New Liberal leader Ignatieff prepared to lead coalition government

The Liberal Party executive have appointed Micheal Ignatieff as the interim leader of the Liberal Party until he is acclaimed at a formal leadership convention in May 2009.

Ignatieff took direct aim at Stephen Harper in his first press conference as Liberal leader, saying he is prepared to defeat the Conservatives and lead a coalition government.

I am prepared to vote non-confidence in this government.  And I am prepared to enter into a coalition government with our partners.

– Micheal Ignatieff

Related videos:

43 thoughts on “New Liberal leader Ignatieff prepared to lead coalition government

  1. What I don’t like about Ignatieff is that he was not elected as leader. The liberals forgot that the grass roots want a say about who the new leader should be. Because of that, I will not vote liberal until a new leader is elected.

  2. You are loosing me.
    Stop playing politicts with the budget.
    You are trying to hide behind the useless Senate or will they not lisen to you?
    This is not the time for more self interest.
    Pull together to help Canadians. For that you will be rewarded. Not more of the same.
    William Swan, Kingston

  3. You can call me a liar, stupid, ignorant, empty-headed, and ill-informed all you want, but that doesn’t make your ‘arguments’ any stronger, quite the contrary.

    Despite your disrespectful attacks, I hope you will notice that through this ‘debate’ I have not called you any names or otherwise insulted you. But after reading your latest comments about Christians, conservatives an others, I can only conclude you are a hate-filled bigot. Go fuck yourself.

  4. I’m not partisan — I just want to get that ugly SOB out of 24 Sussex. I don’t care who takes his place, as long as they don’t have an Evangelical, Fundamentalist, religious agenda. Unfortunately for the PCs, their merging with the redneck Alliance/Reform party has filled the ranks with Fundies who want the government changed to protect and promote their religion. Canadians won’t stand for it.

  5. Empty-headed pomposity isn’t going to get you anywhere. It’s patently clear that you’re not well-informed, that you haven’t been following Ignatieff “for years”. All you’re “following” is the PCs party line, which ends in the Alliance Church these days. You can scream “ad hominem” all you want – that only proves that you spend too much time on the internet. Probably in a basement. It’s not going to work. Harper can muzzle his cabinet, and the press, but you can’t muzzle the ‘net.

  6. You’re right, I DON’T know what Harper is thinking, nor Ignatieff. What makes you think you do?

    You say I’m biased, but all I’ve done is present the facts. Are the facts biased? What facts do you disagree with anyway?

    Anyway, I’m not a partisan. You sound more like one that I do. If you think calling Harper names and ascribing motivations helps your case then just keep it up. But rational people see that for what it is – nonesense.

  7. What I do not like about Harper is that he is an Evangelical Christian, belonging to the Alliance Church, goes to a huge church west of Calgary that you can only get to by using an SUV.They believe Jesus will return in an apocalypse, that homosexuality is the basest of “sins”, women don’t figure in government, and they are dead set against abortion, PLUS, they believe that those who are not in Alliance are “The Lost”. They are sneaky about their tactics to convert, and it shows in him.

  8. Never mind evading things by whining about “personal attacks”.I said that you were only telling part of the story, and I might add that you’re telling a biased version of the story. You have no idea whether Harper thinks the way Ig does, and you’re obviously a slave to one point of view. Harper is going down – and it’s because he lacks character, he’s dishonest, and he is intent ONLY on getting a majority – not on the welfare of the country.
    Harper draws people who are as dishonest as he is

  9. Take your personal attacks somewhere else. You’ve called me a liar for stating the facts, now you say I am stupid and ignorant and you imply I’m a religious zealot.

    I’ve been following both Harper and Ingnatieff for years, and I base my opinions about their politics and leadership on facts, reason and my own convictions. I neither adore Harper nor hate Ignatieff, and whether I belong to a church (I don’t) is irrelevant. Shame on you for mentioning it. How about a respectful, rational debate?

  10. Nice double standard, but I’d be interested in an opinion that isn’t based on ascribing motivations and making ad hominem attacks.

    I’ve been following both Harper and Ingantieff for years, and the truth is Harper’s words and actions have far more integrity than Ignatieff’s. That may change now that Iggy is leader, but until now he has been talking out of both sides of his mouth, and too quick to take the low road. Ignatieff agrees with Harper on most issues but he sometimes claims otherwise.

  11. You really display a lot of ignorance, and I’d say you might want to look a little closer at Ignatieff, but you obviously don’t have the smarts to get beyond your obvious adoration of Harper. Do you belong to the same church as his, by any chance?

  12. Harper thinks like a politician, and a dishonest politician at that. They are very different people – there’s no way that Ig has any similarities to Harper. Harper is a parasite – any change in position he made was due to his typical scurrying around in the dark, watching what others are thinking – he’s probably kept track of Ig for years. Iggy’s position was an honest one, Harper’s position was self-serving– calculated to further his ambitions to a majority government. He’s a dishonest creep.

  13. You just called me a liar and then repeated my point. Ignatieff was an vocal Iraq war supporter, as justified using the humanitarian R2P doctrine he helped develop. Then he backed-away from his position in a NY Times op ed (Getting Iraq Wrong, Aug 5, 2007), saying he was right to take that position as an academic, but not as a politician. He didn’t say it was a mistake, but almost. Harper DID say it was a mistake during the 2006 election. Its a fact they have very similar positions on this.

  14. Ignatieff scares the shit out of Harper, as it should be. He is an excellent debater, and he does not mince words, does not use typical politicians’ phrases. “When will these little grease spots begin to tell the truth?”, is a prime example of his gift for making a point. And he has pointed out very clearly that “this is about HIS (Harpers) characrter. . ” or lack of it.
    You’re awfully naive and narrowminded, liberty.

  15. WRONG. Tell the truth – he was for the war, because he wanted to get rid of Saddam, due to the fact that as a human rights expert, and one who has actually travelled to those dangerous places — he was very concerned about the welfare of the Kurds. He felt at the time that the war would get rid of Hussein and rescue the Kurds. LATER, he withdrew his support for the war, and said it was a mistake.
    Don’t make remarks that are only partially true.

  16. Parliment has voted on granting asylum to individuals that refuse to wage war, the HArper government ignored this vote going against the will of the majority of canadians and expelled a US serviceman anyway

    We need a coalition government that will have the confidence of parliment and respect the votes of the representatives elected by Canadians.

  17. There are some funny comments here!!
    I love the one to remove the Governor General!!
    Ha! Ha! Ha!
    There is a good NDP movement!!
    Ha! Ha! Ha!
    The same kind of Movement PET did with our charter!!
    Lucky we still have her, or there would be NDP LIB BLOC Tanks on Parliment Hill as was mentioned by High ranking NDP Party Members
    Lucky Mr C was there with a new pen!!

  18. Ignatieff is of a completely different caliper than Dion. They can’t be compared at all.
    Harper isn’t exactly eager to work with the COUNTRY – think about THAT!

  19. You fool. Harper is an Alberta separatist and a former Reform party leader. When he took control of the Conservative party, they moved to the right. Everyone close to the party knows this, including Brian Mulroney.
    Our Canadian political system has never been farther to the right on the political spectrum as it is now.
    When Dion took control of the Liberals he moved them to the left, with his bullshit policies. Ignatieff will take them back to a centrist party where they belong.

  20. Yeah right, go ahead and detail these non-existant similarities. I assume you’re another ignorant high schooler who doesnt even know that Canada’s conservatives are more left wing and more liberal than the US democrats.

  21. you don’t know anything about our parliamentary democracy. The ones who were out of lign with the intended use of our house were the coalition you partisan fool

  22. First thing I would love to see him do is abolish the position of Governor General. Our Prime Minister needs to be responsible to the people of Canada. No more running to the Queen of England’s representative.

    Mulrooney ran to the Queen of England to pass the GST. Harper did it to shut down our Parliament. ‘King Charles I’ did the same thing as Harper in 1641 and was beheaded for doing so.

    Canadian Parliament for and by Canadians. Harper insulted us by what he did.

  23. I’ll accept that. Just don’t ask me to ever accept Harper’s politics. His “my way or the highway” stance with his ministers, goes against our Canadian political system. He also has shown where his priorities are in dealing with the Alberta tar sands. I laughed when he accused the Liberals and the NDP of making a deal with the “separatists”. This coming from the guy who once wrote a paper on why Alberta should separate.

    Have a merry Christmas Liberty, it was stimulating reading your opinions.

  24. You’re applying a double standard.

    Ignatieff wasn’t a member of Parliament, but he WAS a vocal advocate of the Iraq war at Harvard. That matters since he wants to be Prime Minister, just like it matters for Harper.

    Also Harper called the Iraq war a ‘mistake’ during the 2006 election and he repeated that a few times since then, and again during the 2008 election. So both men have almost exactly the same position on this, and in fact Harper ‘swallowed his pride’ before Ignatieff.

  25. Ignatieff wasn’t a member of parliament when he developed that act, and when he made that statement. Harper was. Also, Ignatieff made a complete withdraw from his support in 2007, “The unfolding catastrophe in Iraq has condemned the political judgment of a president, but it has also condemned the judgment of many others, myself included, who as commentators supported the invasion.”

    Harper would never swallow his vast pride in this manner.

  26. Ignatieff doesn’t exactly sound eager to work with Harper.

    This is just how Dion started out, what makes Iggy think anything will be different this time around. I’m just surprised he hasn’t mentioned the “hidden agenda” or compared Harper to Bush yet.

  27. Actually Ignatieff was a staunch supporter of the preemptive war in Iraq based on the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine he helped develop. He’s changed his mind since there weren’t actually any WMDs, which is exactly the same position as Harper.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s