NDP produces ads attacking Ignatieff for propping up Conservative government

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

The NDP voted in favour of the Bloc's ammendments. The Bay Street coalition voted it down, because it would have taken deep fried pork rinds out of the mouths of fat-cats.

jasonJ2

Fidel wrote:

The NDP voted in favour of the Bloc's ammendments. The Bay Street coalition voted it down, because it would have taken deep fried pork rinds out of the mouths of fat-cats.

Exactly the NDP is voting for OTHER peoples amendments. Also it is easy to vote for something that you know is not going to pass but not trigger an election. 

Is it 4:20 yet?

jasonJ2

This is a bad budget no doubt, but it is a Tory budget that everybody hates including Tories. That is a good thing because they alone own this mess. If the Liberals or the NDP had proposed amendments they would have had ownership of this monstrosity.

Notice how the NDP is not proposing any amendments of their own but criticise the Liberals for not proposing their own. A bit weak.

The Liberals are right in that Canadians aversion to this budget is high but their aversion to an election is even higher. There is no guarantee that the GG will approve the coalition and my sentiment is that she would call an election as the throne speech had passed with the confidence of the house.

I like the idea of coalitions but this one was a bad one. Namely that the Liberals and NDP would still have had a  fewer seats than the Tories. They would have had to depend on a third party who was NOT a part of the coalition. That is the definition of unstable.

Either you believe in coalitions or you don't. Having pushed the new idea of one on the Canadian public only to behave like a jilted lover when it failed to materialise only plays into the Conservative mantra that coalitions are unstable.

Optics matter.  

 

Is it 4:20 yet?

Michelle

Jason, it's a Liberal budget too.  It's a Tory/Liberal coalition budget.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Stockholm wrote:
I have actually met Gerry Nicholls. I find his politics abhorrent, but he is very principled and very pleasant in person. He's willing to criticize the Conservative Party when he thinks they are abandoning conservative principles. He got dumped as head of the National Citizens Coalition because he refused to just be a cheerleader for Harper. I have a lot of time for him.

Gerry Nichols comes out on cue, as he has a dozen times before, to say that "Stephen Harper is a moderate, more liberal than the Liberals", creating the perfect sound-bite for the corporate media to 'balance' against prevailing criticism - And you applaud his act as "principled"?

I really need to talk to you about some land I have for sale in Florida.... 

tostig

What result can attack ads by the NDP targetted at the Liberals possibly produce:

1) more NDP seats;

2) another Conservative government.

Wouldn't the NDP rather work with a Liberal government? Or wouldn't an NDP government rather work with Liberal support?

Michelle

Of course they would, tostig.  That's what they said they wanted - to work with the Liberals in a coalition government.  But the Liberals chose to form a coalition government with the Conservatives instead of the NDP.  So what, the NDP is supposed to shut up and hope the Liberals like them better if they bat their eyelashes at them?

jasonJ2

Michelle wrote:
Jason, it's a Liberal budget too.  It's a Tory/Liberal coalition budget.

Please stop with the talking points. There is no Tory/Liberal coalition and to bandy the word about is disingenuous and only confuses the issue.

 

Is it 4:20 yet?

Michelle

Talking points?  Me?  Heh.  If you weren't a total newbie, you'd know that I'm certainly no NDP shill.  Just ask the others around here.

In this case, though, I think the NDP is right.

I know it hurts to know your party is now in a coalition with the Tories because neither party has principles.  Sometimes it's good to know the truth, no matter how painful.  I'm sorry for your loss.

Stockholm

"I like the idea of coalitions but this one was a bad one. Namely that the Liberals and NDP would still have had a  fewer seats than the Tories. They would have had to depend on a third party who was NOT a part of the coalition. That is the definition of unstable."

On the contrary:

 Signed agreement by three parties with a majority of seats pledging no election for at least two years = STABILITY

Minority government with no agreements with any other party and a sword of Damocles hanging over every single vote and the possibility of an election at ANY time (ie: what we have now) = INSTABILITY.

jasonJ2

Okay everybody let's put down the crazy pills and look at reality. THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE GG WOULD APROVE THE COALITION. So stop this BS that there was coalition government in the wings.

I can't understand the people on this board who would gleefully have a Tory majority if it meant taking a few more seats from the Liberals. Pyrrhic victory indeed.

The play to have a stable centre/left government in Canada would be to go into an election and run a joint Liberal/NDP coalition campaign. Like the CDU and CSU or the Alliance 90 and the Greens do in Germany. 

 

Is it 4:20 yet?

Michelle

No kidding.  Speaking of "talking points", huh?  :D 

Fidel

jasonJ2 wrote:

Michelle wrote:
Jason, it's a Liberal budget too.  It's a Tory/Liberal coalition budget.

Please stop with the talking points. There is no Tory/Liberal coalition and to bandy the word about is disingenuous and only confuses the issue.

Michael Ignastieff is Steve Harper!! They're all the same guy just a few different rich friends to cater to is all.

tostig

The only other option would be strategically running candidates in the next election.  But the question would now be who's going to make the first move with this proposal?

NorthReport

The Liberals will rue the day they formed a coalition with the Cons. At the appropriate time Ignatieff will be kneecapped politically speaking by Harper. 

Michelle

Most of the people here wanted a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals, not a Tory majority.  It was your party who decided to get together with the Tories instead of the NDP.  It was your party who decided it was much better to pass a Tory/Liberal budget and support the instability of a Tory minority government on paper (but a Tory/Liberal coalition in practice) than to have a stable coalition government for at least two years with the NDP.

And just so you know, we don't call each other "crazy" here as a term of abuse.  I know that probably sounds too PC for your liking, but it's a standard we set here, and I'd appreciate it if you'd follow it.  As a newbie you wouldn't know, so as a helpful moderator, I'm just giving you a heads up. :)

ottawaobserver

jasonJ2 wrote:

This is a bad budget no doubt, but it is a Tory budget that everybody hates including Tories. That is a good thing because they alone own this mess. If the Liberals or the NDP had proposed amendments they would have had ownership of this monstrosity.

Not to engage our Liberal troll jasonJ2, but this is another part of the Liberal strategic spin that will come back to haunt them down the road, I believe.  The idea that they think they are clever for not "owning" the budget during the recession, instead of demonstrating the courage of their convictions to actually do something to help people out, will ultimately leave them weakened.  Although they're getting some short-term applause for this from the usual suspects, long-term Ignatieff has conceded a lot of moral high ground by not demonstrating the necessary leadership or courage to take on a tough job in difficult times, but just walking away instead.

jasonJ2 wrote:

Notice how the NDP is not proposing any amendments of their own but criticise the Liberals for not proposing their own. A bit weak.

Here jasonJ2 demonstrates how little he knows about the Parliamentary process, since as the 4th party in Parliament (3rd in popular support, but that's FPTP for you), the NDP is not able to present an amendment in the House on the main budget motion unless the Liberals or Bloc decline to.

He should probably prepare his Liberal colleagues, however, for a whole ream of NDP amendments to the Budget Implementation Bill, each one of which will be pretty painful for the Liberals to oppose as they continue to prop up Stephen Harper.  I see the makings of a pretty good ad campaign around those votes, to be sure.

jasonJ2 wrote:

The Liberals are right in that Canadians aversion to this budget is high but their aversion to an election is even higher. There is no guarantee that the GG will approve the coalition and my sentiment is that she would call an election as the throne speech had passed with the confidence of the house.

As I suspected, they are terrified of an election right now.  Which is another reason I'm glad we're embarking on a permanent campaign they can't seem to match right now (and, surprisingly, weren't prepared for).

jasonJ2 wrote:

Is it 4:20 yet?

What the heck does that mean, anyway?

jasonJ2

Michelle wrote:

Talking points?  Me?  Heh.  If you weren't a total newbie, you'd know that I'm certainly no NDP shill.  Just ask the others around here.

In this case, though, I think the NDP is right.

I know it hurts to know your party is now in a coalition with the Tories because neither party has principles.  Sometimes it's good to know the truth, no matter how painful.  I'm sorry for your loss.

I have no party and for you to imply that I'm a Liberal shill is a reach. Frankly I don't trust any of them as politicians by definition will say whatever is needed to clime the slippery pole.

Having been a former guest of Her Majesty because I liked to grow little green plants has given me a lot of time to contemplate and reflect on the hypocrisy of life in general. 

I have toked up with councillors to cabinet ministers and with activists to captains of industry. But when I went inside nobody wanted to hear from me but when I got out they would call me but made sure I came in through the servants entrance. I was and am everybody's best friend till I'm not. It's unfair but who said life was fair.

Michelle a coalition government is a formal agreement between parties. There is no agreement between the Tories and the Liberals so therefore there is no coalition. Being disingenuous because it suits you makes you a hypocrite of the first order and that's fine because that's life. Don't delude yourself into thinking you're not.

 

Is it 4:20 yet?

Slumberjack

Perhaps a better phraseology to describe Liberal/Con arrangements, or NDP/Iggy dalliances, is to refer to it as taking temporary leave of ones senses.  Except well, for the liberals, as it isn't really temporary.

jasonJ2

By the way I love how it's gang up on the new guy who doesn't agree with us. Oh and what 4:20 means, just google it.

 

Is it 4:20 yet?

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Two Liberal trolls in two days? Is this how Kinsella uses his time in the Liberal war room? I hope he is volunteering. Do the aliases have numbers so they can be tracked on a spreadsheet?

 

jasonJ2

Ottawa dude,

Courage of conviction! Don't make me laugh! Politicians have two emotions, fear and greed. Harper had the conviction of fixed election dates and an elected senate until he didn't. Ignatieff had the conviction of sayin Israel had committed war crimes until he didn't. Layton was for the legalisation of pot until he turfed candidates because they smoked pot.

Puhleaze!!! I've got my wake and bake on and I won't fall for that canard.

Is it 4:20 yet?

Stockholm

"The play to have a stable centre/left government in Canada would be to go into an election and run a joint Liberal/NDP coalition campaign. Like the CDU and CSU or the Alliance 90 and the Greens do in Germany."

Right now Germany is in year three of a grand coalition between the CDU and the SPD. Perhaps i'm losing my memory, but I have no recollection of Angela Merkel and Gerhardt Schroeder running in the last German election on a joint campaign pledging to form a coalition government after the election.

jasonJ2

Slumberjack wrote:

Perhaps a better phraseology to describe Liberal/Con arrangements, or NDP/Iggy dalliances, is to refer to it as taking temporary leave of ones senses.  Except well, for the liberals, as it isn't really temporary.

Much better. How about the Harper/Iggy Pas de Deux. Or the budget mambo... whatever you get the point 

Is it 4:20 yet?

Stockholm

"Layton was for the legalisation of pot"

and he still is!

jasonJ2

Stockholm,

CDU and the CSU. Where the heck did you get the SPD?? And I thought I was buzzed 

 

My final suggestion. "Iggy and the Stooges" seriously I can't believe nobody has come up with that one yet

Is it 4:20 yet?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Is it 4:20 yet?

Answer 

Explains a lot, actually. 

jasonJ2

Stockholm wrote:

"Layton was for the legalisation of pot"

and he still is!

 

He was also for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan until he wasn't and then was again. He's for labour rights but was willing to support back to work legislation for Ottawa transit workers

What ever. Politicians are all the same. They will say whatever and do whatever is needed to advance their career. That is their job.

 Is it 4:20 yet?

Stockholm

"CDU and the CSU. Where the heck did you get the SPD?? And I thought I was buzzed"

You obviously know absolutely NOTHING about German politics. have you actually read a single story about German political news in the past few years??? If you did you would know that there is a coalition government right now of the two big parties. Merkel of the CDU is Chancellor, but the SPD has a majority of the seats in cabinet. The CDU and SPD are arch-rivals and campaigned fiercely against each other in the election - but now they are in a coalition gov't together. The CSU is just the "nom de plume" of the CDU in the state of Bavaria it isn't a real party at all.

If you could get our facts about German politics so totally wrong, it calls into question everything else you have to say here.

BTW: Obama won the US election, not McCain - just in case you thought it was the other way around.

Fidel

Poor Canada.

Michelle

Hey all, just a reminder that people who support the Liberal party ARE allowed to post here.  They're even allowed to disagree with us.

We, on the other hand, have a policy that forbids personal attacks, and that includes calling people "Liberal trolls".  So I would appreciate it if everyone who is calling him names would stop doing that from here on out.

Jason, I assume you're a Liberal Party supporter because it's pretty clear who you're defending in this thread.  That doesn't make you a troll, however.

By the way, have I mentioned that I hate taglines?   Lord but I hate taglines and I can't wait until the tech guys finally get around to turning them off.

ottawaobserver

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

Is it 4:20 yet?

Answer 

Explains a lot, actually. 

Totally.

And, sorry Michelle.

jasonJ2

Stockholm wrote:

"CDU and the CSU. Where the heck did you get the SPD?? And I thought I was buzzed"

You obviously know absolutely NOTHING about German politics. have you actually read a single story about German political news in the past few years??? If you did you would know that there is a coalition government right now of the two big parties. Merkel of the CDU is Chancellor, but the SPD has a majority of the seats in cabinet. The CDU and SPD are arch-rivals and campaigned fiercely against each other in the election - but now they are in a coalition gov't together. The CSU is just the "nom de plume" of the CDU in the state of Bavaria it isn't a real party at all.

If you could get our facts about German politics so totally wrong, it calls into question everything else you have to say here.

BTW: Obama won the US election, not McCain - just in case you thought it was the other way around.

Wow what a condescending post.

Okay let me point out the ways you are wrong. The CSU is an independent party that only operates in Bavaria and can trace its roots back to the Weimar republic. It is more socially conservative than the CDU and has governed Bavaria since 1949 sometimes in partnership with the FDP. In federal elections they throw their support behind the CDU in the Bundestag as they are a regional party just like the Bloc is. That does not stop them from running a candidate for chancellor which they do.

It's not a nom de plume for the CDU as it has it's own structure and constitution. But then again with so many people on this board claiming that the Liberals and Tories are the same party your confusion is only natural. 

 

Is it 4:20 yet?

Fidel

Poor, poor Canada.

KenS

You are being misleading formalistic.

Yes, the CSU is a seperate party with its own structure it jealously guards. but that doesn't make it substantively difference. Its small formalistic differences are anachronisms.

But it is also in practice the CDU in Bavaria. And the CSU is NOTHING like the Bloc.

Nor does the fact it has governed with the FDP in Bavaria mean a thing. The CDU or the SPD have governed states with the FDP the Greens, whoever.

Stockholm

"It's not a nom de plume for the CDU as it has it's own structure and constitution."

Its not quite that simple. The CDU doesn't run in Bavaria and the CSU is f0or all intents and purposes the vestigial name of the CDU in Bavaria, but on several occasions the leader of CSU has also been the CDU candidate for chancellor (ie: Franz Josef Strauss and Dietrich Stoiber come to mind). They are considered to be one party in Germany (the CDU/CSU) and their seats are always added up together and there has never been the slightest possibility of - say - the CSU staying out of a CDU led government.

Meanwhile, there is a coalition gov't right now in Germany between two parties that are usually arch-enemies - and no one seems to have any problem with that.

Fidel

It's 4:30 in St John's, and youre late

It's Me D

Lard Tunderin' Jesus wrote:
Is it 4:20 yet?

Answer

Explains a lot, actually.

ottawaobserver wrote:
Totally.

And, sorry Michelle.

It doesn't explain anything actualy, but it goes to show your willingness to dismiss someone because of their lifestyle rather than their opinions.

"Is it 4:20 yet" is the only thing jasonJ2 has said yet that I can respect.

Slumberjack

It's only 4:00 in the Maritimes.  But why put off until later what can be done anytime.

NorthReport

"If you could get our facts about German politics so totally wrong, it calls into question everything else you have to say here"

 Who appointed you God?

 

Are your talking points that weak that you have to resort to such silliness? 

Let's all stick to the issues.

Stockholm

The "issue" is that contrary to what SOME people seem to think - there is no hard and fast rule that parties have to campaign as partners in an election campaign to be able to form a coalition post-election. More often than not in Europe parties run vicious negative campaigns against each other - and then end up sitting around the same cabinet table. That's how it goes.

Michelle

Thank you for bringing us around to the point of that digression. :)

V. Jara

Layton's right hand, Karl Bélanger, has said the NDP is planning to launch a French version of the radio ads and will go to TV if the donations roll in. Fight back!

Peter3

JasonJ2

I can accept that you are not acting as a Liberal troll here, but the "gang up on the newbie" stuff is a little hard to swallow.  You showed up with a chip on your shoulder and began your conversation here with the implication (well, it was more than an implication, but we're being conciliatory here) that those you disagree with are stupid.

So here's an offer: I'll stay off your case if you stay off mine. You want to talk? Cool. If you want to tell everybody here how stupid they are, expect some blowback.

It's 4:20. Chill.

Bookish Agrarian

I hate to be on topic (which is rare enough for me anyway)- but I like the ads.  I was willing to stomach quite a bit for the larger goal of removing Harper at a time when we need an activist government.  However the Liberals have just proven to me tha the friend of my enemy is my enemy.  And Harper is most definetly the enemy of progressive Canadians who want to see their neighbours keep their homes and the vulnerable be helped and our economy positioned to create good paying jobs in the economy of tomorrow.  By setting back such progress the Liberals should be the enemy of progressive Canadians.  Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.

 

Now for off-topic.  Does anyone think this will finally be the end of the 'reckless Ontario NDP government' crap as the sainted Conservatives and Liberals have now joined together to try and emulate the stimulus of the NDP bugets that paved the way for the recovery Harris took credit for?

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I hate to be on topic (which is rare enough for me anyway)- but I like the ads.  I was willing to stomach quite a bit for the larger goal of removing Harper at a time when we need an activist government.  However the Liberals have just proven to me tha the friend of my enemy is my enemy.  And Harper is most definetly the enemy of progressive Canadians who want to see their neighbours keep their homes and the vulnerable be helped and our economy positioned to create good paying jobs in the economy of tomorrow.  By setting back such progress the Liberals should be the enemy of progressive Canadians.  Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.

 

Now for off-topic.  Does anyone think this will finally be the end of the 'reckless Ontario NDP government' crap as the sainted Conservatives and Liberals have now joined together to try and emulate the stimulus of the NDP bugets that paved the way for the recovery Harris took credit for?

 

And as rare as it is that I agree with you, today I do. Great ad. But I do think a coalition was do-able and provided the Liberals with an opportunity to good not to miss. I mean, I'm sorry, but Ignasty blew this big time. And I'm quite pleased, actually. Because he really is a nasty piece of work and I think the NDP would have a hard time getting out of that bed without carrying something that stinks with them.

As for your question, no. The ConLibs can be forgiven no matter the scope and reprehensibility of the crime. The NDP must be perfect. You'd almost think the party was a woman in a man's world of politics.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Does anyone think this will finally be the end of the 'reckless Ontario NDP government' crap as the sainted Conservatives and Liberals have now joined together to try and emulate the stimulus of the NDP bugets that paved the way for the recovery Harris took credit for?

Interesting question indeed. One quibble though - Rae (or perhaps Floyd Laughren deserves the credit) didn't build structural deficit into the equation back in '91. The fiscally-responsible Ontario NDP raised progressive income tax rates on high income earners to pay for tax reductions for the 70,000 lowest income earners.

Bookish Agrarian

Frustrated Mess wrote:
 And as rare as it is that I agree with you, today I do. Great ad. But I do think a coalition was do-able and provided the Liberals with an opportunity to good not to miss. I mean, I'm sorry, but Ignasty blew this big time. And I'm quite pleased, actually. Because he really is a nasty piece of work and I think the NDP would have a hard time getting out of that bed without carrying something that stinks with them.

As for your question, no. The ConLibs can be forgiven no matter the scope and reprehensibility of the crime. The NDP must be perfect. You'd almost think the party was a woman in a man's world of politics.

 

True enough LTJ

 

 

Hey FM.  Hope life is treating you well.   I think you would find I agree with you more than you think.

I too came to think that a coalition- given the possibilites- was worth the risk and I think it will be seen in retrospect as a huge miscalculation on behalf of Ignatieff and the Liberals. 

When partisans like me were willing to set aside some strong beliefs in a spirit of compromise the Liberals missed an opportunity to re-create the aura around them that Pearson and Trudeau did.  Big, big mistake in the long term positioning of the Liberal party to my mind.

The partisan side of me says HA HA.  But the bigger side despairs for our Canada over the next while.  I know what it is like to be on unemployment in bad times, and those times were a lot more helpful in terms of benefits than today.  I also know what it feels like to be a kid when jobs disapear and money is very, very tight and it sucks.  To think that my fellow citizens have been tossed aside in favour of billions for banks with no strings attached makes me revolted that good Liberals got behind Ignateiff.  And that is just one issue in too many.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

I do agree with you on the sentiments expressed. But as Sean in Ottawa and Stockholm, perhaps, might tell you, the majority of Canadians supported their being tossed aside in favour of billions with no strings attached for, and let's remind ourselves, profitable banks.

I'm not one of those Canadians. But despite the evidence (despite that just months ago when the whole world watched the financial underpinnings of our global economy collapse Stephen Harper, a trained economist, said we wouldn't have a recession) most Canadians still tell polls they trust the Conjobs to best manage the economy.

It is because of things like that I'm so cynical. I mean, I don't want to be. But I'm forced ...

 

Bookish Agrarian

My wife says people give more thought to the colour of their underwear than they do to the effects of their political choices.  It is deeply cyncial for such a postive person, but I expect she is right.  Me- I'm too stupid to give in.

Pages