If I were harper

[ToadBrother]

Clear to who? Last year he came out and said they'll be bringing down the government at the earliest opportunity when they were behind in the polls.

Yes, he announced it every single week, until it became obvious that he had no intention of doing so.

The polls crashed and that was that. Now, they're playing a much more ambiguous game. THey're going to work with the government until they get to something that they can't swallow.

Isn't that how it's worked since the Tories formed government?

With John Baird as house leader something tells me that will come sooner rather than later. The front page of the Globe and Mail website right now has the title "Ignatieff Not Afraid of an Election." Throughout the fall and winter term every question regarding an election was "we're not having one." The fact that he won't rule it out now says a lot; about how ready the party is.

I'm not holding my breath for Iggy to do anything particularly overwhelming, or even the slightest bit daring.

Edited August 31, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Yes we should. We should also be concerned about security issues. (Or do you think that no document should ever be considered "top secret"?

I'm all for security issues. What I'm not for is a government asserting an executive right that has never existed in our system of government. I put flagrant violations of constitutional principles as a much greater risk to us than Taliban tribesmen shooting at NATO troops.

[nicky10013]

Yes, he announced it every single week, until it became obvious that he had no intention of doing so.

Well, there was a reason.

Isn't that how it's worked since the Tories formed government?

Nope. In any case, a snap election doesn't give time for the polls to crash. The day after, people forget who called what and then the headline stories becomes about the policy issues which eventually boils down into one ballot question. Whoever comes out on the right side of the ballot question wins the election.

I'm not holding my breath for Iggy to do anything particularly overwhelming, or even the slightest bit daring.

A little naive aren't we? The only "daring" politicians are the ones who have no shot at actually winning government. So, to put that critique solely on Ignatieff is, in my opinion, hypocritical.

[ToadBrother]

A little naive aren't we? The only "daring" politicians are the ones who have no shot at actually winning government. So, to put that critique solely on Ignatieff is, in my opinion, hypocritical.

Look, it's not like I'm some dedicated Tory. You must know by now that I hold Harper in contempt. And yet, when push comes to shove, he's a lot like Chretien, a guy with the balls to put in on the line. He can get too emboldened, and I still contend that the 2009 prorogation is the reason the Tory numbers have never recovered. Still, whatever else Harper is, he's willing to take chances when chances mean something. He may end up hanging himself with that rope, mind you, but thus far it's worked out as well as could be expected in the current political climate.

[nicky10013]

Look, it's not like I'm some dedicated Tory. You must know by now that I hold Harper in contempt. And yet, when push comes to shove, he's a lot like Chretien, a guy with the balls to put in on the line. He can get too emboldened, and I still contend that the 2009 prorogation is the reason the Tory numbers have never recovered. Still, whatever else Harper is, he's willing to take chances when chances mean something. He may end up hanging himself with that rope, mind you, but thus far it's worked out as well as could be expected in the current political climate.

I don't mean to paint you as Tory, I was speaking in generalities not necessarily about Harper. That being said, I don't think he's ever taken a chance on anything. He's just as cautious as anything else. He's just misjudged the situation and how much support he actually has had. He's completely thrown off his own ideology to win power and has done everything possible to hold on to power. He was elected on a platform of GST cuts 4 years ago and has done little since. Whether you agree or disagree, to me, that's not daring.

[capricorn]

I can't imagine any circumstance save the polls saying the Libs were in the high 30s that would convince Iggy to force an election.

One thing I hope is that the Liberals' get on the same page on the election/no election issue while they're meeting in Baddeck. If the Liberals are to put out a message is it too much to ask that it be consistent?

And while Liberals swear they’re not chomping for an election this fall, Ignatieff seemed to be ready to go.

“It’s time to change this government,” he said as he closed out a 20-minute stump speech.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/30/15190626.html

[PIK]

One thing I hope is that the Liberals' get on the same page on the election/no election issue while they're meeting in Baddeck. If the Liberals are to put out a message is it too much to ask that it be consistent?

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/30/15190626.html

Well then why does he not call a election, how many times have we heard this threat, the man has no balls and you want him leading this country.

[ToadBrother]

Well then why does he not call a election, how many times have we heard this threat, the man has no balls and you want him leading this country.

Well, he couldn't do much worse than Harper, who has shown nothing but contempt for the constitution and the limits it puts on him and his ministers. A waffler may be bad, but a man who does not obey the basic laws and attempts, quite on his own, to invent new ones out of thin air is much, much worse.

Edited August 31, 2010 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

Well then why does he not call a election, how many times have we heard this threat, the man has no balls and you want him leading this country.

Pik, if you read my posts with regard to Ignatieff, you'd know that pretty well from day one, I thought the Liberals made a mistake when they s/elected him as leader.

[Evening Star]

I'm all for security issues. What I'm not for is a government asserting an executive right that has never existed in our system of government. I put flagrant violations of constitutional principles as a much greater risk to us than Taliban tribesmen shooting at NATO troops.

Exactly.

But I mean, in addition, there is evidence that the govt had been alerted about at least the possibility that transferred detainees would be tortured. It wasn't a secret that this went on.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/detainees.html

Of course, I also think the government should have done more when it was known that a Canadian had been tortured in Guantanamo.

[ToadBrother]

Exactly.

But I mean, in addition, there is evidence that the govt had been alerted about at least the possibility that transferred detainees would be tortured. It wasn't a secret that this went on.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/detainees.html

Of course, I also think the government should have done more when it was known that a Canadian had been tortured in Guantanamo.

I still think the whole thing is a mountain-of-a-mole-hill bit of mischief making on the part of the Opposition, but I support Parliament's unconditional right to hold the Government accountable. It's been that way for three hundred years, and the Government's claims are blatant violations of those core constitutional principles.

[Evening Star]

I still think the whole thing is a mountain-of-a-mole-hill bit of mischief making on the part of the Opposition,

Really? Hm, maybe you're right. I'm not sure I agree but, to level with you, I also don't think we should be in a combat role in Afghanistan at all.

Harper's inaction on climate change should also be an issue.

[Bonam]

Harper's inaction on climate change should also be an issue.

People don't give a damn about climate change during hard economic times. It only becomes an important issue during periods of economic prosperity.

[dre]

The cost of those summits has been discussed quite extensively in other threads. (Typically, it involves people who dislike the conservatives claiming "overspending" without pointing to what exactly they overspent on., and the pro-conservatives pointing out that its just the cost of doing business in a globalized world.)

When you consider the cost, consider this: When Canada hosted the G8 conference in Alberta (when Chretien was the leader), the cost of the summit was around $200 million. The 2010 conference A: lasted longer and B: involved more countries (it was a combined G8/G20 summit). So, relatively speaking, the costs don't seem to be that far out of line. Perhaps we should wait to see if there are any real cost overruns before condemning the conservatives.

Yes we should. We should also be concerned about security issues. (Or do you think that no document should ever be considered "top secret"?

Yes we should. We should also be concerned about security issues. Or do you think that no document should ever be considered "top secret"?

I not at all comfortable with how much secrecy there already is. I think only documents that compromise active operations should be kept secret, and they should be released to the public as soon as they no longer meet that criteria.

[Smallc]

I not at all comfortable with how much secrecy there already is. I think only documents that compromise active operations should be kept secret, and they should be released to the public as soon as they no longer meet that criteria.

And those documents should NEVER be out of the reach of the Parliament of Canada, whether we're talking about the Senate, the Commons, or the Crown.

[dre]

And those documents should NEVER be out of the reach of the Parliament of Canada, whether we're talking about the Senate, the Commons, or the Crown.

Yup. Thats how I see it.

[msdogfood]

I would make the next election about the refugee system and using the not withstanding clause to change the 1985 supreme court ruling. . And I would campaign also on coalition and tell the people give us a majority or we will have a coalition goverment with the bloc having veto power. And then let the Canadian people decide if they want changes or just let everyone in till there is no room and we are a 3rd world country.

If your Harper You Do Not want to make the next election about the refugee system!!

Why ... anyone who is a new Canadian and there family will line up against The PMO & the CPC Harper would louse Power very fast!!!

dont believe me you say.. see demographic data

use the using the not withstanding clause to change the 1985 supreme court ruling ... he will not get the support for that in parliament for that. even if he did you do not want to piss off the supreme court long term he needs them throw he may not like it

also he will have almost every one in the legal profession Mad at the CPC ...NOT GOOD!

a lot of the public will think he is on an ego trip Very bad PR!!

Now for the bloc if he were to blast them like that publicly he would guarantee A CPC voter claps in Quebec he would not get his majority government ever!! or the CPC!!!.

Edited September 1, 2010 by msdogfood

[Archanfel]

I highly doubt people care about this issue enough to elect a prime minister solely on it. On the other hand, the backlash would be significant.

[msdogfood]

I highly doubt people care about this issue enough to elect a prime minister solely on it. On the other hand, the backlash would be significant.

You would if you ware getting your citizenship or just got it!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If I were Harper, I would be saying that it is "all about the economy, stupid". I would be saying that we need to take a more visible international role. I would be saying that it may be wise to blow the dust off of the "fortress North America concept". I would be saying that the opposition is just that, opposition. They have no viable independent platforms that are suitable for Canadian society, and because of that reality the Conservatives are the default government, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

Harper need only bang the drum slowly in order to attract the die hard right wing crowd, they will come out in his favour every time. The left wing crowd is too splintered to stand alone, but now the lefties are starting to figure a way out of the wilderness. Still the vast majority of citizens yawn at the mere thought of politics, things are still too good to disturb the gentle beast of the unwashed public. There has not yet been a crisis of sufficient rank to rattle the cage of the average citizen. That citizen is the majority in this nation, they are the ones that don't vote. If ever they decide to start voting then woe be unto those who would stand against them. Once awakened, there will be a giant sized left swing, and the right will be able to do nothing to stem the coming tide. Harper needs to use his head and explain this to the public! Week by week, from now until an election is called he needs to speak to the people in one on ones, or two or three on one, even town hall meetings. He can draw the crowd because he is the PM. He needs to remember that little fact and take advantage of it. If he does, he will retain power, but not even then will he get a majority.

[ToadBrother]

If I were Harper, I would be saying that it is "all about the economy, stupid". I would be saying that we need to take a more visible international role. I would be saying that it may be wise to blow the dust off of the "fortress North America concept". I would be saying that the opposition is just that, opposition. They have no viable independent platforms that are suitable for Canadian society, and because of that reality the Conservatives are the default government, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

And what platform have the Tories put forward that's of such awe-inspiring scope? The major movements made by Parliament last year during the height of the recession's impact were, by and large, forced on to the Tories by the Opposition. It's why I firmly believe that we have a Tory-Liberal coalition, but neither party particularly wants to admit it.

Edited September 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And what platform have the Tories put forward that's of such awe-inspiring scope? The major movements made by Parliament last year during the height of the recession's impact were, by and large, forced on to the Tories by the Opposition. It's why I firmly believe that we have a Tory-Liberal coalition, but neither party particularly wants to admit it.

Point taken! Even so, Harper still needs to do nothing more than talk and wait. Its up to Iggy and others to force his hand. They don't or at least haven't done that very well to date.

[PIK]

Exactly.

But I mean, in addition, there is evidence that the govt had been alerted about at least the possibility that transferred detainees would be tortured. It wasn't a secret that this went on.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/detainees.html

Of course, I also think the government should have done more when it was known that a Canadian had been tortured in Guantanamo.

You are right ,the liberals knew of this and still went ahead with it, it was harper who changed the rules about it. Lerts not forget who sent us to afghanistan witrhout a proper plan or equiptment. I love it when lefties forget who actually sent us there and who signed the transfer agreement.

[nicky10013]

You are right ,the liberals knew of this and still went ahead with it, it was harper who changed the rules about it. Lerts not forget who sent us to afghanistan witrhout a proper plan or equiptment. I love it when lefties forget who actually sent us there and who signed the transfer agreement.

Uhhh, the Conservatives signed a new deal in 2007, I believe. So, you can try to deflect this back 4 years, but the CPC still bears a lot of responsibility for what's going on.

Edited September 2, 2010 by nicky10013

[Evening Star]

Yeah, on Afghanistan, I side with the NDP not the Liberals. I even said that I scarcely trust Ignatieff any better on that score.

Actually, speaking of immigration issues, at least the NDP should be able to get some mileage out of the immigration reforms in Bill C-50. (It should be the sort of thing that the Liberals would normally ride but, given that they abstained on the vote, it might be a little hard. ToadBrother is right about the current 'coalition'.)