Who is worse: Ignatieff or Harper?

[Jack Weber]

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?

I think that's probably it...

I think most Canadians are either centre right or centre left.Seeing as Harper's version of the Conservative Party is basically treading a fairly centre right path,most people leaning that way would vote Conservative.Most people who lean centre left have 3 choices(possibly 4 in Quebec),and the Con's are taking advantage of that.Add in voter apathy AND inept leadership in the federal Liberal Party,and we have what we have..

[Smallc]

Should'nt you be working?

My foster family took off on me (I tried to go to work...but there was no one there)...and if you're talking about the other thing..well..... lol

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...

I completely agree with this...though the deficit did come in lower than projected, and it is much smaller than in other countries.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Smallc

[Jack Weber]

My foster family took off on me (I tried to go to work...but there was no one there)...and if you're talking about the other thing..well..... lol

I completely agree with this...though the deficit did come in lower than projected, and it is much smaller than in other countries.

Are you saying we have positive news on Chick Search '10?

[Remiel]

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.

What do any of these things have to do with the verb " to lead " ?

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.

You are going to have to be clearer about what you mean by " the same situation " . The type of people involved create the situation. Chretien or Mulroney could not have be in exactly the same boat as Harper because they are different people with different abilities and accomplishments.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Remiel

[ToadBrother]

What do any of these things have to do with the verb " to lead " ?

I feel like you're about to try some goofy rhetorical trick here. He runs his party, he's the Prime Minister, he dominates Parliament, though the minority situation means he simply doesn't have the latitude of most of his predecessors. He's no Disraeli, but neither is he a Joe Clark.

But do tell me, what is it that you mean by "lead"?

You are going to have to be clearer about what you mean by " the same situation " . The type of people involved create the situation. Chretien or Mulroney could not have be in exactly the same boat as Harper because they are different people with different abilities and accomplishments.

The situation is a minority, and damned few people who are still in Parliament had much to do with that. After the formation of the Bloc, the Liberals were able to form a number of majorities because the right was divided. Now that the right is reunited, the barrier is higher than it was prior to 1993. You surely don't want to go blaming Harper for that, do you?

[Remiel]

I feel like you're about to try some goofy rhetorical trick here. He runs his party, he's the Prime Minister, he dominates Parliament, though the minority situation means he simply doesn't have the latitude of most of his predecessors. He's no Disraeli, but neither is he a Joe Clark.

But do tell me, what is it that you mean by "lead"?

That quality by which a person inspires others to do more of their own volition, not because they told they what to do, or because they had to do it. People do what Harper tells them to because he is in charge of the party or in charge of the country, not because he arouses in them their own desire to get out there and take action.

[Smallc]

Are you saying we have positive news on Chick Search '10?

Definitely not, lol......

[eyeball]

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".

Do you also do this " " with your fingers a lot when you talk or just when you type?

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you also do this " " with your fingers a lot when you talk or just when you type?

Yes...I use spare pubic hairs starched with an iron.

[Keepitsimple]

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.

That's an opinion that I can very much respect. To take it a bit further, we really don't know how Harper would lead with a majority. When he first came to power, many thought he would want to quickly take a hard Right but really, with the exception of the Justice System, he has been quite moderate. More and more, it seems that if granted a majority, he would continue to build a bigger tent and stay very close to the Center. Everyone knows that his end-game is to replace the Liberals as Canada's "default" party and in order to do that, staying at the Center is the only way to accomplish it. As for his demeanor, you might find him to be much more accomodating when the media and opposition are unable to sensationalize everything that comes along due to the opposition controlling some of the committees. He's just not the "**scary, scary**" guy that he was portrayed as.

[Shakeyhands]

Sorry, but the deficit is not $85B.

whats a billion here or a billion there between friends?

[Argus]

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...

You can't really make any kind of comparison. Mulroney's reign was, beginning to end, plunked in the middle of the worst recession since the depression. And he inherited a huge debt from Trudeau.

Trudeau, however, ruled in good times, with majorities, and still doubled spending, then doubled spending, and wracked up a huge debt.

Then we had Chretien, with whopping majorities who produced deficits just as bad as Mulroney's for the first few years - until the international recession faded away. Only then did he produce all those surpluses.

Now we have Harper, who had balanced budgets until another world recession bit him on the ass, and is ruling with a minority government - which is inherently unstable.

Now switch Mulroney and Trudeau's times around. How would Mulroney have acted if he'd ruled in good times with no significant debt load? How would Trudeau have ruled if he was in the middle of a deep recession with a big debt load to service?

Switch Harper and Chretien. How would Harper have fared with big majorities and no real opposition? How would Chretien have done with successive minorities going into a recession? You have to consider the times and circumstances before comparing their economic performances.

[ToadBrother]

That's an opinion that I can very much respect. To take it a bit further, we really don't know how Harper would lead with a majority. When he first came to power, many thought he would want to quickly take a hard Right but really, with the exception of the Justice System, he has been quite moderate. More and more, it seems that if granted a majority, he would continue to build a bigger tent and stay very close to the Center. Everyone knows that his end-game is to replace the Liberals as Canada's "default" party and in order to do that, staying at the Center is the only way to accomplish it. As for his demeanor, you might find him to be much more accomodating when the media and opposition are unable to sensationalize everything that comes along due to the opposition controlling some of the committees. He's just not the "**scary, scary**" guy that he was portrayed as.

I think, judging by his contempt for constitutional rules that have been in place in our system for over 300 hundred years, that he's a sufficiently scary guy. I still don't like him, I still distrust him, and I still think there are some real wingnuts in the Conservative party who would turn back the clock along ways if they had they're chance (my MP among them). But it's literally a choice between an incompetent (Iggy) and an incompetent loud mouth (Layton), and a cold bastard, I guess in a pinch I'd vote the cold bastard. He'd get my vote too if the bigoted lunatic in my riding was giving a not-so-fond farewell.

As I've said, I'm a strong constitutionalist, so someone has to explain to me why I should vote conservative after Harper and his ministers attempted to deceive and get around key and hard-won constitutional restraints on the power of the executive. Parliament must always be supreme, and I want a Prime Minister who respects that, not one who tries to make ludicrous, false and deceptive arguments about the nature of executive power in our system. If you can tell me why I should trust Harper after a prorogation to escape a confidence motion and essentially claiming executive powers that were explicitly removed from our constitution nearly two hundred years before the BNA Act, then you might go some distance to convincing me. Care to try?

[Argus]

As I've said, I'm a strong constitutionalist, so someone has to explain to me why I should vote conservative after Harper and his ministers attempted to deceive and get around key and hard-won constitutional restraints on the power of the executive.

I've always followed politics closely, and I can't say, given the same position, that Trudeau, Mulroney or Chretien would have behaved any differently, would have cooperated more readily with a dirt digging minority parliament, or been less high-handed. I remember all three men as being mean, vindictive bastards.

It seems we only have two kinds of leaders in Canada's parliament; incompetents and S.O.B.s

[ToadBrother]

I've always followed politics closely, and I can't say, given the same position, that Trudeau, Mulroney or Chretien would have behaved any differently, would have cooperated more readily with a dirt digging minority parliament, or been less high-handed. I remember all three men as being mean, vindictive bastards.

It seems we only have two kinds of leaders in Canada's parliament; incompetents and S.O.B.s

I'm still not convinced. The constitutional restraints on the Executive are fundamental laws of our land. Trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous, but trying to act upon such a flimsy and invalid argument is not a sign of a leader with any respect for our system.

Edited July 9, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Moonlight Graham]

IMV - we Canadians, French and English, deserve far better than what Harper (or Ignatieff) has offered.

What about natives?

[Molly]

I've just read several pages of this conversation-- in amazement.

Harper stepped into the PMO during very good times, with his most effective competitor in disgrace, the opposition divided, leaderless and in utter disarray. Political strategists pray every night and every day for circumstances just like that.

If Harper couldn't convert to a majority under political circumstances that literally could not be any more advantageous, then he doesn't deserve to stand in the same room, leadershipwise, with Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien (Pearson, Diefenbaker..) much less be congratulated for wishful speculations of that he might do, should he ever be granted that elusive majority. No. He gets to go over to that other place with Clark, Turner, Campbell....

Ha! Now that conditions are slightly less than ab-so-lutely ideal, Harper and his minions could even end up bounced and replaced by a party that has been so devastated, and is so weakened that speculation about it blinking out of existence is perfectly plausible.

Strong leader!~ Great leader!~ Effective leader!~ Pah!

Edited July 10, 2010 by Molly

[Argus]

If Harper couldn't convert to a majority under political circumstances that literally could not be any more advantageous, then he doesn't deserve to stand in the same room, leadershipwise, with Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien (Pearson, Diefenbaker..) much less be congratulated for wishful speculations of that he might do, should he ever be granted that elusive majority. plausible.

None of those people had the BQ to deal with except Chretien, and Chretien had two conservative parties clawing at each other and dividing the conservative vote for his entire time in office. With the BQ taking the majority of Quebec seats, none of those others would have gotten a majority, with the possible exception of Diefenbaker.

[August1991]

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.

Your argument (that the Liberals/NDP would spend more than the Tories) is the right-wing equivalent of the left's "Harper has a secret agenda" argument.

IOW, you are suggesting that I should vote for Harper because the alternative would be worse - just as the Toronto Star etc has argued that I shoudl vote Liberal or NDP because the Tories will do nasty things once in power. Well, I'm tired of arguments based on hypotheticals and what-might-bes.

In general, with a few very loud exceptions, NDP provincial governments have managed money well. The Chretien/Martin combo of the mid-1990s made a serious and successful effort to control federal government spending.

"Harper the bogeyman" will not work, and "Ignatieff the spendthrift" won't either.

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.

I can understand why a minority government would spend money on extending UI benefits, or maybe a cultural gala or two in Montreal. Heck, it might even spend money on beer and popcorn for welfare moms.

But Harper's minority government spent a billion and change for chain link fences, security guard/police overtime, crowd control gizmos, limos and restaurant meals and a fake lake. And all this for a summit preaching fiscal restraint in the middle of a world recession. (There's a plotline for a bad Rick Mercer skit/rant somewhere in this.)

The last time such an orgy of public spending for an international event happened in Canada was when MacEachen hosted the Pope at the end of Trudeau's comeback term in office in 1984.

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.

The worst job in the world is Leader of the Official Opposition. (The second worst job in the world is PM in a country with a French style constitution.)

I don't mean to defend "flaky" Ignatieff but Harper has many advantages that Ignatieff does not.

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?

The current Liberal alternative to Ignatieff would be Rae (or Leblanc or someone else).

The thing about Rae is that he can communicate. And modern democratic politics is all about communication, on your feet. (Gawd, please don't consider this to be an endorsement of Rae; it's not.)

They say that Washington is Hollywood for ugly people but in fact it is the Super Bowl for people who can talk. We prefer politicians who can go unscripted into an event, hold their own and make themselves understood to us.

Harper can't do that, and Ignatieff (despite what he may think of himself) can't either.

---

I saw Rene Levesque in action and he was a politician of the modern era. He could communicate.

Edited July 10, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

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.

This line of argument really bugs me.

I want (and think that among 30 million Canadians that it is possible to find) someone who can explain to women, Quebecers, readers of the Toronto Star and voters in the Maritimes that the federal government should spend less money, and spend it differently.

I am not expecting that all women, Quebecers, Toronto Star readers or Maritime voters will entirely agree. But I would hope some of them would, at least enough so that the federal leader could get a 42% or so in a federal poll.

To cut federal government spending is a hard sell. In Canada, federal money is other people's money, other people far away. It's much easier to say yes and write the cheque. Nevertheless, I think someone exists who can explain to millions of Canadians, in English and French, why this federal largesse must stop, and why we should choose more carefully who gets our federal tax dollars.

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.

TimG, your error here is to think that the charismatic figure would be a "tax-and-spend" leftist.

Why can't we have a charismatic figure, or at least someone capable of communicating, who defends basic principles of smaller government, and a smaller federal government? Someone who can explain - less and better government spending, less and better regulation.

IMV, Stephen Harper can't connect with French Canadians, or women - key, uh, voting groups. (To coin a phrase, Conservatives in Canada deserve better.) With this $1 billion dollar boondoggle in Toronto, Harper has lost any credibility he may have had when he speaks in French to explain $15 million cultural spending cuts, or among women when he tries to explain any government spending cut.

Sadly, Ignatieff - for other reasons - is no more capable of getting his message out either.

Despite a yearning in Quebec for a way out, these two guys may be the death of Canadian federalism.

Edited July 10, 2010 by August1991

[capricorn]

But Harper's minority government spent a billion and change for chain link fences, security guard/police overtime, crowd control gizmos, limos and restaurant meals and a fake lake.

That's quite a feat, isn't it? It's too bad the Opposition didn't do a better job of butting in all the while the planning of the G8/G20 was underway. And I don't buy the excuse that all this planning was being undertaken in secret. On the Hill, there are plenty of ways to find out what the others don't want you to find out. Either the Opposition, in particular the Liberals, didn't care or gave the Conservatives carte blanche.

I don't mean to defend "flaky" Ignatieff but Harper has many advantages that Ignatieff does not.

The number one advantage Harper has is an ineffective Government-in-waiting. In view of the Liberals strong front bench (some say it is stronger than the Conservatives), the blame for the Liberals tanking has to fall squarely on the leader, i.e. Ignatieff.

[Wild Bill]

This line of argument really bugs me.

I want (and think that among 30 million Canadians that it is possible to find) someone who can explain to women, Quebecers, readers of the Toronto Star and voters in the Maritimes that the federal government should spend less money, and spend it differently.

I am not expecting that all women, Quebecers, Toronto Star readers or Maritime voters will entirely agree. But I would hope some of them would, at least enough so that the federal leader could get a 42% or so in a federal poll.

August, what we're seeing is the result of the "suits" running the show! You know, those guys with MBA's or poli-sci degrees who were taught that you should sell a person, product or service with appeal to the broadest (and LOWEST!) common denominator!

The reasoning is usually illustrated with the following scenario. You have a group of people who all work together car-pooling out for lunch. Some would prefer Chinese or Thai. Some would like Italian or Mexican. Yet they all wind up going to McDonalds. Why? Because it's the only common choice that all will accept.

So we all get offered the man in the beige suit and the brown shoes! Everyone is mildly disappointed but the alternative is expected to be a smaller group pleased with a stronger choice. This means fewer votes in total.

The sad thing is that this approach actually works! However, it quickly palls. The longer a demographic is faced with such bland choices the more hungry they become for something with a flavour they can actually appreciate!

I think this may be why we've seen "mavericks" come out of the woodwork these past few decades and be so hugely successful. The common theme with the majorities of Trudeau, Mulroney and Harris in Ontario is that the electorate were bored out of their trees with the choices they had been given, for a prolonged period of time. Voter participation starts to drop. If EVERY choice is 'beige' it's hard to muster up the energy to bother going down to the polling station!

Perhaps I'm off base but I've been voting since Trudeau and also pay attention to what my friends, family and co-workers have to say every election. I truly think I've got a piece of something real here!

[bloodyminded]

That's quite a feat, isn't it? It's too bad the Opposition didn't do a better job of butting in all the while the planning of the G8/G20 was underway. And I don't buy the excuse that all this planning was being undertaken in secret. On the Hill, there are plenty of ways to find out what the others don't want you to find out. Either the Opposition, in particular the Liberals, didn't care or gave the Conservatives carte blanche.

I don't think it's impossible that they knew but were laying in wait to pounce on this, in a Machiavellian manner.

[bloodyminded]

The reasoning is usually illustrated with the following scenario. You have a group of people who all work together car-pooling out for lunch. Some would prefer Chinese or Thai. Some would like Italian or Mexican. Yet they all wind up going to McDonalds. Why? Because it's the only common choice that all will accept.

So we all get offered the man in the beige suit and the brown shoes! Everyone is mildly disappointed but the alternative is expected to be a smaller group pleased with a stronger choice. This means fewer votes in total.

The sad thing is that this approach actually works! However, it quickly palls. The longer a demographic is faced with such bland choices the more hungry they become for something with a flavour they can actually appreciate!

As Christopher Hitchens once said about American political power (but that can be applied here as well) is that the major parties are "two buttocks on the same fat gentleman."

[Leafless]

I saw Rene Levesque in action and he was a politician of the modern era. He could communicate.

That is providing socialistic/commie talk is your bag.

And it sounds like it is.