2008 Federal Election Food for Thought

[vinzanity]

I'm formulating ideas for my research regarding the recent 2008 Federal Election campaign platforms, notably the Conservatives, NDP, and the Liberals.

What would be a specific example for each of the three aforementioned federal political parties that clearly define the roles/responsibilities of business and government? What are their differences in ideologies?

Any and all constructive ideas would be well appreciated.

[Progressive Tory]

What would be a specific example for each of the three aforementioned federal political parties that clearly define the roles/responsibilities of business and government? What are their differences in ideologies?

Wow. That would be like asking what is the meaning of life?

We could give vague ideologies, but the election was more about winning, than selling an agenda. From what angle are you conducting your research?

Edited February 14, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[vinzanity]

Wow. That would be like asking what is the meaning of life?

We could give vague ideologies, but the election was more about winning, than selling an agenda. From what angle are you conducting your research?

I'm not really focusing on the outcome of the election, but when I refer to ideologies, I mean going back to the roots and core beliefs of those three federal political parties.

I would like a general and overall perspective of each political party platforms. Obviously if you are pro-Tory, then I'd take your ideas for the conservatives more legitimately than for instance, a pro-Liberal and anti-conservative. The same rule applies for the other two federal political parties.

[Moonbox]

I think the ideologies were really blurred.

The only really clear ideology as far as I could tell was the NDP and Jack Layton's. He made it very clear that anything the government does should be done for the working boob and at the cost of anyone in a strong financial position.

The Liberal and Conservative campaign were both just silly, crowd-pleasing rhetoric.

[Progressive Tory]

I would like a general and overall perspective of each political party platforms. Obviously if you are pro-Tory, then I'd take your ideas for the conservatives more legitimately than for instance, a pro-Liberal and anti-conservative. The same rule applies for the other two federal political parties.

I'm not really pro anything. I only recently joined the Liberals because of Michael Ignatieff, and voted Liberal last election under 'strategic voting'. The NDP and Bloc seem to have indeologies, but the platforms of the other parties are vague. 'C'onservative doesn't mean 'c'onservative, and I don't even know what their beliefs are now.

But from the 2008 election, I guess the Cons were for balanced budgets, no deficits, and getting elected (with a majority so they could tell us how they really feel).

The Libs were focused on the environment, childcare and hoping Dion would just go away.

[madmax]

I think the ideologies were really blurred.

The only really clear ideology as far as I could tell was the NDP and Jack Layton's. He made it very clear that anything the government does should be done for the working boob and at the cost of anyone in a strong financial position.

Do you work? Are you a boob? I consider myself Stiff when I work...

There is alot of truth in the above statement. Jack Layton wanted balanced budgets, and wouldn't implement the 50 Billion in tax cuts to large corporations and banks. The only way to pay for the current policies without running deficits would require someone to foot the bill. Mr. Layton also said, that if he couldn't balance the budget, then some programs would have to be deferred or cut.

The Liberal and Conservative campaign were both just silly, crowd-pleasing rhetoric.

This is interesting.

Harper isn't really a crowd pleaser. He can at times appear human, and make a funny quip. Dion just happened to be horrific on the campaign trail. I don't know how he could please a crowd, which leaves us with the rhetoric.

DIONS Greenshift plan, wasn't crowd pleasing. It was confusing, stupid, and ill thought. It was taken from the thin pages of a Green Party platform and marketed as the Solution to Pollution. It wasn't a crowd pleaser and the message and the Messenger were soundly rejected.

Harper campaigned on balanced budgets, even though they weren't balancing one. He campaigned on maintaining a distance away from manufacturing and letting the market prevail and let corporations do as they wish with their business. He wanted government to play no role in the private sector. Then he would go to the next town and OFFER A TON OF GOVERNMENT WELFARE to corporations because it was going to land them another seat. Yes, there is idealogy and there is Pork.

This was crowd pleasing, if not fiscally conservative or something loved by the rank and file. However, Harper governing over hundreds of thousands of job losses in Ontario, turned a blind eye, until the Stock market hit home in the midst of the campaign. Oh shit, cat out of the bag, the money people are going to be unhappy campers, and this is my base. Quickly get money to the banks...

This to falls into confusing, stupid, panicking and ill thought. (However, some people will support anything)

There is no doubt that the last election, ideologies were really blurred. So much so that Liberals Behaved Green, Conservatives Behaved Liberal, and NDP behaved Conservative, and it is still hard to believe why they did this square dance in the first place.

Now, you have Liberals acting Conservative after dropping there Green Dance followed by a brief Socialist Engagement. NDP acting like Socialist Conservatives after a brief dance with the Liberals were both pretended to be separtists socialists, and Conservatives acting more like Trudeau Liberals, and the Greens 15 minutes of fame is up.

And the original poster has a name VINZANITY. I see a new political party engaging all the above. The INSANITY party.

[Progressive Tory]

Now, you have Liberals acting Conservative after dropping there Green Dance followed by a brief Socialist Engagement. NDP acting like Socialist Conservatives after a brief dance with the Liberals were both pretended to be separtists socialists, and Conservatives acting more like Trudeau Liberals, and the Greens 15 minutes of fame is up.

Well said. I don't think I could even guess what Party ideologies are anymore. Maybe that's why I like Michael Ignatieff. He embodies most of my political views, and is more 'c'onservative than 'L'iberal.

He understands Human Rights from different perspectives, having worked as journalist in war torn countries, so is short on rhetoric. He accepts different views and I suppose that's why Harvard wanted him to head up their human rights department. He's not just book smart but has such a vast excperience in dealing with actual 'humans' in a humanitarian fashion.

He may be the first leader in a long time who will be able to embrace a wide range of political thought.

[capricorn]

He accepts different views and I suppose that's why Harvard wanted him to head up their human rights department.

Maybe that explains Ignatieff's propensity to change his mind on substantive issues. For example, Iraq, the three headed coalition and the merits of tax cuts for the middle class.

He may be the first leader in a long time who will be able to embrace a wide range of political thought.

I agree. He makes it look so easy to be for and against something within a short space of time.

[Progressive Tory]

Maybe that explains Ignatieff's propensity to change his mind on substantive issues. For example, Iraq, the three headed coalition and the merits of tax cuts for the middle class.

I agree. He makes it look so easy to be for and against something within a short space of time.

Many people changed their views on Iraq. Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day come to mind.

"Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us."

Harper on U.S. Television

"Opposition leader Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war."

He only changed his tune when he realized that the majority of Canadians did not support the war.

And "He makes it look so easy to be for and against something within a short space of time."

That comes from teaching at Ivy League schools where students need to be challenged. His lectures always included 'but, but'.... , giving different sides of an issue - this sparks debate.

In his book I'm now reading, Ignatieff interviews a Skinhead in Germany. Without telling us that the young man's views are wrong, he leaves us to draw that conclusion from the rest of the story. I respect that. A politician who actually trusts that Canadians are smart enough to see both sides of an issue, but make up their own minds without waiting for the spin. Refreshing.

I'm glad that most Canadians are smart enough to figure this out.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Moonbox]

Many people changed their views on Iraq. Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day come to mind.

He's a LOT like Stephen Harper in that he's a squirmy politician first, and an idealist second.

That comes from teaching at Ivy League schools where students need to be challenged. His lectures always included 'but, but'.... , giving different sides of an issue - this sparks debate.

Changing your official position on an ideal/moral issue does NOT come from Ivy League schools. Ivy League schooling does not teach you to say you support torture and then 'change your mind' after it becomes clear it's a highly unpopular position in the country you're trying to run for office in. Schooling certainly broadens your perspective of things and helps you think differently, but Ignatieff's political 180's are no different than Stephen Harper's. They are what they are: Damage control/flip flopping and nothing less.

In his book I'm now reading, Ignatieff interviews a Skinhead in Germany. Without telling us that the young man's views are wrong, he leaves us to draw that conclusion from the rest of the story. I respect that.

Anyone can make a skinhead look stupid. All you have to do is ask the skinhead why he feels the way he does. As soon as the fool starts talking, 99% of people would be able to see how blind/stupid he is. You wouldn't even have to say anything yourself. That's hardly a dazzling intellectual feat.

A politician who actually trusts that Canadians are smart enough to see both sides of an issue, but make up their own minds without waiting for the spin. Refreshing.

because most people would feel the need to provide a detailed explanation of why skinheads are ignorant and intolerant right? Right??? Mhmmm....

With an erudite like Ignatieff in charge, I don't see how Canada could go wrong. I mean, he'll be able to change his mind on everything and that's totally expected of him because he went to an Ivy League school.......

[Progressive Tory]

With an erudite like Ignatieff in charge, I don't see how Canada could go wrong. I mean, he'll be able to change his mind on everything and that's totally expected of him because he went to an Ivy League school.......

Any Prime Minister or political leader must have the ability to change with the times. It would be rather silly for Stephen Harper to go on U.S. television now and try to convince Americans that Canadians support the War in Iraq. He had no choice but to change his position. However, Stockwell Day was interviewed by Steve Pakin on TVOntario and denied that he or Harper ever supported the War. That was dumn. We have print and video.

As to the skinhead interview, Ignatieff gave it a human perspective. He allowed 'Leo' to cite his case and was surprised that he didn't simply try to exploit the interview with a Western journalist to promote his cause. Leo is gainfully employed and wears a brushcut.

'Listening to Leo, I try to figure out why he is the only German I've met in Leipzig who is fiercely proud of his country. That is what makes him alarming to me; not his scars, not his macho talk, not the blackjack he keeps by the door. If you see the world from his point of view, he comes from the only country in Europe that isn't allowed to feel good about itself.'

"Is there nothing about Germany that makes you feel ashamed?"

"Nothing. Nations start wars, nations lose them."

'I am supposed to say that people like him represent the cancer eating away at the heart of fragile German Democracy. This is true enough. But there is more to say.'

Naturally, the interview is longer.

This doesn't change my view of skinheads, nor did it change his; but it helped to make me understand their motivation. Ignatieff looked beyond the pre-conceived notions and saw a hard working guy, a strong nationalist, who in another time would have been respected. Just not in post-Holocaust Germany.

There is a big difference between a highschool teacher and a University professor; especially one who has been selected to teach tomorrow's leaders. They can't just give views, but must encourage the thought process, allowing his students to make up their own minds. I like the fact that he speaks to us like we're intelligent adults.

If this is the angle that the Conservatives plan to use next election, they are going to be in serious trouble.

Critics say he changed his mind over the budget, but if they listened to him and not media spin, they'd see that he made the same statement everytime. 'Modest deficit. Targetted tax cuts.'

I like this new 'intelligence' movement in politics. If there was ever a time for smart, it's now. Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard don't hire dummies and don't hire wishy washy. They recruit fine minds who can present both sides of an issue and allow their students to think for themselves.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[bush_cheney2004]

....I like this new 'intelligence' movement in politics. If there was ever a time for smart, it's now. Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard don't hire dummies and don't hire wishy washy. They recruit fine minds who can present both sides of an issue and allow their students to think for themselves.

So where is Canada's Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard? Or will such leadership always be imported?

[guyser]

So where is Canada's Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard? Or will such leadership always be imported?

Brandon, Eastern Townships, and Finch and the 404.

[madmax]

He's a LOT like Stephen Harper in that he's a squirmy politician first, and an idealist second.

ouch!

Changing your official position on an ideal/moral issue does NOT come from Ivy League schools. Ivy League schooling does not teach you to say you support torture and then 'change your mind' after it becomes clear it's a highly unpopular position in the country you're trying to run for office in. .....They are what they are: Damage control/flip flopping and nothing less.

OUCH OUCH OUCH!!! I have no reply to that.

Don't hold back your skepticism of politicians. Let it all out!!! Deep Breathe...

.. talk about calling a spade a spade. Its going to be tough for a politician to gain respect.

One thing you and others have pointed out, is the ability of Ignatieff to turn on a dime and have nothing stick. This is an asset to a politician, and certainly something that Harper has achieved, but not nearly as easily as Ignatieff. Harper does it, and the howls come from within the party and without. Ignatieff does it and there is praise from the choir.

Regardless, I don't believe this is the first time in our history where more then one parties policies blurr across 3 or 4 parties. If I recall it was the Stanfield Conservatives advocating for wage and price controls, and Trudeau challenging it, with the NDP against, if not for it prior (I just can't recall it now, I wasn't old or into politics), but then the Liberals embraced the policy. I am not certain if it was a good policy or not.

However, I view it much like this panic budget, where I have great difficulty unmasking the differences of the parties, but I still think the budget is a hodgepodge of guesses with a price attached. I don't see any idealogy or governance from it. I look at it like, our government is trying to say.... look at me, were doing something, see we are doing something, we are busy see, look money see, here is an ice rink, or a road, or a nice building for you.

And the Feds aren't alone in this. I see many Provinces starting to behave in the same manner.

Squirmy? In this economy, you have to be able to sneak under the doorways to escape scrutiny

[madmax]

As to the skinhead interview, Ignatieff gave it a human perspective.

Maybe he can do the same for misunderstood Skinheads and Fascists in Canada.

[Moonbox]

If this is the angle that the Conservatives plan to use next election, they are going to be in serious trouble.

What angle? That he flip flops and farts around like a politician? They all do it the exact same. Most people, however, take it for what it is: flip flopping depending on the climate of public opinion. Disguising it as some sort of enlightened intellectualism is just blind and naive hero-worship.

I like this new 'intelligence' movement in politics. If there was ever a time for smart, it's now. Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard don't hire dummies and don't hire wishy washy. They recruit fine minds who can present both sides of an issue and allow their students to think for themselves.

Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard recruit intelligent and prestigious academic minds. I'm fairly certain that there's no rigorous screening process to determine how 'wishy-washy' they are. The fact that he taught at these schools is impressive, there's no doubt about that, but they really have nothing to do with how steadfastly he upholds his ideals.

You've probably read his 'lesser of evils' analysis, but there are interesting things to take out of that. Ignatieff appears to believe that pre-emptive wars, coercive interrogation, targetted assasinations and 'certain' types of torture should be legitimate ways to combat terrorism. In many ways he's very similar to our current boob of a PM.

PT I don't want you to get the wrong message from me. I don't dislike Ignatieff. I actually like him better than Harper. I was thrilled when he became Liberal leader because he pulls the Liberals far enough to the right for me to actually consider voting for them again. I simply think that you're in fantasy land when you're talking about him. You make him out to be the messiah, ignore his faults and proclaim him as if he's the smartest man ever born. It's silly.

[Progressive Tory]

So where is Canada's Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard? Or will such leadership always be imported?

Can't think of too many university professors who if recruited by Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard, wouldn't pack their bags and be on the next plane. Is a Canadian born hockey star who was drafted by the Rangers, no longer a Canadian? Would Jim Carey turn down an 11 million dollar picture deal to stay in Canada?

Ignatieff's career is amazing. His father was a Canadian diplomat so at a young age, he travelled extensively, but hobnobbed with government officials and the social elite. Then years later, he revisited the countries, most engaged in Civil Wars, so saw the regions and it's peoples in a different light. He doesn't just give both sides of the story, he has lived them.

If he wasn't running for PM he would be on my list of amazing Canadians. The fact that he will be our PM, is icing on the cake. He is probably better educated and has more experience than most of the world leaders he will connect with, including Obama. If he was being interviewed for the job, it would be a no-brainer.

[Progressive Tory]

Maybe he can do the same for misunderstood Skinheads and Fascists in Canada.

The spinoff groups in Canada and the U.S., are just racist and only wear the Swastika to invoke fear. The KKK without the sheets.

In Germany, it is a nationalist spirit. They are just as dangerous, but they are the ones who are actually wearing the shame of the Holocaust. Young men who work hard, and want to feel proud to be German, but they can't, because it means being proud of Germany's past.

I got that from the interview, which was in Germany, after the wall came down. Skinheads here are only criminals, with no national pride. They hate simply because they can.

[Oleg Bach]

Can't think of too many university professors who if recruited by Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard, wouldn't pack their bags and be on the next plane. Is a Canadian born hockey star who was drafted by the Rangers, no longer a Canadian? Would Jim Carey turn down an 11 million dollar picture deal to stay in Canada?

Ignatieff's career is amazing. His father was a Canadian diplomat so at a young age, he travelled extensively, but hobnobbed with government officials and the social elite. Then years later, he revisited the countries, most engaged in Civil Wars, so saw the regions and it's peoples in a different light. He doesn't just give both sides of the story, he has lived them.

If he wasn't running for PM he would be on my list of amazing Canadians. The fact that he will be our PM, is icing on the cake. He is probably better educated and has more experience than most of the world leaders he will connect with, including Obama. If he was being interviewed for the job, it would be a no-brainer.

What would most prefere? A man that is connected to our financial core and doing the bidding of Bay Street? Or a Prime Minister that is connected with every last useless institutionalized acedemic on the planet? "Then years later. he revisited the countries, MOST ENGAGED IN CIVIL WARS.....Looks like papa Ignatius was of very little effect diplomatically or personally...that's my issue with elitist book smarters - their solutions are rehashed theoriticals that are learned and not gleened from real experience - sipping wine with some snooty peeps does not alway grant one wisdom.

[Progressive Tory]

PT I don't want you to get the wrong message from me. I don't dislike Ignatieff. I actually like him better than Harper. I was thrilled when he became Liberal leader because he pulls the Liberals far enough to the right for me to actually consider voting for them again. I simply think that you're in fantasy land when you're talking about him. You make him out to be the messiah, ignore his faults and proclaim him as if he's the smartest man ever born. It's silly.

I don't ignore his faults. I'm not constantly nodding my head when I read his lectures and books. I often disagree with him.

I don't follow anyone blindly, but critics will just jump on rhetoric. Arrogant. Wishy washy. Opportunist. Elitist because he has a Phd from Harvard. They heard a rumour that he once wrote a lecture on torture, and despite the fact that he says 'for those of us who don't support the use of torture, are we leaving ourselves vulnerable to terrorists?", somehow means he has a collection of brass knuckles and barbed collars. What an evil man.

Ironically, it was because of empty insults that I looked beyond his resume, and what I found was not an arrogant man. He has a sense of humour, and his writing is far from dry. It's passionate and caring and sometimes poetic. Even the Calgary Herald raved about the book I'm currently reading, along with newspapers worldwide.

The more I learn the more I want to learn; and will no longer accept unfounded insults. You don't have to like him. You don't even have to vote for him. But if you think his education, work experience and life experience will be a drawback, yikes.

Canadians are just warming up to him and the fact that I had to go on a waiting list for most of his books, means I'm not the only fan.

When he's PM I will still complain about the government, but will never feel that he has too much education for the job.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Moonbox]

Don't hold back your skepticism of politicians. Let it all out!!! Deep Breathe...

.. talk about calling a spade a spade. Its going to be tough for a politician to gain respect.

It's the nature of the game. I don't think it's a huge deal or anything. When you have millions of people and opinions to appeal to, you have to try and please as many people as possible in as many ways as possible. Naturally, there are going to be some reversals of positions and some giant changes in policy vs election rhetoric. It's more a matter as to how and why that position was reversed. When it's something like Harper appointing Senators prior to a non-confidence vote, that's pretty justifiable.

On the other hand, making it clear that the economy wasn't going to crap and that there would be no deficit, but then announcing a $40B deficit a month later, that's a bit rich. I get why he did it, but I also get why Canadians don't trust him, because in this case he was 100% full of ****. If it helped keep Dion out, I'm okay with it but I knew better anyways.

I don't see any idealogy or governance from it. I look at it like, our government is trying to say.... look at me, were doing something, see we are doing something, we are busy see, look money see, here is an ice rink, or a road, or a nice building for you.

That made me laugh. I think there are some distinctions within the budget between parties but this is a very rare case where the panic button has caused a further blurring of the lines.

[Oleg Bach]

Personally I do not dislike Ignatieff either - nor do I dislike Harper...you have to look at these leaders realistically - we do not have the mind numbing Obamaism curse of wishfull thinking that Americans have - Canadians are more British and less emotional.

[waldo]

Ivy League schooling does not teach you to say you support torture and then 'change your mind' after it becomes clear it's a highly unpopular position in the country you're trying to run for office in.

citation request advising exactly where/when and in what context Ignatieff stated he supported torture.

[Progressive Tory]

Squirmy? In this economy, you have to be able to sneak under the doorways to escape scrutiny

Exactly. Everyday I read another 'expert' opinion on the economy, which completely challenges the 'expert' opinion from the day before.

Nobody knows what the future holds, but the Conservatives as the sitting government will wear the massive job losses and deficit and the next election campaign, we will be privy to Harper saying there will not be a deficit, followed by the rest of the story. It's politics.

[Oleg Bach]

Lately the conservative media are sending out simple adds..."be happy and positive about the economy" - and all will be well - at least they have that part right...Fiat currency and our whole monetary system is dellusional like a religous belief system - If you lose hope god dies....and hope and belief and faith is what makes things run - not cash - cash is paper and electronic digits...some conservatives understand how things really work - most liberals are middle class and overly money dependant...a liberal will panic first when it comes to money.