IF Ignatieff was Lib leader could he win over Cons

[Topaz]

I don't think so because he has lived out of the country for 30 years, England 1978-2000, 2000-2005 US and then came back to Canada 2005 to run for leadership of the Lib party. I think when voters find out what he stands for, the NDP may get more votes their way! How can someone who was on the "Shadow govt of Canada" criticizes the Liberals and then WANT to be leader of it? He 's for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and has said in the past, he believes in preemptive war!

[jdobbin]

I don't think so because he has lived out of the country for 30 years, England 1978-2000, 2000-2005 US and then came back to Canada 2005 to run for leadership of the Lib party. I think when voters find out what he stands for, the NDP may get more votes their way! How can someone who was on the "Shadow govt of Canada" criticizes the Liberals and then WANT to be leader of it? He 's for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and has said in the past, he believes in preemptive war!

The longest serving prime minister of Canada spent a large chunk of his adult in the U.S.

Do you know who that is?

[August1991]

Do you know who that is?

He was also in the pay of the Rockefellers.

[Argus]

I don't think so because he has lived out of the country for 30 years, England 1978-2000, 2000-2005 US and then came back to Canada 2005 to run for leadership of the Lib party. I think when voters find out what he stands for, the NDP may get more votes their way! How can someone who was on the "Shadow govt of Canada" criticizes the Liberals and then WANT to be leader of it? He 's for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and has said in the past, he believes in preemptive war!

As far as I'm concerned, his announced immigration policy is sufficient for me to vote for ANYONE else.

[jdobbin]

He was also in the pay of the Rockefellers.

Exactly. And it was brought up in the election but in the end, it didn't matter. Rex was King in Canada.

[jdobbin]

As far as I'm concerned, his announced immigration policy is sufficient for me to vote for ANYONE else.

Immigration is up under the Conservatives. Are they the right type of immigrants?

[Biblio Bibuli]

It is not a matter of "if"...... because Michael Ignatieff is a shoe-in to win the Liberal leadership.

However ... once in, he may have a bit of a problem with Harper because they both have "a beautiful-mind" on important issues, and Harper started it. And their IQs seem similar.

HOWEVER, Michael's social IQ is at least 10 times that of Stephen's .... and that's very important, because that's what can put Canada back on the map!

GO IGGY GO!

[Argus]

As far as I'm concerned, his announced immigration policy is sufficient for me to vote for ANYONE else.

Immigration is up under the Conservatives. Are they the right type of immigrants?

The Conservatives have not been in power long enough to have had any real influence on immigration. Immigration has a long lag-time, as the people coming over now have been in the queu for years. I don't believe they've actually come out with a new policy yet. They may content themselves with tinkering from the inside until after the next election.

The Conservatives also have a problem with being in the gunsights of the media, who have been standing, waiting, salivating for the opportunity to paint them as bigoted and intolerent towards minorities. Given that, given their parliamentary minority situation, it's going to be very hard for them to come out with an abrupt shift in immigration which won't be pounced on by the media, the NDP and Libs as showing their intollerance. The Liberals could cut immigration in half tomorrow, and give some honest economic and social reasons why, and no one would accuse them of anything. If the Tories introduced the same policy there'd be howls from the media and wine and chease set from coast to coast.

[Argus]

It is not a matter of "if"...... because Michael Ignatieff is a shoe-in to win the Liberal leadership.

However ... once in, he may have a bit of a problem with Harper because they both have "a beautiful-mind" on important issues, and Harper started it. And their IQs seem similar.

HOWEVER, Michael's social IQ is at least 10 times that of Stephen's .... and that's very important, because that's what can put Canada back on the map!

What map would this be? And if one assumes we were on it before, how did we fall off?

[jdobbin]

The Conservatives have not been in power long enough to have had any real influence on immigration. Immigration has a long lag-time, as the people coming over now have been in the queu for years. I don't believe they've actually come out with a new policy yet. They may content themselves with tinkering from the inside until after the next election.

The Conservatives also have a problem with being in the gunsights of the media, who have been standing, waiting, salivating for the opportunity to paint them as bigoted and intolerent towards minorities. Given that, given their parliamentary minority situation, it's going to be very hard for them to come out with an abrupt shift in immigration which won't be pounced on by the media, the NDP and Libs as showing their intollerance. The Liberals could cut immigration in half tomorrow, and give some honest economic and social reasons why, and no one would accuse them of anything. If the Tories introduced the same policy there'd be howls from the media and wine and chease set from coast to coast.

There weren't howls when Mulroney cut immigration. He won another majority. He started to increase immigration though at the behest of business and the provinces at the end of his second term.

On a month to month basis up to July, the numbers were up. Final approval is under the present Conservative government. They just released those figures this week. It showed migration and immigration patterns across Canada.

[Ricki Bobbi]

HOWEVER, Michael's social IQ is at least 10 times that of Stephen's .... and that's very important, because that's what can put Canada back on the map!

GO IGGY GO!

What exactly is social IQ? Or is that just some made up concept to try and quantify your disdain for Harper?

Canada's not on the *map* because of Harper? Hmmm, strong performance at la francophonie, strengthening ties within NAFTA and a good speech given at the UN.

What would Ignatieff do differently to put Canada on the map?

[Biblio Bibuli]

What map would this be? And if one assumes we were on it before, how did we fall off?

We Europeans thought you were the cat's pajamas after WW2 & even old Lester got the Peace Prize.

You fell off the map by deciding to become a nanny state that spends it's time navel gazing & are spending all of your waking hours congratulating yourselves constantly for not lynching people with brown skin in Canada. For some reason you think this is a Canadian accomplishment ... as if the rest of Western society is still telling folks to sit at the back of the bus. You need to get over your multi-cult obsession & start looking around at the world & what you can do to make it a better place ... as you used to.

What would Ignatieff do differently to put Canada on the map?

Well, it's always nice to have an eloquent leader. Just watch after Tony Blair is gone & Gordon Brown takes the helm. You won't be hearing much about Britain anymore.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Well, it's always nice to have an eloquent leader.

An *eloquent* leader puts a country on the map?

Still waiting for that answer on social IQ...

[Argus]

There weren't howls when Mulroney cut immigration. He won another majority. He started to increase immigration though at the behest of business and the provinces at the end of his second term.

The PC party did not have the same media reputation as the present Conservative party

On a month to month basis up to July, the numbers were up. Final approval is under the present Conservative government. They just released those figures this week. It showed migration and immigration patterns across Canada.

As I already said, the people coming in now have been in the queue for years, and there is little or nothing the new government has done or could have done which would have affected things yet. New policies on the numbers and types of immigrants won't show any real change for at least a year after the implimentation of those policies.

[jdobbin]

The PC party did not have the same media reputation as the present Conservative party

As I already said, the people coming in now have been in the queue for years, and there is little or nothing the new government has done or could have done which would have affected things yet. New policies on the numbers and types of immigrants won't show any real change for at least a year after the implimentation of those policies.

On the contrary, there was a feeling that the Tories were very anti-immigration. Levels sank pretty low there for a while but they still won a majority.

The Immigration minister can slow things down the minute they take office. The Conservatives just haven't done it because the orders from the top, namely Harper, is to keep the same policy.

[Big Blue Machine]

It was Brian Mulroney would put the policy of high immigration, regardless of economic conditions.

[Argus]

What map would this be? And if one assumes we were on it before, how did we fall off?

We Europeans thought you were the cat's pajamas after WW2 & even old Lester got the Peace Prize.

You fell off the map by deciding to become a nanny state that spends it's time navel gazing & are spending all of your waking hours congratulating yourselves constantly for not lynching people with brown skin in Canada. For some reason you think this is a Canadian accomplishment ... as if the rest of Western society is still telling folks to sit at the back of the bus. You need to get over your multi-cult obsession & start looking around at the world & what you can do to make it a better place ... as you used to.

But Harper is not associated with any of that. I think he is least likely among party leaders to be a fan of multiculturalism or to have a sense of self-righteous superiority about Canada's moral place in the world. Ignatieff, on the other hand, has already done his best to suck up to immigrant and ethnic communities. So again, I fail to see what you mean as Ignatieff's election would simply continue previous Liberal policies in that regard.

What would Ignatieff do differently to put Canada on the map?

Well, it's always nice to have an eloquent leader. Just watch after Tony Blair is gone & Gordon Brown takes the helm. You won't be hearing much about Britain anymore.

I would rather have a leader who knows what he's doing. It does not appear Iganitieff, a man with zero political experience, who has only a passing acquaintance with this country, and has been an ivory tower academic all his life, is likely to accomplish much of value as leader. His suggestion he wants to "build Canada" by bringing in hundreds of thousands of unskilled goat herders certainly doesn't seem to be the mark of well-thought out policies.

[Argus]

The PC party did not have the same media reputation as the present Conservative party

As I already said, the people coming in now have been in the queue for years, and there is little or nothing the new government has done or could have done which would have affected things yet. New policies on the numbers and types of immigrants won't show any real change for at least a year after the implimentation of those policies.

On the contrary, there was a feeling that the Tories were very anti-immigration. Levels sank pretty low there for a while but they still won a majority.

The point you are missing - deliberately, I suspect - is that whatever policy the PC party had on immigration, it was not ever used to portray them as a party of bigots, racists and KKKers as the present conservative party has been portrayed since its days as the Reform party. A PC cabinet minster can shout "Sit down, Sambo" in the house at a Black MP, and cause only a mild murmur in the press. But any remark of any kind which can be construed as remotely hostile towards visible minorities will cause a massive storm in the media if uttered by a Conservative.

The Immigration minister can slow things down the minute they take office.

Technically, I suppose. But not without big headlines saying "Tories blocking immigration from non-white countries!" or something similar. That's no tthe kind of thing they want in a minority government which is doing its best to fight off the continuing insuations that there is only a hair's difference between them and the KKK.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I would rather have a leader who knows what he's doing. It does not appear Iganitieff, a man with zero political experience, who has only a passing acquaintance with this country, and has been an ivory tower academic all his life, is likely to accomplish much of value as leader. His suggestion he wants to "build Canada" by bringing in hundreds of thousands of unskilled goat herders certainly doesn't seem to be the mark of well-thought out policies.

That's why Iggy is the Conservative's best chance to form a majority.

His repeated gaffes have held him back from a stronger showing this weekend. Harper, Finely et. al will jump all over him during the campaign.

[jdobbin]

The point you are missing - deliberately, I suspect - is that whatever policy the PC party had on immigration, it was not ever used to portray them as a party of bigots, racists and KKKers as the present conservative party has been portrayed since its days as the Reform party. A PC cabinet minster can shout "Sit down, Sambo" in the house at a Black MP, and cause only a mild murmur in the press. But any remark of any kind which can be construed as remotely hostile towards visible minorities will cause a massive storm in the media if uttered by a Conservative.

Technically, I suppose. But not without big headlines saying "Tories blocking immigration from non-white countries!" or something similar. That's no tthe kind of thing they want in a minority government which is doing its best to fight off the continuing insuations that there is only a hair's difference between them and the KKK.

You must remember things differently then. Several PCs were indeed tagged as bigots over comments during the Mulroney years. It did cause a stir but Mulroney framed the immigration question around the economy which was bad when he came into office. As the economy improved, immigration increased.

I wonder about that. I'm surprised that Harper hasn't framed the immigration issue over security.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I wonder about that. I'm surprised that Harper hasn't framed the immigration issue over security.

Because he is a reasonable man and has performd competently as PM to date.

You are surprised he hasn't framed the issue that way because you buy in to the *scary* *scary* *scary* propaganda. It isn't true, which creates the cognitive dissonance....

[Biblio Bibuli]

That's no tthe kind of thing they want

AHA!!!

[Argus]

The point you are missing - deliberately, I suspect - is that whatever policy the PC party had on immigration, it was not ever used to portray them as a party of bigots, racists and KKKers as the present conservative party has been portrayed since its days as the Reform party. A PC cabinet minster can shout "Sit down, Sambo" in the house at a Black MP, and cause only a mild murmur in the press. But any remark of any kind which can be construed as remotely hostile towards visible minorities will cause a massive storm in the media if uttered by a Conservative.

You must remember things differently then. Several PCs were indeed tagged as bigots over comments during the Mulroney years

Yes, certainly. Just as several Liberals are tagged as extraordinarily hostile towards abortion rights, for example. But the fact that several MPs feel this way has never been used to insinuate that the party itself shares those feelings. The PC party never faced the kinds of attacks the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance, and the existing Conservative Party do. There was a general acceptance that a few MPs might be bigots or whatever, but there was not the general media impression that the party itself was absolutely filled with bigots, racists, right-to-life crazies, etc.

Remember that, even with the largest percentage of visible minority MPs of all parties the Reform Party was constantly tagged as racist and bigoted. Anything and everything they had to say about immigration was immediately viewed through that prism. This is why, I believe, the Reform-Alliance went from being against immigration, to being "enthusiastic" supporters of immigration. Likewise they went from opposing the present application of official bilingualism to being "enthusiastic" supporters of Official Bilingualism. This is simply because they cannot oppose any aspect of either - at least not openly - without being castigated as bigots, anti-French, etc.

Now in part the Liberals and NDP were able to portray them this way because they were a new party. But the accusation stuck in large measure because a few rather mild statements, often by Reformers who were, at best peripheral to the party, were trumpeted on every newscast. I don't think anyone ever said anything anywhere near as offensive as "sit down Sambo!" - by still-very-respected John Crosbie - in the HoC no less, but anything they did say was jumped on by the other parties and the media. I mean, people still make reference to Hanger's "back of the shop" statement, which was nothing more than a naive response to a very unlikely hypothetical posed to him by a mischievous reporter. Even the way it was blown out of context that was not nearly as bad as "sit down, sambo" but it created far, far more of a lasting impressiong.

The Tories need to use this first term as government to reassure people, to familarize them with the party, and to sooth those kinds of fears. They cannot afford, at this stage, to become embroiled in an immigration battle where they will be subjected to accusations of not liking visible minorities. And that is where the opposition will take the discussion. We've seen it here, plenty of times. You cannot discuss immigration from the viewpoint of not liking the types of immigrants coming to Canada without being accused of racism.

[jdobbin]

The Tories need to use this first term as government to reassure people, to familarize them with the party, and to sooth those kinds of fears. They cannot afford, at this stage, to become embroiled in an immigration battle where they will be subjected to accusations of not liking visible minorities. And that is where the opposition will take the discussion. We've seen it here, plenty of times. You cannot discuss immigration from the viewpoint of not liking the types of immigrants coming to Canada without being accused of racism.

It certainly doesn't give the people who want a stop put on immigration a party to vote for. If it is a driving issue for some people, why do they vote for Harper's Conservatives who continue the policy and then blame the Liberals?

Supporters of the Conservatives who are against the policy of immigration as it now stands should at least acknowledge that Harper has shown no indication that he is going to change to allowing large numbers in.

If Harper mamnages to stay in as long as Mulroney, it will hardly make sense for his supporters to blame the Liberals for eight years of high immigration. As Mulroney used to say, "You had a choice!"

[Argus]

The Tories need to use this first term as government to reassure people, to familarize them with the party, and to sooth those kinds of fears. They cannot afford, at this stage, to become embroiled in an immigration battle where they will be subjected to accusations of not liking visible minorities. And that is where the opposition will take the discussion. We've seen it here, plenty of times. You cannot discuss immigration from the viewpoint of not liking the types of immigrants coming to Canada without being accused of racism.

It certainly doesn't give the people who want a stop put on immigration a party to vote for. If it is a driving issue for some people, why do they vote for Harper's Conservatives who continue the policy and then blame the Liberals?

You have to go back to the formation of the Reform Party to find a time when there was a breath of fresh air on immigration discussion. Up until then all three major parties marched in lockstep in support of immigration and of official bilingualism. Along came Reform, and people flocked to join it in part because the party represented what many, many millions of Canadians were saying about immigration and official bilingualism, but which they were not seeing reflected by their political leaders, or even in the media. The Reform Party was both a populist party - reflecting what the man in the street was thinking - and a traditionalist conservative party. It did not like the sweeping changes to society massive immigration was bringing.

Supporters of the Conservatives who are against the policy of immigration as it now stands should at least acknowledge that Harper has shown no indication that he is going to change to allowing large numbers in.

I think that bedrock support - which is now with the Conservatives - still does not like the way immigration is being run, and I think they are patiently waiting for Harper to do something about it. I don't KNOW that Harper will. I do KNOW that none of the other parties will do anything good on immigration. The Liberals and NDP are for MORE immigration. That doesn't leave anywhere else for me to go with my vote at this point in time. I am hopeful that when Harper has established his credentials he can work public supprort around to changes to immigration. Personally, I think that public support is already there. I think most people agree immigration is not working. The gap between the educational and skill levels of Canadians and third worlders is, in general, too high now to produce economically successful immigrants unless they are VERY carefully chosen. And the gap between our culture and theirs is, in many cases, irreconcilable.

But the other parties, and the media are hysterical in their opposition to any kind of real changes. In order to prove his bona fides in making changes Harper probably feels he needs bedrock logic and statistical support which he can wave in the faces of all who protest. And he needs timing on his side. Another election, and a majority, and perhaps he'll make those major changes.

But as I said, there is no other party that is going to make any changes except for the worse.