Has Iggy lost his Groove?

[Ron in Regina]

The Groove that Mr. Ignatius has is consistency. Since Mr. Harper first
became the PM, there have been (I believe) 79 confidence motions where
the voters could have been forced back to the polls...and 79/79 times the
Liberal Party has voted along side the Conservatives. Regardless of the
rhetoric, Mr. Ignatius has been consistent with what Mr. Dion has done.

Consistently (and I could very well be wrong here), I believe that the NDP
and the Bloc have voted against the Conservatives 79/79 times in the
79 confidence motions where the voters could have been forced back to
the polls since Mr. Harper became PM. Hmmmm.....

 

[Tonington]

@ Tonington:

I think that you and I can agree on the notion that the only poll that counts occurs on election day. Over the years, we've all heard the rhetoric that surrounds the polling industry and issues and for one, I no longer pay too much attention to anything they propose or suggest.

Not all issues are put to elections, so no I wouldn't agree with that. While some polls are better than others, no poll is perfect. No poll tries to be perfect. Polls only try to best approximate what the public thinks about issues, which is important to know for policy decisions, for market research, and yes for trying to track election probabilities. It would be very naive to think that the politicians aren't tracking the changes, and adjusting themselves accordingly. They all say they don't, but I'm not buying that.

Some firms are better than others of course, and that's not because of luck. It takes a lot of work to do opinion research well. Angus Reid is probably the best in Canada at tracking elections. They have successfully predicted the eight provincial elections they covered since 2006, and they were the most accurate in this last Federal election.

 

[Polygong]

I'm still not getting the logic... Canadians don't want an election, Ignatieff makes concessions to ensure that there isn't one... yet he has done the wrong thing???

 

[Cannuck]

79/79 times the
Liberal Party has voted along side the Conservatives. Regardless of the
rhetoric, Mr. Ignatius has been consistent with what Mr. Dion has done.

The Libs are only interested in playing games until they think they can win. All this diddling is surprising when you consider that (according to Liberalman) they are in control.

 

[Cannuck]

I'm still not getting the logic... Canadians don't want an election, Ignatieff makes concessions to ensure that there isn't one... yet he has done the wrong thing???

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.

 

[JLM]

The Libs are only interested in playing games until they think they can win. All this diddling is surprising when you consider that (according to Liberalman) they are in control.

You have that dead right, Cannuck. (Where the hell is S.J.?)

 

[pegger]

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.

 

[Francis2004]

Hey pegger, you think they got the right names on the right ones ?

 

[Cannuck]

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...)

I've voted Liberal before and Green the last go round. Hell, I've even voted NDP once as a protest vote. Provincially, I have consistently voted against the Conservatives. I think your statement is a cop-out. If Iggy would give me a reason to support him, I'd vote for him. It's not like Harpo has been doing a great job and deserves my vote.

 

[pegger]

I've voted Liberal before and Green the last go round. Hell, I've even voted NDP once as a protest vote. Provincially, I have consistently voted against the Conservatives. I think your statement is a cop-out. If Iggy would give me a reason to support him, I'd vote for him. It's not like Harpo has been doing a great job and deserves my vote.

If I'm wrong - then I'm wrong - however you can't disagree that some "opinions" wouldn't change even if light started to shine from Iggy's ass.

What do you suggest should happen?

 

[Cannuck]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

... 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.

 

[Polygong]

*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.

 

[captain morgan]

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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)

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.

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.

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.