Please Mr. Ignatieff, do not appease Harper

Barts · January 19, 2009

Please Mr. Ignatieff,

do not appease Harper.

Mr. Ignattief, there is only one reason, worthy of dignity, for you to give Stephen Harper your vote of confidence and allow him to remain as Prime Minister. The reason is you’ve judged that, in these times threatening all Canadians, they will be safer led by Stephen Harper than by you. Is that your judgment?

All other reasons, however rationalized, will be partisan opportunism, borne of the same species as Stephen Harper’s 27 November 2008 Economic and Fiscal Statement. Such Harper-like reasons are contrived to advance personal ambition and political party fortunes with little regard for the cost exacted from the common needs, rights, and expectations of Canadians.

On 7 September 2008, Stephen Harper engineered a general election—in contempt of his own fixed election date law. Since then he has revealed himself more than merely uninterested and incapable of helping Canadians; he has revealed himself a present and future danger to us all. It’s not only that Stephen Harper deceives us, despises laws and rights, disdains his professed principles, dismisses the counsel of those more capable than he, detests constraints on his power, and denied the enormity of the dire economic threats endangering Canadians. No, not only that. In the week before Parliament was prorogued, Stephen Harper raised hate between Canadians—risked rending Canada apart—to keep his clutch on power. During a national emergency when the only safe course was to bring Canadians together, Stephen Harper wreaked an assault on Canadian unity and cooperation to service his own ambitions and satisfy his own enmities. Stephen Harper—the man, the politician, and his duplicity—is a greater danger to Canadians personally than the economic storm they are struggling to survive. Would you, Mr. Ignatieff, abandon Canadians to him?

Stephen Harper, in further deception, would have us believe that the coming confidence vote concerns his latest budget attempt—a budget crafted not to help Canadians, but to keep him in power by assuaging you and your Opposition colleagues. In truth, the only confidence matter at issue is Stephen Harper himself: a man whom you know to be incompetent and unprincipled, and whom Canadians can neither trust nor depend upon.

Tellingly, Stephen Harper appointed eighteen new Conservative Senators and is not preparing his caucus or party for an election. Stephen Harper is acting as someone who believes—perhaps as a consequence of his discussions with the Governor General—that the pending confidence vote can produce only one of two outcomes: either he will remain Prime Minister or the Governor General will ask you to form a government.

Do not appease Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, under the illusion however convincing or comfortable that you can help Canadians or rebuild the Liberal Party, even in the short-term, from the Opposition bench. From that weak and impoverished obscurity, you may be able to soften some of Stephen Harper’s worst inclinations, but Canadians nonetheless will suffer from them.

Three, perhaps four, years from now the worst of the present crisis will have abated. Fears will have calmed. Recovery will be reality. And, the hyper-amplified political ephemera of this time will be long forgotten. Then, the Prime Minister—either Stephen Harper or you—will ask the people for a mandate in order to continue improving the lives of Canadians. The history and nature of elections, campaigns, and voters argues that the Prime Minister of that day will be re elected, likely with a majority that will endure for a decade or more. The Opposition leader’s campaign claim at that time will be that he would have led Canadians better through the crisis. Even if true, it will have insignificant resonance. The claim will truly beat hollow if you are the Opposition leader: the man who, when it mattered most, declined the call and opportunity to lead, inspire, and give Canadians hope. They will rightly ask, “If you were unwilling to help us to your full measure in the worst of times, what reason can there be to let you lead us in better times?”

Animal Alliance / Environment Voters

a federal registered political party

kimmy · January 19, 2009

Animal Alliance / Environment Voters

a federal registered political party

:blink:

-k

DrGreenthumb · January 19, 2009

Please Mr. Ignatieff,

do not appease Harper.

Mr. Ignattief, there is only one reason, worthy of dignity, for you to give Stephen Harper your vote of confidence and allow him to remain as Prime Minister. The reason is you’ve judged that, in these times threatening all Canadians, they will be safer led by Stephen Harper than by you. Is that your judgment?

All other reasons, however rationalized, will be partisan opportunism, borne of the same species as Stephen Harper’s 27 November 2008 Economic and Fiscal Statement. Such Harper-like reasons are contrived to advance personal ambition and political party fortunes with little regard for the cost exacted from the common needs, rights, and expectations of Canadians.

On 7 September 2008, Stephen Harper engineered a general election—in contempt of his own fixed election date law. Since then he has revealed himself more than merely uninterested and incapable of helping Canadians; he has revealed himself a present and future danger to us all. It’s not only that Stephen Harper deceives us, despises laws and rights, disdains his professed principles, dismisses the counsel of those more capable than he, detests constraints on his power, and denied the enormity of the dire economic threats endangering Canadians. No, not only that. In the week before Parliament was prorogued, Stephen Harper raised hate between Canadians—risked rending Canada apart—to keep his clutch on power. During a national emergency when the only safe course was to bring Canadians together, Stephen Harper wreaked an assault on Canadian unity and cooperation to service his own ambitions and satisfy his own enmities. Stephen Harper—the man, the politician, and his duplicity—is a greater danger to Canadians personally than the economic storm they are struggling to survive. Would you, Mr. Ignatieff, abandon Canadians to him?

Stephen Harper, in further deception, would have us believe that the coming confidence vote concerns his latest budget attempt—a budget crafted not to help Canadians, but to keep him in power by assuaging you and your Opposition colleagues. In truth, the only confidence matter at issue is Stephen Harper himself: a man whom you know to be incompetent and unprincipled, and whom Canadians can neither trust nor depend upon.

Tellingly, Stephen Harper appointed eighteen new Conservative Senators and is not preparing his caucus or party for an election. Stephen Harper is acting as someone who believes—perhaps as a consequence of his discussions with the Governor General—that the pending confidence vote can produce only one of two outcomes: either he will remain Prime Minister or the Governor General will ask you to form a government.

Do not appease Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, under the illusion however convincing or comfortable that you can help Canadians or rebuild the Liberal Party, even in the short-term, from the Opposition bench. From that weak and impoverished obscurity, you may be able to soften some of Stephen Harper’s worst inclinations, but Canadians nonetheless will suffer from them.

Three, perhaps four, years from now the worst of the present crisis will have abated. Fears will have calmed. Recovery will be reality. And, the hyper-amplified political ephemera of this time will be long forgotten. Then, the Prime Minister—either Stephen Harper or you—will ask the people for a mandate in order to continue improving the lives of Canadians. The history and nature of elections, campaigns, and voters argues that the Prime Minister of that day will be re elected, likely with a majority that will endure for a decade or more. The Opposition leader’s campaign claim at that time will be that he would have led Canadians better through the crisis. Even if true, it will have insignificant resonance. The claim will truly beat hollow if you are the Opposition leader: the man who, when it mattered most, declined the call and opportunity to lead, inspire, and give Canadians hope. They will rightly ask, “If you were unwilling to help us to your full measure in the worst of times, what reason can there be to let you lead us in better times?”

Animal Alliance / Environment Voters

a federal registered political party

Bravo! Excellent, hope iggy reads that.

M.Dancer · January 19, 2009

Animal Alliance / Environment Voters

a federal registered political party

-k

Woof Woof, Hoowwwellll!!!!

Mr.Canada · January 19, 2009

Ignatieff supporting the upcoming budget isn't appeasing PM Harper. If the budget is reasonable, and by all indications it will be, why shouldn't Mr. Ignatieff support it? Canadians need relief and if the budget offers that it must be supported instead of going back to the drawing board and it'll be another 3-6 months before a new budget is drawn up. 3-6 months until the economic stimulus is injected is unacceptable by all political parties. To decide to vote against the budget just to try and topple the Harper government is pure partisanship and is counterproductive. This is what Layton is going to do, he's hinted, vote against Harper no matter what's in the budget.

Hey, if Harper is silly enough to not make a popular budget then he'll deserve to be voted down and I'd support Ignatieff in voting against him in that instance, do doubt about it. But to decide to vote against a budget before it's tabled and read in the House isn't helping Canada and Canadians.

Progressive Tory · January 19, 2009

Woof Woof, Hoowwwellll!!!!

Wow, wow and Wow! Did I mention WOW!

I had taped last night's concert 'We are One' and just watched it. I cried for almost the whole two hours. Then I read this and feel absolutely empowered. Mr. Obama's 'There are no red states, no blue states only United states' is in direct contrast to Harper's There are 'Separatists...there are Socialists and then there is ME!

There is not enough kleenex in the world. This small party has become the lion that roared, pun intended.

Argus · January 19, 2009

Wow, wow and Wow! Did I mention WOW!
I had taped last night's concert 'We are One' and just watched it. I cried for almost the whole two hours. Then I read this and feel absolutely empowered. Mr. Obama's 'There are no red states, no blue states only United states' is in direct contrast to Harper's There are 'Separatists...there are Socialists and then there is ME!

There is not enough kleenex in the world. This small party has become the lion that roared, pun intended.

The very last thing on earth any nation wants or needs or can even survive, is to have major political decisions made by someone who goes all teary eyed and emotional about every little thing. I would far rather be led by a cool, calculating guy like Harper than someone like you.

This "small party" is made up of sobbing emotional halfwits who want to do things because it "feels right" without giving the slightest pause or thought to consequences. That's why no one has ever heard of them - or ever will.

Barts · January 19, 2009

If the budget is reasonable, and by all indications it will be, why shouldn't Mr. Ignatieff support it?

The issue isn't the budget. It's Stephen Harper himself. It doesn't matter what's in the budget because Stephen Harper cannot be trusted to implement it, and cannot be trusted not to take down any party that supported it as soon as it serves his political ambition. Moreover whatever is in the budget it's there not to help Canadians, but to help keep his job. Harper has demonstrated that Canadians are of little concern to him. His concern is his own all-absorbing ambition and pure hatred for the other parties. Harper is a deeply flawed person.

If there are useful measures in the budget, an Ignatieff led coalition can implement them. He might as well as the only reason there's a plan for a stimulus budget is because Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe are demanding one. Moreover, if Ignatieff brings down Harper and heads a coalition government, we can count on, at least, 2 1/2 years more likely 3 years of electoral stability because of the coalition agreement.

If Harper remains in power you can expect an election as soon as he feels he might win. According to some pundits, before the end of 2009. Which means no electoral stability at a time when stability is needed most.

Harper had his chance, and showed he lacks both the competence and integrity to lead Canadians. How many chances do you think he deserves? How many times should the Opposition parties let Harper betray them and Canadians?

Argus · January 19, 2009

The issue isn't the budget. It's Stephen Harper himself. It doesn't matter what's in the budget because Stephen Harper cannot be trusted to implement it, and cannot be trusted not to take down any party that supported it as soon as it serves his political ambition.

Yes, child, that's called politics.

Moreover whatever is in the budget it's there not to help Canadians, but to help keep his job. Harper has demonstrated that Canadians are of little concern to him.

Drivel. Everyone knew there were going to be huge incentive programs in the budget. But they were waiting to see what the US did, especially what they did with regard to the auto industry. The big rebellion by the three blind mice wasn't about the budget anyway, it was about Harper threatening to take away their welfare money and make them earn their donations like the Tories do.

Moreover, if Ignatieff brings down Harper and heads a coalition government, we can count on, at least, 2 1/2 years more likely 3 years of electoral stability because of the coalition agreement.

You still believe in Santa Clause, don't you?

If Harper remains in power you can expect an election as soon as he feels he might win.

Uhm, probably true. That is always true with minority governments. It will always be true. It doesn't matter if that govenrment is led by Harper or Ignatieff or Layton or Mother Theresa. The instant they feel they can get a majority they'll start manoeuvring to destroy the rest. That's as predictable as cold in February.

Harper had his chance, and showed he lacks both the competence and integrity to lead Canadians.

And yet, Canadian voters disagree.

How old are you, honestly?

Progressive Tory · January 19, 2009

The very last thing on earth any nation wants or needs or can even survive, is to have major political decisions made by someone who goes all teary eyed and emotional about every little thing. I would far rather be led by a cool, calculating guy like Harper than someone like you.
This "small party" is made up of sobbing emotional halfwits who want to do things because it "feels right" without giving the slightest pause or thought to consequences. That's why no one has ever heard of them - or ever will.

There were few dry eyes. Speeches gave quotes from all great leaders, Republicans and Democrats. You really got the sense that Americans were banded together for the first time in nearly a decade. I may have gotten very emotional over the whole thing and expect that tomorrow will be even more awe inspiring.

However, I'm not the Prime Minister, who chose to attack the Canadian people and pit West against East to save his job. His public display, and that of his Party, was one of the worst in Canadian history. It was like his whole caucus was on crack with their high pitched squeals and loud mothed rants. They attacked Justin Trudeau suggesting that he had shamed his father. They attacked Jack Layton, again suggesting that his father was rolling in his grave. This was dirty. This was personal. And he has done nothing since to gain their confidence or respect.

Maybe this PM should have shed a few tears to let us know he has some humanity. To this day, he will not take any blame; despite the fact that his Party puts the blame clearly on his shoulders.

ToadBrother · January 19, 2009

The very last thing on earth any nation wants or needs or can even survive, is to have major political decisions made by someone who goes all teary eyed and emotional about every little thing. I would far rather be led by a cool, calculating guy like Harper than someone like you.
This "small party" is made up of sobbing emotional halfwits who want to do things because it "feels right" without giving the slightest pause or thought to consequences. That's why no one has ever heard of them - or ever will.

It brings me tears to think that we have a choice between "sobbing emotional halfwits" and a self-serving Machiavellian political manager whose only interest is smashing his opponents to pieces and treating the MPs in his own party like halfwitted voting machines who must do as he says or face dire consequences.

I'd give a lot for a real leader who wasn't scared to death of the opposition or of his own party, and could convince Canadians that he was on the right course rather than sinking into the worst kind of rhetoric and cowardice to save himself from his own stupidity.

Progressive Tory · January 19, 2009

Yes, child, that's called politics.
Drivel. Everyone knew there were going to be huge incentive programs in the budget. But they were waiting to see what the US did, especially what they did with regard to the auto industry. The big rebellion by the three blind mice wasn't about the budget anyway, it was about Harper threatening to take away their welfare money and make them earn their donations like the Tories do.

You still believe in Santa Clause, don't you?

Uhm, probably true. That is always true with minority governments. It will always be true. It doesn't matter if that govenrment is led by Harper or Ignatieff or Layton or Mother Theresa. The instant they feel they can get a majority they'll start manoeuvring to destroy the rest. That's as predictable as cold in February.

And yet, Canadian voters disagree.

How old are you, honestly?

Oh but voters do agree. 62% of voters in fact and when you factor in the 63% of Quebecers who now want the Coalition to take power, we're giving that message loud and clear. How exactly did we know his budget was going to contain stimulus? His word? Ha ha ha ha.

The word of a man who told us during the election that there was no economic crisis...that he had a steady hand at the wheel? The word of the 'economist' who didn't see this coming? Then we find out that not only was the 13 billion dollar surplus gone, but we were ALREADY IN A DEFICIT, masked with the 'projected' sale of assets. Out and out fraud.

I'm sorry, but I would believe in Santa Claus much easier than believe this man or the Conservative Party has an ounce of integrity. It's a shame because I think there are a few who are genuine, but we'll never know. They were all willing participants and will all wear this shame for a very long time.

Barts · January 19, 2009

Yes, child, that's called politics.
Drivel.

You still believe in Santa Clause, don't you?

How old are you, honestly?

Sometimes the level of political discourse is disappointing.

Can you help me understand what purpose such characterizations serve, apart from obscuring the lack of cogent argument?

Keepitsimple · January 19, 2009

Oh but voters do agree. 62% of voters in fact and when you factor in the 63% of Quebecers who now want the Coalition to take power, we're giving that message loud and clear. How exactly did we know his budget was going to contain stimulus? His word? Ha ha ha ha.
The word of a man who told us during the election that there was no economic crisis...that he had a steady hand at the wheel? The word of the 'economist' who didn't see this coming? Then we find out that not only was the 13 billion dollar surplus gone, but we were ALREADY IN A DEFICIT, masked with the 'projected' sale of assets. Out and out fraud.

I'm sorry, but I would believe in Santa Claus much easier than believe this man or the Conservative Party has an ounce of integrity. It's a shame because I think there are a few who are genuine, but we'll never know. They were all willing participants and will all wear this shame for a very long time.

Where were all the hand-wringers when 59%, 60% and finally, 62% of Canadians voted against Jean Chretien's three consecutive Liberal majority governments. Were they saying that it was an affront to democracy? Of course not - it was their guy in power.

Molly · January 19, 2009

I think it's awfuly risky to assume that, after the events of November and beyond, Harper would manage to decieve as many in a new election, should his budget be defeated. (Everything I've heard him say about it suggests to me that what's likely to be offered should be.)

He would not be running against Dion this time, nor presenting himself to a populace that believes in his veracity, competence, or benevolence.

Progressive Tory · January 19, 2009

Where were all the hand-wringers when 59%, 60% and finally, 62% of Canadians voted against Jean Chretien's three consecutive Liberal majority governments. Were they saying that it was an affront to democracy? Of course not - it was their guy in power.

What does this have to do with anything? Lester Pearson never had a Majority, but he knew how to be a Prime Minister in a Minority gov't. Look what he accomplished. The Nobel Peace Prize, for one. He was also an Evangelist, but never claimed he was appointed by God.

Stephen Harper also knows what a Minority means; that his being PM had to be earned by gaining confidence in the house. This master strategist was beaten and we know how he hates to lose.

If he had been smart, he would have allowed the Coalition to vote him out. Dion would have been PM and the Gov't probably would have fallen. Instead he created his own Helter Skelter, giving the Opposition a chance to get their ducks in a row, appoint a new leader, and are now back rejuvenized. This has also given ample time for his own words to come back to haunt him and has made it clear to the Canadian people that his whole campaign against our citizens, was a complete fabrication. Lie after lie after lie; none adding up to any element of truth.

Thank you Bart for sharing the letter.

Barts · January 19, 2009

Where were all the hand-wringers when 59%, 60% and finally, 62% of Canadians voted against Jean Chretien's three consecutive Liberal majority governments. Were they saying that it was an affront to democracy? Of course not - it was their guy in power.

All through Chretien's tenure progressive advocates, particularly advocates for some level of proportional representation, were decrying the fact that because of our antiquated "first-past-the-post" electoral system people were not being fairly represented in Parliament. To suggest that those you call "hand-wringers" were not calling Chretien's electoral victories an affront to democracy is just flat out wrong. You might want to review the policy positions of all of the smaller parties, the Greens, and the NDP over the last many decades.

Dislike who you will, Keepitsimple, but do them the courtesy of at least not misleading others about them. Let's put this transgression down to stupidity rather than malice.

Wilber · January 19, 2009

Where were all the hand-wringers when 59%, 60% and finally, 62% of Canadians voted against Jean Chretien's three consecutive Liberal majority governments. Were they saying that it was an affront to democracy? Of course not - it was their guy in power.

If there was ever a Canadian politician who excelled at smelling blood in the water and calling elections for no other reason than to maintain or enhance his majority, it was Chretien. Calling an election right after Day was chosen leader is a prime example. He smelled weakness and pounced. It was the smart political move but had nothing to do with the country's welfare. 300M for an election we didn't need and didn't want, he already had a majority.

Wilber · January 19, 2009

Dislike who you will, Keepitsimple, but do them the courtesy of at least not misleading others about them. Let's put this transgression down to stupidity rather than malice.

Perhaps Progressive Tory should not try to mislead others by claiming that because 62% of voters didn't vote for the Conservatives in the last election, they favour a Liberal, NDP coalition propped up by the Bloc. I must have missed that option on my ballot.

ToadBrother · January 19, 2009

Perhaps Progressive Tory should not try to mislead others by claiming that because 62% of voters didn't vote for the Conservatives in the last election, they favour a Liberal, NDP coalition propped up by the Bloc. I must have missed that option on my ballot.

I'm not defending the coalition (which I think is dead anyways), but come on, this has been repeated enough times in enough places that continued statement of this incorrect notion about how a parliamentary democracy functions must surely be seen now as blatant dishonesty.

You don't vote for a government. You vote for a single member who goes to represent you. The electorate votes for a parliament, it is that parliament which selects a government. If the majority of the parliament opts to overthrow the current government (which was, after all, chosen by that government) then that's the way it crumbles. There's nothing unconstitutional about a coalition defeating the government and then asking the GG to allow them to form the next government. As to whether the GG would do that, or whether the current government could ask for an election, and whether that would override the majority of parliament is an open question to some extent, but to repeat, you do not vote for a government.

ToadBrother · January 19, 2009

If there was ever a Canadian politician who excelled at smelling blood in the water and calling elections for no other reason than to maintain or enhance his majority, it was Chretien. Calling an election right after Day was chosen leader is a prime example. He smelled weakness and pounced. It was the smart political move but had nothing to do with the country's welfare. 300M for an election we didn't need and didn't want, he already had a majority.

And I've said many times that if Harper resembles any other recent politician in his behavior, it's Chretien. Both men basically have the same management strategy and the same authoritarian bent.

The chief difference is, of course, that Chretien won several majorities, while Harper has never, and by the looks of it, will never achieve a majority government. At the end of the day, Chretien was the better politician.

Edited January 19, 2009 by ToadBrother

bytown · January 19, 2009

there is nothing in ignatieff's background that strikes me as him being a stupid person. so i can't see him getting tied up with layton and duceppe for short term gain at the expense of long term pain.

noahbody · January 19, 2009

If he had been smart, he would have allowed the Coalition to vote him out. Dion would have been PM and the Gov't probably would have fallen.

You actually think he or any of his advisors didn't realize this?

Maybe you're right. There's no way, Harper would ever put the country ahead of his party or his desire for power and spreading evil. Except for his decision to tax income trusts, which clearly wasn't good for his party's popularity. But he still didn't do that for the good of the country. That was only done because hates old people.

madmax · January 19, 2009

I must have missed that option on my ballot.

Let me check... ah, I found your ballot....

LPC [ ]

CPC [ ]

NDP [ ]

GP [ ]

CHP [ ]

BQ [ ]

AAP [ ]

LPC/NPD coalition with support of the Bloc [X]

Nope you didn't miss it at all

Wilber · January 19, 2009

I'm not defending the coalition (which I think is dead anyways), but come on, this has been repeated enough times in enough places that continued statement of this incorrect notion about how a parliamentary democracy functions must surely be seen now as blatant dishonesty.
You don't vote for a government. You vote for a single member who goes to represent you. The electorate votes for a parliament, it is that parliament which selects a government. If the majority of the parliament opts to overthrow the current government (which was, after all, chosen by that government) then that's the way it crumbles. There's nothing unconstitutional about a coalition defeating the government and then asking the GG to allow them to form the next government. As to whether the GG would do that, or whether the current government could ask for an election, and whether that would override the majority of parliament is an open question to some extent, but to repeat, you do not vote for a government.

I never said that it is unconstitutional or that it is never desirable. I am saying that a vote against something is not a vote for something. All I am saying is that because a majority didn't vote Conservative doesn't mean they favour an LPC/NDP coalition propped up by the Bloc. In fact, the last poll result I saw (last week) indicated a majority favoured an election over a coalition if the budget was defeated but felt the Liberals should vote for the budget. Just because Parliament can do something doesn't mean they should or that a majority wants them to. That's why we have elections. Your ballot may only have individuals on it but a large number of people do in fact vote for a government because if they want change, it is the only option they have.