Ignatieff In The News

Remove all ads!

I fully agree with this, too. I was mainly alluding to the oft repeated argument that the reason for our mixed method of representation, while necessary back in 1787 -- because of the very real fear of smaller sovereign states like Rhode Island that the larger sovereign states like Virginia or New York might end up running roughshod over their economic interests -- doesn't really apply any more. I see no reason to "fix" it, of course, because it isn't broken (and I don't fully agree with the argument that we no longer have a need for a mixed method of representation).

 

What mechanism (other than the two houses in the legislative branch of government) is presently in place in the United States that would make this fear not really apply anymore? I have to tell you that up here in the Great White North the two political entities with the most population totally run roughshod over the interests and rights of the smaller political entities (known here as "provinces")

When the time comes to share, low population provinces get their pockets picked. When it's time for goodies like government contracts, though, they go to the big fellows even in the companies located there have higher bids than the low population provinces' companies. It's totally unjust.

 

States no longer charge each other tariffs, for starters. Also, no state -- not even California -- is big enough to push it's agenda through without the approval of the other states, and members of the house of representatives represent their district, not their state, so they won't be pooling power in direct opposition to other states. Representatives represent a locality they may pool power with other representatives in their region, but such pooling of power is likely to cross state lines. Heartland farming doesn't stop at the Iowa border, for example, so it stands to reason that a bill involving Heartland farming would involve representatives from Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, etc.

Put another way, a representative from California's eighth district isn't going to earmark for the 27th since he stands to gain nothing to from doing so (and might even be labeled as a purveyor of pork for such a move -- not helpful). A member of California's 22nd district wouldn't be able to draw any more government money than a representative from Rhode Island's third district, so while the state of California would almost certainly receive far more federal funding than the state of Rhode Island, Rhode Island could easilly come out ahead in a district by district comparison.

Americans now self-identify first with their nation and second with their state, our government is far more centralized than it was at our nation's inception, we now have the technology necessary to make it possible to elect our president by direct popular vote, technology has made the world a lot smaller, people now tend to live in many different states throughout their life times...I could go on, but I think you get the point.

 

So, a little more news has been stirred up on this topic. Recently Prime Minister Steven Harper has responded to Ignatieff's statements on an EI Reform stating that he is "ready to take him on" at the polls should Ignatieff try to make a vote of non-confidence.

Conveniently this statement in the House of Commons was made at the same time that the Conservative Party started to run attack ads against Ignatieff on the internet, and internet alone. The main argument of the ads is that Ignatieff is trying to seize power after being out of country for many years. Oh, and that he does not have a platform. Oh, and in the French ads they point out that he speaks Parisian French and not Quebecois French. Justification for this ad scheme is that the Liberals beat them to the punch in making "Tory Times are Bad Times".

This makes my blood boil over Harper's government even more. I did not know that working abroad was a terrible investment when working in public affairs. In terms of not having a platform? Was it not the Conservative Party of Canada that released its platform a week before a federal election? "Tory Times are Bad Times" was a video made by a critic of the Harper government, not the Liberals themselves... Oh, and any French I speak is Parisian, not Quebecois, so I guess that means I have a hidden agenda for Quebec as well...

This kind of pushes me into the direction that another election is immanent, and I seriously think that this kind of campaigning won't work in Canada. I think its going to backfire. Harper is grasping at straws... again.

Views?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/13/harper-ei-election013.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...40/BNStory/politics/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail

 

Halasz, I agree that another election is likely forthcoming. But the Liberals and the other opposition parties would be fools to force it over the summer -- Most people want to enjoy their summer holidays and not be lambasted with all sorts of election campaigning. If they force a summer election, there will be a backlash. If they're smart, they'll wait for autumn.

As for the negative ads, the sad truth is that they tend to wrok pretty well everywhere. It's not as though they've never been done in Canada before. The Conservatives have to do something to counteract Ignatieff's growing popularity, and so like it or not they're gonna hit him in his weak points. A lot of people will buy into the argument that Ignatieff is not a committed Canadian because he chose to spend such a long time in other countries. To many, his return now and efforts to become the leader of the country smack of opportunism. Sad fact is, though, that ALL politicians are opportunists!

The polls notwithstanding, I'll say it again -- Harper may have aggravated some minority groups, but he has sailed a pretty clear course and has avoided many serious scandals. I don't think that the electorate will turn on him to the degree that you are hoping. Ignatieff is rising in popular support, no doubt, but he is hardly going to win this race on charisma, which is what the Liberals will need to defeat the incumbent Conservatives.

Please note that this does not imply that I believe that Harper has any charisma, either -- it's just that his position as an incumbent gives him an edge.

 

Again, I'm going to preach about this whole election thing. I know most people do not want an election, heck, we've had 3 in what... four years? But the difference here is that we actually need to re-shape our government. Everything is falling apart and the Conservatives need to be set out of office. Chalk River Shut-Down/Looming Medical Isotope Shortage, Ballooning Deficit, 'Secret' Document Negligence, Attack Ads, you name it, we've got it. Who says Canadian politics is boring? There are actually issues that show that we need an election here no matter who you are: Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green, Bloc or Whathaveyou. I know I don't want Stephen Harper going to Copenhagen in November.

P.s. God bless the Dutch for trying to help clean up the mess we've made. You guys always pull through

 

We'd have a deficit no matter what party was in power*. Chalk River has been bungled by all parties for the past decade at the least. The document scandals you mention are tempests in teapots compared to Liberal corruption and incompetance. The attack ads are merely the Conservatives paying for what the Liberals have got for years for free via their lapdog the CBC.

The government as it is is not perfect but it's doing a pretty good job. An election in the middle of an economic meltdown would hurt Canada as a whole more than it would help.

*if the NDP were in power, the deficit would be at least triple what it is now.

 

I thought they did that through CTV and cutting CBC funding haha. Just jokes.

As for the deficit thing, it is bound to happen yes, but the fact that the government keeps ballooning it without getting out much of their stimulus money is dis-heartening. Lets just hope that the PCs can get some more sexy issues solved to take credit for.

I kid I kid... and that deficit is why we should never have an NDP government

 

I thought you WERE an NDP voter, Halasz! Or are you a Liberal?

I agree with you on the NDP government thing, though, based on the following assumptions: The NDP would spend even more taxpayer dollars (or more to the point, borrowed dollars that we'll have to pay back) and get less of a return than is presently happening under the Conservatives. They would also enact policies that would result in businesses leaving Canada for cheaper locations, which would reduce our competitiveness, Increase our unemployment rate, and overall make us even worse off than we are now.

That is an assumption, of course, as A: We've never had an NDP government at the federal level and have no track record on which to base this assumption and B: even if we did past behaviour is not a 100% predicter of future behaviour. But a lot of Canadians share similar assumptions, I think, which is why most of the political columnists I read often say that the NDP has no chance of ever forming a government, be it minority or majority.

I hold similar assumptions about the Liberals, but have a further opinion -- one that you won't like, I'm afraid. I fear that they are crookeder than a dogs hind leg. They are so deeply in bed with powerful lobbyists in Ontario that I simply don't believe they have the capacity to give the West fair treatment. I mean, why would they bother? They don't need our votes and they score big points with Central Ontario voters when they stick it to the West and paint us as stupid rednecks who are no better than "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for the enlightened masses of Toronto.

Ignatieff made an effort at dispelling that view, though, when he went on record as saying that if he had made a grab for power it would have split the country, and that he wanted to unify the country. I don't believe the bastard, but I respect that he at least tried to show respect for all of Canada and the will of a plurality of Canadian voters.

 

I totally agree about the Liberal party. I feel that its like a lesser of two evils situation under a Harper government. The party itself doesn't really bother me, its the current government. The Liberals nor the Conservatives have a clean track record, and I can accept it and hope that they do better in the future since no other party has a solid chance of forming a government.

The whole East/West division is one of the biggest problems in Canadian politics, and I feel that is one of the reasons electoral reform in Canada is something we definitely need to keep our democracy from going stagnant. I've been studying different systems lately, and it definitely has me convinced that Canada's system is not the right one.

Oh, I don't vote NDP believe you me. Green Party is the way to go for me. Sadly my riding has about a 3.2% Green turnout hahaha. At least it will go up a bit when I move to Ottawa.

 

Well, after all that noise, Ignatieff has graciously deigned to not put Canadians through yet another meaningless election just to satisfy his pathetic ego. What an eh -- hole (note the Canadian pun). I cannot tell you all how much I hate this guy now for wasting time with hot-air rhetoric when the country is facing massive economic problems and gas prices of over $1 / litre. May he burn in hell for his power hungry ways.

 

Woooooooooahhh there, little horsey : no, period. Yes, the FLQ was a terrorist cell in the '70s. Yes the Bloc favors the seperation of Québec (although the seperation itself is a provincial issus meaning the Parti Québecois, a provincial parti in Québec can do anything about it. The Bloc Québecois just supports it). But the two have no link. The Bloc does not endorse or have never endorsed terrorism.

I agree however that it is really weird that a oppenly seperatist party holds the balance of power (or is the official opposition). It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But, at the same times, it also tells you something. Québec votes in numbers for the Bloc because not many parties represents it.

I strongly believe the situation in Québec is a catch-22 : A corrupt party, a right wing party, a seperatist party and a good intentioned yet unexperienced party. Woo-hoo for choice!

 

Triactus, I'm not a horse! I'm more of a three toed sloth, much to my wife's dismay.

I know that many Francophones say there's no connection, but I believe that a lot of the people who support the Bloc were also FLQ supporters. It's the same principle as Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA -- they too often said "we don't support terrorism" but everyone knew it was a facade.

That said, I understand why many Quebeckers do not feel represented by the Big Two parties, whose desire for Ontario votes makes them often oblivious to the needs of the rest of the country. Western Canadians felt the same way, which is what gave birth to the Reform party. I have always thought that if Alberta and Quebec could try to find some common ground against the entrenched industrial interests in Ontario that siphon resources and government attention away from our great provinces, we could have a great influence on the Federal government. Sadly, though, the linguistic barrier and social divide makes such an alliance difficult.

 

haha, I know you are not a horse! But since I don't know what a three toed sloth is, I'll just smile and nod...

You're partly right about the FLQ. The terrorists (and the term is justified) were widely supported by the public, as well as many artists. However, all that came to a crashing stop once Pierre Laporte was murdered, hence the disapearence of the FLQ (who gadly never reappeared again). While the occasionnal bombing of mailboxes propelled them to underground heroes, the minute they started to hurt people is where they went beyond the line in everyone's eye.

So, for this reason, the Bloc itself has no roots in murder and very circumstancial in terrorism. The Bloc itself is a freedom left wing party.

Many say that the Bloc doesn't really have a raison d'être anymore. Many analysts predict, in the near futur, a merging of the Bloc and the NDP. Wow, that would create a powerful left wing party to balance the liberals (center-right for non canadians who reads this post) and the torries (right wing).

 

Ignatieff is still in the news -- for being a douche. He's not doing much better than Dion did. I want him to force another election so the Conservatives can finally get a majority!