Who is worse: Ignatieff or Harper?

[nicky10013]

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.

Based on?

[lictor616]

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.

Harper doesn<t have a choice to pander to the left leaning media, so he is forced to pursue some left wing agendas (which are suaully spendthrift), but he's still unapproachably superior to any Liberal alternative, and vastly better for Canada then that bizarre little russo/yank/hebrew oligarch Ignatief.

I'm convinced that if Harper had a freer reign, he,d be able to be much more fiscally conservative and much better for Canada, unfortunately we live in a media dominated society, and the mass media would never tolerate a proper conservative. All things considered I'm amazed that Harper has been able to stay the course all these years.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Far too general a premise, if only because the "election" of Thatcher/Reagan would follow such an electorate change in reaction to an existing "landscape". PM Mulroney enjoyed political success for specific domestic reasons irrespective of what was happening on other "landscapes".

[Remiel]

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

If you actually knew what the word " leadership " meant, you would not confuse it with what Harper does.

[ToadBrother]

If you actually knew what the word " leadership " meant, you would not confuse it with what Harper does.

What's he doing that Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau didn't do before him? You seem to be under the impression that Harper's tactics and tight control are somehow different than his predecessors', but I've often observed that, once you strip of the slight differences of ideology (very slight indeed), the management style of Harper and Chretien is pretty much indistinguishable.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Taxes were pretty high at that time as well. I wonder if some of the states having trouble now would consider Nixon era tax rates.

[Michael Hardner]

Harper doesn<t have a choice to pander to the left leaning media, so he is forced to pursue some left wing agendas

What ?

Like sending riot police into the heart of Liberal Canada, about 1 block from CityPulse 24's news room ?

And spending $1B on the G20 ?

[nicky10013]

Harper doesn<t have a choice to pander to the left leaning media, so he is forced to pursue some left wing agendas (which are suaully spendthrift), but he's still unapproachably superior to any Liberal alternative, and vastly better for Canada then that bizarre little russo/yank/hebrew oligarch Ignatief.

I'm convinced that if Harper had a freer reign, he,d be able to be much more fiscally conservative and much better for Canada, unfortunately we live in a media dominated society, and the mass media would never tolerate a proper conservative. All things considered I'm amazed that Harper has been able to stay the course all these years.

So a jew can't be PM? Also, is it the media or is it the fact that 63% of the country voted for a centre-left alternative? Facts getting in the way of things, eh?

[bush_cheney2004]

Taxes were pretty high at that time as well. I wonder if some of the states having trouble now would consider Nixon era tax rates.

Taxes were not as high at the state level as they are today...there is a correlation between lower federal taxes and the rise in states' taxes/fees.

As for fiscal conservatism, one need only look at how badly Canada went off the rails during Trudeau induced and Mulroney inflamed fiscal orgies. It's not just a "western conservative" issue.

[myata]

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

So, what do you think?

Nobody has to choose between unworthy depressing options. It's simple, really: all (real) choices are bad, I'm out. Before the democracy seem to have been about responsibility of the parties to present us with the best; now it's more like about us having to choose between what's available. Not good enough, for me at least.

[TimG]

It's simple, really: all (real) choices are bad, I'm out.

Great. It means my vote counts for more.

[bush_cheney2004]

Great. It means my vote counts for more.

How/why? Canadians don't actually for these two guys unless in their riding, right?

[Keepitsimple]

What's he doing that Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau didn't do before him? You seem to be under the impression that Harper's tactics and tight control are somehow different than his predecessors', but I've often observed that, once you strip of the slight differences of ideology (very slight indeed), the management style of Harper and Chretien is pretty much indistinguishable.

I agree.....but are you saying that's a good thing...or a bad thing? My point is that Ignatieff has not displayed any of the leadership qualities of those Prime Ministers.

[Remiel]

What's he doing that Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau didn't do before him? You seem to be under the impression that Harper's tactics and tight control are somehow different than his predecessors', but I've often observed that, once you strip of the slight differences of ideology (very slight indeed), the management style of Harper and Chretien is pretty much indistinguishable.

The question is not what Harper does that his predecessors did not do. The question is what did his predecessors do which Harper does not.

[Argus]

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.

The only intelligent response to a dislike of extravagant spending is to vote for a party which is less likely to indulge in extravagant spending. I haven't seen any sign the Liberals are that party, or that Ignatieff places any great premium on restraint. He is certainly not an advocate of smaller government in any sense. And his two predecessors offered immensely expensive inducements to voters to choose them in the last two elections. I'm guessing Ignatieff will do likewise.

I'm disappointed in Harper, but he appears to be pursuing a policy of being just a little to the right of the Liberals. And with the Liberals so far over on the Left that doesn't require Harper to go very far into the Right to be the only sensible vote for conservatives. In fact, some would argue he isn't on the Right any more at all except insofar as his "tough on crime" policies go.

I think anyone who hopes for fiscal conservatism and tight fisted economic policies by a shaky minority government of any stripe is whistling in the wind. And right now, the most likely alternative to a Conservative minority is a Liberal-NDP alliance. Anyone who thinks they would be tight fisted is probably off their meds.

[Shakeyhands]

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.

I smell a CPC plant.

lets see... 12+B Surplus to begin with, and with good fiscal discipline we now have an 85+B deficit. Yeah, great.

I also the coalition boogeyman is being dragged out of the closet. Good work.

[Argus]

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

Why would you say somthing this obviously wrong? Are you deluded? Surely you must be aware Harper's budgets were all balanced - actually had small surpluses - until the most recent one.

[ToadBrother]

I agree.....but are you saying that's a good thing...or a bad thing? My point is that Ignatieff has not displayed any of the leadership qualities of those Prime Ministers.

I'm saying government run from the PMO by the Prime Minister and his chief staffers and advisors is fine, providing MPs aren't turned into voting slaves. We've wandered far from the Westminster norm, and it's difficult to imagine the sorts of government MP revolts that you see in the UK on occasion. A Prime Minister, even if he doesn't fear the Opposition, shouldn't be in a position to take his own MPs for granted.

[ToadBrother]

The question is not what Harper does that his predecessors did not do. The question is what did his predecessors do which Harper does not.

The situations are not identical. Trudeau (except briefly), Mulroney and Chretien all had majority governments, and thus all sorts of matters, not the least of which would be any issues of privilege, were moot points. All things considered, Harper is probably the most successful Prime Minister of a minority government in modern Westminster history. I dislike Harper considerably, but if I'm going to find fault with his leadership style, then I can't in all honesty isolate him from what has been a long-term trend in how Canadian parliaments have worked.

To run a minority government as long as he has takes a good deal of cunning. He's misstepped, and it almost cost him twice, but let's face it, he's always polled above Iggy. He is, in the cold calculation of how we judge political leaders, a more skillful party manager and much better at reading his opponents' strengths and weaknesses than Iggy is.

I suspect that if you had thrown Chretien or Mulroney into the same situation, you probably wouldn't find much difference at all. Minority governments are notoriously unstable and hard to maintain, and I think it requires a very hard, focused leader to pull it off. For all that I think is wrong with Harper, he's a hard and focused man.

[Smallc]

lets see... 12+B Surplus to begin with, and with good fiscal discipline we now have an 85+B deficit. Yeah, great.

Sorry, but the deficit is not $85B.

[bloodyminded]

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.

"Even if"?

There are no questions about it.

Harper doesn<t have a choice to pander to the left leaning media

What "left leaning media"?

You mean the corporations we call the "mainstream media"...that they're "left leaning?

I suppose these corporations are somehow...anti-corporation, too.

Edited July 9, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

Sorry, but the deficit is not $85B.

Should'nt you be working?

But really,so his 85 billion is a bit off...The jist of it is that the Conservatives in this country never conserve anything,as it relates to fiscal responsibility.They have been proven to be just as wasteful as any other party that has attained power federally or provincially...

[bloodyminded]

As for fiscal conservatism, one need only look at how badly Canada went off the rails during Trudeau induced and Mulroney inflamed fiscal orgies. It's not just a "western conservative" issue.

Certainly not. In fact, the original claim was that it is also a "western conservative" issue. Hardly a controversial assertion.

[Jack Weber]

"Even if"?

There are no questions about it.

What "left leaning media"?

You mean the corporations we call the "mainstream media"...that they're "left leaning?

I suppose these corporations are somehow...anti-corporation, too.

Awesome!!!!

But we need Fox Canada to "even" things out!!!!!

[bloodyminded]

To run a minority government as long as he has takes a good deal of cunning. He's misstepped, and it almost cost him twice, but let's face it, he's always polled above Iggy.

While this is not a defense of Iggy--to clarify, I not only am dubious about him, but actively dislike him--wouldn't a a really important part of Harper's relative polling success be attributable to the fact that self-styled conservatives literally have no one else?

That is, is it Harper vs. Iggy--or Harper vs. a split vote among the majority of Canadians?