How Ignatieff Can Beat Harper

[nicky10013]

"further integration into the global community". Now THERE'S a typical feel-good line. Do you have any idea what he was talking about? Inspiring?

More trade deals, further cooperation with international organisations such as the UN, NATO, IMF, WTO, NGO organisations such as doctors without borders, IRC to name a couple.

[Keepitsimple]

More trade deals, further cooperation with international organisations such as the UN, NATO, IMF, WTO, NGO organisations such as doctors without borders, IRC to name a couple.

I guess you mean like free trade deals with Peru, Colombia, Panama and India for starters.....our strong position within NATO and how our banking systems and stimulus plan are respected by the IMF. The WTO loves our approach to free trade. As for the UN.....well, they still need to clean up their act so we'll have to be careful there. NGO's.....very important - just pick your partners carefully and make sure they spend money wisely. If that's what Ignatieff meant, then like people say - he probably wouldn't do things any differently than they're being done now.

[August1991]

The only other possibility is some sort of coalition, but that's dangerous territory for the Liberals, and Iggy has, since taking over, been justifiably lukewarm about it. And let's remember that even if the Opposition band together during or after the next election, it's Harper who still gets the first kick and the cat.

But what happens if Harper immediately after an election loses a vote of confidence? This is what happened in Ontario in the 1980s and is a distinctly possible scenario after the next federal election.

Right now, Harper is safer than Iggy. Frankly, I'm not even sure losing the government would necessarily see the Tories boot him out.

I'm not so sure about that.

Despite incompetent opposition leaders, Quebec voters desperate for an alternative and an economy that is remarkably strong given the international situation, Harper just can't break 40% and is now floating around the low 30s. Canadian voters are looking for something and Harper is not it. He has had over four years as PM to connect with Canadians and as the French say, the mayonnaise hasn't taken.

Nonsense. It amazes me how people let their partisanship blind them so.

And seriously August... you're STILL on about the G8/20 security costs?

Me, partisan? I want to vote for a fiscal conservative politician who can speak to most ordinary Canadians and explain the logic of fiscal conservatism.

But I can also look objectively at the political landscape where it seems obvious to me that Harper has trouble connecting with even WASP voters. The game of modern politics is communication and Harper communicates badly.

Nope, didn't notice any ramming. The census changes are bypassing my throat entirely because I don't give a damn, as I imagine the vast vast majority of other Canadians also don't give a damn.

I agree, sort of. I happen to care about the census and I agree with Harper's position but I also know that the "vast vast majority" couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the census.

Harper's problem is not the census or what intellectuals in "civil society" think of the long form; Harper's problem is that he can't communicate with ordinary Canadians. Women in particular have stopped listening to him.

Successful politicians in the modern era are like Obama, Thatcher, Bush Jnr, Reagan, Trudeau, Clinton - ordinary people understand what they are saying. Levesque was an expert at this. Harper apparently can't do it.

----

I started this thread because I wondered about how Ignatieff could beat Harper. It still seems to me that Ignatieff (the Liberals) should treat this as a war of attrition in which they may not have a knock-out punch. (Long ago, I thought that this era would become known as the Dion-Harper era because I reckoned that the two would duel as Gladstone and Disraeli or Pearson and Diefenbaker did. And then Dion self-detonated.) Ignatieff should aim to reduce Harper's seat total because that's what Dion (the Liberals) should have done.

Second, Harper can't communicate with Canadians - English or French. Ignatieff is an unknown quantity until we are in an election campaign. If it turns out that Ignatieff can connect better with Canadians, and we won't know that until we're in an election, then he'll beat Harper.

Edited August 11, 2010 by August1991

[Bryan]

If you hadn't noticed, they're ramming the census changes down our throats. So nice try.

Actually, it's the opposite. The census long form USED TO be rammed down our throats, now were being given the choice. Choice is good.

[August1991]

The rule of thumb here is the reason why the party is holding back on releasing a platform is because they don't want it attacked for 2 straight months before the writ is dropped. At this point, I disagree because seeing the CPC go super negative at this juncture would only reinforce that they're driven by ideology rather than reason and are hyper partisan which are the overall attributes dragging them down.

I think you are wrong and the Liberal Party strategists are right. The last thing the Liberals want now is for the political stage to turn to hypothetical Liberal incompetence. Oppositions don't win elections; governments lose them. The Liberals don't want to be the focus of any spotlight.

I read that link and stopped after this boringly ridiculous phrase: "Canadians have always embraced the world with confidence, optimism and a blend of new-world idealism and old-fashioned practicality." And faucets are good because they offer both hot and cold water.

At most, the Liberals should offer a programme that shows that Ignatieff is capable of governing, and takes the job seriously. Since all Canadians know that the Liberals can govern, and since Ignatieff seems earnest (if nothing else), then a detailed programme isn't necessary and would probably be counterproductive. Ignatieff doesn't need to go the route of Harper/Australian vote-buying gimmicks of tool/kid sport/public transit tax write-offs, or GST cuts.

[Smallc]

Choice is good.

Not in this case it isn't.

[msdogfood]

I think if the Libs wait until after the March 31st dead line for the stimulus to be cut off by the Tories and all those projects that aren`t done will be handed over to the provinces and municipalities, Harper will be in deepest trouble with the voters. When asked the question, Are you better off today than`in 2005? I say more will say no and hopefully vote accordly.

I would love to see what happens than!!

[msdogfood]

He's recieved nothing but good press for his bus tour, even from the National Post. He's proven he can take the campaign schedule. The Party has money. All they need is a message. Furthermore, he really has been out there meeting with people and connecting, far better than anyone expected. Like I said, those who haven't heard him speak will be surprised. He's surprising. One of the best lines I've heard in a while came from him. At a fair on the weekend someone warned him to watch where he stepped because horses had just been through there. He said oh don't worry, I deal with horse shit in ottawa all the time. So really, I don't know where your illusory notion of the Liberals are doomed under Ignatieff comes from. Nobody knows whether a politician will run a good campaign until they've done that.

I guess this statement is the reason why you're not in politics. What opposition party has ever won coming from a position of strength? Ignatieff is dealing with a Prime Minister that is currently weaker than either Paul Martin or Kim Campbell were before the writ was dropped. Lest we forget, neither Chretien or Harper were ever expected to win. Comparatively speaking, that does the party in a position of strenght.

oh that is a good line!!.

[ToadBrother]

But what happens if Harper immediately after an election loses a vote of confidence? This is what happened in Ontario in the 1980s and is a distinctly possible scenario after the next federal election.

Why would the Opposition wait until after an election to do that? They're perfectly within their rights as soon as Parliament sits again to topple the government at the first opportunity, and if one, two or all three decide to get into bed together, and Iggy can catch a cab over to Rideau Hall and submit himself capable of forming a Government.

The one thing we've figured out about Iggy by now is that he isn't a risk taker. Harper is, at times irresponsibly so, but still he's willing to put it on the line. Iggy has basically been acting, behind the smokescreen of partisanship, as the junior partner in a Coalition. Yes, there have been tiffs, in particular the Rights and Privileges debate over the Afghan prisoner issue, but that was largely orchestrated by other Opposition MPs. When push has come to shove, Iggy has propped up the Government. I'd say we have a Coalition government already.

[Bryan]

Not in this case it isn't.

Especially in this case. It's long overdue.

[August1991]

Why would the Opposition wait until after an election to do that? They're perfectly within their rights as soon as Parliament sits again to topple the government at the first opportunity, and if one, two or all three decide to get into bed together, and Iggy can catch a cab over to Rideau Hall and submit himself capable of forming a Government.

If it happened now, the GG would dissolve parliament and we'd have an election.

If something similar happened immediately after an election, the GG would turn to the Opposition leader to form a government and evenually test parliament.

The one thing we've figured out about Iggy by now is that he isn't a risk taker. Harper is, at times irresponsibly so, but still he's willing to put it on the line.

I don't know Ignatieff. I met him once in person. Risk averse? I happen to think that Ignatieff is a flake. He's the kind of guy who says one weird thing to you alone. But when your girlfriend is around, he says something else - even weirder.

[ToadBrother]

If it happened now, the GG would dissolve parliament and we'd have an election.

Not by any notion of the Constitution I've seen. The Governor General could dissolve Parliament, but there is sufficient precedent out there that if another group within Parliament could demonstrate they could form a government, the GG would be bound by the constitution to give them an opportunity.

Remember, at the end of the day in the Westminster system, it is the people who choose the Parliament, and the Parliament that chooses the Government.

Edited August 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Jack Weber]

Especially in this case. It's long overdue.

That's right...

The GESTAPO from Parliament Hill is coming for your guns!!!!

You should construct an anti-Ottawa,hermetically sealed bunker in case they use gas to break down your door in the middle of the night!!!

[August1991]

Not by any notion of the Constitution I've seen. The Governor General could dissolve Parliament...

I think the question is: do we have an election, or do we have a new PM?

Constitutional experts can argue dates but I think that if it's within six months or so of an election, the GG will turn to the OLO or the sitting PM to resolve the problem. After six months, the GG will dissolve parliament and we'll have an election.

----

Warning: Thread drift ahead.

In many ways, I have to admire the British common law system. It is not clear what the rules are and a judge will set a precedent (subject to appeal) for a difficult situation.

OTOH, the clarity of the US Constitution has survived for over two centuries. A Civil Code makes life easier, and if well written, can survive far into the future.

Edited August 11, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Especially in this case. It's long overdue.

Yes, it's always better when crucial national data is made near useless in many cases.

[ToadBrother]

I think the question is: do we have an election, or do we have a new PM?

Constitutional experts can argue dates but I think that if it's within six months or so of an election, the GG will turn to the OLO or the sitting PM to resolve the problem. After six months, the GG will dissolve parliament and we'll have an election.

Let's look at it this way. The last election was November 2008, less than two years ago. If the Opposition toppled the Tories this fall, that would be around two years (probably a little less), which makes it less than half way through the maximum length of a Parliament according to the Constitution, or half-way if you believe that the Tory's election bill has much meaning. The GG, I suspect, would be very likely to ask Iggy and whatever combination of Opposition parties in a formal or informal (vote-by-vote) coalition to form a government. As I said, there is precedent for this. Of course, this presumes the Liberals want to form a government without an election or whether they want to try their luck at the polls.

But I still doubt very much anyone is going to be looking to a fall election. I remain very dubious.

[msdogfood]

an election may happin this year it may be because of the censuses

& the PM.s base is not happy!!

Edited August 12, 2010 by msdogfood

[ToadBrother]

an election may happin this year it may be because of the censuses

& the PM.s base is not happy!!

I doubt very much the census is going to be that big an issue. If it can be attributed to the latest polling (and I'm not absolutely certain it can), then about all it's done is made an election even more perilous for the Liberals and the Tories. If Iggy were more of a betting man, I might see him taking his chances, but thus far he's struck me as cautious, too cautious in fact.

[PIK]

Iggy's director of comunications was killed today ,riding his bike to work and was hit by a SUV,the driver could be facing charges today.Any way why would anybody want to bring in iggy as PM,because harper is not warm and cuddly and tells you everything you want to hear to make you feel good damn well knowing it was not going to happen.So many people have said they wish obama was PM, obama is bring down america ,which IN TURN CAN BRING US DOWN, they are bankrupt ,he is in way over his head , but yet people will still put this country into dangerous waters just to get rid of harper. Idiots.

Edited August 12, 2010 by PIK

[Argus]

uh....sorry.....but if the Liberals do not win the next election, Ignatieff will have the kitchen cutlery imbedded in his back. A bus tour and one reasonable poll doesn't make the internal rot, infighting and longing for power disappear.

You fail to appreciate what lies behind August's desire for an election. You see, he doesn't like Harper OR Ignatieff. There are a number of reasons for this, but at heart, neither is French, and neither is from Quebec. Thus he hopes that the Tories will replace Harper with, hopefully, a Francophone. Even if not, the Liberals, by their rules, have to replace Ignateiff with a Francophone. So August has a French guy to vote for again. He'd prefer the French guy be fiscally conservative, but really, the french part is the important thing.

[Keepitsimple]

You fail to appreciate what lies behind August's desire for an election. You see, he doesn't like Harper OR Ignatieff. There are a number of reasons for this, but at heart, neither is French, and neither is from Quebec. Thus he hopes that the Tories will replace Harper with, hopefully, a Francophone. Even if not, the Liberals, by their rules, have to replace Ignateiff with a Francophone. So August has a French guy to vote for again. He'd prefer the French guy be fiscally conservative, but really, the french part is the important thing.

Clever fellow that August. Maxime Bernier, come on down!

[Visionseeker]

The old adage says: "Oppositions don't win. Governments defeat themselves." So, I also think that Ignatieff should do little and wait for Harper to make several gaffes. (Harper has possibly made the gaffes this summer, starting with a $1 billion G8/G20 boondoggle in Toronto. If I were Ignatieff, I would milk this for all its billion dollar worth.)

Rather than wait for the right polling numbers, Ignatieff should simply take on Harper in an election and reduce his seat standing. If Harper's seat numbers go down, this eliminates Harper's chance of a majority and makes Harper a non-viable Tory leader.

IOW, it is unlikely that there will be a knock-out punch. This is a war of attrition, and such a war favours Ignatieff since Harper cannot go up now. Reducing Harper to 140 seats or so will be a victory for Ignatieff since he'll be the last man standing.

----

There is something truly democratic in all of this. Who can better speak to Canadians, French and English?

Harper has communication problems in English, and he is quickly turning into another slippery Liberal who says one thing, but does another. In French, Harper has huge communication problems. At the moment in Quebec, Harper appears to be trying to be a unilingual Brian Mulroney. Ugh.

Ignatieff is an unknown quantity in English Canada, and in Quebec in particular. Ignatieff, in French, strikes me as another Victor Goldbloom.

Between Harper and Ignatieff, who can better speak to all Canadians? That's why we have elections in a democracy. Ignatieff will have to face this test now, or later, and the timing of the test is irrelevant.

To beat Harper, Ignatieff simply has to connect better to Canadians, French and English.

While I agree with the premise that Harper is toast if there's any back sliding, Ignatieff can't go into an election with such a simplistic goal. Yes, reducing Con representation in the House would turn Harper into a loser, but it doesn't turn Ignatieff into a winner.

Ignatieff and the Liberals are struggling to find and be the legitimate standard barer for a momentum coalition - a stream of issues and concerns that sufficiently resonate with the national constituency that will place them in the mid to upper 30s at the polls.

Governments do defeat themselves and I believe that Harper has made enough mistakes to bring him down. But I don’t think the Liberals have as yet figured out how to secure the advantage.

I could tell them how, but they couldn’t afford my fees. ;-)

[Visionseeker]

I think if the Libs wait until after the March 31st dead line for the stimulus to be cut off by the Tories and all those projects that aren`t done will be handed over to the provinces and municipalities, Harper will be in deepest trouble with the voters. When asked the question, Are you better off today than`in 2005? I say more will say no and hopefully vote accordly.

The infrastructure portfolio is a problematic matter, but one that they can easily correct if they choose to. It won't be one single issue that brings the Conservatives to their knees, it will be their wider record.

Governments defeat themselves by making decisions. A decision haunts to varying degree. Multiple decisions carry mulitiple varying hauntings. Harper has always had a problem with trustworthiness. Try as he might, he's never been able to shake the impression and now his record opens him to assults on competence.

He's painted into a corner. Proroguing is no longer a viable option and he has done enough "harm" that a trip to the polls will net him fewer MPs. But as I pointed out elsewhere, Harper's losing doesn't necessarily translate into Ignatieff's winning. The latter has to build a solid tent if he wants to stick around.

[Visionseeker]

Nope, didn't notice any ramming. The census changes are bypassing my throat entirely because I don't give a damn, as I imagine the vast vast majority of other Canadians also don't give a damn.

The vast majority yes, but a significant minority (including Conservatives) does. The Census stupidity panders to the self-described libertarians at the expense of those within or sympathetic to the party who see empiricism as critical in developing sound policy.

1%, 2%, 3%, 4

and then it's time to show them the door.

That's the game right now. And Harper is playing it badly.

[August1991]

You fail to appreciate what lies behind August's desire for an election. You see, he doesn't like Harper OR Ignatieff. There are a number of reasons for this, but at heart, neither is French, and neither is from Quebec. Thus he hopes that the Tories will replace Harper with, hopefully, a Francophone. Even if not, the Liberals, by their rules, have to replace Ignateiff with a Francophone. So August has a French guy to vote for again. He'd prefer the French guy be fiscally conservative, but really, the french part is the important thing.

Merde de merde, Angus. Give it a break.

Clever fellow that August. Maxime Bernier, come on down!

I'm no fan of Bernier but the people from the Beauce are practical. Canada has never had a PM from the Beauce - God knows what would happen if we did. St-Laurent was from Compton, Chretien from Shawinigan and Laurier from Victoriaville. Trudeau is buried on Montreal's South Shore.

While I agree with the premise that Harper is toast if there's any back sliding, Ignatieff can't go into an election with such a simplistic goal. Yes, reducing Con representation in the House would turn Harper into a loser, but it doesn't turn Ignatieff into a winner.

I started this thread thinking of how Ignatieff could beat Harper. (Since Laurier, federal Liberals are "winners" - like real estate agents, car dealerships and local notaries, they want to know how to be top dog.)

Since Mulroney, the federal Liberals have been confused. So, I offered this thread as a way for federal Liberals to get their mojo back - particularly when faced with someone named Harper.

I mean, how Catholic is the name "Mulroney". And how WASP is the name "Harper". Yet both are Conservatives.

Edited August 15, 2010 by August1991