Ignatieff calls it!

[Argus]

Did you not vote out of anger last time because Harper didn't wait till the term ended?

Your party had an idiotic platform and an idiotic leader. Despite my lack of enthusiasm for Harper there was no way in hell I was going to vote for them.

Right now you have no platform and an invisible leader without any noticeable vision. Call me unimpressed.

[Argus]

The election won't be on EI.

It is likely to focus on the deficit and management of the economy as it recovers.

The Tories don't even want to talk about the deficit because it raises some uncomfortable things for them such as what will they cut later on or what will they tax. It will be hard to argue the deficit will magically disappear.

We have not had that debate in Canada yet and it is worth having an election over to get that debate.

I've been around for more than a few elections. Your party will not want to talk about what it plans to do about the deficit either, except in the broadest of terms. It will not tell anyone how it intends to save money with any specifics. It will imply that it can save money through efficiencies and such, but it will give no details. The Tories will likely be the same, though probably with a bit more in the way of details.

It will be a very short debate. The only one who will actually give any details is Layton, who will announce massive new taxes on the rich (ie, anyone earning more than $40,000), and on corporations.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Maybeso, but most Canadians are used to long periods of stability. They didn't particularly like having an election after two years. They're going to like having another just one year later even less. That's why the Liberals kept trying to come up with some noble excuse for why they simply HAD to bring down the government, be it EI or incentive spending or whatnot. They've clearly not found anything and have given up trying to disguise what is clearly nothing more than a quest for power.

I just wish they could for once have the honesty to admit it instead of making stupid mouth noises about how they have to save Canada and how they have to stop the evil Conservatives from... uh, whatever. They should just say "Look, we really don't have any better ideas on how to govern, and we really aren't planning on changing much. We just want to be the government so we can ride in limousines and hand the pork out to our buddies."

Argus the left screams evil and the right screams evil, and there is always finger pointing going on. There is no middle ground and the so called centre is merely an illusion. That is why we have the problems we have. There is no single group smart enough to find the common ground because there are all trying to outflank each other. They all want to be different from each other.

The smart move is to take a little from all of the positions and build on that. Yet we are missing an important ingredient and that is calm passion. There is no love for this country anymore. It has been split and divided several times over. French verses English, rural verses urban, men verses women, citizen verse immigrant and so on. We are now a nation of multi's instead of a nation of uni's, we have built in division instead of inclusion.

[Argus]

Pretty sure we will see exactly that. I don't believe they will make you happy even if they are policies you like.

I don't actually hate Ignatieff. I just think he's kind of a drone. I think your party, overall, is full of hypocrites and liars, though. But if they actually came up with an important, innovative set of policies I agreed with - that I believed they were being honest about - anything could happen.

I was sure not impressed by your finance critic last time around, secretly admitting that he planned to save money by cutting the defense budget in the middle of a war to finance more arts programs.

[Keepitsimple]

Argus the left screams evil and the right screams evil, and there is always finger pointing going on. There is no middle ground and the so called centre is merely an illusion. That is why we have the problems we have. There is no single group smart enough to find the common ground because there are all trying to outflank each other. They all want to be different from each other.

The smart move is to take a little from all of the positions and build on that. Yet we are missing an important ingredient and that is calm passion. There is no love for this country anymore. It has been split and divided several times over. French verses English, rural verses urban, men verses women, citizen verse immigrant and so on. We are now a nation of multi's instead of a nation of uni's, we have built in division instead of inclusion.

It's a little more direct than that. You cannot please all of the people all of the time.....when you try to, you please no one. You need to understand where Canada's sweet spot is, then create policies and legislation that satifies a little to the Left and a little to the Right......but people who connect with the too-far Left and too-far Right will always be left out in the cold - except for the odd thing here and there that might make sense. Conservatives might bend just a little bit more to the right at this time, Liberals to the left. One major difference though is that Conservatives are fairly clear about where they stand. Liberals are all over the map - trying to please all the people all of the time, and standing for nothing but platitudes and "visions".

[Mr.Canada]

I really want to know if the unholy alliance of "socialists and separatists" are going to run as one unit or will they remain split r what's happening with that?

[jdobbin]

I don't actually hate Ignatieff. I just think he's kind of a drone. I think your party, overall, is full of hypocrites and liars, though.

It is why I think you will never vote for them again. Even if the policies were what you truly believed in, you could not accept the party.

But if they actually came up with an important, innovative set of policies I agreed with - that I believed they were being honest about - anything could happen.

There's the rub. I don't figure you believing the Liberals are capable of it.

I was sure not impressed by your finance critic last time around, secretly admitting that he planned to save money by cutting the defense budget in the middle of a war to finance more arts programs.

Depends on what the cuts were. The bloated procurement budgets are befuddling even the Tories.

I never trust that bids will actually come in on budget.

Moreover, I'm not convinced something like the submarine program is the way to go for Canada.

[jdobbin]

Your party had an idiotic platform and an idiotic leader. Despite my lack of enthusiasm for Harper there was no way in hell I was going to vote for them.

It is why I think this nonsense that someone will get the blame for an election and it will change votes unsupportable.

Lack of enthusiasm for an election usually means someone doesn't vote.

Right now you have no platform and an invisible leader without any noticeable vision. Call me unimpressed.

Then by all means vote Tory. That is what elections are all about.

[Mr.Canada]

The Liberals have one of the lowest seat count they've ever had and it's only going to get worse once PM Harper starts up his impressive PR machine. He is a master at getting his message into peoples heads. Look for more 905 and some 416 ridings to go blue. Ride the wave baby.

Layton is like the little dog in the cartoons that's mouthy as long as the big dog is in front of him. He's always saying how many times he's voted against PM Harper but it will interesting to see if that continues or if he will vote with Harper now that the big dog is gone.

Harper is right about this however and I don't really see how it can be disagreed with.

"I think the view of the vast majority of Canadians [is] that going through more political games, more political instability, does not serve the country's interests right now."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1272885/

We don't need to spend another 310 million dollars on another campaign after we just had one 10 months ago. Whoever make this government fall is going to take the blame and will lose more seats.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[jdobbin]

Harper is right about this however and I don't really see how it can be disagreed with.

Harper called the last election before his term limit. You have never said you disagreed with it.

[noahbody]

Harper was going to call a snap election prior to the term limit after something like the Olympics or G8 summit. He did it before. There was no reason to think he wasn't going to do it again.

Maybe Ignatieff is worried he'll be caught cheering for the Americans during the Olympics. He has considered the US his country in the past. There's no reason to think he might not during the Olympics.

[Mr.Canada]

Harper called the last election before his term limit. You have never said you disagreed with it.

He wanted another election with that wimp Dion and is insane new tax he wanted to kill us with. It was simply too good to be true.

If the Liberals had won and the new tax was implemented our unemployment numbers would be way higher then they are now. Hundreds of companies would have gone bankrupt or folded up shop and moved elsewhere. Inflation would have been skyrocketing by now.

[madmax]

uhhh... clearly, poster Fortin is a master prognosticator!

[madmax]

You guys despised Harper and called him a dangerous fanatic.

Day wasn't dangerous, he was Daygerous. Not up to the job and out of his league. Much like Dion being Dionerous.

Harper..... I have to hold major reservations to anyone who would claim the Prime Minister of Canada was a supporter of Child Porn during an election campaign. He control over outrageous statements is extremely lacking.

Preston Manning... Yes, I think the Liberals did an excellent job of going to town on Preston. Many in his own Party did so in the end and they paid the price by bringing in Stockwell Day.

[jdobbin]

He wanted another election with that wimp Dion and is insane new tax he wanted to kill us with. It was simply too good to be true.

It just goes to show that terms limits are a hoax.

[jdobbin]

Maybe Ignatieff is worried he'll be caught cheering for the Americans during the Olympics. He has considered the US his country in the past. There's no reason to think he might not during the Olympics.

Harper really doesn't believe in term limits. They are hoax. If he sees an opportunity, he will make any excuse to call an election.

[madmax]

The CPC would be nowhere near forming the government if Day or Manning were still running the show. Harper's been the only one that could distance the CPC from their deep Christian Right roots. He's managed to bring the party more to the centre to the clear benefit of the party.

I disagree. It was Manning that moved the Liberals to the Centre Right, thus the Paul Martin Budgets vs those Micheal Wilson budgets. Manning was a true Professional and not a hatchet man. There is no way Manning would have blown the 04 Campaign the way Harper did, and go hiding in a trailer during the last week of the Campaign.

Harper is still so Chippy, that the party has to keep him out of sight and out of mind during the final 72 hours of the 08 campaign. Because he is prone to blow it. No one would ever have to concern themselves with locking Manning up during an election campaign.

Harper still has a very thin skin.

[madmax]

I know many Liberals actually believed Manning was a decent person.

I believe Manning did his best to temper these candidates

I still believe Manning is a decent person.

I fully agree.

[jbg]

David Frum???

Not exactly a non-partisan opinion!

And 2005 is not exactly recent.

The political science behind that column is still sound; the U.S., India, Italy, Germany, Israel, Mexico and now even Japan have shed their "brokerage parties". Overall, it is not a bad historical analysis.

Certainly, you would agree heartily that the U.S., Japan, Germany and Italy have shed right-wing brokerage parties.

[madmax]

Within the same article is this little nugget, MM!

"When asked why they viewed a minority as favourable, 54.8% of respondents said: "It's good because it forces parties to co-operate." But when asked if minority governments actually do co-operate, Mr. Nanos replied simply. "No," he said, laughing."

Things are still in flux, I would say.

The interesting part is that this was a trend. And it is not the first time that the public perspectives and the realities of parliment don't match.

When it comes down to it, many people will say they want a Majority government, and there choice will split along party lines.... which will create a minority government. LOL.

There's a Gordian Knot laying around. Got a knife.

[madmax]

I agree completely with you.

I always find it a painful experience to find myself agreeing with Argus.

However, I concur with Argus analysis.

[jbg]

As I've said many times, Quebecers will simply not vote in numbers for an Anglophone, let alone an Anglophone who is from outside Quebec, if they have a Quebecois alternative.

Wasn't Brian Mulroney an Anglophone, albeit a Quebecker as well?

This has long been the weakness of English Canada. Because we are not nearly as bigoted as Quebecers, and don't really care much whether the party leader is English or French, it's allowed Quebec to control the federal government for most of the last half century.

Quebec is also a rare province that, along with BC and the Atlantic Provinces (the latter not particularly riding-rich), does give at least a modicum of support to both the CPC (or before it the PCPC) and the Liberals. Ontario, despite a few NDP and CPC ridings, is Liberal territory. The Prairies are largely CPC, interspersed with a token NDP or LPC riding here and there.

Given the number of Quebec ridings that are in play among either two or three parties, politicians will always pander to Quebec. I doubt that bigotry is 100% of the issue.

[Moonbox]

Please cite me some example of the CPC "bible thumping". I'd also like an example of some of PM Harper's backward social beliefs.

Mr. Harper's stances on gay marriage and abortion are pretty obvious examples of this, and some of his MP's are even more wild over these issues. He 'apologized' for funding the gay pride parade because the red necks in Alberta cried about it. Why? Other than bible thumping adherence to a silly and outdated religious doctrine, there's no reason to get bothered about it. When he was elected in 2006 he actually said he was going to try a free vote on the issue of gay marriage.

Making blanket statements without proof is a poor excuse for posting at all.

Ignorantly posting dumb questions and demanding proof of things that are out in plain view is a poor excuse for posting. The best part is that overall I support Harper over the other candidates, I'm just not a hack and I actually realize that there are some significant problems with him as a PM.

[Moonbox]

Ontario, despite a few NDP and CPC ridings, is Liberal territory. The Prairies are largely CPC, interspersed with a token NDP or LPC riding here and there.

Ontario is largely CPC territory and has been for a long time. Other than Toronto and parts of the GTA, it's like 90% Tory.

[Argus]

Wasn't Brian Mulroney an Anglophone, albeit a Quebecker as well?

Yes, and no. He was an Anglophone who grew up in a French town and whose french was so good he might as well have been French, and he was faced with non-French, non-quebec Liberal leader.

Quebec is also a rare province that, along with BC and the Atlantic Provinces (the latter not particularly riding-rich), does give at least a modicum of support to both the CPC (or before it the PCPC) and the Liberals.

Prior to the BQ, Quebec generally gave 90% of its seats to the Liberals pretty much every election. The NDP only recently has made any inroads.

Ontario, despite a few NDP and CPC ridings, is Liberal territory.

Ontario has traditionally split between the three parties but favored the Tories. Right now, much of urban Ontario, especially Toronto, is Liberal, though with some NDP MPPS. Most of the rest is Conservative. The current standings are C 51, L 38, NDP 17

Given the number of Quebec ridings that are in play among either two or three parties, politicians will always pander to Quebec. I doubt that bigotry is 100% of the issue.

Bigotry is the issue given that Quebec voters, unlike voters in say Ontario or Saskatchewan, will vote by language and province ahead of all other issues.