babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Bob Rae steps down, Iggy likely the new Liberal leader

KeyStone
Offline
Joined: Apr 23 2008

So, it's Ignatieff who will be the new Liberal leader.
The guy who is great on paper, but not so good in person.

Every Iggy supporter I have talked to, has said they are supporting Ignatieff, not because of his leadership, or values - but just because they think he can win.

Now, the Liberals have bypassed the Liberal community completely and simply acclaimed Ignatieff - a battle of attrition to see who had money left over after the last leadership campaign. This should do wonders for Harper's message of the Liberals being undemocratic.

If Stephen Harper ever wanted to cement the mantle of the 'Canadian party' on the Conservatives, running against a guy who spent the last 20 years outside of Canada ought to do it. 

The Liberals are clearly turning to the right, and are going into an abyss which they are not going to get out of for the next 20 years. 

I'm in the process of figuring out how to support the NDP without getting 20 calls a week from their scattered, inept uncoordinated fundraising committee. Regardless, now is the time for the NDP to step up and claim the title of Canada's left-centre party. The Liberals have abandoned that in pursuit of trying to steal Conservative voters, and gain power.

 

 

 

 


Comments

Mojoroad1
Offline
Joined: Aug 7 2008

yup

 


outwest
Offline
Joined: Dec 2 2008

 

And yup again. 


madmax
Offline
Joined: Apr 15 2008
KeyStone wrote:

I'm in the process of figuring out how to support the NDP without getting 20 calls a week from their scattered, inept uncoordinated fundraising committee. 

 

Well that's strange. I thought the incompetent Bob Rae left the NDP along time ago. And you are still getting inept, uncoordinated fundraising calls.

Seems the NDP need to clean up their act while the LPC crown a leader.

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004
madmax wrote:
.

Seems the NDP need to clean up their act while the LPC crown a leader.

"Crown" sounds about right with that party. Who needs to vote in a plutocracy, really?


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I hope the NDP has some plans to try to get diseffected Liberals to "come over the sunny side of the street" and join the NDP. I don't expect any elected officials to do it - but there have to be a lot of Liberal supporters who are nauseated by the backroom machinations that clinched the leadership for Ignatieff, who will be aghast if Iggy jettisons the coalition and even more aghast if their party supports Harper's budget!

I suggest to all New Democrats that you appriach any progressive Liberals you know and offer to take them under your wing and to make them feel as welcome as possible in the NDP! Bring them bread and salt and give them a shoulder to cry on!


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Well you know what they say. Orange sky at night, sailors delight. Red sky in morning, sailors take warning.


mcgregok
Offline
Joined: Dec 7 2008
Stockholm wrote:

I , who will be aghast if Iggy jettisons the coalition and even more aghast if their party supports Harper's budget!

You don't know whats in the budget. Why be aghast with the budget before you see it?

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
What's in the budget is almost irrelevant. If the Liberals support it - it means many more months (if not years) of Harper remaining our absolute dictator.

Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001

It's amazing, when you think about it.  The technically Canadian Iggy Thumbscrews leaves his long time home in the United States, gets parachuted into a safe ridding-- against the wishes of many in that ridding, then gets coronated leader of the Liberals-- a post he could not get elected to-- and it could well be that he ends up Prime Minister via the coalition.

Holy snappin' arseholes, batman. 

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

mcgregok wrote:
You don't know whats in the budget.

 Well that's true. The Harpers' budget was hidden under the sweater for all of the election campaign. And it's still there.


Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001

The budget is easy to figure out-- solve our economic problems by further consentrating wealth with the wealthy.  

No mystery there.


mcgregok
Offline
Joined: Dec 7 2008
Tommy_Paine wrote:

The budget is easy to figure out-- solve our economic problems by further consentrating wealth with the wealthy.  

No mystery there.

Who do you consider wealthy?


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
mcgregok wrote:

Who do you consider wealthy?

Anyone from Alberta (or anywhere else) who loves Stephen Harper.


JeffWells
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2003
Stockholm wrote:

there have to be a lot of Liberal supporters who are nauseated by the backroom machinations that clinched the leadership for Ignatieff, who will be aghast if Iggy jettisons the coalition and even more aghast if their party supports Harper's budget!

 

I'd like to think so too, but progressive Liberals must be so accustomed to living with cognitive dissonance by now I'm not holding my breath for a stampede.


Bookish Agrarian
Offline
Joined: Nov 26 2004

mcgregok wrote:

You don't know whats in the budget. Why be aghast with the budget before you see it?

 

 

Here is all that will be in the budget thanks to the most fiscally irresponsible government in more than a generation. Don't believe, come back and check at the end of January.

 
  1. Massive deficit (expect some sleight of hand, but it will be there)  Cutting taxes in good times instead of investing in infrastructure and economic renewal and retooling was just bad fiscal planning and dumber than a post.
  2. Fire sale of  public assets – given Flaherty’s past history expect them to go to friends of the government at sweetheart prices
  3. Minor stimulus- it won’t be enough and it will be in the wrong places.  Despite the rhetoric Conservative governments, with a few notable exceptions, have shown time and time again that they do not understand how the real economy works or what to do about it
  4. Talk of more exports competing against low wage economies and more free trade deals, the very things that have decimated our manufacturing and resource sectors.  You can not continue to transfer the wealth generating parts of your economy to other jurisdictions and expect the good times to keep on rolling.  Expect the Conservatives to not get this.
  5. Nothing to create long term, good paying jobs but plenty of talk about doing away with regulations.  Of course these will be the very regulations that have kept the Canadian economy more stable than the US, but you can guarantee that lesson will be lost on this government
  6. Some flashy cut or spending initiative that will be full of sound and fury, but in the end will signify nothing in real terms for Canadians or the economy.  Think GST cut that saved you a few pennies on your morning coffee, but has now led to point number 1.
 In the end the Liberals might go for it.  But make no mistake Canadians will pay dearly if they do. 

 

 


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005
If Harper and the Cons produce an unpopular budget we're headed for a February election.

Highlander
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2002

You don't know whats in the budget. Why be aghast with the budget before you see it?

I know the name of the author and while I know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover - I think you can by its author.


Highlander
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2002

JKR wrote:
If Harper and the Cons produce an unpopular budget we're headed for a February election.

Or we ask the GG to see if the new Liberal leader can hold the support of the House.

We are still, come January 26th, only 16 days into this Parliament.  The election will only have been 3 1/2 months ago.  Just because the PM is not viable doesn't meen the Parliament isn't viable.

"Time-out" does not mean start again.


Bookish Agrarian
Offline
Joined: Nov 26 2004

And this author is a master of the horror genre.


Bookish Agrarian
Offline
Joined: Nov 26 2004
Highlander wrote:

"Time-out" does not mean start again.

 

You don't have kids do you  Laughing


outwest
Offline
Joined: Dec 2 2008

 

It's not just the wealthy in Alberta who vote Conservative. It's often people from have-not, depressed provinces and 3rd world countries (highly influenced by Calgary's oil-industry Americans - 10% of the population) who vote Conservative, and surprisingly, less pioneer-stock Albertans' voting Cons than you'd imagine as more than a few of those prairie folks have been around long enough to see the virtual slow motion destruction of their province.

 

Why do those who do vote Cons, vote against their own interests? They've seen worse times, and, naturally, want to keep their oil-tethered jobs (secretaries up north at $150 thous a year making more than doctors, no Alberta taxes, etc.), which they see as under attack from the left. Environmental destruction of the northern water and our southern glaciers and snowpack melt be damned; they all plan on retiring somewhere else, anyway, so why would they be worried about Alberta's dire water situation coming in a few decades?


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005
Highlander wrote:

JKR wrote:
If Harper and the Cons produce an unpopular budget we're headed for a February election.

Or we ask the GG to see if the new Liberal leader can hold the support of the House.

 

I think this is wishful thinking. If Ignatieff thinks he can win an election over the budget he will simply not accept the GG's invitation to form a coalition government with the NDP. He'll say "let the people decide."  

And if Harper's budget is popular, Ignatieff will support it grudgingly and point out all its flaws. 

Right now I can't envision a scenario where the Coalition actually takes power. It's either a continuation of the unstable Harper minority government or an election. Harper's prorogation of Parliament has curtailed any chance of their being a Coalition government. The Governor Generals decision will have likely killed the chance to have a Coalition government. This is profoundly undemocratic but it's the sad reality we've arrived at. History will show that the GG acted unfairly in favour of one party over another.

In any case, Iggy's choice now is between dissolving the coalition or keeping it as an instrument to keep Harper honest in thr future.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004
Tommy_Paine wrote:

-- and it could well be that he ends up Prime Minister via the coalition.

 

Iggy Thumbscrews as Liberal leader (and Bush/Harper clone) means the Coalition is dead.

adma
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006
Stockholm wrote:

I suggest to all New Democrats that you appriach any progressive Liberals you know and offer to take them under your wing and to make them feel as welcome as possible in the NDP! Bring them bread and salt and give them a shoulder to cry on!

 

Does Bob Rae count?Tongue out

 

(Hey, maybe he's to socialism what Lucien Bouchard was to separatism)


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I disagree. I think that there is no way whatsoever that the Liberals want an election called in January. Not in a million years. Ignatieff is totally green and has to get established as leader. The Liberal Party is virtually bankrupt and would not even be able to afford a campaign plane or to run a single ad!

 So what if Harper makes no concesions at all and "dares" Ignatieff to vote it down? If I'm Iggy and I have three choices - have an election that is almost certain to lead to a Tory majority? Support a budget that has no concessions and be humiliated and pave the way to being the fall guy for a cascade of reactionary policies from Harper or stick with the coalition and become PM of Canada?

 I'd take door number 3!


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
JKR wrote:
Highlander wrote:

JKR wrote:
If Harper and the Cons produce an unpopular budget we're headed for a February election.

Or we ask the GG to see if the new Liberal leader can hold the support of the House.

Right now I can't envision a scenario where the Coalition actually takes power. It's either a continuation of the unstable Harper minority government or an election. Harper's prorogation of Parliament has curtailed any chance of their being a Coalition government. The Governor Generals decision will have likely killed the chance to have a Coalition government. This is profoundly undemocratic but it's the sad reality we've arrived at. History will show that the GG acted unfairly in favour of one party over another.

 

Hmm politically speaking in terms of the party politics you may be right. But in fact the Governor General made no statement in favour of the coalition, or against it. There was never a confidence motion, and the government was not defeated. The question asked by Harper was of an entirely different order.

Nor do I think it was easy for Harper to force the situation, since this meeting, which people seemed to think would take about 15 minutes took 45, and that suggests that some discussion was had. So, at least from a legal perspective and political perspective, the GG has made no decision on the issue of the coalition, nor has she even been asked to do so.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

People keep bringing up this idea of the Liberals [or Iggy] wanting an election.

Find us ONE Liberal in the know will say privately that there is an appetetite for an election. We're not talking about in the abstract: that given little details like being worse off than broke, they want an election.


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005
Stockholm wrote:

 

So what if Harper makes no concesions at all and "dares" Ignatieff to vote it down? If I'm Iggy and I have three choices - have an election that is almost certain to lead to a Tory majority?

 

If Harper makes no concesions, Conservative popularity would take a nosedive. In that unlikely case, the Liberals, NDP, and BQ would all go for an election.

But Harper is not stupid. He's going to make concesions.


Coyote
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2004
And I think Iggy wants desparately out of this coalition. The Conservative meme about getting in bed with separatists hurts the Libs hard in BC and in the Atlantic.

Michelle
Offline
Joined: May 10 2001

Whoops, looks like we already have a thread on this.  Let's continue here, and I'll reopen this thread when that one is filled up. :)


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments