Liberal leadership candidates, trying to immunize his government from future criticism should the Afghanistan campaign turn ugly. He observed that during the last presidential election, Bush was able to blunt any effective attack over his prosecution of the Iraq war by pointing out that his Democratic rival John Kerry voted in favour of the invasion.
Given what I knew of Harper, I figured he would capitalize on it and not in a passive way. The Liberals, as I worried, felt too secure living with the mentality of once holding leadership over the country. They started off too complacent in their new role as opposition figuring they had all the time in the world to sort out their issues and pick a leader.
With Harper in power, the Liberals have allowed him to define the political landscape, make aggressive policy as though he held a majority because with the Liberals not having a leader, they are in a more difficult situation to define themselves. Sure I’ve support them on policy, but there is no coherent hand to show a more defined determination of what those policies are at this time. As now shown with the Afghan vote, which is Harper playing politics through Afghanistan, we don’t know if we are going to have an Ignatieff Liberal party, or a Liberal Party that takes a more opposing view of the extent of our commitments to this war.
So my political rant is coming true and the media is starting to pick up on this weakness. That in itself does not help the Liberals and as we still wait to know who that leader will be, it’s not going to get any easier for the Liberals.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=07a874aa-4e70-488e-b622-ab611d640a09&k=26718
Harper may have used Afghan vote to ensare Ignatieff
Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, May 18, 2006
OTTAWA -- After narrowly winning the vote to prolong the risky Afghanistan mission, a triumphant Stephen Harper crossed the floor of the Commons and threaded his way to the back of the Liberal benches to shake hands with Michael Ignatieff.
...
Rae, a former Ontario NDP premier, suggested Harper is setting a trap for Liberal leadership candidates, trying to immunize his government from future criticism should the Afghanistan campaign turn ugly. He observed that during the last presidential election, Bush was able to blunt any effective attack over his prosecution of the Iraq war by pointing out that his Democratic rival John Kerry voted in favour of the invasion.
The one thing I’ve known about today's right wing politicians is that they will turn the democratic nature of their opposition into a weakness, a liability (ie. the other party allowing it’s members to speak freely, vote freely with their own opinions and not always tow the party line).
As much as one would like to think Harper’s right wing agenda would hurt him eventually, (ie. turning Canada in to a landscape of American politics/ideology with Bush bullying tactics) I would never underestimate him on an ability to manipulate the political process, and the mindset of the average Canadian.
All one has to do is look to the American model. The United States at one point seemed way too progressive to fall into a style of government that continually flirts with fascism, ever disrespecting their own rule of law, constitution, and the conventions that they once fought to put into place among the international community.
I was always told by Americans that it could never happen in the United States. Then I watched as they made up reasons for war, they resorted to torture, they detained without respecting any rule of law, they wiretap their own people, they removed many boundaries of church and state, they continually give corporations more rights than the citizenry, and the corruption just never seems to end. Now they are so changed as a society, they even find themselves protecting more and more their border against Canada. This does not even take into account the destruction they are doing to their environment and economic foundation.
And even after much had already happened, Bush still got elected for a second term.
I’m sure everyone is saying the same thing here. It can’t happen to Canada. I don’t know to what extent Harper will take us down the same road. I do know however he is very sympathetic to those right wing American ideologues and when I see him wanting to control the media or put things into an accountability act that can hide government corruption indefinitely, it shows to me the hallmarks of a dangerous play against our Canadian Political Fabric.
I personally don’t want a quarter of what has been done in the United States to happen here. I hope in the end we don’t allow a dismantling of what makes us an enviable democracy and society.
As much as one would like to think Harper’s right wing agenda would hurt him eventually, (ie. turning Canada in to a landscape of American politics/ideology with Bush bullying tactics) I would never underestimate him on an ability to manipulate the political process, and the mindset of the average Canadian.
All one has to do is look to the American model. The United States at one point seemed way too progressive to fall into a style of government that continually flirts with fascism, ever disrespecting their own rule of law, constitution, and the conventions that they once fought to put into place among the international community.
I was always told by Americans that it could never happen in the United States. Then I watched as they made up reasons for war, they resorted to torture, they detained without respecting any rule of law, they wiretap their own people, they removed many boundaries of church and state, they continually give corporations more rights than the citizenry, and the corruption just never seems to end. Now they are so changed as a society, they even find themselves protecting more and more their border against Canada. This does not even take into account the destruction they are doing to their environment and economic foundation.
And even after much had already happened, Bush still got elected for a second term.
I’m sure everyone is saying the same thing here. It can’t happen to Canada. I don’t know to what extent Harper will take us down the same road. I do know however he is very sympathetic to those right wing American ideologues and when I see him wanting to control the media or put things into an accountability act that can hide government corruption indefinitely, it shows to me the hallmarks of a dangerous play against our Canadian Political Fabric.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b878e70c-8428-4c17-9744-8f4d25dee311&k=62076
"No previous government, since the Access to Information Act came into force in 1983, has put forward a more retrograde and dangerous set of proposals," Information Commissioner John Reid told Parliament Friday.
Draft internal reports and audits would also be shielded from scrutiny for 15 years and records relating to investigations of wrongdoing in government would be sealed forever.
I personally don’t want a quarter of what has been done in the United States to happen here. I hope in the end we don’t allow a dismantling of what makes us an enviable democracy and society.
elevennevele said:As with my concerns, the fragmentation with a prolonged leadership race is hurting the Liberals and actually leaving the NDP to in effect act more like the opposition party.
Given what I knew of Harper, I figured he would capitalize on it and not in a passive way. The Liberals, as I worried, felt too secure living with the mentality of once holding leadership over the country. They started off too complacent in their new role as opposition figuring they had all the time in the world to sort out their issues and pick a leader.
With Harper in power, the Liberals have allowed him to define the political landscape, make aggressive policy as though he held a majority because with the Liberals not having a leader, they are in a more difficult situation to define themselves. Sure I’ve support them on policy, but there is no coherent hand to show a more defined determination of what those policies are at this time. As now shown with the Afghan vote, which is Harper playing politics through Afghanistan, we don’t know if we are going to have an Ignatieff Liberal party, or a Liberal Party that takes a more opposing view of the extent of our commitments to this war.
So my political rant is coming true and the media is starting to pick up on this weakness. That in itself does not help the Liberals and as we still wait to know who that leader will be, it’s not going to get any easier for the Liberals.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=07a874aa-4e70-488e-b622-ab611d640a09&k=26718
Harper may have used Afghan vote to ensare Ignatieff
Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, May 18, 2006
OTTAWA -- After narrowly winning the vote to prolong the risky Afghanistan mission, a triumphant Stephen Harper crossed the floor of the Commons and threaded his way to the back of the Liberal benches to shake hands with Michael Ignatieff.
...
Rae, a former Ontario NDP premier, suggested Harper is setting a trap for Liberal leadership candidates, trying to immunize his government from future criticism should the Afghanistan campaign turn ugly. He observed that during the last presidential election, Bush was able to blunt any effective attack over his prosecution of the Iraq war by pointing out that his Democratic rival John Kerry voted in favour of the invasion.
The whole extension on the Afghan mission was also supported by other members of the Liberal caucus who felt it was right, that doesnt make any difference. The Leader of the Liberal Party, Bill Graham voted for it, much less Ignatieff. The party is generally divided up for this and the vote showed it, so by saying that supporting the war would make the party an Ignatieff party is wrong because many other MP's of the Liberal Caucus supported the extension of it and voted for it too, just like Ignatieff!
Ignatieff is doing his job as an MP right now. He has always beileved in these types of things, and Bill Graham supported it too. Whether or not Ignatieff wins the leadership race is yet another story. :wink: