Wednesday, June 17, 2009

No Election? Who Won?

Actually I think both PM Harper and Liberals won, but Iggy lost. He lost his credibility, he is now Dion redone. The Liberals won because they have now distanced themselves from the lefty coalition.

The NDP and Bloc lost big time because they have no horse in the race. They have been cut out of the game, that is why they are so mad at Iggy. They have become irrelevant, through their own fault. They thought voting down everything the Conservatives proposed would strengthen their base, but they just looked like amateurs today, whining because they were not part of the "blue ribbon committee". Why should they be? They were playing games with Canadians, voting down bills before they even read them. How can anyone take them seriously? They are now the true fringe vote. Will Quebec get it?

Here is a supposed expert opinion:

Doug McArthur: I was just going to say I think this is a sign of a kind of fundamental weakness in our political party system, this inability to have a conversation with people about the real issues in an intelligent way. And I think Quebec is a little bit more mature, as you said. They handle it better. They point to the future and talk about the future and how you’re going to have to balance things, and so on. But the rest of the country, political parties just don’t seem to be able to engage in this discussion, and that’s unfortunate. I think they need to look at themselves about that.

John Manley: Doug, let me just remind you that Quebec has the highest per capita debt in the country and it’s unsustainable and they just had a report indicating that the aging of their population is going to put even more pressure on their fiscal arrangements. So I don’t want to praise Quebec too much here.


Too bad Manley refused to run for the Liberal leadership, he could have won after PM Harper retires.

Quebec isn't more mature, they are socialists who think the government should support them. Period. Socialism isn't working so great in the European Union. The only reason Quebec gets away with their socialism is that the rest of Canada supports them with 8 BILLION dollars a year. They are a have not province but they think they can survive on their own. Why are they content to vote for a separatist party that can never gain power? That shows their lack of maturity, they are happy to play fourth fiddle in the federal game. I say, bye, and good riddance!

This was a good week for the Conservatives, they showed their ability to work with the Liberals, and they marginalized the socialist NDP and Communist Bloc. The Conservatives and Liberals have won, while the hardcore lefties lost. Iggies problem is that he now has to make nice to the lefty Liberals in his own party, and there are a lot of them.

Watch PM Harper today, putting the NDP in their place, it is too funny! Even the Speaker was having trouble trying not to laugh!

No election, who won?? Canadians!!!

27 comments:

dupmar said...

I'm not sure who you are arguing against, the Bloc, the Quebec government, the PQ opposition or Quebec Solidaire. Per your description it would appear Quebec Solidaire has seized power in Quebec, nationalized the banks, resource industries, manufacturing industries and unilaterally seceded from Canada. Try to keep a bit of perspective here, there is the same mix of private and public industries in Quebec as elsewhere, that hardly qualifies as socialism.
The Montreal stock exchange is certainly unaware it is living under the rule of socialism.

Before you want to throw in the towel and wave goodbye to Quebec, you might actually wait until the PQ wins power in Quebec city, then wins a referendum on sovereignty. Unless such concerns as 3.5 to 4.5 million Canadian citizens, more than all the Altantic provinces combined, who have no desire to relocate, to relinquish their citizenship nor to be subjected to another state's authority, is something relatively trivial.

Sort of like Voltaire's reported comment, " quelques arpents de neige" when France ceded its North American territories and their inhabitants to Britain in the Treaty of Paris 1763.

Alberta Girl said...

"Before you want to throw in the towel and wave goodbye to Quebec, you might actually wait until the PQ wins power in Quebec city, then wins a referendum on sovereignty"

We've been dealing with this for 20 years now.....just when is this happening?

Bec said...

The post is very clear re Quebec.

It simply asks the question,
'As a separate country Quebec, how will you remain living in a lifestyle in which you have become accustomed'?

mystereeoso said...

cupple acres of snow....

mystereeoso said...

I guess you guys never consider Quebecers paid any taxes pertaining to the development of oil in Alberta, since oh, never you say...?

mystereeoso said...

Re "As a separate country... how will you remain living in a lifestyle in which you have become accustomed"


Huntsy asked the same question of the 'Mericans yesterday.

Sean Calder said...

To be honest, I believe the NDP painted themselves into obscurity when they failed so spectacularly in the Coalition fiasco and declared that there is no way they could support this Government under any circumstances.

I have to say that it was then that the crickets way out in the HoC Hinterlands welcomed Jack Layton and his ilk.

wilson said...

It was a Dion-athon AND a ignatieff.me fest rolled into an action packed 3 days!!

Ekos has a poll up showing the Libs slipped to 29 and Cons rose to 35 (Dippers up to 20) the day before the Big Deal was announced.
check out the 2nd graph, not the headline:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/17/ekos-poll-political-preference061709.html

wilson said...

How can the Bloc claim that they are the only party that get results for Quebec now?
They are not even part of the solution!
Relegated to the fringes.

Funny thing about this 6 person committee, a parliamentary committee would have had Dipper/Bloc MPs on it with Cons at a disadvantage,
not this one.

Gayle said...

"Ekos has a poll up showing the Libs slipped to 29 and Cons rose to 35 (Dippers up to 20) the day before the Big Deal was announced."

And once Harper caved, Ignatieff was proven to be the stronger of the two men and the LPC rose back up in the polls.

OR:

the reason they poll over several days is because the results in one day are not accurate.

Take your pick.

East of Eden said...

Gayle - you have said time and again that I don't have the ability to recognize your subtle sense of humour. Well, Gayle, I finally twigged to your style of humour. Your comment had me laughing and laughing. Ignatieff as the stronger of the two. Oh Gayle, you are too, too funny.

I finally twigged to your humour. You're really quite funny, now that I can recognize when you're joking.

Classic, Gayle, just classic. Oh man, I hope I can stop laughing soon.

East of Eden said...

PS - anybody who is sufficiently delusional to think that Harper caved should go over to BLY and read the columns which Joanne posted. Only somebody in the throes of extreme delusion could even remotely think that Harper caved.

Of course, Gayle was joking.

Alberta Girl said...

"And once Harper caved, Ignatieff was proven to be the stronger of the two men and the LPC rose back up in the polls."

Oh Gayle, sweetheart, you are delusional.

As Greg Weston said, Iggy managed to beat the PM into announcing a "panel" to study what the CPC already announced AND managed to get the PM to ignore his other three "pressing" questions.

I am really beginning to feel sorry for you. Your NDP are now marginalized as a fringe party and Iggy has been shown to be a dud.

Iggy is taking your adopted party the wrong way, Gayle. Everyone sees him for what he is - Mr. Dithers III

Gayle said...

Yes AG - and Robert Fife said that Ignatieff won, so I can pick and choose my media reports too!

Think about this for just one second. If Harper actually brought Ignatieff to his knees, why did he do so in a fashion that left room for people to claim Ignatieff came out on top? Seems to me that if Harper wanted to demonstrate his great supremacy, he would have stood firm. Instead, he demonstrated that he is afraid of an election.

In other words, neither man "won", neither "lost", and Canadians got to avoid an election.

In any event, I noticed you ignored the second part of my post directed to wilson's comment. you know, context and stuff...

Skinny Dipper said...

Didn't you hear? Ahmadinejad won the election.

I do think Ignatieff lost points for threatening an election for the summertime. In the long run, it won't affect the Liberal Party's popular support. Iggy does need a better reason to vote non-confidence in the Conservative government than EI reforms. EI is a niche issue that affects less than ten percent of Canadians.

There is no reason for the NDP to support any of Harper's policies. It doesn't help the NDP if that party does support Harper on an issue by issue basis. Layton is going to face a challenge in getting media exposure as the next election will be the "Clash of the Titans": Harper and Ignatieff--or Kang and Kodos. He will need to differentiate himself from the other two and hope that some voters will connect with his ideas.

Iranians have one Ahmadinejad; Canadians have two.

Alberta Girl said...

"If Harper actually brought Ignatieff to his knees, why did he do so in a fashion that left room for people to claim Ignatieff came out on top"

You are kidding, right Gayle - think back to December. There were many media "claiming" that Stephen Harper "lost" the election.

Of course the usual suspects are saying Iggy won - but what did he win Gayle.

Read Greg Weston

"By the time the smoke had cleared yesterday morning, the former Harvard brainiac had beaten the PM into virtually ignoring three of the four Liberal demands.

On the fourth issue of EI, Iggy skilfully managed to extract a commitment from Harper to do what the PM had already announced the government would do in the fall.

Gone was any further discussion of opening full EI benefits to anyone working the equivalent of nine weeks — say, students with summer jobs collecting pogey the rest of the year.

Instead, Ignatieff and the PM agreed to pursue changes to EI that would allow self-employed workers to contribute to the plan and, if needed, eventually collect benefits.

This was hardly a Liberal idea — the proposal was first made by Harper during the last federal election.

More recently, the PM has repeatedly said the government would indeed introduce legislation for self-employed EI, as promised, this fall…"

So I guess he "won" if he gets to claim things that everyone knows Stephen Harper was suggesting anyways.

I guess the definition of "won" depends on how badly you need to back out of an ultimatum, huh Gayle.

Gayle said...

Yes AG, and as I already said, according to the lead story on CTV national news last night, Ignatieff won.

Or did you miss that part where I said I could pick and choose my media too.

But hey, you keep on with your selective reading,and totally ignore the fact that the old Stephen Harper would never allow a situation where there would not be complete capitulation.

Alberta Girl said...

"But hey, you keep on with your selective reading,and totally ignore the fact that the old Stephen Harper would never allow a situation where there would not be complete capitulation."

Are you sure that it wasn't actually the "old" Stephen Harper, Gayle.

Check out this article

"http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/06/18/john-ivison-a-sheep-in-wolf-s-clothing.aspx"

I draw your attention to this paragraph

"By some accounts, Mr. Ignatieff was so delirious at having wrung a minor concession from Mr. Harper -- the bi-partisan panel to look at changes to the Employment Insurance system the Prime Minister intended to make anyway -- that he completely forgot about the four demands that triggered the showdown in the first place."

I guess sometimes the appearance of winning at first glance can turn into a loss when one looks at the big picture.

Please tell me exactly what Stephen Harper "capitulated" on?

Gayle said...

Oh dear, this again?

Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that not everyone is saying Harper won, and because of that, well, maybe he didn't?

That fact alone means he is not the same guy he used to be.

But anyway:

"The compromise sets the table for a fall writ, and leaves the trigger in Mr. Ignatieff’s hand, a curious decision by the so-called Super Genius to hand his principle opponent the trigger to the next election. If Mr. Igntatieff chooses, he will be able to drop the writ at a moment of weakness for the Conservatives: too early for an economic update or budget to control the agenda, too early for any recovery to impact Canadian psychology, but far off enough to give the Liberals enough time to organize their campaign."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-politicians-acted-like-adults-which-means-everyone-wins/article1186129/

Now, I am not going to play "my media support is better than your media support" for that is not my point.

You can close your eyes, plug your ears and go "na na na" all you want, it will not change the fact that there is no universal consensus that Harper walked out of this one on top. And to me that is more than enough evidence that he negotiated because he knew he had to.

Alberta Girl said...

"You can close your eyes, plug your ears and go "na na na" all you want, it will not change the fact that there is no universal consensus that Harper walked out of this one on top."

So why did you say this.

"And once Harper caved, Ignatieff was proven to be the stronger of the two men and the LPC rose back up in the polls."

God Gayle - you can't even be consistent in one post....no wonder you like Iggy - Birds of a Feather and all that.

Gayle said...

Ever hear of context AG?

I was mocking wilson for suggesting that a one day drop in poll numbers meant something.

See, I suggested that if the numbers went down one day, and then up the next, it might actually prove the opposite of what she was trying to say.

I gave her an alternative explanation for why the numbers dropped in one day, and then gave her a choice between the two scenarios.

Sheesh.

maryT said...

AG, I have a request, I can't remember where I found that 308 blog, where is it. Today I printed out the results of 2008, and really need to compare it to his figures. Thanks.

maryT said...

Dan Cook, today on Adler, said, Iggy went in with 4 demands and come out with 1/2 of one re EI.
He even doubts there will be an election in the fall. Next timetable, the budget so Layton/Duceppe will not appear to be supporting Iggy.

maryT said...

Most, if not all, of the oil in AB was developed with american money and risk. When Alberta went to Bay Street we were laughed at, mainly because of our Social Credit government.
Anyone catch Ralph Klein today talking about O, he said in Alberta he is called Pierre Obama.
And he is against bailouts, he says a person has the right to go broke, or make a profit without govt aid.

maryT said...

AG, I found it, at Paulstuff. You know how something you haven't used for 10 yrs and throw it away, only to need it the next day. Same with asking for a blogsite.

maryT said...

Just did a quick comparison of actual results of 2008 and 308s projections and the numbers don't add up. He has us losing 6 seats in Quebec, and Bloc/NDP keeping theirs and the liberals gaining 7.
Most of the lib gains are from the NDP in other provinces. Except Ont, but I doubt we will lose that many there.
Missed AT ISSUE due to clients, but did hear Rex say election in fall, Andrew says after Budget in 2010. Chantel agrees but will not book holidays for the fall. And she said that it will depend on the bloc/ndp and how the polls react. Coyne said Iggy was the most underrated politician of the last session. Peter said UNDERRATED, YES was the reply. He went from nowhere to leader without a fight or vote.

Bec said...

Mary T @ 7:18pm

Do you think Mystereeoso thought Alberta OWES Quebec for something?

Hmmm, but good response Mary T because Quebec + taxes to Alberta, did not happen re the Oil industry.
I am starting to think that there is definately something SPUN of that nature that they have been taught to believe in Quebec. Sad really. I wish it weren't so.