Ignatieff hires ex-Chrétien PR man as chief of staff

[afransen]

I don't think 37% of the population get their 'turn' to screw over the other 63%. Does it matter if most Canadians are opposed to the policies he implements? I should think it does, but you're sounding cynical.

 

[jade_lee]

That's fine. And for the most part I agree with you. However, I am not willing to accept hypocrisy from Liberals who cry 'unfair' now that the shoe is on the other foot.

I am fairly sure for most conservatives, there was probably some legislation under previous Liberal governments that they found abhorrent. To now argue that the Conservatives should not implement their plans when they have their turn at the till, just because Liberals might find it abhorrent, is hypocrisy....and poor practice for a democracy. You've had your turn. Now stand aside and let the next guy work. If he screws up and get's fired, you'll get your turn.

In a minority situation this is not how it works.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think 37% of the population get their 'turn' to screw over the other 63%. Does it matter if most Canadians are opposed to the policies he implements? I should think it does, but you're sounding cynical.

This ridiculous notion that the other 63% are one block has to stop. Another example of Liberals trying to frame the argument. That's not how democracy works. The Liberals lost fair and square. As did the NDP and the Bloc. They didn't have the gumption to get together a coalition, so they have to accept Conservative rule. It's that simple. It's not 37% screwing over 63%. It's talk like that, quite frankly, that keeps the Liberals out of power. That sense of entitlement. That somehow they automatically speak for two thirds of the Canadian public, all the time.

As someone who's vote varies from election to election, I always find talk like that irksome. Whenever a party tells me that they have a natural right to power, I tend to reconsider voting for them.

Finally, please don't confuse the opinions of Canadians with the opinions of Liberals and New Democrats. I am sure, for example, if you polled the public, they'd agree with the GST cut, whereas, the parties on the left were vehemently opposed to the cut. That's just one example of policy diversion. And its another example of the assumption that the left automatically speaks for all Canadians in this country.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Almost certainly if the NDP didn't exist we'd have a Liberal minority government at the moment. I don't think that's really THAT disputable. Doesn't make it worth whining about, though - I think the fact that Canada doesn't have a simple two-party system makes us stronger.

In fact, I think we could do with more parties, not less. A more hardline, right-wing party like the Wild Rose party in Alberta - as much as I find their platform appalling - might add to the discourse.

The Conservative Party has defined itself as an incredibly pragmatic party with few policies beyond 'keep getting elected.' It's not entirely similar to the pragmatic Liberal Party of the 90s, except that they didn't have the whole Machiavellian clinging-to-power-at-all-costs vibe.

Say what you will about Stephane Dion, but at least his time as leader was marked by actually presenting solid policies for moving the country forward.

I do not and won't ever believe that a majority of Canadians define themselves as 'conservative.' Harper's time as PM has been marked by... not a lot. No sweeping policy changes, no particularly good-or-bad action on the economy, nothing particularly astounding on the world stage. He's kept Canada boring.

The strategy seems to be based on the belief that a pragmatic, steady-as-she-goes approach to governance will eventually lead to a majority. It very well could have, through election fatigue - had the Liberals keep pressing. Now that they've backed off some, I don't think he'll ever get his majority.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Sound analysis GM. I think a change of leader would help the Cons. For example, if they had MacKay at the helm, perhaps the seat count would have been different.

 

[GraphicMatt]

They'll have to change captains eventually, and McKay's the only guy I could see doing it. That said, given that Harper's been the only successful leader they've had seen Mulroney, I think they're okay with keeping the status quo for a while. I think we've got a few more years of a Conservative Minority government propped up by a still-fighting-each-other Liberal Party to go yet.

 

[Tewder]

I don't see much point in commenting on the smears that each side launches at each other. I am more interested in the pattern of behaviour. Harper has shown no hesitation in doing exactly the opposite of what he claimed he would do. As such, I don't put much stock in his promises. But, I don't doubt that he would use a majority to enact several pieces of legislation that I would find abhorrent, besides being just plain stupid. It's not a risk I'm willing to take.

On that score afransen you really cannot brand one party and not the other. Remember Chretien's 'red book'? Changing policy or backing out on promises is what all politicians do regardless of party.

In essence you are refusing to vote for a party because of what you 'fear' they may do but the price of this is the subjecting of all of us to a one-party system under which we are all abused. We are abused by the Conservatives because they know you will never vote for them and we are abused by the Liberals because they know you always will, whether they steal from us or no matter how much they ignore us. This is in no way possible a healthy situation, and all the more so that it is grounded in irrational fears that have very little basis in anything other than Liberal party spin. Lets be clear, the Conservatives would be signalling their own eventual death knell if they were to enact anything that would reaffirm Liberal spin. They haven't worked this hard for this long to rebuild unity from the ashes of the defunct PC party to jeopardize it now, and the vast majority of centrist conservative Canadians wouldn't put up with it either. For that matter I couldn't even imagine many of the party memebers towing the line on any such hypothetical legislation.

Toronto has been at the mercy of the Liberals in Ontario and the liberal party in Ottawa for many years now, even though they have consistently done nothing to earn such loyalty. We need to give another party a chance if only strategically to end this hegemony. You likely wont be in love with all their policies but pragmatism is about a little give and take, and the the sky wont fall either. Vote Liberal to the end of time thereafter if you want, but at least you will have sent a message that they will have to work for your vote. At the end of the day we need to shift the political discourse back to one of substantive issues and rational choice rather than miring it down in the mud of political propaganda. Toronto with its huge share of votes would stand to benefit enormously.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Toronto has been at the mercy of the Liberals in Ontario and the liberal party in Ottawa for many years now, even though they have consistently done nothing to earn such loyalty. We need to give another party a chance if only strategically to end this hegemony. You likely wont be in love with all their policies but pragmatism is about a little give and take, and the the sky wont fall either. Vote Liberal to the end of time thereafter if you want, but at least you will have sent a message that they will have to work for your vote. At the end of the day we need to shift the political discourse back to one of substantive issues and rational choice rather than miring it down in the mud of political propaganda. Toronto with its huge share of votes would stand to benefit enormously.

This is a dumb argument - the reality is that there are very few 'safe' Liberal seats in Toronto - many of them could go NDP, and many of them have. If the Conservatives really want to win in Toronto, they should run good candidates in the city and promote policies that would benefit people who live here.

In the last federal election, for example, in Toronto Centre the Liberals ran Bob Rae. Regardless of your thoughts on his politics, he's a 'star' candidate, who would have had a ton of clout in government had the Liberals taken parliament.

The CPC first ran Chris Reid, who had to withdraw after he called all the passengers on the Greyhound bus where Tim McLean died cowards and blamed the whole incident on 'socialism.' Also advocated for concealed handguns.

He was replaced by David Gentili, a no-namer who had worked in the PMO.

In the byelection previous to the election, the CPC ran Don Meredith, a social conservative who does not believe in premarital sex or gay marriage (they ran this candidate in Toronto Centre - a riding that includes the Village). He responded to a St Jamestown resident's question regarding Bed Bugs by accusing the constituent of having bad personal hygiene.

In some Toronto ridings, the CPC was outspent by the Green Party. When the CPC did bother to spend money and run competent candidates - like in Don Valley West, where John Carmichael outspent all other candidates -, the votes were often much closer.

Toronto does not simply vote based on the colour of the signs. They vote based on the issues and the candidates.

 

[kEiThZ]

But that cuts both ways to be sure. For the Conservatives it's quite risky to invest political capital in Toronto. So when they do it, they need to be rewarded.

For the Liberals, who have essentially accepted their role as a Toronto-Montreal-Vancouver party (with a dash of Atlantic and Northern Ontario seasoning) there is no such penalty. They don't really bother trying outside their safe regions either.

That's what's lead to the disastrous state of affairs we have today. Our national parties are in reality regional parties with a national gloss.

It leads to Conservatives calling rail lines from Peterborough 'an investment in GTA transit' and it leads to Liberals pushing environmental plans in which Alberta would suffer an economic catastrophe while the rest of Canada gained from new 'green' credentials.

The only way the situation will ever be fixed is if MPs start getting elected from the non-natural governing party for an area. Just like Alberta had 'Iron Annie' during the Chretien years, who ensured Alberta's interests in cabinet, the 416 needs to elect a Conservative who will ensure our seat at the table (and he/she would most definitely get a high profile cabinet post). And just like the Liberals did whatever it took to keep Anne McLellan getting re-elected, the Tories likewise would do whatever it takes to keep any Conservative elected in the 416 in his seat.

I dunno how we get to there from here, given the pathological dislike most Torontonians have for Conservatives and the lack of love Albertans have for Liberals, but in the long run, our national unity depends on such compromises. At the very minimum, I'd like to see some of the fear mongering and entitlement attitudes (examples of which we've seen in this thread) dropped, as a first step towards a more mature political discourse.

 

[Tewder]

Almost certainly if the NDP didn't exist we'd have a Liberal minority government at the moment. I don't think that's really THAT disputable. Doesn't make it worth whining about, though - I think the fact that Canada doesn't have a simple two-party system makes us stronger.

I''m not so sure. Many NDPers I know despise the Liberals, particularly following the sponsorship scandal and many of the other scandals that have emerged at the provincial level in Ontario... and lets not overlook the recent talk of 'Dalton Days'! Politics makes for strange alliances and as has already been said many Canadians, including NDP supporters, can see through Liberal propaganda. I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't be an issue of holding the nose and voting in either case but only that the Liberal slam-dunk is not as obvious as maybe it once was.

This is a dumb argument - the reality is that there are very few 'safe' Liberal seats in Toronto - many of them could go NDP, and many of them have.

Great, changing from one powerless option to another. Bright.

Toronto does not simply vote based on the colour of the signs. They vote based on the issues and the candidates.

Look, there are all kinds of things one considers when voting but ultimately we are working within a party-based political system where relatively little power for change resides at the local riding level. Your loveable local candidate may be swell but it is the party they represent that will dictate the policies and the largesse that come out of Queen's Park or Ottawa.

... and as for colour of signs Torontonians are certainly not voting for blue ones which means they are not as colour-blind as you would suggest.

 

[GraphicMatt]

But there is nothing preventing the Conservatives from making in-roads in Toronto - and the numbers show that they did, somewhat, in the last election. In Toronto Centre, where Rae spent about double what his Conservative opponent did, Rae was still down 6 points from last election, while Gentili was up 6. In Don Valley West, where the CPC outspent the Liberals, the Libs were down 10% and the CPC up 6% - the CPC missed that seat by only 3,000 votes. It was winnable. In Davenport, the Libs were down another 5%, but the CPC spent only $13,000 - less than a third of what the Libs did. They didn't even try. In Eglinton West, the CPC came within 4 points of beating Joe Volpe. Winnable again.

The other ridings were blow-outs, but there were solid potential seats for the CPC in Toronto. What's strange is that despite some election near-misses in these ridings, the CPC has done nothing to woo voters there since.

It's not as simple as 'Toronto should just vote for some Conservatives!' Expecting voters to vote for a party that hasn't done anything to support them policy-wise just so that party might one day do SOMETHING for them policy-wise is hilariously backwards.

My theory on this is that the CPC has been reluctant to develop a real Toronto (or urban) strategy because it could force them to state support for minor (mostly irrelevant) things that could upset the rural conservative side of the party.

 

[Tewder]

But there is nothing preventing the Conservatives from making in-roads in Toronto - and the numbers show that they did, somewhat, in the last election.

Agreed, the trend is changing as people wake up to the realities of the ridiculous situation they have created for themselves. The conservatives aren't the boogeymen they were painted to be, and the only people who benefitted from this hyperbole were the Liberals.

It's not as simple as 'Toronto should just vote for some Conservatives!' Expecting voters to vote for a party that hasn't done anything to support them policy-wise just so that party might one day do SOMETHING for them policy-wise is hilariously backwards.

I'm glad it amuses but how has your strategy worked for the city so far? A Toronto agenda doesn't even register nationally because nobody cares about it. Not because they're all big meanies but because the outcome is always predictable. Promises aren't even needed. How pathetic is that? In the meantime the singular most populous and powerful city in the nation is left to languish. Now Quebec has got it right!

My theory on this is that the CPC has been reluctant to develop a real Toronto (or urban) strategy because it could force them to state support for minor (mostly irrelevant) things that could upset the rural conservative side of the party.

I love a good conspiracy theory too but what politicians want is votes and there are plenty to be had in Toronto... and I'm just not too sure what this big hidden urban agenda is that you think the conservatives have to hide from the hicks of the hinterland?? Gay marriage? Done deal. Abortion? I don't think the Liberals will touch that one either. The conservatives have been on a spending spree to get votes and have even been willing to court the socialists in Ottawa and the separtists in Quebec. If that doesn't turn off their rural anglo fan-base then what will?

 

[kEiThZ]

Besides which...what option does that rural anglo fan-base have, other than the CPC?

 

[afransen]

This ridiculous notion that the other 63% are one block has to stop. Another example of Liberals trying to frame the argument. That's not how democracy works. The Liberals lost fair and square. As did the NDP and the Bloc. They didn't have the gumption to get together a coalition, so they have to accept Conservative rule. It's that simple. It's not 37% screwing over 63%. It's talk like that, quite frankly, that keeps the Liberals out of power. That sense of entitlement. That somehow they automatically speak for two thirds of the Canadian public, all the time.

As someone who's vote varies from election to election, I always find talk like that irksome. Whenever a party tells me that they have a natural right to power, I tend to reconsider voting for them.

Finally, please don't confuse the opinions of Canadians with the opinions of Liberals and New Democrats. I am sure, for example, if you polled the public, they'd agree with the GST cut, whereas, the parties on the left were vehemently opposed to the cut. That's just one example of policy diversion. And its another example of the assumption that the left automatically speaks for all Canadians in this country.

You totally missed my point. My point is that Harper could very well have gotten a majority with the share of the popular vote he had in Oct 2008, had the vote splits gone his way. So, he could have had a majority with some 37% popular support. That does not in itself grant him a mandate to implement wildly unpopular (let's say hypothetical) policies, especially policies he did not campaign on. You seemed to be suggesting that it's the Conservatives' turn to do whatever the hell they want. I don't see it that way.

One area that I found particularly abhorrent was the Conservatives' plan to unilaterally change our political financing rules with no warning, without campaigning on the issue, without consultation, and merely to stack it in their own favour. Frankly, I expect more such shenanigans if they are granted a majority, and I don't believe that's acceptable merely because it's their 'turn' to do stupid, irresponsible, reckless things with our government.

Of course the left and centre-left are not a monolithic bloc. There are even factions within parties. It is fair to say that on many issues, these parties share similar positions, and often more similar to one another than to the Conservative position. This is compounded by the fact that the Conservatives have implemented very few 'conservative' policies. Their record to date is a blend of counterproductive and misinformed populism and outright Liberalesque spending programs.

 

[afransen]

In addition, my fear of what Harper would do with a majority is not unfounded. Whatever you believe Harper is now (middle of the road pragmatist, most likely), ten years ago (when he didn't have much to lose), he was the head of the NCC, and saying some very radical things about how he viewed federalism, Canada, Quebec, the role of government, etc. Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe lobbyist Harper of ten years ago than dying-to-get-a-majority Harper of 2009, when I'm trying to get a sense of his candid views and desired policy direction. Same goes for members of his cabinet. Do some research on Jason Kenney.

Secondly, while the Red Book was in some ways a disaster, it is quite a contrast to the non-platforms the CPC released in 2006 and 2008, yet still managed to break numerous, major promises like income trust taxation. The Liberals in 1993 made some promises that would not have made for particularly good policies. The biggest one is the elimination of the GST. Given that the country was facing a debt crisis, beyond the fact that the GST is a sensible tax, fulfilling that promise would not have made sense and I'm happy they didn't.


And it's not that I just single-mindedly criticize everything that Harper does. I have in the past lauded him for his corporate income tax reductions and his initiation of EU free trade talks (he gets half a point for the PBO, which he unfortunately hamstrung in the implementing legislation). I just find precious little to praise them for other than that, and plenty of policies that just plain don't make sense based on empirical results of similar policies in other jurisdictions. I'm thinking mandatory minimum sentencing, GST reduction, transit tax credit, their cap-and-trade scheme, etc.