Iggy flops [i]again[/i]

[jdobbin]

They'd be wrong.....it's the Party that does the work. He'll offer opinions about what he thinks but it's always "we" when it comes to doing things.

That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to how some Canadians can't stand Harper use of inflammatory language and bullying.

Harper is a longtime Conservative who has invested his life in resurrecting the Party. Mr. Ignatieff is a newcomer to politics and has not been able to leave behind his egocentric views and being the smartest man in the room. It's not really his fault - that's just the way he is - and I don't think Canadians are warming to that part of his character.

Longtime conservative? Of which party?

[fellowtraveller]

We have a very, very serious problem with this relationship and I don't think I'm going to be able to fix it until I become the prime minister."

Yep, another weapon that the Liberals have hacked away with for years is now gone.....and this time it is all on Ignatieffs watch.....

Harper was labelled as a Bushbot for years, a convenient smear that has now gone badly wrong for the LPC and NDP.

Harper has met something like seven times with Obama in less than a year and certainly appears to have a friendly productive relationship with him.

I wonder if Barack got a copy of Harpers secret agenda?

[jdobbin]

Harper has met something like seven times with Obama in less than a year and certainly appears to have a friendly productive relationship with him.

Really? What did they agree to except to make NHL charters easier to do?

[madmax]

Indeed. A transparent attempt at getting the NDP to withdraw their support and force an election. If it works, there's no question who has brought Canadians to the polls.

Only if there is an election in the short term.

I don't see that this actually works, though. Layton finally has something he can sell to his supporters. "We got Stephen Harper to make changes to EI that working Canadians blah blah, blah blah blah... and we will work with the government again to get them to implement policy that works for working Canadians blah blah, blah blah blah"

Sure enough. I figured an election was coming ASAP. However, the NDP had SFA to show as an accomplishment since the last election. Its' hard to campaign on "Opposing Everything and getting results for no one"

The Liberals have nothing to show for supporting the Government. The LPC claim to fame is that they didn't call an unnecessary election and supported the Harper Government in full. Campaign Slogan. "Now its our turn"

Obviously the Harper Government is moving tediously slow on EI, even to the point of making it a summer election game with the Liberals. Lets play "Blue Ribbon". Probably would have achieved more with a few cases of Pabst. The CPC/LPC could have returned the empty bottles and put the money in the EI fund.

This is what NDP supporters have always said was the reason to send NDP MPs to parliament despite the fact that they'll never form a government. If Layton is shrewd, he could work the situation to produce a bit of a resume of stuff that he can show voters in the next election. If I was in his situation, I'd be brainstorming to find something else that I could compromise with Harper on.

And, it doesn't hurt Harper at all to help Layton build up the NDP a little. If Layton increases his support, it's not going to come at the expense of Conservatives, it'll come from Green and Liberal voters. If I was in Harper's situation, I would be brainstorming on things that I could offer the NDP without alienating my own base.

I don't see Harper in that light.

I agree more with jdobbins analysis of the Harper government and opposition party cooperation.

The LPC has a good insight in attempting to work with the Harper government. Harper isn't a cooperator. He has a take it or leave it style.

I am still betting on an Election before the end of the year.

[Goat Boy©]

There is plenty of legislation to doesn't make it all the way to an election even when it is a fixed election. It is why implementation laws are introduced so that legislation every one already approved continues with the next session.

If you take the attitude that the Liberals are voting against the legislation, then you have to take the same attitude to the Tories when they called the last snap election when they left a number of bills in progress, essentially ending them.

As far as policy goes, Ignatieff will do doubt be making some of the differences clear as the session goes on. However, I doubt that an entire election platform will be revealed when no other party does that between elections.

The first step was to ensure that the other parties had no more free rides. Now the Liberals can make amendments to bills that might even make them better as a way of contrasting the parties. The NDP and Bloc will have to decide whether they will support those bills and the Tories will have to decide whether they want a confidence measure on each piece of legislation.

If the Tories do want to do that, then it is they who will be looked as wanting an election.

As I specifically stated, I am not speaking of the way things are, "I won't attempt to speculate," but how things appear.

You really aren't capable of making any sort of post on this forum without screaming at the other guy are you?

[jdobbin]

As I specifically stated, I am not speaking of the way things are, "I won't attempt to speculate," but how things appear.

To whit I responded earlier on that the goal wasn't just about an election but breaking from supporting the government in take it or leave it politics.

You really aren't capable of making any sort of post on this forum without screaming at the other guy are you?

Screaming?

What are you talking about?

[fellowtraveller]

Really? What did they agree to except to make NHL charters easier to do?

Tough to get results until you do have a relationship, just ask Jean Chretien who somehow had nothing going with his largest and most inmportant trading partner.

It was much much harder to get face time with Bush, even for the former Bushbot Harper.

I konow how mightily their apparaently easy relationship and frequent meetings piss you off, but it looks like they are buddies for the duration. Obama will be around for seven more years, Harper likely less but who knows?

[nicky10013]

If you like you could thank mulrooney it was his government that wrote the banking act.

It was Martin who resisted deregulating when Harper and his neocon minions wanted to follow the US example on subprime.

n\t

Also, someone mentioned that why is it that our recession wasn't as deep as the States and our recovery is ahead of the states?

A) Thank Paul Martin for the first

B ) According to the economist of all G7 nations Canada is poised to have the worst "recovery" numbers. In the Economist they cite OECD numbers predicting a 2.5% contraction in GDP. Thanks for getting that money out so quickly, Stevie!

Edited September 22, 2009 by nicky10013

[jdobbin]

Tough to get results until you do have a relationship, just ask Jean Chretien who somehow had nothing going with his largest and most inmportant trading partner.

Never made any claims that he did get anything special. Canada doesn't rank very high in American politics which in general works in our favour.

It was much much harder to get face time with Bush, even for the former Bushbot Harper.

I don't know that I made that an issue. I have been more interested in results which doesn't always happen in meeting Presidents but by working Congress steadily.

I konow how mightily their apparaently easy relationship and frequent meetings piss you off, but it looks like they are buddies for the duration. Obama will be around for seven more years, Harper likely less but who knows?

And Obama can't really deliver with a protectionist Congress.

Edited September 23, 2009 by jdobbin

[punked]

Many labour people are already dismissing the deal as not helping them. They don't need any help from the Liberals in finding problems with it.

Liberal talking point NAME ONE

[fellowtraveller]

It was Martin who resisted deregulating when Harper and his neocon minions wanted to follow the US example on subprime.

n\t

Also, someone mentioned that why is it that our recession wasn't as deep as the States and our recovery is ahead of the states?

A) Thank Paul Martin for the first

B ) According to the economist of all G7 nations Canada is poised to have the worst "recovery" numbers. In the Economist they cite OECD numbers predicting a 2.5% contraction in GDP. Thanks for getting that money out so quickly, Stevie!

So many mistakes in such a short post!

a) Martin did not resist anything, it was during his time that both 0% down and 40 year term mortgages(instruments of fiscal Satan popular in USA) were introduced to Canadian consumers, and both were canned by Harper in 2008 via govt influence on CMHC. Martin had little to do with the Bank Act, the Act has been around for over 100 years.

That our recession was not as deep as the US again had little to do with Harper or Martin, it was because Canadian banks/lenders are obliged to follow loan ratios, and essentially the high ratio mortgage market is controlled by CMHC. We just don't have anywhwere near as many shaky mortgages, and we never will as long as our regulation continues and the US remains unregulated.

The US has had hundreds if not thousands of bank failures, we have had none. I believe Canada is the only G8 country with zero failures, which is not a testament to any politiican but to all of them that have by and large kept their mitts off some very sensivble regulation in the Bank Act, and kept CMHC as a potent tool of social and economic policy.

[nicky10013]

So many mistakes in such a short post!

a) Martin did not resist anything, it was during his time that both 0% down and 40 year term mortgages(instruments of fiscal Satan popular in USA) were introduced to Canadian consumers, and both were canned by Harper in 2008 via govt influence on CMHC. Martin had little to do with the Bank Act, the Act has been around for over 100 years.

That our recession was not as deep as the US again had little to do with Harper or Martin, it was because Canadian banks/lenders are obliged to follow loan ratios, and essentially the high ratio mortgage market is controlled by CMHC. We just don't have anywhwere near as many shaky mortgages, and we never will as long as our regulation continues and the US remains unregulated.

The US has had hundreds if not thousands of bank failures, we have had none. I believe Canada is the only G8 country with zero failures, which is not a testament to any politiican but to all of them that have by and large kept their mitts off some very sensivble regulation in the Bank Act, and kept CMHC as a potent tool of social and economic policy.

Is it any coincidience that he got the CMHC to can these mortgages in 2008 because the markets were collapsing? Even by early summer 2008 everyone knew something big was coming. We tend to forget that in 2008 the housing market had been failing for a year due to these mortgages. My question is why would Harper wait so long to put pressure on the industry to get rid of these things?

As for our recession not being as deep, everyone agrees that our banking system was really strong. Whether Martin allowed the mortgages (which I think a lot of people Harper was clamouring for in opposition if it indeed was allowed under Martin's watch.) or not matters little. What matters is Harper`s complete inability to see the recession coming, admit it was here and he acted far too late in trying to do anything about it. It took the threat of an election for him to do anything and the money only started flowing last month due to political pressure from Gerard Kennedy for a list of projects approved in the spring. No one is saying the recession is his fault, but the fact that Canada`s growth will be slowest in the G7 (Canada used to be in the strongest fiscal health under previous Liberal governments if we remember) can be attributed to the government. There is no way getting around that.

It would be a completely different story if they had actually attempted to try to do something to fix this situation. However, not only has this been government attempted to not do anything, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do something, which is why the opposition is so upset.

[punked]

Great song and dance number by Iggy.

[fellowtraveller]

Is it any coincidience that he got the CMHC to can these mortgages in 2008 because the markets were collapsing? Even by early summer 2008 everyone knew something big was coming. We tend to forget that in 2008 the housing market had been failing for a year due to these mortgages. My question is why would Harper wait so long to put pressure on the industry to get rid of these things?

I know you are desperate to nominate Harper as the Great Satan in this, but you'll have to try harder.

Of co0urse it was not a coincidence, but save the histrionics about "the market collapsing". Canadian markets have slid backwards somewhat from 2007 highs, but those highs came from huge gains in many markets 2004-2007.

And "so long"? What are you talking about? It became apparent in spring and summer that a recession was coming, Harper cancelld both the zero down and 40 year terms in the summer, with effect in October 2008.

The reality is that relatively few Canadians have these mortgages, every one of them had to qualify just as other mortgage borrowers did, and there are relatively few foreclosures in Canada even now. All of that differs from the American experience, aside from the complete lack of bank failures here.

I have no doubt that Canadian banks would have jumped into horrible risky retail mortgages like the US, but they were not and will not get the chance due to federal regulation- both through the hoary Bank Act, and through the Tory instructions to CMHC as social and economic policy.

[M.Dancer]

I know you are desperate to nominate Harper as the Great Satan in this, but you'll have to try harder.

Of co0urse it was not a coincidence, but save the histrionics about "the market collapsing". Canadian markets have slid backwards somewhat from 2007 highs, but those highs came from huge gains in many markets 2004-2007.

Just to punctuate this comment...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-b...article1299678/

[fellowtraveller]

Just to punctuate this comment...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-b...article1299678/

I think Remax is a bit optimistic, not surprisingly. The recession is not over yet, and we will see some wobbles and downturns before it is done.

The real estate prospects are really quite regional, I think that Ontario is in for some longer term doldrums while the West will emerge stronger and sooner.

[M.Dancer]

I think Remax is a bit optimistic, not surprisingly. The recession is not over yet, and we will see some wobbles and downturns before it is done.

The real estate prospects are really quite regional, I think that Ontario is in for some longer term doldrums while the West will emerge stronger and sooner.

The recession is over....the recovery has started, job creation to follow.

I expect you will see unemployment lessening by APril

[fellowtraveller]

I certainly hope you are right.

[nicky10013]

I know you are desperate to nominate Harper as the Great Satan in this, but you'll have to try harder.

Of co0urse it was not a coincidence, but save the histrionics about "the market collapsing". Canadian markets have slid backwards somewhat from 2007 highs, but those highs came from huge gains in many markets 2004-2007.

And "so long"? What are you talking about? It became apparent in spring and summer that a recession was coming, Harper cancelld both the zero down and 40 year terms in the summer, with effect in October 2008.

The reality is that relatively few Canadians have these mortgages, every one of them had to qualify just as other mortgage borrowers did, and there are relatively few foreclosures in Canada even now. All of that differs from the American experience, aside from the complete lack of bank failures here.

I have no doubt that Canadian banks would have jumped into horrible risky retail mortgages like the US, but they were not and will not get the chance due to federal regulation- both through the hoary Bank Act, and through the Tory instructions to CMHC as social and economic policy.

My trying to make Harper out as the Great Satan is obviously due more to the fac thtat he's tried hard to do nothing about the recession, a portion of the post you refuse to comment on. The mortgages in the end don't even matter now, if it was Paul Martin's fault, so be it. Show me where it says that and I can accept that. What you can't accept is the government has failed and you clearly have nothing to counter with on that point.

[punked]

Flippy Floppy Iggy. "You can't run there that seat is for a women...................Wait bad press...........Wait bad poll numbers........You can run there that seat is for everyone"

Flip Flop Flip Flop.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1301721/

[Keepitsimple]

Flippy Floppy Iggy. "You can't run there that seat is for a women...................Wait bad press...........Wait bad poll numbers........You can run there that seat is for everyone"

Flip Flop Flip Flop.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1301721/

If he can't make the little decisions......Lord help us if he has to make a big one.

[fellowtraveller]

My trying to make Harper out as the Great Satan is obviously due more to the fac thtat he's tried hard to do nothing about the recession, a portion of the post you refuse to comment on. The mortgages in the end don't even matter now, if it was Paul Martin's fault, so be it. Show me where it says that and I can accept that. What you can't accept is the government has failed and you clearly have nothing to counter with on that point.

Is this Clown Day at MLB?

I gave you a specific example of a recession driven action by the govt -dumping zero down and 40 year amortization mortgages. It was done because it was recognized that were inappropriate in a dropping market and would contribute to deepening a recession.

The govt has failed how? To preventing the collapse of world commodity markets? Of failing to regulate world banking systems?

All little Canada can do is take care of their own business, and this govt- like all those before it that resisted substantial changes to the Bank Act, kept the greed of the banks under control, and used CMHC to control the lenders.

Give credit (the other kind of credit) where it is due- Harper has both continued to keep what works as engineered by previous govts, and has done some specific things to help in the short term.

Try and look past your ideological bias for a little perspective.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If the government or any other partisan group had balls and brains, they would put forth the same thing that the Americans have with a slight twist. Make mortgages tax deductible, setup a variant of CMHC as a mortgage firm, design mortgages to fit incomes and have fixed long terms and low rates.

Do this and the economy will turn. Design it around the same thing as the Americans have their defense industry setup, nicely spread around across the entire nation with jobs in every province.

We need to take a closer look at what works people. We need to design an economic recovery plan with a little more substance than simply infrastructure and parks and recreation. We need a long term plan that by design alters local economies and provides net benefit and visible goals for the public.

[nicky10013]

Is this Clown Day at MLB?

I gave you a specific example of a recession driven action by the govt -dumping zero down and 40 year amortization mortgages. It was done because it was recognized that were inappropriate in a dropping market and would contribute to deepening a recession.

The govt has failed how? To preventing the collapse of world commodity markets? Of failing to regulate world banking systems?

All little Canada can do is take care of their own business, and this govt- like all those before it that resisted substantial changes to the Bank Act, kept the greed of the banks under control, and used CMHC to control the lenders.

Give credit (the other kind of credit) where it is due- Harper has both continued to keep what works as engineered by previous govts, and has done some specific things to help in the short term.

Try and look past your ideological bias for a little perspective.

I am looking past my ideological basis. I specifically mentioned their specific failure on stimulus. I never said that he could've prevented the recession and failed. I even gave you Paul Martin because yes, I was wrong. The whole crux of the argument was never on the pre-recession side of things but the post recession side of things. He hasn't done jack all on stimulus as only 12% of the money has been spent. It could've temporarily boosted employment if the money had actually been spent. Now, construction season is over and who knows which municipality will get what they were promised. THOSE were the arguments I was making which you so conveniently declined to comment on. So, really, is it my ideological bias that is hampering the debate?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am looking past my ideological basis. I specifically mentioned their specific failure on stimulus. I never said that he could've prevented the recession and failed. I even gave you Paul Martin because yes, I was wrong. The whole crux of the argument was never on the pre-recession side of things but the post recession side of things. He hasn't done jack all on stimulus as only 12% of the money has been spent. It could've temporarily boosted employment if the money had actually been spent. Now, construction season is over and who knows which municipality will get what they were promised. THOSE were the arguments I was making which you so conveniently declined to comment on. So, really, is it my ideological bias that is hampering the debate?

THAT IS THE SAD REALITY ISN'T IT!