Ignatieff is useless

[Brandon716]

The Liberals and NDP have a history of also working together, as two separate parties, particularly in the mid 1900's. It was a minority government under Mike Pearson that brought Canada universal health insurance, public pensions, even the Canadian flag itself. A tremendous amount of Canadian identity came from a period of Liberals and NDP working together, in concert, to build the nation we love. Not to say Conservatives don't have their place, but the point is that the Liberals and NDP don't have a history of NEVER working together. There is also nothing particularly awful or impossible about it happening again, be it an official coalition or not.

The Liberals and the NDP have more in common than people think, I tend to think that the NDP should hate the Liberals a lot less than they do. An awful lot of Liberals look at the NDP and think "gee, here is a party with essentially the same platform, so why waste your vote there?" mentality. There is a history of both ambivalence and cooperation between the Liberals and NDP, so the relationship is one based on irony. I have nothing against Layton, in fact I think he's a nice guy. I met with him briefly during Toronto Pride 2006 while he was riding his bike. I just so happened to be marching with the Liberals in that parade, thanks to an invite. Although I wasn't with the Ignatieff group.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ah, the typical arrogant keithz reponse. Insult my intelligence and use the excuse for it because I grew up in America (yet obviously don't prefer this way of governance). I understand Parliamentary democracy quite well and will forever be interested in politics.

I wrote what I wrote not to be arrogant towards you but because your view is so typically American. You see everything in black and white and want to see an effective two party duopoly with the Conservatives getting crushed. You're natural instinct is simply to see your political opponent get destroyed. That to me, is the ascerbic politics of the US. Something that has creeped into Canada since the Chretien Liberals in the 1990s and something I am deeply alarmed to see. I don't want any more of this here. And I will call out anybody who suggests we need more of this kind of politicking.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ see, I disagree with regards to the Bloc. I think they're a great party that allows our system to reflect a greater number of views. It's unfortunate that their main goal is separation, but beyond that, they're fighting for their constituents in a way that Ontario MPs, or BC MPs aren't. If our democracy is about representation then the Bloc are the best at it and it shows. That's not to say we should have provincial parties in every province, but i'd rather that than 2 parties expected to represent the bredth and depth of the entire country.

Oh don't get me wrong. I don't think the Bloc is a bad political party. I wholeheartedly agree that the Bloc, more than any other party works hard to represent their constituents. In fact, I would suggest that we would be better served by more regional parties entering the national domain. Let's have the Alberta Wild Rose in there. Do I find their views abhorrent? Of course. Would the Wild Rose represent Albertans better than the Conservatives. Most certainly. And I honestly would love to see a real Toronto Party. I would love to see a party that takes 416 seats for the Liberals, and 905 seats for the Cons out of safety. Nothing would bring federal largesse to Toronto faster than that. As long as Toronto is a Liberal stronghold, neither the Liberals or the Conservatives will do much for this town.

My only argument wrt the BQ was that to see any sort of parliamentary majority (by the Libs or Cons), those parties are going to have to steal Bloc seats. The Bloc has to do poorly for Iggy or Harper to do really well. And that's not going to happen anytime soon. Though I have to say that Harper (to his credit on this) has been brilliant in slowly cutting the legs out of the separatist camp by basically owning a lot of their separatist talk and re-framing it as federalism. I am curious to see how much it'll pay off.

 

[kEiThZ]

The Liberals and NDP have a history of also working together, as two separate parties, particularly in the mid 1900's. It was a minority government under Mike Pearson that brought Canada universal health insurance, public pensions, even the Canadian flag itself. A tremendous amount of Canadian identity came from a period of Liberals and NDP working together, in concert, to build the nation we love. Not to say Conservatives don't have their place, but the point is that the Liberals and NDP don't have a history of NEVER working together. There is also nothing particularly awful or impossible about it happening again, be it an official coalition or not.

The Liberals and the NDP have more in common than people think, I tend to think that the NDP should hate the Liberals a lot less than they do. An awful lot of Liberals look at the NDP and think "gee, here is a party with essentially the same platform, so why waste your vote there?" mentality. There is a history of both ambivalence and cooperation between the Liberals and NDP, so the relationship is one based on irony. I have nothing against Layton, in fact I think he's a nice guy. I met with him briefly during Toronto Pride 2006 while he was riding his bike. I just so happened to be marching with the Liberals in that parade, thanks to an invite. Although I wasn't with the Ignatieff group.

And with this post you show that you have a very, very poor understanding of Canada's political history. See lesouris more detailed explanation to know why you are wrong here.

I am a huge fan of Lester Pearson (and I even voted for him as the Greatest Canadian). But it's rather myopic of you to think that we've only had Liberal-NDP coalitions in Canada. We've actually had moments in our history where Liberals and Conservatives worked together. You assume that just because both parties are on the left that they would form natural allies. That's what I was referring to, in your black and white view of the world.

As to why some Liberals won't vote NDP. There's are many reasons. For me, for example, I find their extremely pro-union views troublesome. I find their views on foreign and defence policies troublingly naive or on occassion, outright willing to sacrifice the national interest, to adhere to some leftist principle (particularly so when it comes to relations with the USA). Same for their views on free trade (note their opposition to many free trade agreements). Etc. These are all issues where the Liberals are far closer to my world view. So why would I vote NDP?

You assume that most Liberal voters are left leaning and are puzzled that they won't consider the NDP. In reality, most Liberal voters (not card carrying party members) are centre-left to centre-right and aren't fans of the NDP. They'd sooner vote Conservative than they would NDP. This is why any hint or suggestion that the Liberals and the NDP would form a coalition hurts the Liberals in the polls.

 

[Brandon716]

keithz, you're just an obnoxious guy in general so I've added you to the ignore list.

 

[afransen]

If I absolutely had to vote for another party, it would probably be Conservatives. It's just too bad that they're so loathsome.

Brandon, I think you're overreacting to a fairly gentle rebuke.

 

[afransen]

I agree that merging the Liberals and the NDP probably won't work. I suspect what will happen in this election is that the Conservatives will get a majority, implement some of the less popular policies their base is demanding, and otherwise have the long-in-the-tooth malaise parties often face set in toward the end of their mandate, as it will be about 9 years since they came to office. In the mean time, I think Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe will have resigned and been replaced, perhaps Iggy as well. By that time, soft Dippers will probably be willing to support the Liberals if it means being able to turf the Conservatives. I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop below 20 seats in that election. If the Liberals recover in Quebec (and this should be a focus) as the provincial Liberal government (Charest) is turfed and Pauline Marois becomes premier, federalist supporters who liked Gilles Duceppe or the BQ's general stand for Quebec will probably also return to a federalist party, and most likely the Libs.

All those factors make it fairly likely that the Liberals could at least gain a minority in the next election, if not a majority. It depends on how well Harper can keep a leash on his party once the discipline of minority government is removed. They are a rather arrogant bunch and unfettered power will push them to do some stupid things in the next four years.

 

[gabe]

most Liberal voters (not card carrying party members) are centre-left to centre-right and aren't fans of the NDP. They'd sooner vote Conservative than they would NDP. This is why any hint or suggestion that the Liberals and the NDP would form a coalition hurts the Liberals in the polls.

Bull shite. Did you get this info from Stephen Harpers facebook page? This is 2011, go ask any Liberal if they would vote for the Constervaites over the NDP they would laugh and say not a chance in hell. i'm a Liberal and have no problems with a coalition with the NDP.

 

[Brandon716]

Bull shite. Did you get this info from Stephen Harpers facebook page? This is 2011, go ask any Liberal if they would vote for the Constervaites over the NDP they would laugh and say not a chance in hell. i'm a Liberal and have no problems with a coalition with the NDP.

The Liberal party is extremely diverse. There are obviously some "blue Liberals" in the party, but I think they are a relatively tiny group (and usually are sellouts, like Rocco Rossi who appears to be an opportunist rather than a principled politician). Most Liberals I know are much like you, prefer the Liberals by far, but are much closer to the NDP than the Conservatives. There is an obvious symbiotic relationship between the Liberals and NDP. Or maybe it is a love/hate relationship. The reforms of the 1960's that built so much of Canadian identity was a coalition working with the Liberals, NDP, and Socreds.

 

[spider]

Perhaps you could rank the current crop of Liberals in order of being the most to the least principled politician for the less enlightened among us.

 

[Brandon716]

That's okay, I prefer to stick to the topic at hand. Ignatieff isn't useless, he's the key to getting rid of the Harper Government.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps you could rank the current crop of Liberals in order of being the most to the least principled politician for the less enlightened among us.

Does it matter? At least the party isn't filled with narrrow-minded bigots and criminals like the Tory party (well apart from the guy that just got tossed in Montreal ... shame that Harper wouldn't toss out his bigots and criminals ... then I guess he'd have to quit himself.

 

[adma]

Not that the Liberals haven't been tarred w/"criminality" in recent years (think of the sponsorship scandal et al). Not being biased; just being fair...

 

[nfitz]

Not that the Liberals haven't been tarred w/"criminality" in recent years (think of the sponsorship scandal et al). Not being biased; just being fair...

Some Liberal party members were indeed found guilty of stealing from the party. This was discovered after the leader of the Liberal party contacted the RCMP to report the issue.

While not good, it's no where near the same level as the corruption we've seen in the Tory party, where the criminal actions have not been for individual gain, but have been lead by the guy in charge of getting Harper elected, and were stealing from Canadians to benefit the Tory party. And at the same time, Harper, instead of calling in the RCMP, has been doing everything possible to obstruct the investigation.

The low-level "criminality" that the Liberals dealt with kept them out of power for years. By comparison the much worse corruption at the Tory party at the highest levels, should keep them out of power for a generation.

 

[Brandon716]

Sponsorship is the kind of scandal that is more typical of a political party, more quid pro quo type dealings. Some party brass transferred funds to friends of the party in the ad industry for a program that was largely designed to advertise solidarity for Quebec within a larger Canada. The topic itself is why it became so sensational, it revolved around Quebec and separatism. Right there is the political lightning rod... It wasn't campaign fraud where the party was systemically working around the rules to out-fund, out-race, and cheat their way to more votes as the Conservative party did in 2006.

2006 was an interesting election, the Conservatives campaigned on an anti-corruption platform, but no one knew they themselves were committing 10x more serious fraud with the In and Out scheme as that very election was going on. I find it bitterly ironic that the Conservative party was using illegal, laundered money to fund the very ads they ran that anti-corruption campaign theme on. Stand up for Canada? Right, the Cons really pulled a good con job on Canada during that election.

In and Out isn't getting the media attention it deserves, back in 2006 the media had spent two years pounding hard on sponsorship and didn't let up, the media are largely giving the Conservatives a free ride on a much more serious issue.

Also, the Liberals were open about the scandal and appointed a public inquiry into it. When members of the Liberal party were caught doing things they shouldn't, the party leadership opened up a huge investigation and intentionally made it public. That's responsible leadership.

Harper on the other hand? He wouldn't do that in a million years on this In and Out scandal. I'm sorry, but one party is more responsible than the other. One party does offer good government over the other, and yes I'm specifically saying the Liberals have a history of being more responsible on scandal than the Conservatives when it happens.

Any party is prone to scandal, even if the Greens got power they'd have members who would commit scandal no doubt. It is how the leadership takes care of the issue, and Martin was open, decisive, and professional about handling sponsorship. Part of why it was such a media story was because the Liberal leadership opened up that investigation when they didn't have to.