Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

That Nice Mr Ignatieff To Lead Canadian Liberals

Second shot at this one.

You don't think that the last name of the liberals wouldn't fall right into the hands of someone calls the oppositions plan to rail him in as the "separatist coalition"?

The coalition was a Rae/Layton construct with Duceppe jumping aboard on contrarian grounds. Iggy was always lukewarm about it. That's his out. I'd be amazed if the Conservatives don't come back with a budget even he can accept-- and he'll surely whip the Liberal caucus into voting for it. As our southern neighbours take a few tentative steps to the left, our left-of-center parties (mine included) seem to be lurching ever further right. :rolleyes:

Do you really think that his last name wouldn't be giving them extra fuel???

On ethnic grounds? They wouldn't dare.

His familial pedigree, like his academic credentials, is unassailable.

It would really be nice if you could let me know that I'm wrong....I'd truly like to believe that someone's last name is off no importance.

Oh, come on... if that were the case, Justin Trudeau would still be teaching highscholl drama classes. :)

Besides, I have no idea why he decided to concede. My comment was based on many prejudices.

By concede you mean Rae? I suspect wiser heads in the party took him aside and reminded him of what a fuckup he was when he led Ontario (as a social democrat :eek:) during the last recession, and the baggage the he still carries with him in the eyes of the federal electorate from that time. Making Bob Rae the Liberal leader, in these times, would be tantamount to handing Harper a majority.
 
If I summarise what people are saying, Iggy is a politician who is prepared to admit that ideas he formerly held were wrong and change them, but he's a patrician from an elite family, and it was a good move for Rae to concede the leadership to him because he'd be prepared to lead a minority government rather than be in a coalition with separatists.

I might vote for someone called Iggy. but I wonder if he'd win a contested election, even against the Tories.
 
If I summarise what people are saying, Iggy is a politician who is prepared to admit that ideas he formerly held were wrong and change them, but he's a patrician from an elite family, and it was a good move for Rae to concede the leadership to him because he'd be prepared to lead a minority government rather than be in a coalition with separatists.

That's a bit oversimplified, but nothing in it is actually wrong.

I might vote for someone called Iggy. but I wonder if he'd win a contested election, even against the Tories.

Everyone's wondering about that. I think he's wondering it too, hence my comments about what he's likely to do in the event of a Conservative budget being brought to Parliament that's not taken directly from the neo-con hymnbook.
 
By concede you mean Rae? I suspect wiser heads in the party took him aside and reminded him of what a fuckup he was when he led Ontario (as a social democrat :eek:) during the last recession, and the baggage the he still carries with him in the eyes of the federal electorate from that time. Making Bob Rae the Liberal leader, in these times, would be tantamount to handing Harper a majority.

I don't agree. Whatever baggage Rae has in Ontario doesn't translate outside of that province.
 
If I summarise what people are saying, Iggy is a politician who is prepared to admit that ideas he formerly held were wrong and change them, but he's a patrician from an elite family, and it was a good move for Rae to concede the leadership to him because he'd be prepared to lead a minority government rather than be in a coalition with separatists.
.

The only part that's wrong, is that he will lead the liberal party, which is in opposition at the moment, and will not be forming a minority govt. It's the conservatives who have the minority govt.
 
The only part that's wrong, is that he will lead the liberal party, which is in opposition at the moment, and will not be forming a minority govt. It's the conservatives who have the minority govt.

But presumably the Liberals could win a vote of no confidence in the Tory government in the House of Commons, and could ask the Governor General to let them have a go. That's how it would work here in the UK.
 
But presumably the Liberals could win a vote of no confidence in the Tory government in the House of Commons, and could ask the Governor General to let them have a go. That's how it would work here in the UK.

The libs wouldn't win a confidence vote: the tories would lose a confidence vote. Not likely that the libs alone would get GG assent to govern. They'd need the coalition. The coalition would actually be a majority govt.
 
Forget the coalition. That's sooo last week. :)

There's no way Iggy would force a no-confidence vote on January 26 unless the Conservative budget was loaded with goodies for the middle class and the wealthy with nothing for the little guy. Even then he'd be on shaky ground. Don't expect an election call before he's well and truly ratrified at the convention in May.
 
I don't agree. Whatever baggage Rae has in Ontario doesn't translate outside of that province.

Liberal MPs and Senators as well as 800 Liberal back-roomers and heavyweights from across the nation seem to think otherwise. :D

Don't get me wrong-- I like Bob. But I don't think even he thinks he's electable at this point.
 
Liberal MPs and Senators as well as 800 Liberal back-roomers and heavyweights from across the nation seem to think otherwise. :D

Don't get me wrong-- I like Bob. But I don't think even he thinks he's electable at this point.

Like I said, those same senators and heavyweights selected Stephane Dion.

I was talking about the real, actual Canadian electorate outside Toron...I mean, Ontario.
 
Youngster? I'll be 59 in less than a month ffs. Not much goes over my head; I'm 6'3". :)

I remember the decade you're talking about vividly. The people who 'voted for' Trudeau were the people in his riding, no? :p
 
But there's no guarantee that a new liberal leader would support the coalition. Ignatieff says 'maybe'.

Look: I voted for Trudeau, and I'm from the West.:)

We hold the same views and outlooks. This point is beyond dispute. The only difference is that I'm East and you are West.

I was just curious what the views from out there was.

As for the "maybe", I'll take a maybe over an outright refusal to listen.
 
Ignatieff's 'Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry' gives a nice window onto the way he'd approach this job. Superficially coming across all reasonable and very supportive of human rights, overall it shows him eager to clip the wings of human rights and keep the rights discourse firmly under western control. Doesn't surprise me to hear him apparently cheering on Bush like in that clip (although a minute of snipped segments from a whole presentation can't prove much).
 
Enough of this. I am intrigued by the predictions of impending doom for Canada's Liberals. Were they to exit the scene, would that give the dear old NDP a chance at last?
 
Enough of this. I am intrigued by the predictions of impending doom for Canada's Liberals. Were they to exit the scene, would that give the dear old NDP a chance at last?

No, a new center-left party would form, just as a new party was formed and called 'The Conservatives', after the traditional party was decimated in the wake of the Mulroney Era.
 
Given your views, I can see that happening. Though I suspect you and others who share the Eustonite position can't see or understand the obvious contradictions of your position.
 
I really just said it because I think that the commitment that Canada is giving to the NATO effort in Afghanistan is outstanding, and I hope that whoever is in charge in future will continue with it.
 
I really just said it because I think that the commitment that Canada is giving to the NATO effort in Afghanistan is outstanding, and I hope that whoever is in charge in future will continue with it.
You don't think invading Afghanistan was a huge mistake, then? You think it is a 'winnable' war?
 
You don't think invading Afghanistan was a huge mistake, then? You think it is a 'winnable' war?

No, I don't think it was a big mistake. As to whether it's a "winnable war" - no it's not in the sense of "defeating" the mediaeval islamists trying to recover control of the country, but that isn't the point of NATO's invovement there and it's not what NATO is trying to do.

I hope Canada continues its commitment to the NATO effort whoever ends up in charge there.
 
Back
Top Bottom