Er, maybe not -

Er, maybe not


The Liberal leader issues a statement refuting any suggestion he intends to raise taxes and, with Conservatives and New Democrats already on the attack, Canadian Press softens its previous report.

News that Ignatieff was prepared to even discuss the possibility of tax increases was greeted as a political gift by the Conservatives and NDP, who instantly began circulating the story and offering critical comment…

The insiders indicated Ignatieff intends to kick off discussion of the tough choices ahead with a speech Thursday to the Chamber of Commerce in London, Ont. That was to be followed by a series of townhall-style meetings to engage Canadians in the debate.

However, Ignatieff spokesperson Jill Fairbrother said late Wednesday that the leader intends only to continue demanding that the Tories “come clean” on the real fiscal numbers. As part of that, he’ll continue to argue against what Liberals contend is a Tory attempt to muzzle Page. “He doesn’t believe you can develop a plan to get us out of this mess until you know what the real numbers are,” she said. “That is where we’re at and there’s no strategy beyond that.


Er, maybe not

  1. Sigh…

    Do I need to come back and save the Liberal Party from this BS?

    Cause I'll do it if I have to.

    • What would be your first priority as Liberal leader, outta curiousity?

    • The bumbling and stumbling Michael Ignatieff is bumbling and stumbling because the Liberals have chosen not to have a policy convention (no leadership convention either but that's a whole other topic). I keep hearing rumours of some "Thinker's conference" or some such thing but it always seems to be getting pushed somethere over yonder.

      It's hard to stay on message when you don't have one.

  2. This is beyond embarrassing.

    And another media report based wholly on anonymous sources goes horribly horribly wrong. Who are these "insiders" that were blabbing to Joan Bryden that Ignatieff was going to talk about tax hikes? Rae loyalists?

  3. "Senior party insiders told The Canadian Press earlier Wednesday that the Liberal leader is about to launch a blunt discussion of the realistic options available for staunching the flow of red ink.

    They said the discussion would include tax increases, major spending cuts, remaining mired in deficit for years longer than anticipated, or some combination of the three."

    Wherry: It appears to me that the CP has not "softened" (your term) their story, the Liberals have likely been frantically trying to soften their story.

  4. Right now a lot of lberals are pronably thinking: why the hell didn't we pick Rae? At least he was a fighter.

  5. So Iggy's couragious risk taking of offering up "tough choices" including tax hikes,


    four hours?

    In its place he's now apparantly offering easy solutions and happiness for all. Quoted one source: "unicorns…his plan calls for lots of unicorns."

    • Watch out biff, who knows with Harper… Unicorns, something he was once against, might be his next masterstroke. And you will praise these Unicorns, along with Harper's wisdom in introducing them to the Canadian public.

      • What's more Biff' will have absolutely no memory of ever holding a different opinion.

  6. This is a nightmare…..wake me up when it's over.
    It is really frightening to believe that there are still 28 % of Canadians willing to give these bozo's a mandate to form a government.

    The Keystone Kops, looked like friggin' geniuses compared to these guys and at least you knew that that it was stupid……well as I was saying… !

  7. 'Senior party insiders told The Canadian Press earlier Wednesday'

    perhaps Canadian Press will check with the actual leader of the official opposition office before running a story from Bob Rae supporters, eh.

    It's a 2fer, got the Liberal Senators (also Rae supporters) openly defying MI on the crime bill too.

    Didn't Chretien say the mistake he made was not firing Martin?

    • ''…The breaking point in the Chrétien-Martin relationship, Chrétien writes, came in March 2000, shortly after news reports of a secret meeting at a hotel near Toronto's Pearson airport, at which Martin's supporters were said to be looking for ways to push the prime minister into retiring.

      Chrétien, who refers to the Martinites as "self-serving goons," said he was ready to fire Martin on the spot, but he was talked out of it by his chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, and principal secretary Eddie Goldenberg. In hindsight, Chrétien says, Martin should have been ousted.. ..''

    • Wilson,

      Your CToryV talking points are showing…better cover up

  8. "News that Ignatieff was prepared to even discuss the possibility of tax increases was greeted as a political gift by the Conservatives and NDP, who instantly began circulating the story and offering critical comment"

    Yes, because we wouldn't want anyone to discuss the news article today that pointed out that EI increases on the payroll tax for both employees and business were likely forthcoming as a means to both balance the budget and pay back the money currently going out.

    Or any of the prior analysis that's argued some form of tax increase likely necessary in order to bring us back out of debt.

    Instead we'd rather you just shoved your heads in the sand until one of us gets a majority and can do what we want. Don't worry, we'll let you know when to look up again.


    • Perhaps waiting until AFTER Ontarians and BCers 'get over' the HST would be advisable,
      particularly when Libs are trying to pin it on Harper…

  9. Jill Fairbrother must be getting tired. She has been incredibly busy these past few weeks.

  10. "…and there's no strategy beyond that."

    Iggy spokesman Jill Fairbrother.

    Tell us something we don't know Jill.

  11. This is damned disappointing. What I would give for somebody, ideally some kind of leader, to point out that tax rates are so much lower now than they used to be. The whining and crying of the top 1% has, I think, convinced the other 99% that they have something to whine and cry about. THEY DON'T. Specifically, I refer to employees as opposed to company owners–the ones at AIG, CEOs of public companies, and the like. The ones making total remuneration of over 1 million dollars per year. Obscene.

    Continued . . .

    • But here's the interesting thing. My boss told me that when he entered the accounting profession, (1958-1963) the top tax rate, in certain situations in the U.K. was 102% More than you made! Here in Canada at the same time it was 85%, and here's a lovely .pdf paper entitled, Tax Reform and Inequality… . The third page has a lovely graph showing the growth in top incomes, noticeably lessened in the 1958-1963 period.

      So how about we go back to taxing these obscene pay rates to both discourage them from giving themselves so much, and alleviate a bit of the deficit?

      • Yeah those darn rich people!

        Using all that money to

        A) Stimulate our economy
        B) Invest in companies
        C) Donate to charity
        D) Keep in a bank somewhere increasing their solvency

        If you really think destroying capital formation and encouraging sub optimum capital allocation will be good for our economy I want to know what you're smokin !

  12. Rich people, i.e., those who have invented something, or started something, or even inherited something are not the ones I would like to go after. It is the employees making in excess of one million dollars as an employee! Nobody is worth more than that, not unless they have put their own capital, ingenuity, reputation on the line. But since you may be one of them (hiding behind the legitimately rich people) perhaps you could justify such excessive remuneration?

    The invest in companies is a joke since chances are the stock invested was given as a stock option at ridiculously favourable rates. And the first thing they do is sell! The donate to charity especially makes me laugh. Rape and pillage all you like as long as you throw a coin or two to the masses on occasion?

    Capital will form just fine without multi-million dollar salaries being handed out.

    • "Nobody is worth more than that"

      Ahh. So you've become smarter than the marketplace which uses supply and demand to determine what a certain service is worth. I can tell you right now that a number of entertainers and sports starts ARE worth more than a million dollars a year, just as a number of highly specialized executive types certainly are.

      If you think people are being paid inflated wages, above their market value, then I would suggest you join in efforts to give shareholders more rights when it comes to determining compensation.

      "stock option at ridiculously favourable rates"

      If you're investing large sums of money one would expect a pretty good rate. The companies use that money to make more money or else they wouldn't make the offer in the first place, unless, of course, you're saying there is some sort of fraud happening in which case I once again suggest we look at regulatory changes instead of tax changes.

    • "Rape and pillage all you like"

      Wow. That is some serious pent up class anger you got going on. I didn't know the very act of being paid money suddenly put somebody on the moral plane of a rapist or pillager.

      "Capital will form just fine"

      Umm, no it won't. Its been proven over and over again that "soak the rich" schemes like the one you're coming up with tend to limit the size and scale of innovation and development because there simply is not enough credit available for very, very large projects. When all the big money is in government hands and not in the markets you have politicians controlling the commanding heights of the economy and basically have a socialist, or directed, economy.

      • "Umm, no it won't. Its been proven over and over again that "soak the rich" schemes like the one you're coming up with tend to limit the size and scale of innovation and development because there simply is not enough credit available for very, very large projects"

        Prove it again, then, that employees (for the third time, I'm not talking about all the rich, such as entertainers who are generally not employees but self-employed contractors) and provide me with some links to evidence that proves it "over and over again".

        I do agree with you though, about giving stockholders more of a say in determining executive compensation (which, btw, kind of ruins your whole "marketplace" argument since the owners of the company currently have next to no say in how much they pay their employees.) I also like your idea of stronger regulatory provisions.