I really like Ignatieff

[AAAAE]

Is that weird?

I feel like I had a very negative impression of him, but overall now am impressed.

He can hold Harper to account

Comes off as very intelligent

Has a global perspective, which is actually important - not a liability

Should I be checked into a mental ward? What do you think.

[whynow99]

No, you appear to have just seen the real person vs the million of dollars the Harper CONS have spent on the attack ads to scare you about someone.

Do not forget................

Igatieff not a Canadian? What!!

Where do the following Canadian icons reside ?

Wayne Gretzky....Pheonix
Neil Young.......Los Angeles
Mike Weir........Draper, Utah
William Shatner........Los Angeles

Even hockey's greatest mumbly , Don "The Collar" Cherry worked / played in Rochester, NY and Boston, MA for years !!

They no longer Canadians, eh ?

[moahunter]

Layton is doing much better in the election, despite looking sick. He's a brave man. The problem for Ignatieff is the same one Dion faced, he's basically an academic that most Canadian's can't relate to (students like him, but students don't decide elections). Some of the policy opportunism that isn't consistent with "Liberal Values" rings a sour note as well (like an Arena for Quebec city).

By contrast, while people don't really like Harper, most of their lives have been good under his minority government. I feel with the Conservatives, most of the time, politics fall into the background and people can just get on with their lives, which is what a good government facilitates.

[Medwards]

The bold makes your point less of a point.

[moahunter]

^its so incredibly brilliant it has to be posted in two threads as well:

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=20435

[Hull534]

"Rise Up" seems to be the latest turn of approach from Mr.Ignatieff , worth a shot I guess . I was extremely dissapointed that he used the Term in quoting American Bruce Springsteen . If the Liberals truly "want to wash the sands of their hands" regarding background and nationalities , you think that someone could have advised him that the Canadian group parachute club could have provided the same reference for his purposes . Maybe this will come into play later , but too late . He went with what he knew first . Telling.

[nosheep]

Originally Posted by Hull534

"Rise Up" seems to be the latest turn of approach from Mr.Ignatieff , worth a shot I guess . I was extremely dissapointed that he used the Term in quoting American Bruce Springsteen . If the Liberals truly "want to wash the sands of their hands" regarding background and nationalities , you think that someone could have advised him that the Canadian group parachute club could have provided the same reference for his purposes . Maybe this will come into play later , but too late . He went with what he knew first . Telling.

I agree it should have been for "change" it worked for Obama, were going through a time with social media and for the most part Harper is hated within the online comunity.

Social media get's people out to vote, and how we are able to overthrow these ruthless dictators.

[whynow99]

'Harper was the president of the National Citizen's Coalition, a lobby group dedicated to the destruction of public health care. If you were watching the debate you will recall that Harper did not refer to "public health care", he called in "public health insurance".

Harper has it in for public health care, that is obvious. What more do you need to know?'

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by nosheep

I agree it should have been for "change" it worked for Obama

The difference is that Obama did it is a calm and statesman like way. He always looked like a president. By contrast, Ignatieff screaming "rise up" looked like a desperate student at an anti-g8 rally.

[KJ2007]

...were you there? Did you attend the rally?

[edmonton daily photo]

I went... Iggy did no such thing

[grish]

the other day I had a conversation with a relative–she said that she doesn't like the libs and that they have no real platform. I asked what she wanted to see in a platform of the party for whom she would vote. The answers had to do with health, jobs and support of the middle class. We went to the computer and googled the Liberal platform-it had most of the things she wanted. (The other bits were included in either the NDP or the Conservative platforms which we also googled).

The moral of the story, some people just like to repeat some things to cover up their ignorance. Like the stuff with the "young vote" and how the leaders "don't talk about the issues that affect us" nonsense. Well, if you only listened and read rather than relied on the soundbites and the political adds...

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by grish

The moral of the story, some people just like to repeat some things to cover up their ignorance.

Whose job is it to promote the platform Grish, and whose fault is it if it isn't communicated effectively? One of the main criticisms of Ignatieff following the debates is he just attacked Harper, instead of talking about his vision in a positive way.

PS. did he talk about how his tanker ban would keep Alberta dependent on the US instead of Asian markets (where prices are higher)? Or how the carbon tax would shift revenue from Alberta to Ottawa?

[DiscoBandit]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Ignatieff screaming "rise up" looked like a desperate student at an anti-g8 rally.

Originally Posted by KJ2007

...were you there? Did you attend the rally?

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I went... Iggy did no such thing

You should respond to this.

[moahunter]

^It was sudbury, you can watch it with "calming" background music on the Liberal web site:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBPOK9PIw-0

Real Prime Ministerial lol.

Again, not talking about his policies or platform, all about the current government (and you wonder why Grish, your friends don't know the platform?).

[DiscoBandit]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Real Prime Ministerial lol.

You have to be f*cking kidding me.

[moahunter]

^I actually thought of this Howard Dean desperation moment when I saw it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evjv06AUyhY

[DiscoBandit]

Quit trolling and go away.

[moahunter]

^So you ask me to respond four posts earlier, and now call me a ***** for responding? Okey Dokey. Oh, but of course, its not trolling if its a thread on Harper or the Conservatives and its a comment about how evil / undemocratic they are? Someone posted they really like Ignatieff in an election forum, I think that's a reasonable invitation for other people to state their views. If you don't like that you are losing the discussion (or should I write per that hilarious video clip, "Ignatieff is losing the plot / being badly advised"?), you don't have to keep participating

[grish]

One difference is that your came across stating or implying something about Ignatieff at the recent rally in Edmonton. If you had not gone, you have no way of knowing and your posts are utterly baseless. The request to respond was specific to that event.

You may have an unfavourable impression of Ignatieff, just like I have a very unfavourable impression of Harper. With Harper having been in our public spotlight for longer than Ignatieff, I have specific examples during his time as the PM and as the official opposition that I can point to to say why I do not like him. With Ignatieff, we have some youtube links and a sequence of personal charatcer assasination ads run by the conservatives. I just hope you base your opinion of Ignatieff on something you have personally experienced.

Say he knocks on your door and attempts to win you over–would you automatically try to fit his actionons within the framework of the attack ads or will you give him the time of day to actually listen to the guy and form your personal opinion?

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by grish

Say he knocks on your door and attempts to win you over–would you automatically try to fit his actionons within the framework of the attack ads or will you give him the time of day to actually listen to the guy and form your personal opinion?

Of course I would discuss with him, as I would hope you would with Harper. I would ask specific questions though about policies that concern me, including the tanker ban, no doubt you have items that bug you about Harper.

This thread is not about policies though, its about personality - do people actually like Ignatieff? Is he displaying the type of behavior that you expect in a PM? I think to date, the consensus is that Layton has run an excellent campaign (certainly the best debater), Harper has been well advised and is solid (won't get drawn into the attacks, focuses on good things from his term and his platform), but Ignatieff has come across as muddled and at times, ill advised, e.g. that Howard Dean moment - you would think he would have the brains to have seen what happened in the US and why its important for a candidate to not get overly emotional. There is a difference between book smarts and real world smarts, and like Dion, I think Ignatieff has too much of one and not enough of the other, to be an effective PM.

[jmart81]

Ignatieff seems to be an underachieving leader at best. I always seem disappointed when I see him debate (just like the English one earlier). His resume would state he can do much better. Although I will give him credit, at least he did enter the city limits.

[Renton]

To take things a little bit off topic, is anyone else offended / concerned / annoyed by the claims of Ignatieff's supposed "un-Canadianess"?

I for one don't care for the notion that there exists different levels of being Canadian. Am I really any less Canadian because I was educated outside of Canada? Because I don't currently reside there?
What of the 860 000 Canadians who hold multiple citizenships? Or the 6,186,950 foreign-born Canadians?

I don't know, just sounds like thinly veiled xenophobia / racism to me. If anything, I'd say that's pretty un-Canadian.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Renton

I don't know, just sounds like thinly veiled xenophobia / racism to me. If anything, I'd say that's pretty un-Canadian.

The concern is more that he comes across as opportunistic. He had a good life in the US and had totally committed to it (per his many speeches where he presented himself as American), then suddenly turns his back on that commitment because there was an opportunity to be Canadian PM. Have a look at this Mercer take from the time, do you consider Mercer to be un-Canadian?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS_ifo8tdKA

Michael Ignatieff really wants to be PM of Canada, of that, there is no doubt. In fact, he is so committed to the idea of running Canada, he moved here to do it. Which I think is a good think, because as a nation, I don't think we are completely comfortable with the notion of a PM living in Massachusetts...

.
I have 0 issue with immigrants running for politics, and we have many in both the Conservative and Liberal party. But they didn't fly in one day, and become a politician the next, they had to spend a bit of time here first and get to know the issues in Canada today (not what it was 34 years ago).

If it had been a Conservative politician, I don't think we would ever have heard the end of it, we would have heard endless comparisons to Bush, neo-cons or similar. You already see it, with Liberal party activists from out East portraying Alberta conservatives as little more than Americans. Its just ironic they flew someone in from the US to lead their party.

[Renton]

The man has the chance to lead a major national party and potentially head the government of his country. Yeah... What an opportunistic jerk!

[moahunter]

^one day you are telling everyone how American you are, then the next day you are running for Canadian PM. Yeah, I see it that way.

[grish]

One day you accuse your opposition of being opportunistic, another day you rename your party and your government in your own name (Harper's Government). We were days away from the Parliament Hill being dubed the Harper Mountain. Opportunism and politics... It's like a freak snow storm and May in Calgary... Doesn't have to happen, but is something one can always expect.

[sundance]

Umm one thing Iggy isn't going to get his wife's vote... she is not a legal Canadian citizen yet.

Or how about taxes Iggy pop has said he would put in place a cap and trade system for carbon credits. Oh and where will Iggy's billions come from to pay for his day care plan? Taxes.

[etownboarder]

Originally Posted by sundance

Umm one thing Iggy isn't going to get his wife's vote... she is not a legal Canadian citizen yet.

Or how about taxes Iggy pop has said he would put in place a cap and trade system for carbon credits. Oh and where will Iggy's billions come from to pay for his day care plan? Taxes.

I would rather pay taxes to get a service I can rely on, than not receive the service at all. Can you afford to pay for your own healthcare out of your own pocket? Open heart surgery perhaps? Nah, didn't think so.

[grish]

the nationality of his wife matters how exactly? does it automatically change some policies or make the conservatives less corrupt?

I appreciate your sleuthing with respect Iggy wanting to raise taxes... It is a matter of public record. He wants to roll back the promised corporate tax rate and not spend billions on "jets and jails". In fact, I would much rather federal money be used to look after the children than criminals as a preventative measure of sorts.

[Renton]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^one day you are telling everyone how American you are, then the next day you are running for Canadian PM. Yeah, I see it that way.

Originally Posted by moahunter

^one day you are telling everyone how American you are, then the next day you are running for Canadian PM. Yeah, I see it that way.

Seems perfectly acceptable to me.

The guy had a very long involvement with the United States. He lived there for many years. I don't think it's out of line for him to feel some sort of allegiance to that nation in addition to his allegiances to Canada.

Aren't you yourself originally from Oz or NZ, Moahunter? Not that that's particularly important.

And just for the record: I think Ignatieff is poor potential leader / PM and his party won't be getting my vote (completed through the mail btw.... because yes, some of us Canadians do actually live abroad sometimes... And we are still entitled to vote despite how "uncanadian" a bunch of mouth-breathers from rural Alberta might think we are).

[etownboarder]

Apparently nearly 3M Canadians live abroad. I wonder how many of them vote.

[sundance]

Originally Posted by grish

does it automatically change some policies or make the conservatives less corrupt?

Conservatives less corrupt, oh yes I forgot, the conservatives spent billions helping their cronies for the sponsorship scandal. They also spent billions on the gun registry. Oh yes didn't Chretien profit by a tune of 1.4 million for the sale of the hotel associated with the golf course?

That isn't even factoring in "equalization" payments, so sure you can vote for a party that takes your money and gives it to Quebec, I personally don't want that.

[grish]

^ want to go back to the 90's, how about Mulroney? Want to go to last year? How about G8 spending and the illegal misleading of parliament with respect to spending? Want to go inbetween? How about criminal proceedings with respect to elections canada fraud?

So, I repeat, how is Ignatieff wife's nationality play into this? What?! Ignatieff's wife nationality? How is that relevant? EXACTLY.

[nosheep]

What bugs me is Iggy's attendance record of like 38%, Harpers not much better at 58%

Layton tho hes at 95% he obviously cares more than anyone else. I like his work ethic and his commitment to this country....

What I'm really sick of is the lies from Harper like not running a defecit, or taxing income trusts, a man is only as good as his word.

Don't lie to me, is that to hard to ask? and show up for work your a minority you need to perticipate

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Renton

Aren't you yourself originally from Oz or NZ, Moahunter? Not that that's particularly important.

Because I am living here, and have become a Canadian citizen, I think it would be fine if I ran for politics (not that I ever would). I think it would be inappropriate for me to go downunder and run for politics though now (at least not without living there for a while), its not where I live or who I consider myself to be anymore.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by nosheep

What I'm really sick of is the lies from Harper like not running a defecit, or taxing income trusts, a man is only as good as his word.

Times change nosheep, even if Ignatieff wins and becomes PM, I won't hold it against him if he backs down from some of his more stupid proposals that have no scientific basis (like the BC tanker ban). Politicians need to be able to change. Harper could have refused to do stimulus as demanded by the opposition when the global recession hit, but where would that leave us? Or what if he had not stopped income trusts, would you be fine with companies like TELUS paying no corporate income tax (they were proposing to convert)? The deficit would be even bigger then as a huge % of TELUS corporate profits would be in a tax deferral in RRSP's and other pension plans.

[sundance]

Originally Posted by grish

Ignatieff's wife nationality? How is that relevant? EXACTLY.

One would think if somebody wants to represent Canada his wife would at least be a citizen. Even Mila Mulroney became a citizen. Of course Iggy pop voted for Labor in the UK, illegally I might add, then his spokeman lied about it.

"Why did I vote Labour? I wanted the rascals out," Ignatieff said in Identity and Politics: A Discussion with Michael Ignatieff and Sean Neeson. Now as a member of the commonwealth he is legally allowed to vote in UK elections.

[nosheep]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Times change nosheep, even if Ignatieff wins and becomes PM, I won't hold it against him if he backs down from some of his more stupid proposals that have no scientific basis (like the BC tanker ban). Politicians need to be able to change. Harper could have refused to do stimulus when the global recession hit, but where would that leave us? Or what if he had not stopped income trusts, would you be fine with companies like TELUS paying no corporate income tax (they were proposing to convert)? The deficit would be even bigger then.

Let's not kid anyone here Harper did the stimulous to protect his job,

For some top notch economist he didn't stick to his principles or values did he, It didn't seem he had any understanding as the worlds banks were going into default and sub prime mess. He was clueless.

His leadership is a joke, and I will tell you now...he created this artificial economy built of large debt, and when that disapears Canada's going to be worste off , becuase we have a debt to pay off. He didn't teach those who made bad mistakes or for people to be more fiscally concience he just perpetrated it. It's all smoke and mirrors.

[etownboarder]

Originally Posted by sundance

Conservatives less corrupt, oh yes I forgot, the conservatives spent billions helping their cronies for the sponsorship scandal.

Also, the sponsorship scandal wasn't "billions," it was $300-400M. Big difference.

[Gemini]

I really like Ignatieff

I'd rather have a root canal.

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Originally Posted by sundance

Conservatives less corrupt, oh yes I forgot, the conservatives spent billions helping their cronies for the sponsorship scandal. They also spent billions on the gun registry. Oh yes didn't Chretien profit by a tune of 1.4 million for the sale of the hotel associated with the golf course?

That isn't even factoring in "equalization" payments, so sure you can vote for a party that takes your money and gives it to Quebec, I personally don't want that.

Where the hell did you get the idea that the sponsorship scandal involved billions of dollars? Check your facts before posting next time. It was nowhere near a billion dollars. In contrast, $1 billion was wasted on the G20, which to me is a bigger scandal when you take into account the violation of human rights as well as the financial waste.

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Originally Posted by etownboarder

Also, the sponsorship scandal wasn't "billions," it was $300-400M. Big difference.

The figure I saw was $100 million of questionable spending, of which only a small fraction went to the Liberal party.

[jmart81]

Originally Posted by nosheep

What bugs me is Iggy's attendance record of like 38%, Harpers not much better at 58%

Layton tho hes at 95% he obviously cares more than anyone else. I like his work ethic and his commitment to this country....

Just to be a bit far to Harper, or any PM that matter, they have to be out of Ottawa or doing other duties. Opposition members like Iggy don't have as many duties or excuses.

[nosheep]

Originally Posted by jmart81

Just to be a bit far to Harper, or any PM that matter, they have to be out of Ottawa or doing other duties. Opposition members like Iggy don't have as many duties or excuses.

Let's hear about them duties.... I want to know. Cause I think he's doing jack squate!

[GreenSPACE]

Unfortunately, what you hear in the media, and what you get from many of the negative ads from various parties, is that this is a popularity contest amongst the leader, not something on the substantiveness of the parties policies or their ability to govern. In discussions at least, it seems whether or not the leader is charismatic enough is all-important. I was at the Liberal rally on Saturday and even people there would agree that Iggy's not the easiest "sell" for the party, but he truly believes in the platform of the party and Liberal values. Fortunately for me in Edmonton-Centre, we have a very strong Liberal candidate in Mary MacDonald.

[glasshead]

^agreed. Had a great chat with Anne McLellan on the weekend about the Liberal platform - good to see Anne is out knocking on doors and campaigning for Mary.

[GreenSPACE]

^Mary is the only Liberal in Alberta that has a chance of winning. She has been door knocking for over a year and a half. If you're in Edmonton Centre, I would give her serious consideration - electmary.ca

[whynow99]

Lester Pearson's granddaughter wrote a fabulous letter that all should read and pass along!

[COLOR=#ff0000]http://www.pearsonspost.com/wp/?page_id=107[/COLOR]

[sundance]

[QUOTE=PrairieBoyinExile;364839]

Originally Posted by sundance

...
Where the hell did you get the idea that the sponsorship scandal involved billions of dollars? Check your facts before posting next time. It was nowhere near a billion dollars. In contrast, $1 billion was wasted on the G20, which to me is a bigger scandal when you take into account the violation of human rights as well as the financial waste.

Umm does the scale matter? If you steal $1 isn't it theft? You ask me to vote for a party that has lied to me, stole my taxes to give to their friends. You ask me to keep the current system rather than change it. No we must change the system, Jack Layton himself said the system is broken and needs to be fixed, but his idea of fixing is to raise taxes and make yet more government programs which private sector employees have to pay for.

Violation of human rights? How about the violation of victims rights, we have criminals set free daily by a lax parole system, but our justice system which is still largely shaped by Liberal policies didn't even allow the victim to speak at the court case until very recently.

I want an elected Senate with fixed number of Senators from each province, I want less taxes, I want less government, the Liberals and Iggy certainly do not represent ANY of my desires.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by whynow99

Lester Pearson's granddaughter

Who cares what this nobody thinks.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by sundance

I want an elected Senate with fixed number of Senators from each province, I want less taxes, I want less government, the Liberals and Iggy certainly do not represent ANY of my desires.

Isn't the liberal policy that the Senate shouldn't be elected, just a body for sensible oversight? I have often wondered if they are going to change that policy if they stay in opposition long enough and realize they will be saddled with a conservative majority senate for the next 10 years or so even if they win a place as government at some point.

My preference is for a system like New Zealand or Denmark, where they just scrapped the Senate. Nobody missed it, select committes can do the final review before legislation gets assent.

[Marcel Petrin]

The problem with making changes to the Senate is that pretty well any change will require constitutional amendments. And we all know how that went the last couple times we tried. Abolishing it sounds simple, but it's absolutely not. New Zealand and Denmark don't have a province with 1/4 of their national population refusing to sign the constitution without blackmailing the rest of the country.

Otherwise, platitudes like "less government" are too simplistic. Is continuing the failed war on drugs, bringing in mandatory minimum sentences, and spending untold billions on new and expanded prisons "less government"? I don't see how it is.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by AAAAE

Is that weird?

I feel like I had a very negative impression of him, but overall now am impressed.

He can hold Harper to account

Comes off as very intelligent

Has a global perspective, which is actually important - not a liability

Should I be checked into a mental ward? What do you think.

I like Iggy too. I always have.

[GreenSPACE]

Live Facebook Town Hall on now (sorry for the late post) - http://www.facebook.com/MichaelIgnat...69074129812296

[soycd]

Iggy's plan to create a coalition (or whatever he wants to call it)and bring down a Conservative government is arrogant.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said it best:

"The notion that Mr. Ignatieff may choose to not recognize the democratic result of the election and may try to seize power with the support of the other parties, including a party dedicated to the breakup of Canada, is offensive to me and, I believe, to most fair-minded Canadians," said Wall. "Voters should choose the government, not separatist MPs.

"This election" he added, "was caused by a confidence vote over 'contempt for Parliament,' (and) I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than the spectre of a party leader refusing to recognize the democratic outcome of the election."

Source -> Sun Editorial

[grish]

He was responding to a question in as clear and straighforward manner as he could. those are the rules.

Harper, if wins a minority, would then set out to govern. He gets to build his government and try to create legislation that is in the best interests of all canadians. He would present a confidence-type motion such as the budget. Should that budget not reflect the wishes of the majority of canadians, it would be defeated. In that case, a prudent thing to do for the GG is to turn to another party in the house to form a government. That aprty would create a budget or some other confidence-type vote. If that vote passes, we have a working minority government. If it doesn't, we then go to elections.

I cannot believe people fall for this idiotic spin that the Liberals are trying to sneak in and that the notion of cooperation in the house is somehow dangerous. It isn't. It is actually how healthy democracies work.

Basic premise here is this: Harper works with others–he gets to be the PM. Harper refuses to work with others–Ignatieff gets to try to be the PM. Ignatieff doesn't do a good enough job, theoretically at least Layton gets to try to be the PM. Then we go to elections.

[Titanium48]

^ Exactly. Unless Ignatieff attempts to defeat a conservative minority on it's first throne speech, regardless of it's content, (and he's made no suggestions to that effect), there is nothing undemocratic going on.

[Marcel Petrin]

I fail to see how if Harper is unable to get the cooperation of a majority of the House of Commons to support his budget and then Ignatieff is given the chance to and succeeds, how he's not "recognizing the democratic result of the election." I mean, that's just twisted logic from where I stand.

If the results are anywhere in the same range as they were in the 2006 and 2008 elections, that means that somewhere around 62.5-63.5% of Canadians who did actually vote did NOT vote for Harper and the Conservatives. Acting like he has an unfettered mandate to govern as he sees fit without compromise sounds like he's not "recognizing the democratic result of the election" far more than anyone else.

And the Liberals governing with the occasional support of the NDP, BQ, or even the Conservatives is NOT a coalition. A coalition is what is going on in the UK, when there is a negotiated agreement between parties that clearly spells out policies, splits up ministries, and potentially has a PM and Deputy PM from different parties. Ignatieff is not proposing such an arrangement.

That said, it would be unprecedented in Canada's history and I wouldn't see it being a lasting arrangement.

[grish]

Harper is counting on the gullability of some, stupidity of others, and ideology of the rest on pushing this undemocratic line. But he says it with such conviction, that people are actually convinced. Unreal.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Titanium48

^ Exactly. Unless Ignatieff attempts to defeat a conservative minority on it's first throne speech, regardless of it's content, (and he's made no suggestions to that effect), there is nothing undemocratic going on.

Maybe not, but it would be incredibly stupid IMO for the Liberal party, close to long term suicide I would suggest. The idea that the NDP, Bloc and Liberals are going to be able to work together is a joke. We all know the first thing Bloc is going to do as part of the agreement, is ask for a huge payment to Quebec. Then a few months later, they'll ask for some more. And if not given, they'll go back to the Conservatives and ask from them... This is exactly the disruption that the Bloc wants on their goal to soverignty.

I can understand the concept of two left parties in coalition (NDP and Liberals) if combined their vote were higher than the Conservatives. But if it isn't, I think it would be very strange for them to let the Bloc be the tail that wags the dog.

[GreenSPACE]

Originally Posted by Titanium48

^ Exactly. Unless Ignatieff attempts to defeat a conservative minority on it's first throne speech, regardless of it's content, (and he's made no suggestions to that effect), there is nothing undemocratic going on.

I don't think Ignatieff has plans to do this unless given a clear minority/majority in a coalition with the NDP. The fact that Harper is now going around saying he rather have another election than respect this parliamentary coalition is so hypocritical. Basically saying it's his way or no way.

[PJC]

^The way the polls are going, this may be a more appropriate question for Jack Layton.

[moahunter]

Interesting thread to look back on now. The Toronto Star (Liberal rag) has an interesting article which outlines what Liberal party members thought of Ignatieff's performance, and in particular, his arrogance in not preparing properly for the debate:

The home run was what political junkies call the “pivot.” You get lobbed the big question and you pull off a pivot, smashing it right back in your opponent’s face and taking the game. Or you flop around like a dead fish.

“Why do you have the worst attendance record in the House of Commons?” Layton challenged Michael Ignatieff, adding the Liberal leader missed 70 per cent of the votes. Layton threw in that Canadians who don’t show up for work don’t expect to get promoted.

Oddly, Ignatieff was smiling as he launched into his answer. He began talking about his “respect for the institution of Parliament” before his voice rose to angry indignation: “So don’t give me lessons on respect for democracy.”

Veteran Toronto MP Jim Karygiannis groaned along with Liberals across the country. Apparently, Ignatieff didn’t understand the pivot. Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt), who easily spends more time in his riding than in Parliament, was practically screaming answers at the TV screen: “Look, you’re a professional pol, Jack. You stay in Ottawa. I’m out working hard and talking to real Canadians, listening to them and working with them. That’s ... what I’m doing.”

Extensive Star interviews with campaign insiders and politicians show a large slice of the loss must be attributed to the arrogance of the Liberal leader. In the end, a central Conservative criticism against Ignatieff — that he was arrogant — turned out to be true. It wasn’t the demeanour of a man deliberately trying to be haughty. Rather, as a Liberal communications expert noted: “Any political party is like a Masonic Lodge. You’ve got to know the secret handshake — and he didn’t know what he didn’t know.”

...

But a disgruntled Liberal veteran said of Ignatieff: “He didn’t want to do the debate prep. He said he’d been a championship debater at university and had spent his life as a TV journalist.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/p...d-the-liberals

[Jeff]

^ yabut... the real comeback to that bullshyte Layton comment on attendance would have simply added a false credence to it's significance. By historical tradition, the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader do not, typically, vote on items brought forward by back-benchers... obviously intended to offer a token-nod to the presumptive free-vote attachment associated with a non-government introduced bill. So, of course, Layton falsely "shines" with his 90%+ number, while Harper and Ignatieff's attendance numbers fall far back. Try to bring that little ditty forward and explain it in a most restrictive few seconds response to a Layton/NDP attack ad. Bullshyte Layton comment/attack ad... one the NDP knew, full well, had no real legitimacy.