Canadian Political Polls

[Evening Star]

Yeah, and besides, punked didn't say that the NDP never compromises or seeks power. He or she said that he or she doesn't personally cast a vote on the basis of whether a party is going to win or not. The NDP has won many provincial elections and is in power in two provinces. Federally, they have had a significant influence in a few Liberal minority governments. (I think it's safe to say that LBP's and PET's minority govts might have been quite different if they didn't need to compromise with the NDP.) There is every reason to believe that could happen again, given the current political trends.

[nicky10013]

Yeah, and besides, punked didn't say that the NDP never compromises or seeks power. He or she said that he or she doesn't personally cast a vote on the basis of whether a party is going to win or not. The NDP has won many provincial elections and is in power in two provinces. Federally, they have had a significant influence in a few Liberal minority governments. (I think it's safe to say that LBP's and PET's minority govts might have been quite different if they didn't need to compromise with the NDP.) There is every reason to believe that could happen again, given the current political trends.

You bet he did. It's incredibly implicit right about here:

I know Liberals are fine with not standing for anything as long as they vote for a winner, myself I would rather vote for a better Canada.

[Shakeyhands]

I don't vote for a party because they can or can not form government I vote for a party which believes what I believe. That is why I am not a Liberal. I know Liberals are fine with not standing for anything as long as they vote for a winner, myself I would rather vote for a better Canada. Sorry we don't see eye to eye on that one, maybe someday you will vote based on who you think is best for Canada instead of who you think will win. Doubt it though.

I do vote with who I believe in, and for the party who has reasonable ideas, keyword: reasonable. I'd say that we're doing ok after the majority of Governments since Confederation being Liberal, wouldn't you?

[punked]

As opposed to the NDP who has the luxury to vote against anything the Conservatives lay out. Oh, wait, until last fall when Ignatieff declared he wouldn't be supporting the CPC government, Jack Layton immediately declared that he was willing to work with Harper. Pretty much exactly what Ignatieff has been doing. So, really, all parties are the same. The NDP vote to keep themselves in power just as much as any other. So don't come here with your holier than thou attitude, it doesn't wash.

You only vote for parties that want to make a better Canada. Though that's, at it's heart, a good outlook, you can only really effect good when you're in power. The NDP will never achieve that. Furtehrmore, Liberals fully believe that the platform the party sets up will benefit Canada. The Liberal Party is a large party and it's policies shift because what's best for society shifts as well. I'd much rather have a party that recognizes new difficulties and challenges and are willing to change policy accordingly rather than a party based on stringent ideology that doesn't change.

Yah rewriting History doesn't make it true. Like it or not when Ignatieff declared his fight with Harper on EI I went to meeting that night with NDP members. Many of them were very impressed and waited to see what he would get none of them thought the Liberals would go to two hour long meeting then cry all the way home. I would point out this was the same summer the Democrats and Republicans held close 50 meeting with each other on healthcare an issue everyone knew they would never agree on. Seriously the Liberals only went to two meetings then really couldn't try any harder of the unemployed? So all those NDP members who were impressed with the Liberals were shocked by the result.

When Harper went to Jack and said he was willing to offer help to those who have paid into EI but couldn't get anything out of it because the Liberals changed the rules 15 years ago you bet Jack was willing to help those people. See unlike the Liberals he doesn't say he is going to try to help by setting up a panel and then having 2 hour long meetings then not even trying for the people who are out of work. The NDP was willing to take it on the chin to help those people. Then Ignatieff has the gull to go in and vote against helping those are out of work after being on his high horse all summer because it wasn't a Liberal who got the deal.

Those are just the facts of Mr. Flip Floppy who doesn't stand for anything. That is it. If the Liberals think they are going to win votes running to the right well it explains why they can't break 30% that is for sure. There are a lot of soft NDP votes you lost and will continue to lose as Canada is educated on the many things the Liberals have said and done over the last 2 years.

Mandatory minims, loss of pay equity, Continued troops over seas, EI, a womens right to choose included in womens health aid, the list goes on and on. Every time they are given a chance to vote the progressive way a bunch of them "miss the vote" to kill the bills. They don't stand for anything. They say one thing on a Monday then do something else on a Tuesday I don't think the NDP have ever had more to hammer the Liberals on when they were in Opposition.

[punked]

I do vote with who I believe in, and for the party who has reasonable ideas, keyword: reasonable. I'd say that we're doing ok after the majority of Governments since Confederation being Liberal, wouldn't you?

Really then why would you ever be one someone case for voting for who they believe in rather then who they think can win. It says something about you as a voter, that you will vote for a party because you think they can win not because they stand for what you believe.

Is Canada doing ok? Sure could it do better? I think so. There are plenty of people who would say "I'd think we are doing ok after the Harper Governments wouldn't you?" Just because Canada hasn't sunk into the sea doesn't mean it is the best it can be. That is the complacent problem with the Liberal vote. There is no real argument there accept everything that is good is from the Liberals everything bad is someone else instead of talking specifics.

[nicky10013]

Yah rewriting History doesn't make it true. Like it or not when Ignatieff declared his fight with Harper on EI I went to meeting that night with NDP members. Many of them were very impressed and waited to see what he would get none of them thought the Liberals would go to two hour long meeting then cry all the way home. I would point out this was the same summer the Democrats and Republicans held close 50 meeting with each other on healthcare an issue everyone knew they would never agree on. Seriously the Liberals only went to two meetings then really couldn't try any harder of the unemployed? So all those NDP members who were impressed with the Liberals were shocked by the result.

When Harper went to Jack and said he was willing to offer help to those who have paid into EI but couldn't get anything out of it because the Liberals changed the rules 15 years ago you bet Jack was willing to help those people. See unlike the Liberals he doesn't say he is going to try to help by setting up a panel and then having 2 hour long meetings then not even trying for the people who are out of work. The NDP was willing to take it on the chin to help those people. Then Ignatieff has the gull to go in and vote against helping those are out of work after being on his high horse all summer because it wasn't a Liberal who got the deal.

Those are just the facts of Mr. Flip Floppy who doesn't stand for anything. That is it. If the Liberals think they are going to win votes running to the right well it explains why they can't break 30% that is for sure. There are a lot of soft NDP votes you lost and will continue to lose as Canada is educated on the many things the Liberals have said and done over the last 2 years.

Mandatory minims, loss of pay equity, Continued troops over seas, EI, a womens right to choose included in womens health aid, the list goes on and on. Every time they are given a chance to vote the progressive way a bunch of them "miss the vote" to kill the bills. They don't stand for anything. They say one thing on a Monday then do something else on a Tuesday I don't think the NDP have ever had more to hammer the Liberals on when they were in Opposition.

Happy Jack is just at fault for these failures as Ignatieff. Funny, the only politician anyone seems to be demanding anything from is Ignatieff.

[nicky10013]

Really then why would you ever be one someone case for voting for who they believe in rather then who they think can win. It says something about you as a voter, that you will vote for a party because you think they can win not because they stand for what you believe.

Is Canada doing ok? Sure could it do better? I think so. There are plenty of people who would say "I'd think we are doing ok after the Harper Governments wouldn't you?" Just because Canada hasn't sunk into the sea doesn't mean it is the best it can be. That is the complacent problem with the Liberal vote. There is no real argument there accept everything that is good is from the Liberals everything bad is someone else instead of talking specifics.

Where has anyone said in the Liberal Party that we couldn't be doing better?

[punked]

Happy Jack is just at fault for these failures as Ignatieff. Funny, the only politician anyone seems to be demanding anything from is Ignatieff.

It is because Ignatieff is the only one who says his people can stay home and not do their jobs. If the NDP is going to keep this government alive they vote with them if they disagree they vote against them but at least they show up and vote. The Liberals just let 30 of their people not show to vote so the bill passes but then the Liberals can pretend it isn't their fault it passed. If the Liberals don't stand for something like in the Budget when they killed pay equity then the Liberals should show up to vote. If they are against EI reforms they should show up to vote not let 16 members of their party call in sick one of them being the Leader who was on the floor some 10 minutes before the vote. Way to show leadership ducking a vote because we pay him not show up to do his job. End of story.

Edited October 24, 2010 by punked

[nicky10013]

It is because Ignatieff is the only one who says his people can stay home and not do their jobs. If the NDP is going to keep this government alive they vote with them if they disagree they vote against them but at least they show up and vote. The Liberals just let 30 of their people not show to vote so the bill passes but then the Liberals can pretend it isn't their fault it passed. If the Liberals don't stand for something like in the Budget when they killed pay equity then the Liberals should show up to vote. If they are against EI reforms they should show up to vote not let 16 members of their party call in sick one of them being the Leader who was on the floor some 10 minutes before the vote. Way to show leadership ducking a vote because we pay him not show up to do his job. End of story.

Because the Liberals don't have the luxury to vote against it. If every party was to act as "principled" as the NDP, we'd have an election every 2 months and then you'd be ragging on the Liberals for spending too many tax dollars on needless elections.

Then again, that would never happen. As I mentioned before and of course what you've never responded to is that when the Liberals declared they were no longer supporting the CPC in the house, Jack Layton immediately said he'd be able to work with Harper. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090914/parliament_election_090914/20090914?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

So, you can sit here righteously indignant thinking that you're better because the NDP has the freedom to do whatever they want and say whatever they want because they know they'll never be penalized for not supporting the government and won't ever have to be responsible for their rhetoric because they know they'll never be elected. That's fine. Go right ahead. However, I somehow doubt you'll be responding to this.

[punked]

Because the Liberals don't have the luxury to vote against it. If every party was to act as "principled" as the NDP, we'd have an election every 2 months and then you'd be ragging on the Liberals for spending too many tax dollars on needless elections.

Then again, that would never happen. As I mentioned before and of course what you've never responded to is that when the Liberals declared they were no longer supporting the CPC in the house, Jack Layton immediately said he'd be able to work with Harper. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090914/parliament_election_090914/20090914?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

So, you can sit here righteously indignant thinking that you're better because the NDP has the freedom to do whatever they want and say whatever they want because they know they'll never be penalized for not supporting the government and won't ever have to be responsible for their rhetoric because they know they'll never be elected. That's fine. Go right ahead. However, I somehow doubt you'll be responding to this.

Yes because the Liberals and NDP haven't killed a government in under year because they were doing wrong for Canada sure.

Wait that is just what they did in 1980. Trudeau must have been a terrible leader in your eyes or you are just making excuses because the Liberals don't show up to do their job and vote. Again say what you will at least the NDP shows up to vote, they don't duck them like the Liberals. They want to extend EI to working families who have paid into it for 20 years and take the heat they do, they don't just say "WE ARE AGAINST THIS SO MUCH WE WONT SHOW TO VOTE TO LET IT PASS." Like the Liberals.

Please so making excuses for your party no doing their job, if they showed up to vote you might have that argument but they don't. They don't make tough choices they make political ones, they don't say "we don't support this" they just hide. Have had enough of you making excuses for your party I stand by my parties choice to extend EI in the wake of an economic crisis you should stand by your parties choice to vote against it or maybe get out of that party.

[nicky10013]

Yes because the Liberals and NDP haven't killed a government in under year because they were doing wrong for Canada sure.

Wait that is just what they did in 1980. Trudeau must have been a terrible leader in your eyes or you are just making excuses because the Liberals don't show up to do their job and vote. Again say what you will at least the NDP shows up to vote, they don't duck them like the Liberals. They want to extend EI to working families who have paid into it for 20 years and take the heat they do, they don't just say "WE ARE AGAINST THIS SO MUCH WE WONT SHOW TO VOTE TO LET IT PASS." Like the Liberals.

Please so making excuses for your party no doing their job, if they showed up to vote you might have that argument but they don't. They don't make tough choices they make political ones, they don't say "we don't support this" they just hide. Have had enough of you making excuses for your party I stand by my parties choice to extend EI in the wake of an economic crisis you should stand by your parties choice to vote against it or maybe get out of that party.

To say that these times are similar to 1980 is laughable. I also noticed how you completely validated my last premise, that you would refuse to talk about Jack Layton doing the exact same thing last fall that Ignatieff is doing now, pandering to avoid an election. I guess denial is pretty strong in NDP country. Then again, you "stand" for something. I guess.

[punked]

To say that these times are similar to 1980 is laughable. I also noticed how you completely validated my last premise, that you would refuse to talk about Jack Layton doing the exact same thing last fall that Ignatieff is doing now, pandering to avoid an election. I guess denial is pretty strong in NDP country. Then again, you "stand" for something. I guess.

Yah but the NDP got something unlike the Liberals. The NDP weren't ready to vote against EI like the Liberals. See that is the difference the Conservatives keep giving you nothing and you keep calling it gold. You really don't get how the NDP can't talk about how much they care about EI then vote against extending it because you are a Liberal. It is just fine with you that the Liberals spent a whole summer talking about how much they cared about EI then voted against it. I get you are a Liberal your mind and your beliefs change with the wind.

I also get "This isn't 1980" because again you are making excuses. Call a spade a spade if you think the Liberals were wrong to force an election in 1980 say it, but don't say "we can't have an election every year" if you believe the Liberals were right in 1980. It isn't unprecedented to go to the polls when a minority government is acting like a majority that is just what the Liberal party did in 1980. STOP MAKING EXCUSES. Your party doesn't stand for anything that is the problem.

[Evening Star]

Because the Liberals don't have the luxury to vote against it. If every party was to act as "principled" as the NDP, we'd have an election every 2 months and then you'd be ragging on the Liberals for spending too many tax dollars on needless elections.

Not necessarily. The CPC would probably just need to compromise more than they have been, you know, like a minority government should. Or else we might have an election and the Liberals might have to come up with an actually creative and appealing platform that might actually win.

Layton gave his reasons for backing the CPC in the light of EI reform and they seem reasonable enough. As far as I recall, the Liberals didn't have a better proposal to offer. (Did they?) If they did, it would have made sense for Layton to withdraw support and force an election.

xpost

[nicky10013]

Yah but the NDP got something unlike the Liberals. The NDP weren't ready to vote against EI like the Liberals. See that is the difference the Conservatives keep giving you nothing and you keep calling it gold. You really don't get how the NDP can't talk about how much they care about EI then vote against extending it because you are a Liberal. It is just fine with you that the Liberals spent a whole summer talking about how much they cared about EI then voted against it. I get you are a Liberal your mind and your beliefs change with the wind.

As far as I'm aware, Jack got nothing.

I also get "This isn't 1980" because again you are making excuses. Call a spade a spade if you think the Liberals were wrong to force an election in 1980 say it, but don't say "we can't have an election every year" if you believe the Liberals were right in 1980. It isn't unprecedented to go to the polls when a minority government is acting like a majority that is just what the Liberal party did in 1980. STOP MAKING EXCUSES. Your party doesn't stand for anything that is the problem.

It's not an excuse, the times are much different than they were back in 1980. The fact that you fail to realize that underscores the problem with NDP and reality.

[nicky10013]

Not necessarily. The CPC would probably just need to compromise more than they have been, you know, like a minority government should. Or else we might have an election and the Liberals might have to come up with an actually creative and appealing platform that might actually win.

Layton gave his reasons for backing the CPC in the light of EI reform and they seem reasonable enough. As far as I recall, the Liberals didn't have a better proposal to offer. (Did they?) If they did, it would have made sense for Layton to withdraw support and force an election.

xpost

No it wouldn't have made sense. In the article I posted, Ignatieff was actually fighting for more gains on EI than Layton ended up supporting, so perhaps before we make claims about who is more principled than whom, we better remember what actually happened.

[punked]

As far as I'm aware, Jack got nothing.

Yah you are right helping 200,000 people stay on EI for up to 20 weeks after they paid into it for 10 years and got nothing out of it was nothing. You are right extending EI benefits to thousands of self employed who pay into it but are never allowed to take maternity leave because they chose to open their own business is nothing. This is so typical of the Liberals because your guys couldn't do the deal you think there was nothing. Stop lying, stop trying to rewrite history. The NDP voted for something they care about, and believe in. The Liberals let poison pills pass because they are scared of elections. Get over it your party stands for nothing.

[nicky10013]

Yah you are right helping 200,000 people stay on EI for up to 20 weeks after they paid into it for 10 years and got nothing out of it was nothing. You are right extending EI benefits to thousands of self employed who pay into it but are never allowed to take maternity leave because they chose to open their own business is nothing. This is so typical of the Liberals because your guys couldn't do the deal you think there was nothing. Stop lying, stop trying to rewrite history. The NDP voted for something they care about, and believe in. The Liberals let poison pills pass because they are scared of elections. Get over it your party stands for nothing.

My party has done more for social welfare than the NDP could ever do precisely because it has been in power, but hey, reality hurts, right?

Like I said, Ignatieff's package was much more robust. Jack took a lesser package to avoid an election. You may kick and scream at that fact all you want, but your party compromised on it's beliefs to avoid an election. Politics. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

[punked]

My party has done more for social welfare than the NDP could ever do precisely because it has been in power, but hey, reality hurts, right?

Like I said, Ignatieff's package was much more robust. Jack took a lesser package to avoid an election. You may kick and scream at that fact all you want, but your party compromised on it's beliefs to avoid an election. Politics. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

NO it really hasn't. Know why? Your party didn't do jack shit until forced to do so. Until they were going to lose power and needed a true progressive party to force their had. So sorry your party doesn't stand for crap, they do whatever they need to stay in power.

"Oh you want old age security, hahahahaha that is joke, wait we need the vote of three progressives to stay in power you say? Oh yes Old age security right away Mr. Woodsworth!"-Liberal party of Canada

Sorry your party would never have done anything with out the NDP, or CCF, or progressive party. They would have kept Canada in the 1800s.

As for Mr. Ignatieff's package being more robust I say to you, you are a liar. We foun out three weeks ago Ignatieff would never have enacted the 360 hours for EI. You forget he let that bill fail. He didn't show up to vote. He showed us his hand, he was lying to Canadians he never wanted that. Now you explain why he didn't show to vote for that Bloc bill or you stand by your leaders decision. His package was smoke and mirrors he doesn't care about EI he wanted to get elected so he would never have to make that package which is why he keeps voting against EI.

Sorry Liberal you don't get it both ways. You don't get to Flip and Flop. You don't get to say you had something for EI then vote against EI because it isn't your party bringing it forward. We know what you stand for it is not improvements of EI. Flip Flip Flip Flop. The Liberals had ideas on EI, then they voted against them, then they said if elected they would do more for EI then the NDP did then they voted against those ideas when they came in the form of a private members bill. We see how they operate they promise things, try to hold the country for ransom saying "not unless we are elected will we support them", then never deliver. I have seen it before it was called the red book. Sorry your party doesn't stand for anything.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-changes-his-mind-on-ei-bill/article1732585/

Edited October 24, 2010 by punked

[nicky10013]

NO it really hasn't. Know why? Your party didn't do jack shit until forced to do so. Until they were going to lose power and needed a true progressive party to force their had. So sorry your party doesn't stand for crap, they do whatever they need to stay in power.

"Oh you want old age security, hahahahaha that is joke, wait we need the vote of three progressives to stay in power you say? Oh yes Old age security right away Mr. Woodsworth!"-Liberal party of Canada

Sorry your party would never have done anything with out the NDP, or CCF, or progressive party. They would have kept Canada in the 1800s.

Ah, I get it. Liberal accomplishments are really NDP accomplishments. Seems like you're riding coattails here. I have a question, what would be the NDP legacy if it hadn't been for the Liberals?

As for Mr. Ignatieff's package being more robust I say to you, you are a liar. We foun out three weeks ago Ignatieff would never have enacted the 360 hours for EI. You forget he let that bill fail. He didn't show up to vote. He showed us his hand, he was lying to Canadians he never wanted that. Now you explain why he didn't show to vote for that Bloc bill or you stand by your leaders decision. His package was smoke and mirrors he doesn't care about EI he wanted to get elected so he would never have to make that package which is why he keeps voting against EI.

Sorry Liberal you don't get it both ways. You don't get to Flip and Flop. You don't get to say you had something for EI then vote against EI because it isn't your party bringing it forward. We know what you stand for it is not improvements of EI. Flip Flip Flip Flop. The Liberals had ideas on EI, then they voted against them, then they said if elected they would do more for EI then the NDP did then they voted against those ideas when they came in the form of a private members bill. We see how they operate they promise things, try to hold the country for ransom saying "not unless we are elected will we support them", then never deliver. I have seen it before it was called the red book. Sorry your party doesn't stand for anything.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-changes-his-mind-on-ei-bill/article1732585/

And this is why mostly no one takes the NDP seriously. Call me a liar all you want. I cited the article that said Ignatieff wanted more for EI last summer and Jack took less. You can post the "flip flop" all you want. Again, times have changed, the bill isn't needed anymore and most people agree with that. Is this your problem, that the NDP is caught in some kind of time warp where everything always remains the same? Be it last summer or 1980?

Things change and so should policies. I have a recommendation. Things change and there are always different challenges that have to be met. Take the time to learn what's going on and how things can be made better. Debate and embrace new ideas rather than holding onto ones that are nice and warm (almost like a safety blanket) yet obsolete.

Relentlessly sticking to an ideology is just as bad as not standing on anything at all.

[punked]

Ah, I get it. Liberal accomplishments are really NDP accomplishments. Seems like you're riding coattails here. I have a question, what would be the NDP legacy if it hadn't been for the Liberals?

Sorry when you have a national Health care system in your parties charter for close to 60 years and then don't act on it even though you have control of Parliament for close 50 years of those 60 then you sudden do it because you need the support of a party that actually did it in a province to stay in power. You don't get 100% of the credit for that. Sorry Nicky. Same goes for the Charter which the NDP suggested 30 years before the Liberals enacted it, as well as CPP and OAS. Actions speak louder then words and the Liberals have always stood in the way for progress until it was rammed down their throats because they were going to lose power. That is just a fact.

And this is why mostly no one takes the NDP seriously. Call me a liar all you want. I cited the article that said Ignatieff wanted more for EI last summer and Jack took less. You can post the "flip flop" all you want. Again, times have changed, the bill isn't needed anymore and most people agree with that. Is this your problem, that the NDP is caught in some kind of time warp where everything always remains the same? Be it last summer or 1980?

Things change and so should policies. I have a recommendation. Things change and there are always different challenges that have to be met. Take the time to learn what's going on and how things can be made better. Debate and embrace new ideas rather than holding onto ones that are nice and warm (almost like a safety blanket) yet obsolete.

Relentlessly sticking to an ideology is just as bad as not standing on anything at all.

Yep I agree like I said when the Liberals came out to support 360 hours many and I mean many NDPers I know were impressed by it. Then the Liberals showed their colours and voted against it. So in the end your proposal was a lie other wise you would have supported the bill on the floor to extend EI to 360 hours. Your party didn't the proof is right there in black and white the Liberals are either a bunch of Liars or they don't stand for anything. You pick.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-changes-his-mind-on-ei-bill/article1732585/

It isn't enough to promise national childcare and have a majority government for 15 years with out delivering it anymore. You either promise something like 360 hours and vote for it, or you get called out for being a lair, flip flopper and hypocrite. Sorry that is just it. The Liberals promise a lot of things however they never deliver.

[nicky10013]

Sorry when you have a national Health care system in your parties charter for close to 60 years and then don't act on it even though you have control of Parliament for close 50 years of those 60 then you sudden do it because you need the support of a party that actually did it in a province to stay in power. You don't get 100% of the credit for that. Sorry Nicky. Same goes for the Charter which the NDP suggested 30 years before the Liberals enacted it, as well as CPP and OAS. Actions speak louder then words and the Liberals have always stood in the way for progress until it was rammed down their throats because they were going to lose power. That is just a fact.

The Liberals in terms of Health Care AND The Charter were never in danger of losing power. Pearson got it through just fine and to show how much trouble the Liberals were in, Trudeau was elected to a majority. As for the Charter, Trudeau yet again had another majority. The Charter couldn't possibly have been rammed down his throat, especially since it was his own proposal. Indeed, the Charter was his baby and had been pushing for constitutional reform since his first days as leader. Indeed, to show how principled the party really was, some would certainly argue that combined with the economy the constitution cost the Liberals power to Mulroney. So, you might want to read up on history before actually, you know, getting it wrong.

Yep I agree like I said when the Liberals came out to support 360 hours many and I mean many NDPers I know were impressed by it. Then the Liberals showed their colours and voted against it. So in the end your proposal was a lie other wise you would have supported the bill on the floor to extend EI to 360 hours. Your party didn't the proof is right there in black and white the Liberals are either a bunch of Liars or they don't stand for anything. You pick.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-changes-his-mind-on-ei-bill/article1732585/

It isn't enough to promise national childcare and have a majority government for 15 years with out delivering it anymore. You either promise something like 360 hours and vote for it, or you get called out for being a lair, flip flopper and hypocrite. Sorry that is just it. The Liberals promise a lot of things however they never deliver.

I'll keep on saying this, but there's a years difference between Ignatieff's proposal to temporarily expand benefits and today. It was only temporary. Due to the recession. That's it. That's a big difference and most people understand it. Again, the NDP was the party that sold out the Liberals by offering to work with Harper. By doing that, Harper got his own plan which even the NDP agreed wasn't good enough.

Keep denying the truth. You've called me a liar but it's clear that there's only one person here who is stretching the truth for partisan gain and it isn't me. You're only making the NDP look worse through you rantics.

Edited October 24, 2010 by nicky10013

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If Iggy really did have the balls to seek power, he would seek and find something on the order of what Trudeau sought. Trudeau mania was all about the "Just Society" and the fresh ideas of a young dynamic leader who actually sought and fought for change. Iggy always has been looking for that special issue that he can cut and run from the pack with. Unfortunately for the general public, he has yet to find that issue. Maybe he can and maybe he can't find it, but time is running out for Iggy, he may become the second Liberal leader to never sit as a PM.

[nicky10013]

If Iggy really did have the balls to seek power, he would seek and find something on the order of what Trudeau sought. Trudeau mania was all about the "Just Society" and the fresh ideas of a young dynamic leader who actually sought and fought for change. Iggy always has been looking for that special issue that he can cut and run from the pack with. Unfortunately for the general public, he has yet to find that issue. Maybe he can and maybe he can't find it, but time is running out for Iggy, he may become the second Liberal leader to never sit as a PM.

I disagree with the whole time is running out shtick. He's done better and better as time has gone on. It took 2 kicks at the can for Harper to win a minority and I think the LPC is in position right now to win one if they put in as much hard work on a campaign as they preach.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I disagree with the whole time is running out shtick. He's done better and better as time has gone on. It took 2 kicks at the can for Harper to win a minority and I think the LPC is in position right now to win one if they put in as much hard work on a campaign as they preach.

If after the next election he is not Prime Minister his days are literally numbered. He will face and lose a leadership review, in my opinion that is.

[ToadBrother]

If Iggy really did have the balls to seek power, he would seek and find something on the order of what Trudeau sought. Trudeau mania was all about the "Just Society" and the fresh ideas of a young dynamic leader who actually sought and fought for change. Iggy always has been looking for that special issue that he can cut and run from the pack with. Unfortunately for the general public, he has yet to find that issue. Maybe he can and maybe he can't find it, but time is running out for Iggy, he may become the second Liberal leader to never sit as a PM.

Trudeau was a product of his own self-run PR machine and the times. Iggy is a considerably different kind of man, and certainly does not have Trudeau's charisma, it would look as out of place as Harper's attempts at being a "regular guy" during the 2008 election; dishonest and creepy.

Iggy's problem, so far as I can tell, is too much caution. Harper is willing to take chances, even if they ultimately backfire, but at least there is momentum. With Iggy you just sort of feel like he's staying in one place, too gun shy to go after Harper, and more comfortable with the strange invisible coalition with the Tories that he has locked himself into.

Another problem is that the big issues that have hit the House of Commons over the last two years have been boring constitutional issues. For politicos like myself it's been a positive boon, but unfortunately the powers of Parliament, issues surrounding prorogation, just are not very captivating, in large part because, despite all the wringing of hands, everyone just sort of gets along at the end of it. No one is really being held accountable.