Ignatieff pledges to erase deficit with no new taxes

ToadBrother · September 7, 2009

I'm not saying that if we thought about it long enough we couldn't think of at least one party plank from the old Blue Book that is still in the present CPC. It might take days of thinking but I'm sure we'd eventually come up with one.
I'm just damned sure we couldn't come up with 3!

Virtually everything we Reformers believed in seems 'down the memory hole, Winston!"

Reform/Alliance may have swallowed the PC's according to the numbers but immediately after the merger it seemed that all the old PC guys got all the power positions and all the old Reformers were pushed to the side. The Blue Book principles are NEVER mentioned anymore!

To me the new party looks like a clone of the old Mulroney party that I bailed from 20 years ago. If you want me to believe differently then you are going to have to SHOW me! Everything I see and everything I've experienced as a former Reform Riding Director tells me different.

I'd need more than a blanket statement with zip all to back it up from you to change my mind!

That's because the old Progressive-Conservative alliance could get elected, but Reform could not. Whatever else Harper and Mackay may be, they're bright enough to realize that Reform/Alliance would forever be an opposition party and the PC remnants would dwindle to nothingness.

Canada just isn't as right wing as you are. If you're running a right-wing party, you have a choice, move to the center and stand a chance of forming a government, or stand on principle, and just keep watching as the Liberals get crowned over and over again. It's not a B.S. statement to say that Reform was Jean Chretien's best friend.

Wild Bill · September 7, 2009

That's because the old Progressive-Conservative alliance could get elected, but Reform could not. Whatever else Harper and Mackay may be, they're bright enough to realize that Reform/Alliance would forever be an opposition party and the PC remnants would dwindle to nothingness.

If that were the case, then why in just 2 elections could Reform win over 60 seats when the PC's, having been knocked down to TWO, could barely get enough seats to be a legal party?

Reform had been slowly growing while the PC's were obviously dying away. Seems to me that Reform just got too hasty and now has paid for it.

Meanwhile, the present CPC has millions of former Reform voters that are only sticking with them for lack of any other palatable alternative. That was exactly the situation for the PC's when Reform was first formed!

It was supposed to be a merger, not a total takeover by the far smaller PC party! We didn't even see any compromise on party platforms at all! Just 100% of what we had all abandoned in the beginning, in droves!

I say again, why did Manning even bother? It all seems to have been just a pointless waste of time.

If those voters ever get offered a more attractive alternative they will be gone in a flash!

Edited September 7, 2009 by Wild Bill

Machjo · September 7, 2009

Hd reform been smart, it woudl have learnt from the NDP. The NDP has not yet formed a government federally, but whenever a minority government is in power, the NDP does become a force to contend with to varying degrees. It may never have formed a federal government yet, but has influenced policy, and is present.

Reform could have made the same decision, to resign itself to permanent minority party status like the NDP, yet still present at least, and able to break the balance of power in minority governments. By compromising, it's ended up disappearing off the map altogether. Perhaps it's a question of which is better, to compromise, form a government, but have lost its orginal purpose, or to stand firm, never form a government, but at least remain present and influential in minority governments.

In that respect, the NDP has outsmarted the Reform Party.

Machjo · September 7, 2009

Had Reform never compromised, who knows, maybe the Progressive Conservatives would have eventually just gotten swallowed up between the Greens (who are quite right-wing for a leftist party, in spite of the rhetoric), Reform, the CHP, and the Libertarian Party. The Reform Party would likely have ended up with secure seats in various parts of the West at least, and maybe the odd one in Ontario, still today. It would likely have ended up being forced to form alliances with other parties in Parliament or stand in official opposition. Either way, it woudl have had a presence.

jdobbin · September 7, 2009

It's not worth having an election on. Debate it where it is supposed to be debated, in Parliament. We didn't need the last election and we don't need another one. Two elections in just over a year, the government shut down for months and 600+ million pissed away just for the agendas of federal political parties and their leaders. Smarten up.

But you still voted last election?

I don't believe the Liberals would cancel the tax credit either.

It certainly seems an issue the Tories are trying to make that the Liberals will cancel it.

Wilber · September 8, 2009

But you still voted last election?
It certainly seems an issue the Tories are trying to make that the Liberals will cancel it.

A: What does that have to do with anything? Just because I voted doesn't mean I am not pissed off when we are forced into a very wasteful and expensive exercise purely because of political ambition. What do you suggest, that I not vote or spoil my ballot because I don't think there should be an election?

B: Yes they are, more BS politics. Frankly, I'm getting very sick of them all.

jdobbin · September 8, 2009

A: What does that have to do with anything? Just because I voted doesn't mean I am not pissed off when we are forced into a very wasteful and expensive exercise purely because of political ambition. What do you suggest, that I not vote or spoil my ballot because I don't think there should be an election?

It is just that every time I hear people don't want an election, they end up voting for the party they usually vote for.

It is rare that I hear that someone changed their vote or didn't vote altogether because an election was called.

B: Yes they are, more BS politics. Frankly, I'm getting very sick of them all.

And yet we continue to vote for them.

Wilber · September 8, 2009

It is just that every time I hear people don't want an election, they end up voting for the party they usually vote for.
It is rare that I hear that someone changed their vote or didn't vote altogether because an election was called.

And yet we continue to vote for them.

A: If they just end up voting for the party they usually vote for, why do we need an election?

B: True, maybe it's because they view most of what politicians say as BS, therefore it has little influence on them. The reason they end up voting the same way is because they didn't want an election. It's not rocket science.

jdobbin · September 8, 2009

A: If they just end up voting for the party they usually vote for, why do we need an election?

Because there is no cooperation and the system works on confidence.

Harper has a minority. The Liberals have been the ones to bend while everyone else has taken hard positions. Why is that the Liberals have to support the government each and every time only to have Harper call an election four or five months from now? It is hard to imagine him going right to the term limit. That means nothing to him.

I can't imagine a scenario where we go another five months with heavy ad campaigns by the Tories calling Ignatieff names and shouting coward at the Liberals all the while and then whining that they shouldn't have to face an election because of loss of confidence.

B: True, maybe it's because they view most of what politicians say as BS, therefore it has little influence on them. The reason they end up voting the same way is because they didn't want an election. It's not rocket science.

Everyone is full of crap. Not just politicians.

Wilber · September 8, 2009

Because there is no cooperation and the system works on confidence.

The confidence of who, the public or the opposition?

Everyone is full of crap. Not just politicians.

Not everyone who is full of crap costs the public 300 million or stops doing their job (which the public pays them for) for several months so they can be full of crap on steroids.

ToadBrother · September 8, 2009

The confidence of who, the public or the opposition?

Parliament. One would think all the drama of November and December last year would have familiarized everyone once again with how the Westminster system works. Voters do not vote for a government, they vote for a Parliament. It is Parliament that chooses the government.

Not everyone who is full of crap costs the public 300 million or stops doing their job (which the public pays them for) for several months so they can be full of crap on steroids.

Minority governments are inherently unstable. News at 11.

ToadBrother · September 8, 2009

If that were the case, then why in just 2 elections could Reform win over 60 seats when the PC's, having been knocked down to TWO, could barely get enough seats to be a legal party?
Reform had been slowly growing while the PC's were obviously dying away. Seems to me that Reform just got too hasty and now has paid for it.

By all indications, Reform had basically stopped at Ontario. There was little evidence that Reform, as it was constituted, could ever get any traction in the East. It's policies and its entire demeanor were decidedly regional. In politics, maybes don't get you far. Manning knew he'd got as far as he could go. Was he wrong? Well, that's impossible to tell. What is evident is that the reunited Conservatives have had more electoral success than Reform/Alliance ever had, which suggests that the watering down of Reform was what was necessary.

Meanwhile, the present CPC has millions of former Reform voters that are only sticking with them for lack of any other palatable alternative. That was exactly the situation for the PC's when Reform was first formed!
It was supposed to be a merger, not a total takeover by the far smaller PC party! We didn't even see any compromise on party platforms at all! Just 100% of what we had all abandoned in the beginning, in droves!

Well, I think the Conservatives still talk more right wing than they did in the Mulroney years. But, at the end of the day, you have to be what the electorate wants.

I say again, why did Manning even bother? It all seems to have been just a pointless waste of time.

He bothered because he knew Reform behaved like and was perceived as a regional party, a sort of Anglo version of the PArti Quebecois.

If those voters ever get offered a more attractive alternative they will be gone in a flash!

And the Liberals will reign supreme for another decade. Would you rather have that?

The Red Tories have always found their Blue counterparts a distasteful lot. It's the nature of the Tory tradition, and has been since before Canada even existed.

Edited September 8, 2009 by ToadBrother

Oleg Bach · September 8, 2009

There is no longer any use for super old school Tories who see fit to send our boys to war for profit and fun..this old school approach is dying out as they die out. thank God!

Wilber · September 8, 2009

Parliament. One would think all the drama of November and December last year would have familiarized everyone once again with how the Westminster system works. Voters do not vote for a government, they vote for a Parliament. It is Parliament that chooses the government.
Minority governments are inherently unstable. News at 11.

A: Who does Parliament represent, their own partisan agenda? It would seem so and why shouldn't we show our displeasure when they do.

B: Wonderfull, are they worth 300+ mil a year in waste to you or do you think they should quit screwing around, get their asses in gear and do the job we elected them to do?

I'm not being partisan here, there is lots of blame to go around. I think the last election was crap and feel the same way about one this fall.

gc1765 · September 8, 2009

I think what we need at this stage is to fill Parliament with as many independent MPs as possible. Just down the parties! One thing I could support would be the requirment that all ballots must have an empty line at the bottom where we can write the name of whom we wish. That way, if we know someone in the community who we think would do a good job, but who's just not political enough to run for office, we could still vote him in. I can't imagine the government supporting such a ballot though. Too democratic.

Hear, hear!

jdobbin · September 8, 2009

The confidence of who, the public or the opposition?

Both.

Not everyone who is full of crap costs the public 300 million or stops doing their job (which the public pays them for) for several months so they can be full of crap on steroids.

No, they cost in other areas such as personal lives destroyed and general destructive behaviour. I'm sure that adds up to trillions.

Edited September 8, 2009 by jdobbin

ToadBrother · September 8, 2009

A: Who does Parliament represent, their own partisan agenda? It would seem so and why shouldn't we show our displeasure when they do.
B: Wonderfull, are they worth 300+ mil a year in waste to you or do you think they should quit screwing around, get their asses in gear and do the job we elected them to do?

I'm not being partisan here, there is lots of blame to go around. I think the last election was crap and feel the same way about one this fall.

Hey, I'd gladly support changing government without an election. That was tried, but for some strange reason, a whole bunch of people started spreading pure lies about how our system works, and then the PM set what may be the worst precedent in Parliamentary governance in the modern history of the Westminster system.

I'll take an election over a prorogation to avoid a confidence motion any day of the week.

Wilber · September 8, 2009

Both.

Ya right.

No, they cost in other areas such as personal lives destroyed and general destructive behavior. I'm sure that adds up to trillions.

Bit melodramatic, is this a contest between who can best destroy personal lives and demonstrate general destructive behavior? Better get rid of Parliament altogether.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Wilber

Wilber · September 8, 2009

Hey, I'd gladly support changing government without an election. That was tried, but for some strange reason, a whole bunch of people started spreading pure lies about how our system works, and then the PM set what may be the worst precedent in Parliamentary governance in the modern history of the Westminster system.
I'll take an election over a prorogation to avoid a confidence motion any day of the week.

I suspect the GG knows how the system works. I doubt prorogation will get a rerun if the situation arises again with this government, nor should it.

jdobbin · September 8, 2009

Ya right.

It seems you don't like the system. It is a multi-party system and unless you want to make an amendment to remove confidence votes and set term limits regardless, it can mean that a party with less than majority support can do whatever it wants.

Why is that the Liberals are the ones that have to bend every single time?

Bit melodramatic, is this a contest between who can best destroy personal lives and demonstrate general destructive behavior? Better get rid of Parliament altogether.

Or the entire human race.

I always hear the running down of politicians, doctors, teachers, business people, etc, etc.

Wilber · September 8, 2009

It seems you don't like the system. It is a multi-party system and unless you want to make an amendment to remove confidence votes and set term limits regardless, it can mean that a party with less than majority support can do whatever it wants.
Why is that the Liberals are the ones that have to bend every single time?

The Liberals shouldn't have to bend every single time but considering they have fewer seats, they should bend somewhat more often. Harper could probably be more accommodating but it begs the question, would it make much difference? Is this really about accommodation or power? Whatever, Liberal noses being out of joint is no justification for subjecting the country to an election it seems most of its citizens don't want.

Or the entire human race.
I always hear the running down of politicians, doctors, teachers, business people, etc, etc.

Even more melodramatic.

nicky10013 · September 8, 2009

The Liberals shouldn't have to bend every single time but considering they have fewer seats, they should bend somewhat more often. Harper could probably be more accommodating but it begs the question, would it make much difference? Is this really about accommodation or power? Whatever, Liberal noses being out of joint is no justification for subjecting the country to an election it seems most of its citizens don't want.
Even more melodramatic.

But I'm sure the "Parliament isn't working" especially when it was your own people holding up committees schtick, worked just fine with you LAST fall. We needed an election then. His excellency Gerneralissimo Stephen Harper needs a majority and we must oblige! TO THE VOTING BOOTHS WE GO!

Edited September 8, 2009 by nicky10013

jdobbin · September 8, 2009

The Liberals shouldn't have to bend every single time but considering they have fewer seats, they should bend somewhat more often. Harper could probably be more accommodating but it begs the question, would it make much difference? Is this really about accommodation or power? Whatever, Liberal noses being out of joint is no justification for subjecting the country to an election it seems most of its citizens don't want.

They did. Since 2006, the Liberals have not brought the government down.

And for their troubles, the Tories called the last election and then when that election was over, the Tories believed that called for even more partisan gameplaying and take it or leave it brinkmanship.

Even more melodramatic.

And yet you know it is true. It is an endless stream of complaints about... everyone. Call it what you want but it is gripes about politicians and everyone else.

nicky10013 · September 8, 2009

I suspect the GG knows how the system works. I doubt prorogation will get a rerun if the situation arises again with this government, nor should it.

I agree that it shouldn't, but the fact is that prorogation has now been set as a precedent and the Westminster System heavily relies on precedent.

As for the Conservative response to deficit, has anyone else seen the "Canada's Economic Action Plan" commercials? Those seem awfully close to being partisan messages to me. It seems to me that Canadian Government commercials should be aimed at promoting recruitment to areas of the civil service or for advertising of specific government programmes like tax credits etc which they've done with the HRTC (which I've got no problem with). These ads are very vague and do nothing but paint the picture that all of Canada is having a good time, things are doing better...lets all thank the government! I wouldn't mind Elections Canada taking a look at them. Or would it be a conflict of interest considering that the two parties are actually in litigation right now?

jbg · September 8, 2009

Reform could have made the same decision, to resign itself to permanent minority party status like the NDP, yet still present at least, and able to break the balance of power in minority governments.************In that respect, the NDP has outsmarted the Reform Party.

You're making one huge fallacious assumption; that a non-merged party could have even reduced the LPOC to minority status. That didn't happen until the PCPC/Alliance Merger of December 2003.

If the LPOC had been free of right-wing opposition and was able to thus concentrate on pandering to Quebec it probably could have maintained its Chretien-era majorities, even with 38% of the vote. Think the 1997 election.

The purist unmerged party, in the context of an LPC majority government, would have been voiceless.