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?