Ignatieff to Harper: 'Your time is up'

[lord_feldon]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1272118/

Michael Ignatieff's Liberals will no longer support Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government, triggering what is likely to be a fall general election.

The Liberals will use their first opportunity – later this month or in early October – to move a vote of no-confidence in the government.

The two other opposition parties, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats, would have to support that motion to defeat the government in order to provoke an election. Liberals have been tossing around Nov. 9 and Nov. 16 as possible days when Canadians could go to the polls.

[MapleLeaf]

Good luck. Ignatieff couldn't win an election if the Prime Minister was chosen by drawing a name out of a hat and he had the only name in there. Someone would pick out the tag with the hat size instead. He may have some good ideas, although frankly I don't think he will be that much different than Harper, who I think has governed mostly as a slightly-right-of-centre-but-still-way-left-of-American-Democrats prime minister. Harper has a well-oiled political machine, and, for better or for worse, will destroy Ignatieff.

[Dara bhur gCara]

I always think of Michael Ignatieff as an Arts and Current Affairs correspondent, who moderates those sort of late night political/cultural debate shows where Tom Paulin is really drunk and says something beastly about Israel which is widely and unfairly construed to be anti-semitic. The idea that he's now the ineffectual leader of the opposition in Canadia is a bit tricky to get one's head around.

I think other countries should follow Canadia's lead. Maybe Clive James could be an ineffectual leader of the opposition in Australiania, Kirsty Wark could be an ineffectual leader of the opposition in Scotchland (instead of being the best mate of the ineffectual leader of the opposition in Scotchland and going halfers on a Tuscan holiday home with him; this is actually true,) and Tom Paulin could come home to The Failed State of Ultonia and tell us all to Listen To Him Because He Is A Clever. Except Paulin is of course on record as saying he doesn't want to come back to Ultonia because it's shit, and he can't get Granta in any of the newsagents.

If only all countries chose the ineffectual leaders of their opposition on the basis of their appearances on late night cultural affairs show on the BBC, the world would be a, well, maybe not better, but certainly more urbane, place.

[Not_Done_Living]

Originally Posted by Dara bhur gCara

If only all countries chose the ineffectual leaders of their opposition on the basis of their appearances on late night cultural affairs show on the BBC, the world would be a, well, maybe not better, but certainly more urbane, place.

And they may actually have a smidgen of personality as well.

For all the chest thumping and sword jiggling going on, I don't think there will be a change in government..

Let's face it.. Ontario chooses the Prime Minister,(if they don't win in Ontario, they ain't going to win...)and with the experiences we have had with the current Provincial Liberals (No Tax increases.. just a record bunch of new levies, collected through the Tax office, that enter the tax coffers and are spent on things generally covered by taxes) i don't think Ontario is ready for a Liberal PM .. especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

If we have an election, i predict record low turnout, and another Conservative minority gov't.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

Ontario chooses the Prime Minister,(if they don't win in Ontario, they ain't going to win...)

In 2006, the Liberals won a majority of seats in Ontario as well as a plurality of the popular vote, but the Conservatives still pieced together a minority government.

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

If we have an election, i predict record low turnout, and another Conservative minority gov't.

I predict the same.

[UEL]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

If we have an election, i predict record low turnout, and another Conservative minority gov't.

As well as the Liberals depleting their bank accounts, again. One of these years they are going to have to not force an election so that they can rebuild their coffers.

[Billy Beccles]

We should not forget that Michael Ignatieff is descended from the man ("One word summed him up: bastard.")who tortured the great English hero Harry Flashman after he and Scud East discovered the Russian plan to invade India.

I am warning Canada: the Beccles And Bungay Journal has its eye on you.

[lord_feldon]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1290594/

The federal government became a coalition of the reluctantly willing Wednesday when the NDP announced it would back the Conservatives in coming confidence votes, suddenly sending the prospects of a fall election from probable to unlikely.

[TwoGuyswithaHat]

Does this mean the Liberals can accuse the Conservatives of forming a coaltion with the NDP? Will this actually mean that Mr. Harper will finally learn this is how a flippin' minority Parliament works?

[BringTheNoise]

Can the liberals accuse them? Yes.
Will Harper learn? No.

[Canuckistan]

Harper and learn are two mutually exclusive concepts.

[Canuckistan]

The Conservative government survived a confidence test this morning – as expected – thanks to the support of MPs from the Bloc Québécois and NDP.

The 224-74 vote approves a Ways and Means motion that contains measures tied to the January, 2009 budget. Now that the motion has passed, the same measures will be introduced as government legislation. As that bill moves through the House, it will be subject to further confidence votes before receiving final approval and becoming law.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1292624/

[Callie Cat]

As much as I despise Harper, I'm really glad the Home Renovation Tax Credit went through, we spent a lot of money on the house this year.

[MapleLeaf]

I must say I don't really understand the vitriol that people have for Harper. Sure, I don't like him so much and I wouldn't vote for him, but I feel exactly the same way about Ignatieff. The impression I get from many liberals is that Harper is some sort of Canadian Bush. But for a Conservative (and former Alliance leader) he is still to the left of Barack Obama. Sure, I'd like to see Bob Rae as PM if I had my way, but Layton, Ignatieff, May, and Duceppe all seem less palatable to me than Harper in a minority situation.

[TwoGuyswithaHat]

Originally Posted by Callie Cat

As much as I despise Harper, I'm really glad the Home Renovation Tax Credit went through, we spent a lot of money on the house this year.

It was rather foolish to advertise the credit the way that it was before it was actually passed into law.

Originally Posted by MapleLeaf

I must say I don't really understand the vitriol that people have for Harper.

His arrogance as leader plays a large part. He has conducted Parliament as if he had a majority.

Then of course, there is his past as the Vice President of the National Citizens Coalition, an organization founded in opposition to the Canada Health Act. Furthermore, this organization was behind Mr. Harper's push into politics. That's a big ol' strike right there.

Then there was his authorship of The Alberta Agenda, which many argued was trying to lay the ground work for Alberta Separation.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by MapleLeaf

I must say I don't really understand the vitriol that people have for Harper.

I have two reasons (that I can think of now) I actively dislike him (as opposed to being generally blah).

1. He displayed malicious* ignorance of the workings of the Canadian political system last December. He said that the coalition was "overturning the results of an election." A member of his cabinet called it a "coup d'etat." I expect that kind of hyperbolic nonsense from tea people, not heads of government in Western countries. (Well, now I expect it. The first tea party happened four or five months later, and I'm not clairvoyant.)

*Because I think he knew he was saying incorrect things, but did it anyways to work people up.

2. His refusal to appoint Senators to make a political point (which he suddenly felt less bad about doing when it suited him, although that doesn't bother me as much, because I think he should have been doing it from the start).

The Constitution Act, 1867 says that "When a Vacancy happens in the Senate by Resignation, Death, or otherwise, the Governor General shall by Summons to a fit and qualified Person fill the Vacancy." It is an obligation. Since the Prime Minister is the Governor General's sole Constitutional advisor on such issues, it is his fault when such an obligation goes unfulfilled. He willfully deprived several provinces of their rightful representation in the Senate because they wouldn't bend to his will and hold "elections."

[TwoGuyswithaHat]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

*Because I think he knew he was saying incorrect things, but did it anyways to work people up.

If he didn't know he was saying incorrect things, he is certainly unfit to be Prime Minister.

[Latiam]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

I have two reasons (that I can think of now) I actively dislike him (as opposed to being generally blah)."

Yep. I don't like people who lead based entirely on polls. You don't know what they'll do if they get a majority. He has dead eyes.
I liked Dion. My Dad works in Ottawa sometimes and knows all these men and for all that he was portrayed, Dion was and is a good man and would have been a good leader. Unfortunately, that's not the measure of a man anymore. Also, nobody knew him. But he would have been good.
My opinion now is "Anyone but Harper."

[MapleLeaf]

Originally Posted by Latiam

My opinion now is "Anyone but Harper."

Really? Jack Layton? Gilles Duceppe? I still think Harper is a more sensible PM than either of them. Like I said, I don't like him, and I especially don't like things he did as leader of the Alliance. But he *hasn't* scrapped the Canada Health Act and if he wants to remain PM he never will. He held a vote on gay marriage (bad! bad! bad!), but after it passed he dropped it. It's not that I don't think he's a bad PM. It's that people seem to think he's Canada's GWB, which frankly I think is ridiculous hyperbole. I don't want him to win another election, but I simply don't think any of the other leaders would do any better. Sure, Layton might be pretty cool on some social issues. But I don't trust him budget-wise and I think he is too much of an idealist. Duceppe is simply a piece of shit. My first choice would be the Green Party, but Elizabeth May has not shown that she can effectively lead her party, let alone a government. And Ignatieff...well, he's the only other one I think might be able to handle the job. But I really don't like how he just showed up after years and years in the US and bumped Bob Rae from what I think would have been a sure victory for the Liberals. Rae has much more experience (Ignatieff has none, AFAIK, besides being an MP for a very short time).

So, in short, I don't think Harper is nearly as bad as many claim (although he is bad). And if there were another leader I could vote for I would. But there isn't. So I may just have to spoil my ballot.

[TwoGuyswithaHat]

Originally Posted by MapleLeaf

Like I said, I don't like him, and I especially don't like things he did as leader of the Alliance. But he *hasn't* scrapped the Canada Health Act and if he wants to remain PM he never will.

When has he had the chance? He has a minority Parliament.

If you especially don't like things he did as Leader of the Alliance, what makes you think he's changed since then? The only thing that changed with the merger of the Alliance and the Progessive Conservatives was the name. Any of the old school Tories (such as my future father in law) have since moved to the Liberal party. Don't delude yourself into thinking that this Conservative party is any more than a rebranded Alliance party.

But I really don't like how he just showed up after years and years in the US and bumped Bob Rae from what I think would have been a sure victory for the Liberals.

You sure? Choosing Rae as leader would have been far easier for the Conservatives to frame as the Liberals being poor managers of the economy (Rae Days etc.)

One thing I will give the Conservatives credit for is their ability to frame the debates and the leaders of the Liberal party using their terms. As evidence of this I point to you MapleLeaf, arguing against Mr. Ignatieff for being out of country, IIRC, you once referred to Mr. Dion as a wimp and exhibiting poor leadership, just as the Conservatives framed it.

ETA: Not that this is a knock against you MapleLeaf, far from it. Rather I use it to demonstrate how effective the Conservatives have been in framing debates.