Progressive Tory

These videos were taken at a young Liberals Convention held in Vancouver. Bear in mind that they are amateur so the quality is not the best. In them you will get to hear his views on a variety of subjects. For Harper supporters it may help to know some of the things you can expect to hear in the next election campaign. Iggy supporters may have their loyalty confirmed or questioned. It is what it is. I don't agree with everything he has to say but was impressed with his honesty. On a personal note, I may now realize why I was so drawn to him from the beginning. He reminds me of my dad. Not just physically, though my father was also tall and slim with bushy eyebrows; but the quiet intellect. When he speaks of ‘standing with someone...if not him then someone’; growing up my dad always said “if you don’t stand up for something then you might as well sit down.” A little surreal, but not the point. So without further adieu, I present Michael Ignatieff: On Human Rights

WE...you and I...and everyone else on this board and in this country have the power to not allow that to happen. Harper united the Right, but also united the Left. He removed the competition for all those leaning right of centre. Now all those Left of centre may have to unite, albeit temporarily, to break down the monopoly. By using OUR money, a mere $1.95 from our staggering tax burden, to ensure that any political Party with enough support can stand for US, is an investment. The Right may be united but that doesn't mean that another Right Wing Party can't move up the ranks. There is already rumbling that the Reform may rise from ashes, since their social conservative agenda has had to take a back seat. Some may call them right-wing nutjobs, but their MPs were not elected despite their views, but because of them. How can they represent their constituents, if they're not even allowed to express those views because Harper needs to convince Canadians that they DON'T HAVE THEM. That's Democracy? My alluding to revolution was supposed to be tongue in cheek. As a 'proletariat' in a socialist regime, I would have no choice. Maybe instead of tax breaks for political contributions, which give the wealthy more voice, we should eliminate them and instead make the subsidy $ 5.00 per vote. That way all voters are on the same level. BTW: When I volunteered for Flora MacDonald, we did all kinds of things too...car washes, tag sales. Nothing new there and still not enough to run a multi-million dollar campaign.

You people? What people? I'm only now a Liberal by default, and am throwing my energies into supporting Michael Ignatieff because he best represents my Red Tory views. NDP too far left...CP too far right. I'm hardly a 'you people'. For most people political contributions are not on their lists of priorities. I made my first ever political contribution this year. $ 100.00 to the Liberals (BTW money is coming in quite steadily for them now, or so I'm told by the local rep.) Still want the 1.95 in place because I know that most people can't do that. I won on a scratch ticket and was feeling particularly 'Iggy' that day.

I didn't know Joe Clark was not respected by the West. I thought he was OK. I was a diehard Tory then and our local PC was Flora MacDonald, and to this day her record still stands. She was incredible. I also voted for Kim Campbell. I wish she could have stuck around a bit longer. As far as Charest goes, I never paid money for memberships or ever donated to the Party. I was raising three kids then and had other priorities. I volunteered my time though. Charest would have been an OK leader.

Harper's 2004 Coalition was formed at the throne speech - planned beforehand. We had JUST HAD AN ELECTION. At least this Coalition waited until Parliament sat.

So Conrad Black was grassroots? I have a list of the Reform Party's contributors back in the day of garage sales and bake sales. Pretty impressive lot. 20,000.00 from Hollinger in 1993 alone. Connie must really like brownies.

Clearly you've never been poor. Good for you. $ 10.00 a month can make a big difference to many families in this country. I'm thrilled that my vote gives my selected party 1.95 Absolutely thrilled. Finally a government expenditure that makes sense. It means I'm not just a member of the proletariat and I can use my $ 10.00 a month for bread. Now I can't get that song out of my head... "You say you want a revolution..."

We'll have to agree to disagree. When news of this Coalition hit the public, it was not only the West wondering what was going on. Then we were hit with the 'Separatist' thing and still wondered what was going on. The Dion factor was a big issue then across the country. So was the fear that somehow the Opposition had just decided to tear the country apart. Then the dust settled and when it became clear that it was an entirely legal thing to do, some changed their minds, while others still wondered if it was ethical. Then Harper's Coaltion letter surfaced and his taped speech, and frankly he looked like an idiot. However, right across the country people are still only lukewarm to a Coaltion, though it's 63% in favour in Quebec and 65% against in Alberta. (49% against nationwide) It's not an Alberta/Quebec issue but was made one when the first 'Separatist' was screamed out by the Prime Minister.

I'm sorry but I don't agree. This would mean that ONLY THE WEALTHY HAVE REPRESENTATION AND ONLY THE WEALTHY GET TO TELL US WHAT PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO RUN. This is so not a democracy. We might as well cut to the chase and let Esso govern Canada...or the Powers Corporation. Hell, why have elections at all. Public funding means grassroots select parties.

OK. So it was just Stephane Dion that was the problem. My mistake. But wait. He's NOT a separatist. In fact, he wrote the Clarity Act. This would have been so much better for Harper just to say it was Stephane Dion. Why lie? "This government will stand against the separatist coalition!' screamed Harper during Question Period. "They must walk away from this deal with Jacques Parizeau and the separatists! The word 'separatists' came out of the mouths of every Tory MP who rose to speak and the term continued outside of the House, where the tense atmosphere continued. So what changed from 2004 when Harper's Coalition included the Bloc? http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_29767.aspx Why Lie? "They want to take power without an election" Why Lie? "There were no Canadian flags during the Coalition signing." http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...n-photo-op.aspx And while we're on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj1KM5ZaXQA...feature=related http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/...-broadbent.html My whole point is hypocrisy and when he tells that first lie, how can we trust him on anything? In fact, why launch the whole ugly separatist and socialist campaign at all? Why not just say; this is not the time?

With the current and projected job losses, a great many Canadians will have NO money in their pockets. We need infastructure spending to create jobs.

They won't get off the hook so quickly. The Conservatives inherited a 13 billion dollar surplus, and I hate to break it to you folks, but we were in a deficite BEFORE news of the economic crisis. We're just heading for a bigger deficit. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/549456

I'm just curious, but why did this government wait so long to start spending the infastructure money already set aside? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b3-dad6366f837e

Sorry about that. I didn't realize there was already a thread started for this topic. You can delete mine. Just wanted to add my 2 cents (or 1.95) I don't know if this has been discussed before in a separate thread, but I'm finding a lot of criticism over the per vote subsidy (which is 1.95 per vote, not 1.75). This is not party 'welfare', as some people suggest, but part of Bill C-24; an act that made the election process more democratic. Prior to this, corporations, unions and wealthy Canadians (in fact, you didn't even have to be Canadian), had too much power over elected officials; so Jean Chretien made sweeping changes that would bring the election process to the grassroots, by allowing them to help fund their party. It was done democratically; the more votes you received, the more funding. In this way, voters who couldn't afford to contribute to political campaigns, did so with their vote. So: A little history 1. After growing concern over political fundraising and financing of parties and election campaigns, in 1974, the Canadian government introduced the Election Expenses Act, which set spending controls and demanded disclosure of where money was spent. It also introduced partial funding of campaigns with public money. 2. In June 2002, Jean Chrétien introduced a new ethics package that forced all ministers to disclose any political donations, including contributions for potential leadership campaigns. "In July 2002, Paul Martin came under fire after he said he could not reveal the names of people who donated to his leadership campaign." He later published the list. And in October 2002, "then Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper refused to release information on who donated to his leadership campaign. He later backtracked, and quietly posted a partial list on his party's website. But, he only posted 54 donors who gave more than $1,075 each, leaving out the names of 10 other large donors who refused to go public, and more than 9,000 people who gave less than $1,000 each." There were other infractions by different parties which you can read in the linked story. 3. 2003 Bill C-24, restricted contributions to Canadian citizens and permanent residents and enforced a limit on the amounts given. Recognizing that these limits would hamper campaign fundraising ability, the bill further increased public money put toward the political process. There was now a direct subsidy given to the party. And the money given was directly tied to votes. This was a good thing for Canadians, because it meant that we could now DIRECTLY help to fund our Party by casting our vote. Elected officials are therefore inspired to represent all citizens, because those small contributions can really add up.

I don't know if this has been discussed before in a separate thread, but I'm finding a lot of criticism over the per vote subsidy (which is 1.95 per vote, not 1.75). This is not party 'welfare', as some people suggest, but part of Bill C-24; an act that made the election process more democratic. Prior to this, corporations, unions and wealthy Canadians (in fact, you didn't even have to be Canadian), had too much power over elected officials; so Jean Chretien made sweeping changes that would bring the election process to the grassroots, by allowing them to help fund their party. It was done democratically; the more votes you received, the more funding. In this way, voters who couldn't afford to contribute to political campaigns, did so with their vote. So: A little history 1. After growing concern over political fundraising and financing of parties and election campaigns, in 1974, the Canadian government introduced the Election Expenses Act, which set spending controls and demanded disclosure of where money was spent. It also introduced partial funding of campaigns with public money. 2. In June 2002, Jean Chrétien introduced a new ethics package that forced all ministers to disclose any political donations, including contributions for potential leadership campaigns. "In July 2002, Paul Martin came under fire after he said he could not reveal the names of people who donated to his leadership campaign." He later published the list. And in October 2002, "then Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper refused to release information on who donated to his leadership campaign. He later backtracked, and quietly posted a partial list on his party's website. But, he only posted 54 donors who gave more than $1,075 each, leaving out the names of 10 other large donors who refused to go public, and more than 9,000 people who gave less than $1,000 each." There were other infractions by different parties which you can read in the linked story. 3. 2003 Bill C-24, restricted contributions to Canadian citizens and permanent residents and enforced a limit on the amounts given. Recognizing that these limits would hamper campaign fundraising ability, the bill further increased public money put toward the political process. There was now a direct subsidy given to the party. And the money given was directly tied to votes. This was a good thing for Canadians, because it meant that we could now DIRECTLY help to fund our Party by casting our vote. Elected officials are therefore inspired to represent all citizens, because those small contributions can really add up. 4. Harper lowered the contribution limits and has found other ways to fund campaigns. (But that's a subject for a different thread.)

I voted for Joe Clark (helped with Flora MacDonald's local campaign), Mulroney the first time but not the second (I was disgusted). Jean Charest? I'm from Ontario so don't think I ever had the chance to vote him.

No. The National Unity attack was launched by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives when they ran around with their 'separatist' and 'socialist' campaign to turn public support against the idea of a Coalition gov't. Instigating a renewed hatred for Quebec from the West, is a very poor way for any elected official to act, let alone a PRIME MINISTER. However, in 2004, Stephen Harper himself went to the Governor General with a signed Coalition between himself, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, to oust Paul Martin. This was at the throne speech. My question is just whether or not the West would have supported him being named PM then, grabbing power without an election. I already know how they felt in 2008.

There is a lot of confusion over what is middle class, but one definition is "Middle class persons commonly have a comfortable standard of living, significant economic security, considerable work autonomy and rely on their expertise to sustain themselves.” (Sociologist Dennis Gilbert) That's what I think of when I hear the term; though some have also divided it between upper and lower middle class. When Mr. Ignatieff speaks of medium class, I believe he's speaking of union workers, teachers, tradesmen, etc.; who make up roughly 1/3 of the adult population. They are the ones more apt to spend, but also the most vulnerable right now. If he had meant 'Middle Class' he would have said medium and upper; not lower and medium. A 2007 U.S. report stated that medium income was between $47,000 and $52, 000 per year.

The only 'Coalition Crap' was the recent Conservative attack on national unity. By now most people know it was hypocritical, since the recent coalition was only the NDP and Liberals, with Bloc support; while in 2004; Harper's Coalition included the Bloc ('separatists'). If he had been successful in 2004, and was able to overturn the results of the 2004 election at the throne speech, grabbing power not earned by the voters; would Alberta have been in support of it? I mean it was a deal with 'socialists' and 'separatists'. Egads! Just curious.

I get some with phone numbers 000-000-0000. How do you stop them?

Again, people are cherry picking. Ignatieff favours targeted tax cuts since this budget is supposed to be about providing economic stimulus. It can be assumed that the middle class already has some buying power, but by choice are saving their money 'just in case' (I know I am). Saving money is not an economic stimulus. However, the budget must help to ensure that the working class tax payers, can remain so; and one of the best ways to do this is to make sure the people who need to buy things, are able to buy those things they need. "Both the Liberals and the governing Conservatives say tax cuts will help stimulate Canada's struggling economy, but the Liberals, the biggest opposition party, want them used to protect the country's "least fortunate" and to boost their consumption, Ignatieff said. "There is a distinction between the kind of tax cuts that I favor, and the broader tax cuts that (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper and (Finance Minister Jim) Flaherty are talking about," Ignatieff told reporters in Vancouver." Ignatieff does support tax cuts for the Middle Class when we're back on track. However, this is an 'emergency' budget, and they are not an 'emergency'.

That's rather sad and extremely undemocratic. So do you think it's better for Canadians if one Party makes an election so dirty that the majority of voters stay home...just so they can win? Hmmm. However, that only works when there's no alternative. The Conservatives have proven that Canadians have no appetite for Karl Rove campaigning. If Ignatieff is smart, and we know that he is, he won't get sucked into the madness, showing a calmer gentler leader who's resume is mind boggling.

Interesting, because you recently told us that if you found out that your son was gay, you would make him become a priest. How would he ever get into the seminary?

With that said only a complete buffoon could have lost the election against the Republicans after Bush. Not necessarily. The Republicans still did quite well under the circumstances. What Obama brought to the table was some excitement, but perhaps more importantly, hope. The last Canadian election was almost hope LESS. The Conservatives ran a brilliant attack ad campaign, which should have assured an overwheming number of voters, that they were the best party. If Harper couldn't do that last election, he just can't get it done. 170,000 voters who cast their ballots for him in 2006, voted for someone else in 2008, despite the fact that Dion wasn't even a threat. Those are the numbers he needs to look at, especially if vote-splitting is off the table next election. However, my intent with this topic, was to bring forth a story of interest to those who follow federal politics. Reporters from several newspapers covered it, so I thought it might induce some discussion or debate. The story begins: "Newly minted Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has snagged a senior adviser right out from under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's nose." I hoped to hear whether or not you thought it might make difference...should it cause the Conservatives any concern or give the opposition an inside track? Why, why not? Mr. Chan can't discuss government secrets, but could help with strategies for the next election.

I do know that difference and highlighted "Of more particular interest to Liberals, he'll bring an insider's view of the Harper regime's style and operations." This is merely from a tactical perspective. Didn't know I ranted. As to comparing Obama and Ignatieff, I only meant that the Conservative campaign may have slaughtered DION but did nothing to raise their own status. They were down almost 170,000 votes and A RECORD NUMBER OF VOTERS STAYED HOME! That's nothing to brag about. However, Obama's intellect and steady 'this is who I am', avoiding the mud and the muck; inspired Americans who now felt that they had a viable option. Canadians now have a viable option. It will be a different campaign next election, and this could very well bring us back to the polls - the only thing that really works in a Democracy.