Comments on: Michael Ignatieff is a control freak!

By: Omanator

Omanator — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:35:53 +0000

You may like the Prof. Iggy. Some people liked the Empress Katharina of Russia too. I cannot help see
in the Prof. only the Russian Aristrocrat. We are treated like the dumb peasants and are supposed to scrape and bow. After eo years his comes back to ” save the country” This man's condescention gets on my nerve.
His contempt for Canada for 30 years is the most telling story.

By: ken

ken — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:10:58 +0000

Iggy is not likable. He just isn't. He is not nice, he is not fair and Iggy is not loyal to anyone or any country.

You wish.

He's the MP in our riding, and I've had the chance to meet him a couple times at some charity functions. I've also read some of his writing.

If you're really students of Sun Tzu, then open your eyes. Ignatieff is formidable. He also happens to be a personable guy. This is very early days; sit back and watch him for a few months.

Also, what's with this "Iggy"? is this Grade 2? I haven't seen anyone refer to the Prime Minister as "Harpy" or "Harpo".

By: batb

batb — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:26:05 +0000

Gabby in QC: Thanks for that. I'm not familiar with Sun Tzu, but his words are wise ones. Isn't one of the first rules of combat, that you have to study, understand, and know what your enemy is about? Surely, that's the only way to successfully plot your strategies.

Unfortunately, it seems that most Canadians want only peace (of mind) where there is no peace, and that's why life's become such a mess.

By: Omanator

Omanator — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:16:16 +0000

Well, Gabby you are wrong in my chase I was very very busy on the hastings instead.
I want to throw something at all the bloggers. Its an Idea which originated in the history of my life, post war Germany. You Economist better read up on the German Wirtschafts wunder. Remember. They devalued the Reichsmark ten to one and printed new money. Within 6 month the economy was booming Investor pured in, rebuilding like you have never seen and the economy kept booming for another 20 years. I am asking myself if such a measure would save the USA. As it is right now their debts are so enormous that the next 6 unborn generations will be in debt. I remember when I came to Canada – I belief it was Diefenbacker who froze our $ at 75 cents and it stayed that way for several years. If the US devalued their money, they would be able to manufacture cheaper and be more competitive on the world market. Of course a lot of people would loose their saving at 10 to one as well.
But how many are hurting now? I am not so convinced that the stimulus package will work. What do you think?

By: Omanator

Omanator — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:43:44 +0000

You seem to fall into the same trap as all the people who thinks Harper should
have acted differently. As a Canadian, I could see no other alternative. Besides
If we had ended up with a Coalition we would have been much worse off. None of the other jokers would have been better for Canada, in fact I believe infinitely worse. Besides things started to happen very fast. I still don't believe that Canada needed such a huge stimulus. We were pushed and panicked into this.

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:54:09 +0000

It is funny how, the Dippers and the Bloc not but two short years ago constantly bashed the Republican goverrnment of George Bush, and rediculed the CPC and Prime Minister Harper at every turn. Now under Obama we have to bend over backwards to accomodate him; yet, the Democrats when in power have always been more protectionist than the Republicans. When Canada had a Conservative government the relationship between the US and Canada was always at its peak.

Under the Trudeau, Chretien and Martin eras all that we heard from them was insults. Remember Carolyn Parish stomping on a Bush doll, and Chretiens assistant calling Bush a moron.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:39:32 +0000

I agree with your sentiments on history; disagree with your take on Ignatieff.

By: Omanator

Omanator — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:31:28 +0000

Watched Prof. Ig at the "Power Play " How amazing. When PMSH anounced that he would cut Equalisation PAYMENTS to the Provinces across the board, because they were growing at an alarming rate,the Prof did not have a word to say.
Now that Williams is throwing himself on the floor and drumming his heels, Iggy's spinn is, its only New Foundland and Lab. and is threatening to bring the house down. He is the best spinn doctor I have ever seen. I almost wish he would bring the house down and we could have an election.

If Tom Clark keeps his word, some of the screamers we saw under Richards will not be allowed on the program.
We will wait and see. As far as Oliver is concerned someone should tell him to retire. He is a very good spinner
too. Obviously he likes the Liberals now. For any one to suggest, that Harper did not try to reform the Senate is
insane. What was the PM to do ,wait until the Liberals had the chance and stacked the Senate some more. There was also the possibility that we would have new Senators that were members of the Block, whose aim is the destruction of Canada. Of Course Mr. Oliver would not talk about that.
destruction of Canada.

By: dbo789

dbo789 — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:17:48 +0000

To start with, I do applaud your ability to realize that Harper is not the cause of all the world's problems. It is a rather unique quality to find in a leftist Canadian. However, that is the only part of your post I can agree with.

There was no bail out in November because it would have been premature. While Canada is now feeling the effects of the recession more, at the time we were better off (and still are) then our American friends. Not to mention, had Harper launched a bailout program at that point, it would have been without the input from the provinces, without substantial input from Canadian business and community leaders, and without knowing exactly how bad it was going to get. Simply throwing random amounts of money at a problem is completely ineffective if you don't know where to aim.

Secondly, I am not getting into another 'confidence of the house' argument, but I have to comment on the prorogation. Shutting Parliament down was needed because it was non functional. Period. There was no way that anything was going to be passed by Duceppe, Layton and their puppet Dion, even if the mini-budget had outflanked the NDP to the left. (If that's possible.) There weren't acting on what they felt was right for Canadians, they were conspiring solely in a power grab. Even if they Conservatives had been ousted and the coalition took over, it would have taken them just as long as it has to put together a bailout plan. Just recently there was a comment by good ole' Taliban Jack about how he would vote against the Conservative budget without even seeing it. If he has that attitude now, imagine what he was like when there was a chance he would get a cabinet seat. (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Liberals+fear...)

Lastly, judging the Conservatives' performance in the recession right now is like trying to write a book review after you've read only the first chapter. Everyone likes to think they know what is going to happen and how it is going to work, but the honest truth is that no one can read the future. Making judgements now, before the budget is even PASSED, is not just pointless, it is immature and partisan. At least wait until the clouds clear, so you have some numbers to back up your arguments.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:23:29 +0000

I personally do not believe this is Harper's fault, or that it can be controlled in Canada. But the questions I must always ask are these:

1. Have the actions of the Harper government affected us at all?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, how?
4. And at the end, is life in Canada better or worse for their decisions?
5. Or, could someone else have done better?

And when I look at things like the GST cut which did virtually nothing to stimulate the economy, but which cost the government $13 billion - the same amount as the pre-stimulus deficit in fact - and all this after blowing a rather large buffer, I see a government that spent unwisely when times were half-decent, and therefore had no money to respond with better stimulus sooner when things really went south.

I also see a government that introduced no stimulus when every other major country when every other major country is doing so (the November F.U.) and a P.M. that shut Parliament down for a holiday to save his own skin.

Now you may or may not agree with the idea of stimulus, but as you say "There are as many views in economics as there are in politics - perhaps more. "

But (a) when the majority of nations are led by politicians who, (b) relying on the majority of credible economists, said (c) stimulus was needed many, many months ago...and (d) Canada's Conservatives decided not to deliver...

...I see a government that certainly hasn't (a) made life any better, (b) may have in fact made it worse, (c) definitely responded later than everyone else, and (d) abandoned it's principles in the process - to a much larger tune than it might have had to, had it responded more wisely sooner.

Not a good track record for an "economist" Prime Minister.

What do you see?