If You Have Ever Voted Liberal, NOW Is The Time

[Progressive Tory]

1. What brand? The CPC was a new party in 2003, of which most of the sitting MP's where in western Canada.

2. You just seem a little upset because their is no room for you a "liberal" in the conservative party of Canada. I hope you never vote conservative again because you are liberal and the conservative party that I vote for is not the red tory liberal thing of the 80's.

3. Face it the liberal's and the conservatives are on equal footing when it comes to popular support.... As for Support and money, last I checked the CPC out performed all of the other parties put together in fundraising.

1. For the record, CPC stands for Communist Party of Canada and I don't think they originated in the West, or that Harper was ever a member. However, I'm glad you clarified that the new conservative party is based in the West and has no room for moderate tories east of that. Good to know. Note to Red Tories: The Conservative party does not want your vote. Did you run that by Harper?

2. The Liberals got that message already because the 850,000 who bought Harper's 'Dion is not a leader', stayed home rather than vote Conservative. But, I'll add that to a memo. Note to Liberals. The Conservative party does not want your vote. Did you run that by Harper?

With Quebec gone I guess the only supporters Harper can count on are the new brand conservatives from the West.

3. I'm a little confused here - the Liberals and Conservatives are equal? Did you run that by Harper? As to financial support, it has already been proven that harper's supporters are richer, but over the next few months, many may become poorer; and not ready to shell out to a man who promised them everything and gave them nothing.

[Oleg Bach]

The richest supporters of Harper will never be poor - any more than Lake Ontario will run dry. We allow the richest supporters to control our Prime Minister...or do we let his wisest supporters control the office? Or is the richest and wisest that have influence? People who donate to political parties all expect indirect monetary favours - the biggest supporters are not per say supporters of Harper but supporters of our system as it now stands. Those wise and rich supporters do not do it for the potential future profits - they have all the money all ready. It's all about conservatism...but there is a glitch - there are no conservatives and the super influential rich supporters will never get their monies worth, because Harper like all politicals is not capable of great wisdom - If he were wise he would NOT be a politican. Canundrum Canadiana..

[Progressive Tory]

The richest supporters of Harper will never be poor - any more than Lake Ontario will run dry. We allow the richest supporters to control our Prime Minister...or do we let his wisest supporters control the office? People who donate to political parties all expect indirect monetary favours -

The rich may not be rich much longer and Harper will have to get down and intoduce himself to the average Canadian. I only started making political contributions because I saw Michael Ignatieff as a good contender. After the lengths that Harper went to to keep his job, threatening national unity and piling one lie on top of another to make Canadians believe the new coalition was different than his, was disgusting.

I don't expect anything other than an honest effort to rid Canada of the Party formerly known as Conservative.

I like you Oleg Bach. You obviously do a lot of thinking and I often have to read everything in your post to find your point, but I'm rarely disappointed.

[jbg]

I agree. It's not about whether some fringe party with 10% of the vote can get a handful of seats or not. To my mind the really failure has occurred inside the House, and I fail to see how modifying the way MPs get there is going to solve the problem of MPs of all parties basically being treated as voting machines by the leadership of their parties. The current caucus system needs to be massively loosened up. MPs need to grow a backbone.

The U.S. pretty much ended party discipline circa 1974, with Watergate. The results are disastrous.

Basically, each Congressperson and Senator fights for maximum funding for their own district or state, as the case may be, and "logrolls" or "backscratches" to get others to support their cause. The result is a never-ending spending fest. At least, back in the day when party leadership meant something the agenda of some 27 year old Congressperson wouldn't trump the overall good.

[Progressive Tory]

What brand? The CPC was a new party in 2003, of which most of the sitting MP's where in western Canada. You just seem a little upset because their is no room for you a "liberal" in the conservative party of Canada. I hope you never vote conservative again because you are liberal and the conservative party that I vote for is not the red tory liberal thing of the 80's.

As for Support and money, last I checked the CPC out performed all of the other parties put together in fundraising. Harpers core support is at the same level as chretiens and he won to elections with it. Face it the liberal's and the conservatives are on equal footing when it comes to popular support.

1. For the record, CPC stands for Communist Party of Canada and I don't think they originated in the West, or that Harper was ever a member. However, I'm glad you clarified that the new conservative party is based in the West and has no room for moderate tories east of that. Good to know. Note to Red Tories: The Conservative party does not want your vote. Did you run that by Harper?

2. The Liberals got that message already because the 850,000 who bought Harper's 'Dion is not a leader', stayed home rather than vote Conservative. But, I'll add that to a memo. Note to Liberals. The Conservative party does not want your vote. Did you run that by Harper?

With Quebec gone I guess the only supporters Harper can count on are the new brand conservatives from the West.

3. I'm a little confused here - the Liberals and Conservatives are equal? Did you run that by Harper? As to financial support, it has already been proven that Harper's supporters are richer, but over the next few months, many may become poorer; and not ready to shell out to a man who promised them everything and gave them nothing.

[Progressive Tory]

That sentanc is a direct quote of Jack Layton, you reallys hould read the transcript of the NDP confrence call regarding the coalition, wait that might mean you couldn't live in ignorance about it any longer though.

I'm well aware of the fact that Jack Layton was motivated to take Harper down, just as Stephen Harper was motivated to take Paul Martin down after the 2004 election, which is why his coalition with Duceppe and Layton were at the throne speech. In his letter he clearly states that he had been in negotiations with the other opposition parties. Whether this was a phone conversation or a private meeting, Harper worked behind the scenes before Parliament opened, to be named an 'unelected' PM in a 'coup' that included 'separatists'.

You've had a chance to read his letter and hear him speak on the subject, but ... wait that might mean you couldn't live in ignorance about it any longer though.

Pulling a Nixon and broadcasting a conversation that you were not entitled to even listen to, was unethical. Claiming that Layton's 2008 'coup' was any different than his 2004 'coup' was unethical. The only difference was that Harper's included the Bloc, and Layton's only had the Bloc support.

[Argus]

The rich may not be rich much longer and Harper will have to get down and intoduce himself to the average Canadian.

The facts are indisputable. Elections Canada will tell you as much - and they are no friends of the Tories.

Liberal support has always come from the wealthy and corporate elites. Those $10,000 and $25,000 a plate dinners were the life blood of the party, and the Liberals paid off their backers with favorable legislation and overpriced government contracts for decades. Almost all the money which went to the Liberal Party came from the rich, almost none from ordinary Canadians. The Reform -> Alliance -> Conservatives, on the other hand, always got their money in small amounts from hundreds of thousands of quite ordinary members.

The Liberals are the party of the cushy elites, of the petty bourgeois happy with the way things were being run.

I like you Oleg Bach. You obviously do a lot of thinking

Wow. Now there's a revelation. Just don't tell Kimmy.

[madmax]

1. For the record, CPC stands for Communist Party of Canada and I don't think they originated in the West,

yes they did.

[madmax]

Pulling a Nixon and broadcasting a conversation that you were not entitled to even listen to, was unethical. Claiming that Layton's 2008 'coup' was any different than his 2004 'coup' was unethical. The only difference was that Harper's included the Bloc, and Layton's only had the Bloc support.

2004, Harper did engage the BQ and the NDP to topple the Martin Government. In the end Jack Layton did not participate. Harper then backed the Martin Government until ADSCAM became more then they could bear.

Thus the irony being similar today, the party that orchestrated to get power, then choose to support the party with the most seats in the house.

2008, The coalition was between the Liberals and the NDP. The BQ are not involved. But much like the event that Harper engaged in, the BQ were happy to support the LIB/NDP coalition, just as they would have supported the Conservatives in 2004. The Bloc were tied to the LIB/NDP equally and would be needed to pass any legislation. This is no more "Laytons coup" then it is was "Harpers Coup" or let alone "Dions". It is how our system works, and people who call it a COUP are full of ..... IT.

Make no mistake, that in the future, be it a Province or the Federal government, these kinds of actiivities are common place in a minority government.

What has happened in 2008, is that Harper damn near lost his government after forcing an unnecessary election upon us. In 2009 Ignatieff has chosen to keep the Harper government in power.

What we the people got from all these shenanigans that preceded and followed the last election is

THE SHAFT!!!

[Alta4ever]

I'm well aware of the fact that Jack Layton was motivated to take Harper down, just as Stephen Harper was motivated to take Paul Martin down after the 2004 election, which is why his coalition with Duceppe and Layton were at the throne speech. In his letter he clearly states that he had been in negotiations with the other opposition parties. Whether this was a phone conversation or a private meeting, Harper worked behind the scenes before Parliament opened, to be named an 'unelected' PM in a 'coup' that included 'separatists'.

You've had a chance to read his letter and hear him speak on the subject, but ... wait that might mean you couldn't live in ignorance about it any longer though.

Pulling a Nixon and broadcasting a conversation that you were not entitled to even listen to, was unethical. Claiming that Layton's 2008 'coup' was any different than his 2004 'coup' was unethical. The only difference was that Harper's included the Bloc, and Layton's only had the Bloc support.

Those exact words were laytons it shows his contempt for the voting public.

[jdobbin]

But as this is a federal thread, the Federal NDP has been a strong advocate of PR. And if you are voting Federally and your focus is to obtain a PR system, you have only one choice with members in parliment and a handful of choices from parties who have never elected a person.

I have a hard time keeping up with the views of Manitoba NDP who move between provincial and federal politics. Take for example, Bill Blaikie. For in federal, against in provincial.

I think if the federal NDP are serious about this, they should be highly critical of their provincial counterparts who are in government and don't set the example. Since they don't, it is hard to take it serious as a policy of the part of the party.

[Progressive Tory]

The facts are indisputable. Elections Canada will tell you as much - and they are no friends of the Tories.

Liberal support has always come from the wealthy and corporate elites. Those $10,000 and $25,000 Wow. Now there's a revelation. Just don't tell Kimmy.

Obviously that was then and this is now, because those expensive lunches and dinners were the heart of Harper's last election campaign. In fact his entire campaign was at blueplate dinners in what was referred to as a bubble, with live props.

Harper a man who 'lives in a bubble'

"OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper is shielded from the public as he criss-crosses the country, campaigning in a political bubble. The Harper campaign keeps a short leash on national and local media, limiting questions and access to local candidates, sometimes calling on RCMP security to block reporters from doing their jobs."

Harper's Bubble: Campaign 2008

"The odd bout of light-headedness aside - it's not the first time a human prop has been overcome during the campaign - this is what some reporters have come to call Stephen Harper's bubble. Nothing unexpected, no one uninvited, everything in its right place.... Behind Harper are three rows of human props, the youngest children seated up front, a representative smattering of teenagers and adults standing behind them. The people here of obviously more rugged stock, not one of them collapses under the lights."

All of his campaigning was done at high price luncheons and dinners and if you scan his list of big donors, most are oil execs and their wives. This is not a man of the people and his little old ladies thing is a fantasy. Wait until those boxes get open and you'll see how it's done.

Democracy Watch did a little experiment, sending contributions from a U.S. address to the main political parties. The NDP returned it immediately, uncashed. The Liberals cashed it but sent a refund, including exchange, saying they couldn't take money from foreign sources. The Cons not only kept theirs, but the following year solicited the U.S. address for more, asking if they wanted to match the contribution. That says a lot.

And the Elections Canada hating Tories thing is another farce. Harper has sued them many times because he didn't think he should have to reveal the source of his donations. In fact, he still has not given them a complete list. They don't hate Tories, they just believe that they shouldn't get away with things that the other parties can't. Then of course 65 Conservative MPs engaging in fraud, won't make them anymore popular.

[madmax]

I think if the federal NDP are serious about this, they should be highly critical of their provincial counterparts who are in government and don't set the example. Since they don't, it is hard to take it serious as a policy of the part of the party.

That's for them to decide.

Much like the Provincial Liberals in BC will enact PR if the referendum succeeds. But that is a very different policy from the Federal Liberal Party and Every other Liberal Party across Canada. The Ontario Liberals created a referendum on PR, but it failed miserably.

The public will be the driving force to change, not the parties. And each Province has the right to decided how MPPs and MLAs are elected. Each Party has a position.

The same is true for Federal.

Thus, the NDP is the only Political Party currently moving the PR agenda forward.

PR is not owned by any one party. PR is most often supported by Parties that are below the 20% threshold, and the lower the vote total the more vocal the opponents of FPTP become. It doesn't mean they represent the majority. Although in BC in 2005 PR was supported by the MAJORITY, and not enacted because it didn't receive a 60% majority.

Regardless, to direct someone who wants PR to vote for the Federal Liberals on the basis of electoral reform is not only opportunistic. It is a Lie.

Edited March 4, 2009 by madmax

[jdobbin]

Thus, the NDP is the only Political Party currently moving the PR agenda forward.

That may be true but I just don't believe them.

Regardless, to direct someone who wants PR to vote for the Federal Liberals on the basis of electoral reform is not only opportunistic. It is a Lie.

I certainly wouldn't make that claim.

After the failure of STV in Manitoba, I wouldn't wish it on any level of government. And given what I see of PR is Israel, I think I can honestly say that I am satisfied that although there are huge flaws in our system, it is better than other ones out there.

[jbg]

yes they did.

Some posters are off their rocker.

[madmax]

Some posters are off their rocker.

Two things. 1) I was surprised to hear when party discipline dissolved in the US. I thought that the Senators and Congressmen had always been free and independant to vote on issues as they see fit. For a long time, we have had a movement for breaking party discipline. Most recently the Reform Party, and Prior to that in the days of the Progressives and some of the other movements from 1867 to the 30s. I understand the problems of pork politics in the US, but do you believe that it would be any different with party discipline? I thought alot of the blame falls with the lobbyiests?

2) Strangely enough the "radical" elements of Canadian government has blown from west to east. I only just recently read that the CCF origins are in Alberta. I alway thought it was Sask. The United Farmers provided another radical element as did the Communists and their ties to the Labour movement and organized Labour. I had no idea that the CCF fought off the Communists who treated these Socialists as friends of Capital. Capital couldn't collapse if socialists campaigned to save it. At the same time, the Progressives and Social Credit came to the fore. Again, not communists but radical compared to the Liberal/Conservatives of the past. (Setting aside Quebec for a moment:)

3) When one reads Canadian History, the Labour movement came from the west bringing the communists with them.

However, one must admit that the parties first meeting happened in Guelph Ontario. The hotbed of radicalism today

In 1931, eight of the CPC's leaders were arrested and imprisoned under Section 98 of Canada's Criminal Code of Canada. The party continued to exist, but was under the constant threat of legal harassment, and was for all intents and purposes an underground organization until 1936.

Although the party was banned, affiliated groups such as the Workers' Unity League, the Relief Camp Workers' Union, and the National Unemployed Workers Association played a significant role in organizing the unskilled and the unemployed in protest marches and demonstrations and campaigns such as the "On-to-Ottawa Trek". Party members were also active in the Congress of Industrial Organizations attempt to unionize the auto sector.

The On-to-Ottawa Trek was a 1935 social movement of unemployed men protesting the dismal conditions in federal relief camps scattered in remote areas across Western Canada. The men lived and worked in these camps at a rate of twenty cents per day before walking out on strike in April 1935. After a two-month protest in Vancouver, British Columbia, camp strikers voted to travel east to Ottawa and bring their grievances to the federal government. The Trek was cut short by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in what became known as the Regina Riot.

[ToadBrother]

The Liberals are the party of the cushy elites, of the petty bourgeois happy with the way things were being run.

And what, the Conservatives are the party of the Proletariat?

[ToadBrother]

Two things. 1) I was surprised to hear when party discipline dissolved in the US. I thought that the Senators and Congressmen had always been free and independant to vote on issues as they see fit. For a long time, we have had a movement for breaking party discipline. Most recently the Reform Party, and Prior to that in the days of the Progressives and some of the other movements from 1867 to the 30s. I understand the problems of pork politics in the US, but do you believe that it would be any different with party discipline? I thought alot of the blame falls with the lobbyiests?

There have certainly been periods where the Republicans and Democrats have circled their wagons, but there simply isn't any apparatus in either house of Congress to enforce party discipline. First of all, there is no head of government inside Congress, the closest being the Speaker in the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader in the Senate. The technical head of government is the President, who while the head of his party, is not the boss of Congress. So, in a way, there is no real analog to the Prime Minister in the United States, so there's no meaningful way to force every member of your caucus to vote your way. There are certainly the usual pressures, particularly on Representatives, who are elected every two years, much less on Senators who are elected every six. Certainly a Representative or Senator can be turfed out their party's caucus, but as we saw with Joe Lieberman, that certainly does not represent the sort of kiss of death it so often does in Westminster Parliaments.

[jbg]

Two things. 1) I was surprised to hear when party discipline dissolved in the US. I thought that the Senators and Congressmen had always been free and independant to vote on issues as they see fit....I understand the problems of pork politics in the US, but do you believe that it would be any different with party discipline? I thought alot of the blame falls with the lobbyiests?

The problem is that with lack of party discipline the individual Senators and Congressmen are naked before the lobbyists. With party discipline on occasion the lobbyists were told, simply "no, it's too expensive", etc. There was always theoretical greedom to vote their own way but previously, before primaries because ubiquitous the "party elders" in some states could select the candidate. Even in primary states, often, the party organization could get behind a favored candidate who would usually be the nominee.

For a long time, we have had a movement for breaking party discipline. Most recently the Reform Party, and Prior to that in the days of the Progressives and some of the other movements from 1867 to the 30s.

2) Strangely enough the "radical" elements of Canadian government has blown from west to east. I only just recently read that the CCF origins are in Alberta. I alway thought it was Sask. The United Farmers provided another radical element as did the Communists and their ties to the Labour movement and organized Labour. I had no idea that the CCF fought off the Communists who treated these Socialists as friends of Capital. Capital couldn't collapse if socialists campaigned to save it. At the same time, the Progressives and Social Credit came to the fore. Again, not communists but radical compared to the Liberal/Conservatives of the past. (Setting aside Quebec for a moment:)

3) When one reads Canadian History, the Labour movement came from the west bringing the communists with them.

However, one must admit that the parties first meeting happened in Guelph Ontario. The hotbed of radicalism today

Interesting. But the origins of these parties were alway in what was to be the province of "Buffalo", i.e. combined AB and SK.

[Moonlight Graham]

I will never give a dime to any of these moronic parties.

As people say, its voting for the lesser of evils. So far Ignatieff has my vote most likely, even though i despise the fact he has been out of the country for decades.

[Progressive Tory]

I will never give a dime to any of these moronic parties.

As people say, its voting for the lesser of evils. So far Ignatieff has my vote most likely, even though i despise the fact he has been out of the country for decades.

But he hasn't spent that time in a Turkish prison. He worked mostly as a journalist in wartorn countries, writing books, making documentaries and teaching at Ivy League Universities. If a Canadian hockey player is drafted by an American team he is still Canadian. Ignatieff never applied for citizenship to another country and always travelled on a Canadian passport.

He is Canadian.

[jbg]

But he hasn't spent that time in a Turkish prison. He worked mostly as a journalist in wartorn countries, writing books, making documentaries and teaching at Ivy League Universities. If a Canadian hockey player is drafted by an American team he is still Canadian. Ignatieff never applied for citizenship to another country and always travelled on a Canadian passport.

He is Canadian.

But how good is his feel for Canadian issues?

Many British and Canadian citizens who have been in the US for a few years decline to even vote in their "home country" elections since they feel they don't know what's going on there. Does Ignatieff?

[Progressive Tory]

But how good is his feel for Canadian issues?

Many British and Canadian citizens who have been in the US for a few years decline to even vote in their "home country" elections since they feel they don't know what's going on there. Does Ignatieff?

He was a political commentator on BBC and discussed current political issues from around the world. This has given him a better insight into how Canadians fit in that world. His book Blood and Belongings, is the result of his research into a new Nationalism and in what he refers to as six journies; he visited Croatia and Serbia, Germany, Ukraine, Quebec, Kurdistan and Northern Ireland.

The Globe and Mail: "Perhaps Ignatieff's succinct, popularly written primer with it's stark message will not fall on deaf ears. If it does, we'll all likely be the worse for it."

Kitchener-Waterloo Record: "An odyssey through the world's trouble spots ... an intellectual voyage as as a physical journey through suffering, strife, and hope..."

Montreal's Hour Magazine - "THe journalaistic equivalent of a passionate road movie .... always searching fo an explanation why people trade universal human values for blood rights."

When he won his Canadian Gemini he was invited by many Canadian Universities to give lectures as a visiting professor, and the Banff Arts Culture funded a radio program to discuss his findings and Canada's role in the modern world.

Michael Ignatieff did not 'leave' Canada nor did Canada leave him. I'm on the third of his books and he's constantly making references to being a Canadian, 'in my home country Canada'. He was probably more aware of what was happening here than we were, because of his need to stay connected. In fact, MacLeans once named him one of the top ten most influential Canadians and his name appears in the Canadian book of "Who's Who."

[guyser]

But how good is his feel for Canadian issues?

The year is 2009. Anyone living anywhere can be up on the local scene thru the wonders of the internet.

20+ years ago you might have a point.

[Argus]

The year is 2009. Anyone living anywhere can be up on the local scene thru the wonders of the internet.

20+ years ago you might have a point.

That's drivel. Reading a few local newspapers on-line does NOT give you a feel for "local" issues, values and culture.