There was quite a crowd outside the second floor doors of University Hall to see this Q&A presentation featuring the Liberal Leader. I am not the most educated person on the topic of politics, so I want to start this thread in hopes that people will share their opinions, statistics, critiques, and general thoughts in relation to Mr. Ignatieff as Liberal Leader.

I feel it is important to educate myself further on the subject because I am a first year student who has just turned 18. I would like to use my right to benefit all Canadians.

Not being able to go to the talk because I was in seminar (but we talked about his human rights policies a bit) the talk wasn't supposed to be pro-liberal.

I know it was not supposed to be pro-liberal, but many questions that were asked were directed towards the future ambitions of the Liberal Party if they are elected.

Really?
I wish I could have been there, but I wasn't able to go.

I would love to have asked him why the Liberal Party hasn't talked about university students at ALL in the previous campaigns, and why he suddenly feels that we're important enough to do a cross-country university tour.

he also clearly spoke as if he was a liberal.... lots of answers even though they didn't need a negative answer just bashed on the Conservatives rather than speaking in a nonpartisan basis about solutions...

Also I know coming from a Conservative this isn't all that convincing, but he is not that good of a public speaker.... both Layton and Harper are much better speakers!

I disagree...I think he spoke much better than Harper. I was definitely engaged, although what he said was often liberal biased - but can you blame him? Harper would have done the same. His French comes across as better than Harper's as well...more natural.

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

he also clearly spoke as if he was a liberal.... lots of answers even though they didn't need a negative answer just bashed on the Conservatives rather than speaking in a nonpartisan basis about solutions...

Also I know coming from a Conservative this isn't all that convincing, but he is not that good of a public speaker.... both Layton and Harper are much better speakers!

Really? He was a lot more articulate than Harper, from my experience. There was a lot less "Uhh...well...", and a lot more clear points.

However, the questions asked were all foreign-policy related (not of much importance, really), and I was in the corner, so I couldn't ask any questions at all...

It would have been nice to have heard what he had to say about medical isotopes (a field in which Mac has offered its help to the Harper government and been repeatedly rebuffed)

Didn't get a chance to go, although I was mildly looking forward to it. Did he get asked/answer any questions that were actually tough/critical/important?

I may not agree with him politically, but from his facebook page he has really good taste in movies, books and music.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I may not agree with him politically, but from his facebook page he has really good taste in movies, books and music.

That's the important thing. XDD

Originally Posted by McIntyre

I disagree...I think he spoke much better than Harper. I was definitely engaged, although what he said was often liberal biased - but can you blame him? Harper would have done the same. His French comes across as better than Harper's as well...more natural.

I can't judge Harper's french but I understand it's decent, I would assume Ignatieff's is better simply because, as I understand, he's had a lot more exposure to it.

I think overall though that Harper can be a good speech maker when he's "on". To be honest, there are times when he's dull and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Ignatieff on the other hand it always consistent. While he's never dull, he also never seems to give a truly exciting and rousing speech.

The tour he's on, while strictly speaking non-partisan, is part of the lead up to a "non-partisan" brain storming session to develop liberal party policy. It's not that different than what every other party does, although the whole non-partisan but not really thing is a bit annoying. I figure this is their way of trying to bring back some left wing voters who may no longer identify with the "Liberal" brand. (I say this because Ignatieff is fairly right wing for a Liberal and he knows that the NDP is growing. It seems like many of the policies he proposes (although he doesn't propose that many in absolute terms) are aimed at the left wingers who are on the liberal/ndp fence)

"We wouldn't have international human rights without the leadership of the United States". and his support for preemptive hegemonic wars are likely to stop any NDP from supporting him ever. I would think. Add his imperilaist views, and I doubt any Liberal could support him either

Originally Posted by andrew22

"We wouldn't have international human rights without the leadership of the United States". and his support for preemptive hegemonic wars are likely to stop any NDP from supporting him ever. I would think. Add his imperilaist views, and I doubt any Liberal could support him either

While I don't necessarily agree with what the US does today, the US was an early supporter of international human rights (regardless of what it does now)

Ignatieff was not and is not a better speaker than Harper. I'm not a Harper fan, but he was downright electrifying when I heard him speak. He was succint and direct, and didn't once mention his opponents. Harper came off as erudite.

Ignatieff on the other hand came off as an academic. He was engaging and clear, but seemed to be thinking as he spoke. Moreover, he avoided certain questions and cut people off. He reminded me of Profs I've had who don't really care to hear your explanation of issues if you don't follow his viewpoint.

I really did not care for his Harper bashing. While it is all well and good, it just made me feel as if he is going to be no different than Harper.

I really wanted to go up and ask him the question:

"You have brought up many points related to the disengagement of voters and the general distrust of politics. In my views, this has a lot to do with the partisan nature of Canadian politics in today's era where every party releases an article with their own PR spin, and all Canadians really see is bickering and blame shifting. Why do you and your party so blatently engage in this while admonishing the Conservatives for the state of politics in Canada?"

IMO, Layton, Harper, and Ignatieff are all problems because they do not rise above, and instead everything is reduced to elitism disguised in populist pandering. Canada is a LOT worse than the States in this because of party discipline.

Originally Posted by arathbon

While I don't necessarily agree with what the US does today, the US was an early supporter of international human rights (regardless of what it does now)

during which time period did the us support human rights the most, in a real way?



also liberal intellectuals seem to be a fairly dangerous group of people in general.
"Imperialism doesn't stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect,"

Originally Posted by andrew22

during which time period did the us support human rights the most, in a real way?

They were a big backer of self determination of nations (such as Czechoslovakia, Poland etc.) in the post world war I era and were as well one of the leaders in pushing for both the formation of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.