Ignatieff takes over as Liberal leader

115 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2008-12-11 11:09

josh

KenS wrote:

They aren't just 'short of funds' or hurting for money.

They could borrow really deeply to run one election, like they just did. But they simply cannot do that again in the really near term. Even if they would be willing to bet the fram by borrowing enough for another spending limit election, they won't get the credit.

If the NDP needed to go into another election right now they would also need to borrow most of the money. But they are a reasonable credit risk. The Liberals are borrowing money just to run normal operations- let alone an election. I'm sure there are high rollers who would still guarantee their loans- but then they would be REALLY behind the 8 ball with Elections Canada.

So they aren't going to be able to immediately reload and run a full spending limit campaign. Period. And this is people who are already in serious orginazational dissaray, who then have to decide which 50% of a campaign they can survive without.

If that's the case, then Iggy will hold out for the best deal he can get from Harper before folding his cards.

Thu, 2008-12-11 11:43

#103

Stockholm

Its like a poker game with a lot of "bluffing" and misleading signals.

I stand by my prediction. After a month of mixed signals and hemming and hawing - Harper will bring in a budget that will NOT be deemed "good for the economy" by Iggy and Iggy will grab the chance to be PM right away as aopposed to taking is chances on winning an election a couple of years down the road and to everyone's surprise the coalition will be reborn.

Of course i could be wrong.

Thu, 2008-12-11 11:48

#104

KenS

As a number of us have noted- Iggy doesn't have to go into an election. While it isn't certain the GG would recognize a Coalition government, that is considerably more likely than an election.

Some think Iggy would rather fold and let Harper govern anyway. Some of us have pointed out that also has its severe practical risks: more humiliation of continual caving to Harper, and for Iggy no certainty he'll ever have a 'better' [for him] crack at being PM.

On the other hand... there is no guarantee the Coalition will survive [or survive without concessions to partners Iggy refuses to make] until the Liberals are in reasonable financial position to fight an election. And with Harper able to hang the virtually guaranteed economic turmoil on the Liberals.

So I can also see him choosing to fold rather than become PM at the head of the Coalition. For one thing, conditions have changed somewhat. Harper is now universally seen as the bully. And Iggy is not Dion. Plus there were always creative House procedures the Liberals simply did not use under Dion.

So it would be reasonable for Iggy to figure that if Harper tries they same bully and humiliation tactics, he can make Harper wear it.

But at best, that only means Iggy would have a chance to win an election. Versus the certainty that he is PM if he goes with the Coalition. Yes that has lots of traps to a Liberal point of view. But there are ways to deal with those.... so going that way is no more inherently hazardous than the path of coming back from the wilderness to [maybe] win an election.

Thu, 2008-12-11 15:25

#105

V. Jara

No decisions have been made, in my estimation. I think the big "what if?" now is "what if Harper quits?" The media should be sticking to that like a cheap suit if they want to continue recycling their lazy melodrama of whether the coalition will survive or not. There are some indications though the latest flavour is an Ignatieff honeymoon destined to be punctuated by soap opera sighs and slights by his Conservative "suitors." What a waste of talent and brain power.

Meanwhile the word on the substance of the coalition (e.g. the policy) does not get out. I watched both Mulcair and Layton (the latter given short shrift on the National last night) trying to talk about the substance/policy accord of the coalition and being shut down by interviewers and commentators fixated on the "will the coalition survive or not?" mullarkey. Time to take the word to the base, can anyone say direct mail fundraiser? The Conservatives are so good at this. They take one 80 word clipping from Reader's Digest and raise $80,000.

Thu, 2008-12-11 17:03

#106

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

You don't think the NDP begs for money enough? Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of finding party pamphlets in my mailbox packaged with yet another entreaty as to why THIS VERY MINUTE is when the party needs my support MORE THAN EVER!!!

Thu, 2008-12-11 17:58

#107

Vansterdam Kid

I agree that they already beg for a lot of money in that way and it's annoying. In any case, I'm not sure that direct mail is the best way to go about fundraising. I consider most of that stuff junk mail, and frankly it's kind of an expensive and inefficient way to raise money. I mean for gods sake we're in the 21st century, can't they learn how to use the internet? Just look south of the border. Besides, they've barely outraised the Liberals so it's not as if same-old-same-old is the way to go. I guess that's OK if you want to be the 3rd-4th party but if they want to be official opposition, let alone government, they're going to need to at least be half as competitive as King Stephen's crew in the money department.

Thu, 2008-12-11 18:17

#108

Dana Larsen

The Liberal party is lacking in funds. A leadership contest would have generated badly-needed revenue in the form of new memberships.

The Liberals would not be able to afford an election any time soon.

If there is an election in 2009 the Liberals will not be able to keep up with the Conservatives in terms of fundraising.

So I predict that the Liberals will do what they can to delay any elections for as long as possible. They will be hoping that their new leader inspires their donors to kick down some cash for the party.

Thu, 2008-12-11 18:33

#109

Boom Boom

A second general election in less than a year, and I've read that the last one cost $300 million, would seriously piss off the country. I hope the G-G can read the signs of the times, and seriously consider giving the Coalition a chance if Harpoon's/Flaherty's upcoming budget doesn't pass the confidence vote.

Thu, 2008-12-11 18:45

#110

It's Me D

Boom Boom I share you hopes but I can't say I share the value you place on our elections (flawed though they may be). For the better part of the last decade we've spent billons of dollars each year to murder people on the other side of the planet, given that, spending $300 million a year to hold elections is hardly the spending we should be complaining about!

Thu, 2008-12-11 19:18

#111

Doug

He is lacking in a common touch, as most patricians are, and in a party that needs mending, this will be a problem. Some Liberal MPs find him coldly arrogant. They cite his performance at a caucus meeting last Friday where he warned, perhaps wisely, against being gung-ho on a coalition. "Michael got up and did a rant and it was a disaster," said one participant. "His finger was jabbing at us. He was saying, 'Don't you assume that if we bring down the government that the Governor-General will let us govern.' Well, we weren't assuming that anyway.

"So then he keeps going on and his damn finger keeps jabbing at us and he's well over his time limit. People are shouting, 'Time! Time! Order! Order! Sit down!' But he just kept going. And when he finally left the microphone, no one stood up for him. Not even his supporters clapped."

Oh dear! I wish Mr. Ignatieff a continuation of the same sort of success in future.

Thu, 2008-12-11 21:33

#112

Brian White

I do not understand why the liberal executive searched this guy out and installed him. So here he is fighting against the idea of coalition. Well, Iggie, have you asked her?

I mean, you guys appointed her. ASK THE Lady, If she says, "I am just as against the coalition as you, iggie" you have your answer and you can suck up to harper like you always wanted. and if she says," I am open to coalition government", you can lie, cos she never opens her mouth anyway.

Doug wrote:

He is lacking in a common touch, as most patricians are, and in a party that needs mending, this will be a problem. Some Liberal MPs find him coldly arrogant. They cite his performance at a caucus meeting last Friday where he warned, perhaps wisely, against being gung-ho on a coalition. "Michael got up and did a rant and it was a disaster," said one participant. "His finger was jabbing at us. He was saying, 'Don't you assume that if we bring down the government that the Governor-General will let us govern.' Well, we weren't assuming that anyway.

"So then he keeps going on and his damn finger keeps jabbing at us and he's well over his time limit. People are shouting, 'Time! Time! Order! Order! Sit down!' But he just kept going. And when he finally left the microphone, no one stood up for him. Not even his supporters clapped."

Oh dear! I wish Mr. Ignatieff a continuation of the same sort of success in future.

Fri, 2008-12-12 07:14

#113

thorin_bane

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

You don't think the NDP begs for money enough?

Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of finding party pamphlets in my mailbox packaged with yet another entreaty as to why THIS VERY MINUTE is when the party needs my support MORE THAN EVER!!!

LTJ they somehow called me at my parents house. I cut the guy off half way through and said "is this a money pitch" he stammered some more(BTW the guy they had calling was very bad, like I was his first call or something) and said "hmm yes kinda, no, yes" I replied with "I am layed off and when I get back on my feet I will donate." The guy got pissed at me saying "Come on you can give 15 or 20 dollars!" "Dude I am layed off" I hung up the phone absolutely pissed. For one I haven't lived at my mom and dads in 8 years. I am not, nore have I ever been a registered member of the NDP, I have never even donated money back when I lived at home. I am layed off and he still thinks I can spare some money. Single income and even though I am skilled trades we aren't union so my pay isn't as huge as one would think(No OT and workshare for 3 years). Very unprofessional, and the guy was very rude.

I may still let the NDP know they need to train their people better. Even for myself they never trained me when I went canvassing. I'm still not sure if I am doing it right. They are just usually thrilled to have volunteers. This make them look like chumps, it is as bad as the NDP dial a dollar phone bank they had. We have a huge communications issue.

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

Fri, 2008-12-12 07:34

#114

Michelle

A tip: I've discovered that the way to end the biweekly (or so) parade of dead trees in your mailbox from the NDP is to not renew your membership, and move three times after that. It takes about four years, though. ;)

Fri, 2008-12-12 07:39

#115

Michelle

P.S. Long thread. :)

Pages

Topic locked