Bob Rae to end bid for Liberal leadership: CTV

[guyser]

They will loose more seats before they gain imo.

They could just try tightening them couldn't they? Maybe glue will help.

[punked]

Ontario. The erosion started a few elections ago and in every election they lost a few more.

Maritimes...they tend to swing...

The Maritimes is staying the way it is can you honestly name a seat you think the Cons can be competitive in. The libs will Gain a little in Quebec offsetting any other loses. I think we are at the bottom of the barrel personally. This is as high as the Cons got and as low as the Libs go.

[Keepitsimple]

The Liberal have always attracted people who have served outside the country. Pearson and King come to mind. Think they did our country well but then I'm sure partisan Tories think they were terrible prime ministers.

Ignatieff has as many years in the House of Commons as Harper did when he became leader. However, you consider that next to no experience.

Seems to me that Ignatieff had no problem paying off his debt under the new rules. He will likely be able to reform the financing of the Liberals now that he is in office.

I expect that finance reform is among the things that top the list with the Liberals and they will move quickly on it.

The only reason Harper moved on election financing was because his party was hoping to cripple the Liberals before anyone other than Dion was in power. It was just another example of his zero sum, kill all who oppose politics. It is cynical because if he really wanted to save $30 million, he would have done so with a smaller cabinet. He has gone from 26 ministers to 37. Yeesh.

The Tories

C'mon Dobbin....Harper had plenty of experience through Reform and Alliance and he's been hans-on involved in Canadian politics for ages. But Dobbin....you get me wrong. I have Conservative leanings but am close to the center. Canada needs two vibrant National parties. The Liberals have had opportunities since Chretien to truly reach out to the grass roots and attract new talent.....but also to move beyond being an Ontario and cities party. The Ignatieff coronation has robbed the party of true revitalization from the grass roots and from coast to coast - especially the West. Sure - they'll put up a good facade but really, nothing much has changed. Maybe eliminating the $1.95 would have been a good thing....it would have forced the Party to start back to a bottom-up approach.

[Jobu]

If you live in Alberta, are you in touch with Ontario? Quebec? Newfoundland and Labrador?

Certainly a lot more than if you're living in the US or across the pond.

[Jobu]

That's what I was getting at though. Its not like living here can make you in touch with the entire country.

Don't you think it's important that a Prime Minister prefer to live in our country over others?

I'm shocked that the best the Greens can do are an American and that the Liberals can only find leaders from France and/or elsewhere.

It's a PR problem more than anything, though it's not nearly as bad as it would be down south.

[Smallc]

Certainly a lot more than if you're living in the US or across the pond.

I'm not really sure about that given the misconception that regions have about each other. Maybe an 'outsider' is the best things?

[Jobu]

I'm not really sure about that given the misconception that regions have about each other. Maybe an 'outsider' is the best things?

I have no patience for on-the-job-training when it comes to PM.

[punked]

I have no patience for on-the-job-training when it comes to PM.

What on the Job training, I am sure the Maratimes would prefer someone who was from Maine then someone from Alberta, or Yukon someone from Alaska as to someone from Nova Scotia. These regions have more in common then the ones with in Canada. Come on dont be silly we are not that different.

Ohhh this is the Obama arguement we all know how well that worked for McCain right(again my question mark does not work right now.)

Edited December 9, 2008 by punked

[jdobbin]

Has anyone ever been elected leader of a country that he has lived in for less than 10% of his adult life?

How do you see it being a problem?

He has been back in Canada since 2005 and been an MP as long as Harper was when he became leader.

I certainly thought Ignatieff's lack of federal experience and some policies were an issue in 2006 when he ran for the leadership. However, he has been in Canada for a while now. I think it is safe to say that if you dismiss people for working abroad, serving abroad (such as with Foreign Affairs and the military) or being born abroad and coming to Canada as an adult, you probably limit excellent future leaders.

I don't mind Ignatieff, at least what he stands for, but how "in touch" can a guy like this be?

Have you really looked into what he is about to say for sure?

I can't imagine this will play very well in an election.

Hard to say what will happen in January, don't you think? If Ignatieff is open to a approve a well thought out budget, do you think Harper is willing to offer one without games?

[jdobbin]

I have no patience for on-the-job-training when it comes to PM.

So you have to be a PM to be a PM?

[jdobbin]

Don't you think it's important that a Prime Minister prefer to live in our country over others?

So you would ensure that people could not run for office unless born in Canada? That would certainly eliminate a few foreign born Tories now, wouldn't it?

Edited December 9, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

C'mon Dobbin....Harper had plenty of experience through Reform and Alliance and he's been hans-on involved in Canadian politics for ages. But Dobbin....you get me wrong. I have Conservative leanings but am close to the center. Canada needs two vibrant National parties. The Liberals have had opportunities since Chretien to truly reach out to the grass roots and attract new talent.....but also to move beyond being an Ontario and cities party. The Ignatieff coronation has robbed the party of true revitalization from the grass roots and from coast to coast - especially the West. Sure - they'll put up a good facade but really, nothing much has changed.

I think I said my preference was to have a leadership convention but I also said that Harper was going to try and trigger or call an election before the Liberals had a leader in place. A lot of people told me that it was not going to happen but the economic statement was an attempt to hamstring the Opposition while benefiting the Tories for the election they planned before May.

The fact that the Liberals had a lameduck and unpopular leader was something that had to be addressed before Harper pulled the plug. They could have appointed an interim leader or had a phone in ballot in January but I think that most Liberals are expecting the worst from Harper and needed to be ready.

As for reaching out to new people, I think we have seen a number of new people come into the party at the federal level as MPs.

In terms of grassroots, the party needs to revitalize its membership and that would have happened with a leadership convention but we are in a permanent election readiness situation, it seems, and it doesn't leave the time or money needed to go all out.

Maybe eliminating the $1.95 would have been a good thing....it would have forced the Party to start back to a bottom-up approach.

The objective on the part of Harper was to make sure he hurt the Opposition badly before any could reform their finances. It was a cynical and stupid ploy given he has a minority.

[blueblood]

I think I said my preference was to have a leadership convention but I also said that Harper was going to try and trigger or call an election before the Liberals had a leader in place. A lot of people told me that it was not going to happen but the economic statement was an attempt to hamstring the Opposition while benefiting the Tories for the election they planned before May.

The fact that the Liberals had a lameduck and unpopular leader was something that had to be addressed before Harper pulled the plug. They could have appointed an interim leader or had a phone in ballot in January but I think that most Liberals are expecting the worst from Harper and needed to be ready.

As for reaching out to new people, I think we have seen a number of new people come into the party at the federal level as MPs.

In terms of grassroots, the party needs to revitalize its membership and that would have happened with a leadership convention but we are in a permanent election readiness situation, it seems, and it doesn't leave the time or money needed to go all out.

The objective on the part of Harper was to make sure he hurt the Opposition badly before any could reform their finances. It was a cynical and stupid ploy given he has a minority.

Watch the national tonight. Harper will be on. He has already started his PR war. He's talking out of his ass from what I've read on CBC.ca about working with the opposition. Look for a poison pill in the budget. Harper has his angle and is setting up his "concillatory" image. It'll probably make you sick, and I'll have a good chuckle. It is good strategy however. He's going to try and paint Ignatieff as someone who won't want to work with the gov't.

[jdobbin]

Watch the national tonight. Harper will be on. He has already started his PR war. He's talking out of his ass from what I've read on CBC.ca about working with the opposition. Look for a poison pill in the budget. Harper has his angle and is setting up his "concillatory" image. It'll probably make you sick, and I'll have a good chuckle. It is good strategy however. He's going to try and paint Ignatieff as someone who won't want to work with the gov't.

And Ignatieff will respond in kind that he will vote for a budget that works to stimulate the economy. We'll see if Harper wants to reintroduce all the measures he previously dropped from the economic statement. If he doesn't include them, will you consider him a coward?

[blueblood]

And Ignatieff will respond in kind that he will vote for a budget that works to stimulate the economy. We'll see if Harper wants to reintroduce all the measures he previously dropped from the economic statement. If he doesn't include them, will you consider him a coward?

harper and ignatieff are responding with fairly vague answers. harper has already said that he canned the prev. measures, so that leaves them off the table. I wonder what kind of poison pill Harper will put in this time...

[jdobbin]

harper and ignatieff are responding with fairly vague answers. harper has already said that he canned the prev. measures, so that leaves them off the table. I wonder what kind of poison pill Harper will put in this time...

If he wants an election, he will put them back in.

Maybe he can put in abortion or death penalty stuff in an economic statement.

[Mr.Canada]

Where

Honestly where do you think the Liberals are going to lose seats

Ontario. The Tories will win seats within the 416 next time around. As well, NL has learned it's lesson and St. John's will go back to the Tories, at the minimum in the Atlantic.

Expect the NDP to lose that Alberta seat as well as a couple around Vancouver.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more in Quebec as well. THe soft federal vote there is starting to swing to Harper.

If you live in Alberta, are you in touch with Ontario? Quebec? Newfoundland and Labrador?

Ignatieff has lived in Canada for 3 of that last 35 years of his life. This is a valid point and should be discussed.

I seriously doubt you were alive at the time...given he did not replace a Canadain Flag....

On December 21, 1964, when the issue of the national flag was finally settled, Diefenbaker wrote sadly:

The Progressive Conservative party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, stood alone in the House of Commons against the removal of the Union Jack from Canada's national flag. ... We fought for what we believed was right. We have lost.

source: John G. Diefenbaker, One Canada (Toronto: Macmillan, 1977), p. 225.

I'm not sure what game you're playing Dancer but you well know that Pearson is the PM that pushed so hard and got our current flag introduced. I'm sure you're playing some semantics game as usual.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[Poli-Sci Student]

On December 21, 1964, when the issue of the national flag was finally settled, Diefenbaker wrote sadly:

The Progressive Conservative party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, stood alone in the House of Commons against the removal of the Union Jack from Canada's national flag. ... We fought for what we believed was right. We have lost.

source: John G. Diefenbaker, One Canada (Toronto: Macmillan, 1977), p. 225.

I'm not sure what game you're playing Dancer but you well know that Pearson is the PM that pushed so hard and got our current flag introduced. I'm sure you're playing some semantics game as usual.

Do you actually remember that? It felt like in one of your posts mentioning this that you were there. I'm not making any grand points here, just curious.

[jdobbin]

I'm not sure what game you're playing Dancer but you well know that Pearson is the PM that pushed so hard and got our current flag introduced. I'm sure you're playing some semantics game as usual.

So you hate the Canadian flag even now?

[M.Dancer]

Ontario. The Tories will win seats within the 416 next time around. As well, NL has learned it's

On December 21, 1964, when the issue of the national flag was finally settled, Diefenbaker wrote sadly:

The Progressive Conservative party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, stood alone in the House of Commons against the removal of the Union Jack from Canada's national flag. ... We fought for what we believed was right. We have lost.

source: John G. Diefenbaker, One Canada (Toronto: Macmillan, 1977), p. 225.

I'm not sure what game you're playing Dancer but you well know that Pearson is the PM that pushed so hard and got our current flag introduced. I'm sure you're playing some semantics game as usual.

Allow me to continue from the site (and not the book you are pretending to have read....)

There was a sense of tragedy in Diefenbaker's stand. In his election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, he had engendered a tremendous feeling of national pride among Canadians. But now the Canadianism which he espoused had blossomed beyond his vision and he was left in its wake as the champion of the old Canadian imperialism.

In the end, Diefenbaker argued that he had merely wished to honour Canada's history and that Canada "should be symbolized by a flag containing both the Union Jack and the fleur-de-lis. ... Neither," he said, "was a sign of subservience to a colonial past. There was no colonialism in honouring our history."15 However, a distinction has to be made between honouring the historical British connection, and feeding the imperial mindset. If the Union Flag had, in fact, merely served to symbolize an important part of our history, it might have proved acceptable, as indeed it has continued to do when it is flown as a separate flag to indicate Canada's links with the Commonwealth and its allegiance to the Crown. However, when the Union Flag was placed upon the national flag, it had come to epitomize the imperial attitude which honoured Britain first and Canada second.

http://www.fraser.cc/FlagsCan/Nation/CanFlag.html#n14

You would be more tolerable if you weren't a poser phoney.

Edited December 10, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Mr.Canada]

Do you actually remember that? It felt like in one of your posts mentioning this that you were there. I'm not making any grand points here, just curious.

I'm 33 years old, I wasn't even born yet. It's a dislike that has been passed down from my parents. I come from a conservative family.

So you hate the Canadian flag even now?

Ok, hate is a strong word. I don't hate it per se but I do dislike it. It is the Liberal Logo, this is where they get that Natural Governing Party bunk from imo. I prefer to have the union jack as part of our national flag. The old flag was much more inclusive of all our parts of Canada imo.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[Mr.Canada]

Allow me to continue from the site (and not the book you are pretending to have read....)

http://www.fraser.cc/FlagsCan/Nation/CanFlag.html#n14

You would be more tolerable if you weren't a poser phoney.

I don't understand what your point is Dancer. Are you denying that Pearson brought in the current Canadian flag?

I seriously doubt you were alive at the time...given he did not replace a Canadain Flag....

Edited December 10, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[M.Dancer]

I don't understand what your point is Dancer. Are you denying that Pearson brought in the current Canadian flag?

I have two points, the first should be self evident, you don't know what you are talking about (again). Like the assumption you make that the Liberal Logo proceeded the Flag....(think about that...)

I hated Pearson because he replaced our true Canadian flag with that Liberal rag, it looks just like the Liberal logo. King was good, back when a Liberal was a liberal and not a socialist.

Secondly, the Red Ensign wasn't a Canadian flag, so yes Pearson headed the movement to give us our own flag, but he did not replace the Canadian flag as we did not have one.

Edited December 10, 2008 by M.Dancer

[noahbody]

The objective on the part of Harper was to make sure he hurt the Opposition badly before any could reform their finances.

Man, if they can't figure out how to run a simple fundraising campaign with such a strong appeal and the amount of free publicity the media has given them, how long will it take them to come up with a plan for the economy?

[Smallc]

Fund raising shouldn't be much of a problem for the Liberal party in a very short time.