Who is worse: Ignatieff or Harper?

[August1991]

All things considered, all Canadians have to choose between these candidates.

So, what do you think?

Edited July 8, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Ignatieff is far far far worse. Harper is at least a good manager.

[August1991]

Ignatieff is far far far worse. Harper is at least a good manager.

WTF?

Harper spends $1 billion on a summit to promote - fiscal restraint? (Is Harper stoopid?)

Then again, Ignatieff starts his democratic connection with Canadians - by going to China?

Dunno.

----

Both of these guys strike me as seriously flawed individuals. No wonder that both have less than 40% in the polls.

IMV - we Canadians, French and English, deserve far better than what Harper (or Ignatieff) has offered. Harper has lost his chance to govern and I suspect that he will not be our next federal PM.

Edited July 8, 2010 by August1991

[capricorn]

I'm not presently a Liberal supporter. But looking at the recent EKOS poll which shows the Liberals under Ignatieff polling lower than Dion, it's clear to me who is worse in the eyes of Canadians.

Personally, I'm not warming up to Ignatieff regardless of the fact that many of the policies he espouses are almost identical to Harper's. He's obviously smart and intelligent but this does not sway me one bit. He comes across as phony and not at all comfortable as leader of a major political party. In addition, as a politician he's a big zero. I gauged this about him over two years ago and even started a thread that Ignatieff is politically incompetent. Now I know my intuition was right. It's the man, plain and simple.

Harper may be bland and controlling but I trust him more than I trust Ignatieff. Truthfully, the fact that Ignatieff has been out of the country 34 years bothers me greatly. I want leaders that have been here every step of the way with Canadians as the country grew and contracted over the years, and when the country hurt and rebounded. I want a Prime Minister who was there all those years when I felt pain and when I rejoiced. Harper may not have felt those exact same feelings BUT HE WAS HERE. Ignatieff was not. In my view, he cannot empathize with my feelings about where we've been as a country and the path we should take for the future.

As things stand, the Liberal Party with Ignatieff as leader has no hope of winning back my support. I'm the loser because my choices are severely limited.

[Shady]

Harper spends $1 billion on a summit to promote - fiscal restraint? (Is Harper stoopid?)

If you're referring to the G8/G20, you're wrong. That summit wasn't about fiscal restraint, it was about the world economy in general. As every G8/G20 is always about.

[August1991]

I'm not presently a Liberal supporter. But looking at the recent EKOS poll which shows the Liberals under Ignatieff polling lower than Dion, it's clear to me who is worse in the eyes of Canadians.

...

Harper may be bland and controlling but I trust him more than I trust Ignatieff.

At this point, I would vote for Ignatieff (or a Liberal candidate) rather than Harper.

Why would I vote for Ignatieff and the federal Liberals? First, I can - and I want to vote freely. Second, Harper has lost my vote with his extravagant spending on these summits in Ontario. I don't care what Harper says or does now, he has lost my vote.

[TimG]

Harper spends $1 billion on a summit to promote - fiscal restraint?

I think Harper simply told the orginizers that they could have whatever they needed to make sure there was no incident. When the final bill came Harper was likely as surprised (and as displeased) as anyone else. I am fairly confident that future summits orginizers will not be given blank cheques for security whether they are organized by Conservatives or Liberals.

I think it is quite ridiculous to make an issue out of this issue. Bureaucracies run out of control easily and it is not possible for the PM to over see every dollar of spending.

Edited July 9, 2010 by TimG

[August1991]

I think Harper simply told the orginizers that they could have whatever they needed to make sure there was no incident. When the final bill came Harper was likely as surprised (and as displeased) as anyone else.

And Richard Nixon was surprised when he read the news report about the Watergate.

TimG, you don't know politics.

[TimG]

TimG, you don't know politics.

Maybe not. But I know how budgets for projects can explode to the point where management has no choice but to kill the project to contain costs. Since this project could not be killed Harper was forced to approve the expenses even if he did not like it. The only way managers can avoid these kinds of budget explosions is to carefully plan and make sure budget estimates are accurate before starting. But that only helps if management has the option of never starting a project with high risk/high cost. Harper did not have that option either and the short timeframes limited the amount of advance budget planning.

Now if you have some evidence that Harper was told in advance that it would cost 1 billion and he agreed without question then you might have a point. But I find that scenario highly improbable.

Edited July 9, 2010 by TimG

[capricorn]

Why would I vote for Ignatieff and the federal Liberals?

Because you don't think Ignatieff is a flake anymore?

I don't care what Harper says or does now, he has lost my vote.

Yeah. I'm ticked off by the G8 and G20 security costs too. But Ignatieff as PM is just too unpalatable to me. I'd like him and the fossils among the Liberal caucus to just go away.

[August1991]

But I know how budgets for projects can explode to the point where management has no choice but to kill the project to contain costs. Since this project could not be killed Harper was forced to approve the expenses even if he did not like it.

Tim, do you know how pathetic that line of argument is?

----

Overall, I want a smaller Federal State. I think provincial governments should manage more.

I want a federal politician who can speak to me, my children, in our languages, and travel across Canada and speak to Canadians, and their children. (Accents are accepted.) I want a federal politician who can explain how she/he spends Canadian taxpayer money for all of Canada.

A $1 billion summit in Toronto is a waste of federal money. A federal Canada deserves better.

[bjre]

The so great system can only provide worse and worse candidates for you to choose.

[TimG]

Tim, do you know how pathetic that line of argument is?

It is the most likely explaination for what happened. I suspect other posters here who have worked on large engineering projects gone bad can attest to how budgets spins out of control and there comes a point when management is completely helpless if the project has to be completed.

A $1 billion summit in Toronto is a waste of federal money. A federal Canada deserves better.

Sure it was a waste of money but you seem determined to hang this personally on Harper just like some people want to hang the failure to plug the well on Obama. The bottom line is if you want fiscally responsible policies you got vote for CPC. Any other party would be much worse.

[Molly]

Operative words: "gone bad"; "out of control"; "completely helpless"...

It was a colossal waste of money. The buck stops.... where?

The only thing more pathetic than claiming that the CPC has been 'fiscally responsible' is the feeble, clutching-at-straws insistence that no matter how badly the CPC government screws up, all others must be worse.

[Machjo]

All things considered, all Canadians have to choose between these candidates.

So, what do you think?

Right on, we get to choose the least worst among them. Yippee for democracy.

Or how about this: I ignore them and hope thre will be a worthwhile candidate to vote for in my riding come next election. But then that might be too optimistic for democracy I suppose.

[Machjo]

WTF?

Harper spends $1 billion on a summit to promote - fiscal restraint? (Is Harper stoopid?)

Then again, Ignatieff starts his democratic connection with Canadians - by going to China?

Dunno.

----

Both of these guys strike me as seriously flawed individuals. No wonder that both have less than 40% in the polls.

IMV - we Canadians, French and English, deserve far better than what Harper (or Ignatieff) has offered. Harper has lost his chance to govern and I suspect that he will not be our next federal PM.

And the absolute best solution to this dilemma? Strategic votin'. Yup, guaranteed to keep the worst one out. And if you vote for the least bad party leader, you're guaranteed to keep the party sheep in line too. Brilliant.

[TimG]

It was a colossal waste of money. The buck stops.... where?

The first thing to remember is we don't have any auditors report that tells us whether the spending was necessary. If it is deemed necessary then the mistake was to agree to hold the summits in the first place - a decision that only seems bad in hindsight. It the auditors say the spending was not justified then it becomes question of poor managment.

insistence that no matter how badly the CPC government screws up, all others must be worse.

Others will be worse. The tax spend wing of the Liberal party has a lot of influence today and there is the nightmare scenario of a NDP-Liberal coalition. Frankly, any self declared fiscal conservative who does not vote CPC is shooting themselves in the foot.

When it comes to these decisions we only have one vote on the ballot and it is unreasonable to expect any choice to be perfect. It always will come down to a lesser-of-evils choice. In fact, if a Trudeau or Obama figure appeared in Canadian politics I would be more worried than I am now because such figures always end up being extremely divisive and do more harm than good. I would take an uncharismatic robot who screws up on a regular basis than any charismatic orater makes people go silly.

Edited July 9, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

As long as its a minority government I dont really care which party/candidate wins.

[dre]

The first thing to remember is we don't have any auditors report that tells us whether the spending was necessary. If it is deemed necessary then the mistake was to agree to hold the summits in the first place - a decision that only seems bad in hindsight. It the auditors say the spending was not justified then it becomes question of poor managment.

Others will be worse. The tax spend wing of the Liberal party has a lot of influence today and there is the nightmare scenario of a NDP-Liberal coalition. Frankly, any self declared fiscal conservative who does not vote CPC is shooting themselves in the foot.

When it comes to these decisions we only have one vote on the ballot and it is unreasonable to expect any choice to be perfect. It always will come down to a lesser-of-evils choice. In fact, if a Trudeau or Obama figure appeared in Canadian politics I would be more worried than I am now because such figures always end up being extremely divisive and do more harm than good. I would take an uncharismatic robot who screws up on a regular basis than any charismatic orater makes people go silly.

Frankly, any self declared fiscal conservative who does not vote CPC is shooting themselves in the foot.

I disagree completely. I dont think a conservative party in North America has balanced a single budget since Iv been alive. They have generally cut taxes and INCREASED spending and thats worse than tax and spend. Theres nothing even remotely "fiscal conservative" about the CPC.

[nicky10013]

I disagree completely. I dont think a conservative party in North America has balanced a single budget since Iv been alive. They have generally cut taxes and INCREASED spending and thats worse than tax and spend. Theres nothing even remotely "fiscal conservative" about the CPC.

Bingo. Tax and Spend and "fiscally conservative" have become cliches of partisan politics in North America going on 3 decades now. They have NEVER been true. Sure, the right likes to claim that they are, but look at the real record. Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney, Bush, Bush 2, Harper have all had TERRIBLE deficits. Who has had to come in and clean it up? The Blairs, Clintons, Chretiens and Martins of the world.

[Remiel]

I voted for Harper being worse. However, I can add a caveat to this: Harper is a known quantity. In my opinion, the fact remains that we do not really know what Ignatieff would be like as Prime Minister. Prime Minister, election winner, and party leader are in fact three distinct jobs. The only one which Ignatieff can be truthfully measured on right now is as a party leader. As an election winner, some of the markers are in and they are not good, but things can happen in election campaigns. They are generally more dynamic than the regular rhetoric and " campaigning " between elections. As a Prime Minister, we can only really guess what he would be like based on other factors.

[Keepitsimple]

I voted for Harper being worse. However, I can add a caveat to this: Harper is a known quantity. In my opinion, the fact remains that we do not really know what Ignatieff would be like as Prime Minister. Prime Minister, election winner, and party leader are in fact three distinct jobs. The only one which Ignatieff can be truthfully measured on right now is as a party leader. As an election winner, some of the markers are in and they are not good, but things can happen in election campaigns. They are generally more dynamic than the regular rhetoric and " campaigning " between elections. As a Prime Minister, we can only really guess what he would be like based on other factors.

If you cannot unite and lead a party....then you certainly can't lead a country. It really IS about leadership.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bingo. Tax and Spend and "fiscally conservative" have become cliches of partisan politics in North America going on 3 decades now. They have NEVER been true.

Not sure what you mean by this...30 years or NEVER? President Nixon had a balanced budget in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War, the only balanced US federal budget between years 1961 and 1998.

[TimG]

I disagree completely. I dont think a conservative party in North America has balanced a single budget since Iv been alive.

Times change. Parties change. In the current political context I think a liberal-ndp coalition would not even bother to play lip service to fiscal discipline. The spending taps would be turned wide open. That makes the CPC infinitely preferable even if there are questions about their willingness to live up their aspirations. Edited July 9, 2010 by TimG

[nicky10013]

Not sure what you mean by this...30 years or NEVER? President Nixon had a balanced budget in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War, the only balanced US federal budget between years 1961 and 1998.

The landscape of American (and for that matter western) Conservatism changed with the election of Thatcher and Reagan.