# All eyes on Ignatieff



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2005)

I almost never agree with anything Peter C Newman says, but ...

This (from today's _National Posit_ at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=5b76f3e9-ffa0-4a4e-bdbd-a71eef6943d8 ) is fascinating:



> All eyes on Ignatieff
> 
> Peter C. Newman
> National Post
> ...



The Liberal brain-trust doesn't always get it right.   St Laurent, for example, was an excellent prime minister and the best foreign affairs minister Canada ever had, bar none.   Trudeau was the worst prime minister in Canadian history: a petty, pretentious, puffed-up, provincial poltroon; a second rate mind with a first rate education who became a third rate academic in a backwater.

Michael Ignatief is no Pierre Trudeau; the question is: is there a St. Laurent in there?


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Feb 2005)

Couple of points:

1.  Michael Eizenga [ rumoured to be a huge St. Laurent fan] is in an exellent position to also take a shot at the top. 

2. St. Laurent [as External Affiars Minister] was heavily involved in the creation of the UN, but I think his shining moments in foreign affairs occured when he was PM: Korea, UNEF, NATO.   Note how the reputation of Pearson and Peacekeeping eclipse Uncle Louis. 

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Feb 2005)

I'm a bit of an Ignatieff fan myself, his books are top notch.

I can remember when Ignatieff shocked the liberal establishment for coming out in support of the invasion of Iraq.  The anti-war crowd labelled him "traitor" and "sell-out".

Obviously, he is not a "Dither"....


----------



## mdh (27 Feb 2005)

There was a time when Ignatieff was considered a potential leader of the Ontario Liberal Party too - I can't imagine why he'd want the job. It's a big leap from public intellectual and TV celebrity to electoral politics. (like Infanteer, I admired his stand on Iraq) Besides I think Newman overstates the "masterful strategy" of succession in the federal Liberal Party. There has been a civil war in the party for the past five years, and I wouldn't exactly describe Chretien, Martin and Turner as "outsiders" either -- and they have dominated the party for nearly a quarter of a century. (St. Laurent was hardly an obscure figure either - he had been a Liberal cabinet minister under King and helped keep the government together during the Conscription Crisis of 1944.)

cheers, mdh


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2005)

Louis St Laurent was a life-long Liberal, from a Liberal family (his father having been a candidate in some election or another).   He had, however, no practical experience when, in 1941, Ernest Lapointe, King's powerful Québec lieutenant died, and he (St. Laurent) was persuaded to come to Ottawa â â€œ only until the end of the war.   In that respect he was an outsider.

St. Laurent was a brilliant man â â€œ turned down a Rhodes Scholarship, etc â â€œ and was an internationally known barrister with friends in high places in London and Washington.   That also made him something of an outsider in a Party which kepy close to its local roots.

He and Howe were a 'team' in managing the _transition to peace_ and, especially (with Acheson), an active, leading role for Canada in reshaping the global multilateral institutions like the UN and NATO.

His first, important 'break' with King and O.D. Skelton's foreign policy (which St Laurent repudiated, wholly and completely) was over Korea, in 1949; there were many more: mostly opposed by _wings_ of the 'big tent' Liberal Party which we would recognize 60 years later.   St Laurent was a skilled, 'natural' politician: able to build coalitions and scatter opposing alliances through a combination of legal/argumentative skills and personality (there were no skeletons in his closet, he was 'bomb proof' on most traditional political fronts â â€œ that, too, made him something of an outsider).


----------



## jmacleod (28 Feb 2005)

Agreed, Ignatieff would make an first class Liberal politician, and has all the right credentials
except that getting a recommendation from Peter C. Newman, detested in the Liberal Party
of Canada, is essentially a "kiss-of-death". The Liberal Party of course, is always considering new
options related to leadership, and life after Martin is being discussed, however, the Federal Liberals
in my opinion will win a majority in the next national election. because of the fractured leadership
in the Conservative Party. For an interesting perspective, read Columnist Chantal Hebert in today's
(February 28,2005) Toronto Star. Regards, MacLeod


----------



## mdh (28 Feb 2005)

Hi Edward,

I guess it depends on how you define a political "outsider".   I would agree that Trudeau was definitely one - he was always ambivalent about the LP - especially in its Quebec manifestation (which he considered a corrupt machine all too ready to strike a deal with Duplessis and the Union Nationale.)   

I would argue that St. Laurent was in a different category, (although with an Irish mother and Quebecois father he had shades of the Trudeauvian bicultural heritage that fits so well with the federal LP's reigning national ethos - or at least their version of it).

My problem with Newman is that he makes is sound like the LP has some collection of wizened gnomes combing the country for the Next Great Leader - and considering the history of the party since 1980, I just don't buy that thesis.

As for Laurent and Howe, you wonder how they would fare in today's pop culture political environment.   Both of them were very much products of the pre-TV age when deference was still a by-word in Canadian political culture.

Cheers, mdh


----------



## mdh (28 Feb 2005)

Jmacleod,

I did read the Herbert piece and I agree with her.   Harper doens't appear to have been very successful in capturing the public's imagination and for some reason there has been an obsession (perhaps understandable) with finding some "wedge" issue to galvanize support for the federal Tories (the gay marriage issue). 

I suppose we will have to wait and see if it produces any results but it's a risky strategy - especially in urban Ontario (in my view).   

But the flip side of the parlous state of the Tories is the state of the federal Liberal Party in Quebec.   Under Martin the party is not making any significant headway, and I suspect that the Bloc is becoming an institutionalized force with a lot of appeal to the soft (and indeed hard) nationalist vote in the province.   

Martin has failed to consolidate his leadership there and this will undoubtedly continue to divide the party between his faction and the old Chretienites.  I'm not sure how an Igantieff would make much difference in bridging that divide.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Feb 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Martin has failed to consolidate his leadership there and this will undoubtedly continue to divide the party between his faction and the old Chretienites.   I'm not sure how an Igantieff would make much difference in bridging that divide.



Perhaps he could try buying them off? Or, has that already been tried?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2005)

Like the Americans salivating over the possibility of Secretary of State Dr Rice running for President in 2008, a lot of this article seems to be more wishful thinking than anything else. I donn't know if anyone has done an analysis, but is Ignatieff backed by a powerful "machine" to put him into the catbird seat? Is he personally ruthless enough to deal with the various people and factions in the Liberal Party, enough to "purge" the Martinites or Creitienistas if they get in the way of his vision?

For that matter, although his literary and academic credentials are good, his personal resume seems a bit empty compared to, say, Dr Rice, who has actual expereince running a major university, being on the board of directors of various corporations, serving in government, being a heavy duty academic (and a concert musician by training to boot). IF writing books is all you need, well, we have lots of posters on this board who could have a serious shot at the position (you can take this as a positive or a negative. I favor the Libertarian point of view anyway).

As for the other suspects in Parliament, Harper has turned on the cloaking device; and I havn't heard any ideas coming from his side of the house for ages. Layton is dreaming in technicolour (must have something to do with the leagalized deamon weed), his ideas are the same old socialist BS stuffed in a new envelope. The Bloc is only designed to appeal to a very limited subset of voters, and the Greens are like watermelons; once you cut through the rind, it is red inside (Hey look, a Socialist solution to our Ecological problems!)

We need to get powerful new ideas implimented past the Status Quo; and I have a few thoughts on how to do just that.......


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Mar 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> We need to get powerful new ideas implimented past the Status Quo; and I have a few thoughts on how to do just that.......



Lay on Macduff.

I would like to see our army.ca Politics page deal with positive proposals to make Canada better, especially in the foreign and defence policy domains.   We already have enough sophomoric anti-Americanism, let's have some grown up pro-Canadianism.   _Patriam volunt meliorem._


----------



## Torlyn (2 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm a bit of an Ignatieff fan myself, his books are top notch.
> 
> I can remember when Ignatieff shocked the liberal establishment for coming out in support of the invasion of Iraq.  The anti-war crowd labelled him "traitor" and "sell-out".
> 
> Obviously, he is not a "Dither"....



Sorry to jump on this, but I was actually quite surprised how vehemently in favour of it he was.  My mind kept jumping back to his book "the Rights Revolution" and when I heard his views, I had to re-read the article twice to confirm.  I thought it was rather telling that someone who is so intrisically involved, and such a proponent for human rights would be willing to have those rights reduced (patriot act, etc.).  He did make an excellent argument for it, one which (if I can find) I'll post the more salient points here...  Infanteer, perhaps you know the article which I'm talking about?

T


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

No, I'm not sure what article you're specifically referring to.  The last thing I remembered was a MacLeans article on Ignatieff which I found interesting.  As well, I had a debate with a fellow over on SOCNET about "Rights" and he emailed Ignatieff the synopsis of our debate and got a response, which I thought was nice.

The last book I read of his was "Empire Lite" which I enjoyed - basically saying lets not try and colour our expeditions up and lets make sure that we go hard or go home.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Mar 2005)

Here, from today's _Globe and Mail_ (   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050304.wxcoignat04/BNStory/specialComment/ ) are excerpts from Michael Ignatief's address to the Liberal Party convention last night.   I have highlighted some bits.



> A generous helping of Liberal brains
> 
> To be a Canadian Liberal means to be just, generous and always share the pie, says author and analyst MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
> 
> ...



This, especially the highlighted parts, is not going to endear him to either the Youth Wing or the _Women's Commission_ of the Liberal Party of Canada where knee-jerk anti-Americanism and institutionalized _national-feminism_ (entitlements over responsibilities) are the order of the day.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Mar 2005)

Maybe the Conservative Party could take him and get rid of Mr Hair?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Mar 2005)

Gulp.  I hate to admit it... 

Damned good speech.

Will the Liberal Party listen?


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Mar 2005)

Some parts strong, some parts weak.  I am surprised by this: "but firm defenders of our sovereignty. In the first half of the past century, that meant fighting for European freedom"

I have never thought of the rush of the pro-British part of Canada to support Britain in 1914 and 1939 as particularly "sovereign" behaviour.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Mar 2005)

I saw the part of his speech where he suggested that those who preach anti-americanism ought to belong "withering with the NDP." I almost spit my rum and coke out. The looks on the faces of many of the liberal party members was appropriately glum, although a large contingent were quite enthusiastic about those sorts of remarks. He started saying something about the conservatives, and thats when I immediately tuned him out ....


----------



## mdh (4 Mar 2005)

I almost spit my rum and coke out.

Have you been watching the Trailor Park Boys again Whiskey 601?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2005)

I found this, by Tony Keller (U of T), in today's _National Post_ at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=e3eb4f80-e1ba-49ff-adbf-71421f76ca8e very interesting:



> Liberalism's fresh face
> 
> Tony Keller
> National Post
> ...



My emphasis added.


----------



## Acorn (5 Apr 2005)

I liked the "herbivores/carnivores" quote so much I decided to use it as a sig.

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (6 Apr 2005)

> He is, in other words, not quite right or left, not quite American or Canadian, not a convert to unilateralism but neither a faithful worshipper in the house of orthodox United Nations multilateralism.



...who knows the places we'll go if we had this kind of leadership?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jun 2005)

This is from today's _Globe and Mail_.

There are some interesting parallels with 40 years ago: a somewhat dithering _crown prince_ succeeds a _managerial_ PM - much is expected but little happens.  The ditherer is replaced by a charismatic newcomer - with _philosopher king_ pretensions.

My, personal, take is that Ignatieff is no Trudeau - I think Ignatieff has brains and substance, but time will tell.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050629.wxignatieff29/BNStory/National/ 


> Ignatieff sets sights on Ottawa
> 
> BY MICHAEL VALPY
> 
> ...



Poor _Mr. Dithers_ is same sex marriage going to be his legacy?


----------



## jmacleod (29 Jun 2005)

Minority Government leader Martin is faced with a committment to undertake a Federal Election
30 days after the Gomery Report is filed (and accepted, which could cause a delay). Election has
been planned since Nov 2004; Liberals expect to form a Majority Government. Although no one
has said this, Party strategists prefer Harper to stay put; tactical problem if he leaves. There is
talk about Martin's replacement, but potential candidates are in short supply, so Ignatieff will be
a highly attractive leadership candidate, could probably easily win. But if Harper goes, it appears
Conservative Leader in Ontario, John Tory is the odds on favourite to replace him. Liberal Party
will be looking for an attractive candidate who can win, and maintain the Liberal hold on the
national government. Layton's days as a deal maker are over, the Liberals will drop him like
they did Lewis when Alan J. MacEachern of the Black Arts made a deal for support, and once a
majority was achieved, disposed of the NDP support. In those days, the NDP support was generated
by giving NDP MP's full control of patronage in their ridings. MacLeod


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Jun 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Minority Government leader Martin is faced with a committment to undertake a Federal Election
> 30 days after the Gomery Report is filed (and accepted, which could cause a delay).



Funny that Belinda Stronach is going to spearhead implementation of the recommendations of the Gomery Report: I suppose they'll be nothing 30 days of 'work' can't clear right up.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jun 2005)

My, personal, sense is that Martin has blotted his copy book.   The dyed in the wool _Chrétienistas_ will never accept him â â€œ they see him as a turncoat and back-stabber.   Some, (many?) of the _Martinis_ are proving to be _summer soldiers_ and, as the Ignatieff 'candidacy' demonstrates, are already casting about for a new leader.

(Bear in mind, please, that unlike MacLeod, I have no links to the Liberal Party of Canada.   I have a few somewhat distant professional (occasionally _collegial_) relationships with a handful of people, including John Manley, who happen to be Liberals.   My circle of acquaintances does include some retired (and a few serving) bureaucrats who had (have) good insights into the Party and who, as we all do at our age, love to gossip â â€œ often somewhat mischievously.)

Some Liberals, and their civil service minders, are driven near to distraction by Martin's chronic inability to make a decision.

Martin is a classic example of Isaiah Berlin's _hedgehog_ in his Fox vs. Hedgehog analogy.   (Ignatieff is Berlin's biographer â â€œ and a fine one, at that.)

Berlin, you may recall, characterized people as either foxes â â€œ with many, many ideas and interests, or hedgehogs â â€œ with just one _big_ idea.

Trudeau was the prototypical _hedgehog_.   He had a very, very limited range of interests and went from disinterested to downright inept when forced to deal with the vast array of problems or issues which face a national leader: economics, defence, social services, foreign policy/strategy, agriculture, security, and so on.   His _one big idea_ was 'Québec/anti-nationalism' and, in my opinion, he was intellectually ill-equipped to deal with that and, consequently, he screwed it up, too.

Most good leaders, it seems to me, are _foxes_, but many not so good leaders are ill-disciplined foxes â â€œ they have a wide range of interests but they are unable (unwilling) to focus on the ones that matter.   In my time St. Laurent, Pearson, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin were all foxes but only St. Laurent, Mulroney and Chrétien were well disciplined foxes.   Ignatieff is a fox, too, and, on the evidence to date â â€œ unlike Trudeau Ignatieff does have a resumé with real accomplishments in the real, wide world â â€œ he may be an interesting challenger.

Edit: fixed highlight and a stupid bloody auto correct spelling error - it's dyed  in the wool, not died in the wool - I hate Bill Gates! :evil:


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jun 2005)

> (He also will encounter uneasiness in the party, especially in its pink Trudeauesque wing, over his support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq â â€œ he argues that the Iraqis deserved freedom from Saddam Hussein â â€œ and there is no consensus on whether he sits on the left or the right of the party on social and fiscal issues.)



This is why Ignatieff would interest me in voting Red - I'm sure he would focus outward (a la St Laurent) rather than inward.



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> My, personal, sense is that Martin has blotted his copy book.   The died in the wool _Chretienistas_ will never accept him - they see him as a turncoat and back-stabber.   Some, (many?) of the _Martinis_ are proving to be _summer soldiers_ and, as the Ignatieff "candidacy" demonstrates, are already casting about for a new leader.



_Chretienistas_ and _Martinis_ - we truly are a Banana Republic....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> _Chretienistas_ and _Martinis_ - we truly are a Banana Republic....



"Oh, Bananada ..."  :'(


----------



## jmacleod (30 Jun 2005)

Dr. Ignatieff has family links in Nova Scotia with the distinguished academic Grant family. He will not seek
a Nova Scotia seat howver, will focus on Toronto, with many of it's Liberal constituency organizations
dominated by homosexuals (Ignatieff is considered an expert on Human Rights). If he runs in Toronto
he will be selected and elected, but there are other potential leadership candidates out there, including
former Toronto MP Alan Rock (UN), Canadian Ambassador to US Frank McKenna, and possibly a duo
from Quebec. It is safe to assume that the next Liberal leader will not be from Quebec in any event.
Martin's tenure in fact is virtually over, he has not exhibited a degree of leadership anticipated and
is detested by the Chretien loyalists (Chretien is greatly admired in the rank and file of the Party
despite what the Toronto dominated Canadian media think). Dr Ignatieff will be, if he offers for the
leadership of the Party, a very strong candidate, who will dominate the focus of the media, in
particular the CBC. The Conservatives I would think will seek an equally strong leader from Ontario
-odd's on favourite if he offers, Hon John Tory MLA, Toronto Government of Ontario. My personal
opinion  (stand to be corrected) is that Hon Frank McKenna will not seek Liberal leadership. From
the perspective of this site, who of the "contenders" for national political leadership would be best
for the future of the Canadian military?  Macleod


----------



## jmacleod (3 Jul 2005)

Canadian Ambassador Hon Frank McKenna was quoted in the National Canadian media today that
he would not seek leadership of the Federal Liberal Party, would not be a leadership contender
- the general feeling in the Atlantic Canada wing of the Party is that if Ignatieff runs, he will
easily win - the real power base of the Party nationally is in Toronto, and Ontario - no longer
in Quebec and probably never will be again. Ambassador McKenna is a smart guy, a shrewd politicain
well connected, and if he says he will not run, I would think, knowing him well, he means exactly
what he says. The Federal Liberals under Martin anticipate a Liberal majority next year - why not.
MacLeod


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2005)

I'm a little curious as to what sort of power base the good Dr. Ignatieff has within the Liberal Party. Come to think of it, Ms Stronich is now _supposed_ by some in the Media to be in position to contend as a leader of the Liberals should Mr Dithers jump (or be pushed) out the window.

There is also the matter of the "Creitianistas", who are waiting the day they can exact vengence against the "Martinites". This is starting to read a bit like some sort of medieval melodrama, with the Prime Minister and Anti-Prime Minister in alternate 24 Sussex Drives sepatated by the Ottawa river excommunicating each other's followers.

jmacleod, since you seem to have an inside scoop on these things, please enlighten us as to how the Liberal Party does not implode with all these presumptive stresses within?


----------



## jmacleod (4 Jul 2005)

A "power base" will be created for Ignatieff by the Liberal insiders who have encouraged and appraoched
him to run - most will be from the Chretien people - some disgruntled members throughout the
country, and practical Liberals who are always focused on the future in any event. My mother's family
came to Nova Scotia in 1819, and later were among the founder's of the Liberal Party. We have had
two Federal MP's and a Senator in the family. Grew up in the era of NS Liberal Premier Angus L.MacDonald and the long serving Liberal governmemt of the time. Our associates in Ottawa and
the Atlantic region have close links with the Federal Liberal Party - necessary to deal in government
because all decisions affecting National Defence for instance are politically driven. We are consultants
in the technology and aerospace sector (thirty years) and have worked on many Crown Projects -
for instance, the decision to buy the F18-A "Hornet" from McDonnell-Douglas/Northrop was a 
political decision made by PM Trudeau himself, ultimately. Martin made an enormous error in creating
Gomery, which has caused great resentment in the Party - a Party in which forgiveness is an unknown
quantity. Finally, the Liberal Party has the national media on side, there is  actually no significant
opposition media, which is what Stephen Harper has to contend with every day - Harper too will
vanish. MacLeod


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Martin made an enormous error in creating Gomery, which has caused great resentment in the Party - a Party in which forgiveness is an unknown.
> quantity.  MacLeod



So are you saying the establishment of the Gomery inquiry was wrong and not required? If your party eats it's own for doing what is right for Canada, they're not fit to govern, period. Typically, looking out for their own interest, power and pension, without thought to the people that trusted them and got burned.


----------



## jmacleod (4 Jul 2005)

What I said is that there is resentment in the Liberal Party over Gomery - not a question of right
or wrong, Liberal focus is on politics, and a carefully orchestrated attack on the former PM which
was politically driven - no one can say, until Gomery reports, who and what was right or wrong
- but the resentment will remain. The late Dr. John Savage MD Premier of NS annoyed the 
Nova Scotia Liberal Party and was forced to go on to a better life, because of political patronage
which he attempted to change - he is gone, Party goes on. The Liberal friendly media are not
going to give Gomery much focus in any event, and the public, as usual do not care. My question
is: who is going to defeat the mighty Liberals?  Macleod


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Liberal focus is on politics,



You've got my vote for the "understatement of the year" award.


----------



## Acorn (7 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> My question
> is: who is going to defeat the mighty Liberals?   Macleod



Every Tyranny is brought down eventually. It may not even come to a vote.

Acorn


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Jul 2005)

_The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.   _ 
Ernesto Che Guevara  


You never know....

hasta siempre

tess


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2005)

Unless I see 10,000 people standing on Parliament hill chanting for the government to resign (a "Maple Leaf Revolution"), I will not be holding my breath. Contemplating any "other" solution is pretty scary in so many ways, Acorn.

If Ignatieff really has what it takes to be a true leader for this nation, let's hear what, if anything, he has to say about the London bombings and Canada's role in WW IV.


----------



## Wayne Coady (8 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Unless I see 10,000 people standing on Parliament hill chanting for the government to resign (a "Maple Leaf Revolution"), I will not be holding my breath. Contemplating any "other" solution is pretty scary in so many ways, Acorn.



I disagree that contemplating any "other" solution is pretty scary.    We could have a quite "revolution", it is simple, clean and there would be no blood spilled. STOP GIVING THE POLITICAL PARTIES YOUR TIME, YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT , YOUR VOTE.  

All parties are the same, they do what is best for the party, so do not support them, let the fools who enjoy being lied to and stolen from vote for them. Smarten up, if you really want to clean up the political sewers in Ottawa and in our provinces, push for an independent candidate who will truly represent your constituency who is free of the party shackles. Look into putting your own name on the ballot.

I tired of people pointing out that all parties are dirty and then refusing to do something about it, just do not support a party candidate , let them know when they come to your door looking for your approval to steal from you. 

If you are not willing to   take to the streets, then keep it simple stupid, do not support a party, it is a pretty easy solution, maybe to easy.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2005)

Wayne Coady said:
			
		

> I disagree that contemplating any "other" solution is pretty scary.  We could have a quite "revolution", it is simple, clean and there would be no blood spilled. STOP GIVING THE POLITICAL PARTIES YOUR TIME, YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT , YOUR VOTE.



That is what is happening today, and the politicians love it; we are IDIOTS in the ancient Greek sense of the word.

The "other" solution to having peaceful mass demonstrations is armed revolution, and I certainly don't want to be going there on either side of the barricades.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2005)

>Contemplating any "other" solution is pretty scary in so many ways, Acorn.

Revolution doesn't have to be bloody.  A simple campaign of industrial and infrastructure sabotage could probably bring Canada to its economic knees.  Governments would quickly run short of money for big ideas if they had to run around fixing broken toys.  For example, consider the economic losses of a longshoremans' strike - which doesn't actually involve very many workers - and then consider that there might be other ways to shut down a port.  I don't worry about foreign terrorism so much as domestic sabotage by people fed up with being told how to live and without sufficient conscience to restrain themselves.  I've seen plenty of senseless vandalism and whatnot in my time, so I'm not sure there's much restraint in people, or at least I'm not sure that it's particularly difficult for frustration to overcome self-restraint.  That's why I'm so tirelessly monotonous on decentralizing and downsizing government in Canada: so that all folks can find their cultural optimum in some part of Canada and live content there. The Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - may very well be the linchpin of a civil society.  Unfortunately, Canada seems to be polarizing rather rapidly and the people currently in power aren't very gracious in victory.


----------



## Wayne Coady (8 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> That is what is happening today, and the politicians love it; we are IDIOTS in the ancient Greek sense of the word.
> 
> The "other" solution to having peaceful mass demonstrations is armed revolution, and I certainly don't want to be going there on either side of the barricades.



I never said stop voting, I said stop supporting the candidate who represents a political party. To hold a demonstration is stupid,it is sure to turn into a riot and that is something these thieving politicans would really like. 
So =a_majoor link, please vote, but just do not vote for a political party and put your time and money into yourself.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2005)

Like I mentioned in the other thread, political parties are people of like mind grouping together to pool resources for common ends. If there were no political parties, people would create them (and have, right back to the very first Democracy in ancient Athens). Since 99% of the candidates presenting themselves to you will represent a political party, witholding your time, resources and vote will only make the entrenched parties that much stronger; they have knocked you out of contention.

Are you saying you will run as an independent in the next (presumptive) election? Bravo Zulu to you! If you were in or near my riding I will be over in a heartbeat to help. My personal interest is municipal politics, so I hope you are available to support me....


----------



## Wayne Coady (9 Jul 2005)

Majoor: I like the way municipal politics is set up, it is set up close to the people and candidates are independent , they are suppose to be free from political party structure and connection. With a little fine tuning they could be better improved. But that said municipal politics is better and closer to the people. BANG ON !!!! 
Catch you later, off to a craft show.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2005)

Wayne Coady said:
			
		

> Majoor: I like the way municipal politics is set up, it is set up close to the people and candidates are independent , *they are suppose to be free from political party structure and connection.* With a little fine tuning they could be better improved. But that said municipal politics is better and closer to the people. BANG ON !!!!
> Catch you later, off to a craft show.



"Smiling Jack" Layton was always known as a full fledged socialist even as a Toronto City councillor, and our own City Council is the Liberal farm team (also with a few open socialists as well), so I wouldn't get to enamoured of the idea that there are no "party" affiliations either within municipal politics, or between levels of government (strange how our tax dollars are suddenly back in play from the Provincial Liberals and the Federal Liberals here in London [after taking their cut of the swag, of course]).


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ... our own City Council is the Liberal farm team (also with a few open socialists as well), so I wouldn't get to enamoured of the idea that there are no "party" affiliations either within municipal politics, or between levels of government ...



Ditto here in Ottawa - our municipial politicians are pretty clearly identified as Liberals, N'Dippers and Conservatives but, in fairness, they do not, generally, run as such.


----------



## Wayne Coady (9 Jul 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Ditto here in Ottawa - our municipial politicians are pretty clearly identified as Liberals, N'Dippers and Conservatives but, in fairness, they do not, generally, run as such.



Once again we must stop supporting political parties. Yes councilors are associated with political parties this I know, but they are not suppose to drag their party affiliation with them , yet they do. Despite the fact that parties soil municipal government too, the bases on which municipal politics is suppose to function are well founded.. 

Our municipal candidates knock on our door looking for our support as independent candidates and if they are being guided by some political affiliation then maybe we should put a recall on them as well. Everyone on this form who posts on a political issue make it very clear that either one party or the other is not there to govern for the people put the party in power. I feel that the only way to correct this problem is to squash the party system, there is no other way to correct this mess.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2005)

"I SAY AGAIN"

*Political parties exist because people with similar views join forces and resources to achieve their goals. This has been in play since ancient Athens, and even if the Liberal, MDP, Conservative and Marxist parties were all disbanded tomorrow, the next day new parties, groupings  or associations would arise.*

Running as an independent "may" allow you to be elected, but then you might have some difficulties achieving your goals in parliament, since you, yourself will have to single handedly convince a majority of other sitting member to support you or your bill. (Of course, you will also be getting endless pitches to support someone else's bill as well.) BTW while you are doing all this, your constituents expect your attention, there are lots of committees you need to be on to shepard your bills through parliament, and you _might_ even want to spend a bit of time preparing to be re-elected. Given all that, don't you think having a few friends and partners would help you achieve your goals more efficiently?

No, the problem isn't parties _per se_, rather it is the combination of personal gain taking precedence over the needs of the _Demos_, and the sheer inability or apathy of the Canadian public to band together and take effective action against those people who are abusing the system. Our system is rather weak too, BTW, so separating powers through a series of checks and balances (where have we heard that before?) should also be on the agenda.

Run, run hard, say what has to be said. I do hope you get elected, but I suspect you will find it an exercise in frustration if you attempt to work outside the party system. Nevertheless, good luck and Godspeed. If you need help in your campaign, PM me.


----------



## Wayne Coady (9 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> "I SAY AGAIN"
> 
> *Political parties exist because people with similar views join forces and resources to achieve their goals.
> *


*   

Now who wouldn't understand that !  
The problem Mr. a_majoor, is people like yourself choose to point out the problems of "a" party that displeases you and of course then we have your oppsites, they point out the faults of your favorite party. It is people such as you who are stating and pointing out the pitfalls of the party system and people such as myself are saying well since all parties are crooks and liars, then do not support them.

Not all levels of "government" are set up on the party system, let me educate you, right here in Canada the 'Government" of the North West Territories is based on , now get this independent candidates and free of party corruption   So lets climb out of the dark ages and move forward into the future please. Not all countries are set up to "govern" from the top down , there are other that work from the bottom up. Switzerland   is one such country, consensus government.*


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jul 2005)

There you go Arthur, you've been educated....


----------



## jmacleod (10 Jul 2005)

I would like to see someone try and dismantle the Liberal Party of Canada - pardon me for
laughing. Liberal strategists do not get involved in academic arguements, naval gazing or
reflections on perfect governments, (whatever that is). They will focus on the logistics of
a Federal election and a strategy to win it. Period. Liberal Party of Canada will easily win the
next Federal election - people like Layton have seen to that, when the Socialists betrayed
the "opposition". Personally, I admire Harper, but he cannot survive the Liberal media, who
for their own reasons, support the "natural ruling party". Liberal immigration policy focused
on Ontario over the past decades, has provided a voting pool of people who will vote Liberal
-just look at the polls, starting in Toronto, also the Party has played to the homosexual community
which votes as a block (and has strong media ties). Voter apathy too, plays a major role in 
election strategies, that is why the timing of a Federal election is critical - have an election in
Canada on 15 February, say, and most people will not get out to vote. Some of the posts on
this site are highly emotional - emotion does not play a part in Liberal election strategies. MacLeod


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> I would like to see someone try and dismantle the Liberal Party of Canada - pardon me for
> laughing. Liberal strategists do not get involved in academic arguements, naval gazing or
> reflections on perfect governments, (whatever that is). They will focus on the logistics of
> a Federal election and a strategy to win it. Period. Liberal Party of Canada will easily win the
> ...



I think Mr. MacLeod is spot on target.  I agree with his explanation of why and how the Liberal Party of Canada is in and does business.  Its product is power and its strength is in the commitment of its people, its core of members, to gaining and maintaining power.

A relatively small number of people (probably less than 10,000 Canadians) will decide if Michael Ignatieff can help to secure the Liberal Party of Canada's power base: if he can they will toss out Martin and anoint Ignatieff as leader, if not he goes back to Harvard.


----------



## jmacleod (10 Jul 2005)

Edward Campbell is a thoughtful man, and his take on Ignatieff is absolutely correct. Ignatieff will
be nominated in Toronto - he will win the nomination. It will be interesting to observe how
Liberal MPs from Toronto, like  Dr. John Godfrey, a Martin loyalist will react to this. John Godfrey
is the former President of King's College, Halifax NS, and academic and outstanding scholar
-shunted aside by the the Chretien crowd, but a friend of Martin. Yet his academic and human 
rights credentials make him a natural supporter of Ignatieff. One thing appears certain however,
Mr. Martin's tenure is finished, and only the most loyal and obtuse Martin supporter is unaware
of this fact of Liberal politics. Another media problem for Mr. Harper in Nova Scotia yesterday,
when he referred to Liberal MP and Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan as "Gerry Regan" - the Honorable
Gerry Regan is the former Premier of Nova Scotia, a Federal Minister (Trudeau era) and the father
of Minister Geoff Regan - Harper's handlers should have known this and briefed Harper, talking in
the heartland of Tory Nova Scotia. MacLeod


----------



## Wayne Coady (10 Jul 2005)

would like to see someone try and dismantle all political parties.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Liberal immigration policy focused on Ontario over the past decades, has provided a voting pool of people who will vote Liberal
> -just look at the polls, starting in Toronto,



You aren't seriously suggesting that federal immigration policy has been driven by a plot to create a voting bloc are you?


----------



## jmacleod (10 Jul 2005)

I am not talking about a "plot" or Federal Immigration Policy - Federal immigration policy was not
a decision by the Liberal Party of Canada, it was a decision by PM Pierre E. Trudeau and his cabinet
of the period, all clearly documented and part of our historic past. But the Liberal Party of Ontario
in particular organized reception committees for immigrants, particularly those from Italy and
Portugal, and assisted them substantially with the logistics of coming to Canada. It was a well
thought out plan, which had it's historical background, for instance in Nova Scotia, where Scots/Irish
immigrants, mostly Roman Catholic were welcomed by the NS Liberal Party, and assisted. Those
were the days (1870's) in Nova Scotia where in certain areas, a Roman Catholic Mass had to be
held in secret. Did most of these people in NS and later Ontario become Liberals? of course. The
immigrants to Ontario for instance, from Ulster (Protestants) became the main driving force of the
Ontario Conservative Party (Orangemen and all that). MacLeod


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jul 2005)

I regard myself of something of a _conservative_ civil libertarian; I like to think that I am a _classical_, 19th century liberal â â€œ someone who thinks John Stuart Mill got it just about right about 150 years ago and that there has not been much, useful, added since.*

I find myself attracted to much of Ignatieff's _world-view_ as I understand it.  (I am especially impressed with the ideas he brought out in his biography of Isaiah Berlin.)  I share his belief in fundamental human rights for all â â€œ regardless of race, colour, creed and so on.  I also understand his support for prosecuting the war against the Arab, extremist, fundamentalist Islamic _movements_ which declared war on us.

If I like Ignatieff then I am 99.9% certain that a very, very large minority of the Liberal Party of Canada is going to thoroughly detest him if, Big IF, they ever find out what he thinks.  That substantial minority â â€œ it may even be a majority â â€œ includes virtually the entire, still large and influential Trudeau wing of the party which has influence amongst both the _Martinis_ and the _Chrétienistas_.  The Trudeauites remain united in their blissful ignorance of history and economics and in their pursuit of the old, discredited, intellectually vacuous anti-capitalist policies.  They, including John Godfrey, form the core of the knee-jerk anti-American wing of the party.

But we are going to have an election this winter so it is time for the gentlemen to get off the pitch and make room for the players and the Liberal Party of Canada _players_, as Mr. MacLeod has told us, are undeterred by anything as banal as ideas and intellect.  They learned, back in the '60s and'70s that *charisma* tops brains, integrity, ideas and ability, all rolled together, every time.  The guessing, I guess, is that Ignatieff has charisma â â€œ his reputation as a world famous Harvard scholar will satisfy the deep craving of a huge majority of Canadians to have whatever the Americans have.  His ideas can be disguised or submerged into whatever bits of fluff the _stenographers_ in the Canadian media take down, verbatim, fro the Liberal hacks and flacks and then pass on to us as 'news.'  All that, of course, if the Québec Wing of the Liberal Party fails in its bid to retain the _tradition_ of alternating French and English leaders â â€œ and despite the fact that Paul Martin Sr. entered the government as the Franco-Ontarian minister in King's cabinet, Montrealer Paul Martin Jr. is not French enough to count, no matter what the Manley team says.

It is no walk over for Ignatieff, I think.  Too bad because he might, just might be the guy to rescue a once proud national institution from 40 years of rot and corruption which have made it more akin to the criminal _mob_ than a political party.

----------

* I also think that modern political _liberalism_ is a peculiarly English (not even British) construct which is rooted in the traditional values of several, but not all, North Western European cultures.  It (English liberalism) borrowed heavily, for 1,000 years, from across the North Sea and then, in the 19th and 20th centuries found fertile ground in some European countries.  Most of continental Europe, in my view, remains profoundly illiberal â â€œ the French and Italians and Spanish raise their clench fists and scream _*Liberation!*_ but they rarely practice what they preach.  European (mostly French) colonialism is responsible for most of what Fareeed Zakaria described (in _Foreign Affairs_ in 1997 â â€œ later expanded into a book: _The Future of Freedom_) as _illiberal democracy_ â â€œ see:  http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19971101faessay3809-p20/fareed-zakaria/the-rise-of-illiberal-democracy.html ).

Most quasi-democratic states (including, in my opinion, many in Europe, even in the European Union, itself) learned all the wrong socio-economic and political lessons from their colonial masters â â€œ some, even many mastered some of the forms of democracy, like elections, even free and fair elections, but they failed to grasp the functions: _respect_ for laws, a _belief_ in the supremacy of the rule of law, _equality_ at law rather than (unattainable by humans) economic or social equality â â€œ which leads, inevitably, to Marxism and social, economic and political failure.  I also believe that there are, in Asia, a few _conservative_ democracies â â€œ which are possible in the very conservative Asian societies.  I have no problems with liberal or conservative democracies â â€œ liberal democracies are better for liberal societies, conservative democracies are, probably, better for conservative societies.  Illiberal democracies are neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring and, in so far as they reflect illiberal societies (Eastern Europe? the Balkans? the Middle East? West Asia?) then, perhaps they pose dangers to our values by disguising the real problems.


----------



## Acorn (10 Jul 2005)

One wonders, Edward, if you will still be thought of as a _*thoughtful man*_ after that.

Acorn


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

Well Edward Campbell :  liberal or conservative democracies seems to be the very problem, they float that word "democracy" around as if we were suppose to believe it were real. This liberal/ conservative bull as cost the taxpayers of Canada much, and as far as this being a "democracy" well maybe if you do not mind being stolen blind by some lawyer turned politician. 

I remember what conservative politics under Mulroney done to this country and now here we are still going through what the Liberals Party have done to this country with their ad scam plus much more, the NDP are not free from stealing from the taxpayers either, they have proved that they too have light fingers.

No, I get a kick when someone tries to tie the party system to democracy, when in fact a political party is nothing more than a vehicle, used to deceive and steal from the countries citizens. There is very little difference between a motor cycle gang such as the Hells Angles and a political party. The only difference is political parties have managed to put the very people who are suppose to manage justice in the right places to push their protective legislative laws. From the time of Sir John A MacDonald we the taxpayers have been stolen from and think about it, MacDonald was caught for taking kick backs and they gave him the title "Sir" , something like give the Order of Canada to Jean Crietian or Brian Mulroney. 

Honourable is as Honourable does. But no my friend, Liberal / ConServative/ NDP parties are along way from being democratic, from the very day you enter either party , you either do as you are told by the "party" or you hit the road. That sounds like dictatorship politics to me. Unions, Religion and political parties all appeal to the masses, people who cannot think or do for themself and all three have been losing their membership, they are on the decline, because people have been waking up, slowly, but they are starting to think outside the box.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jul 2005)

I will take this education in stride, but my mentor Thucydides pretty much summed it up around 404BC (which is why I know "parties" will continue to exist regardless):



> It will be enough for me, however, if these words of mine are judged useful by those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past, *and which (human nature being what it is) will, at some time or other and in much the same ways, be repeated in the future*.


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

Parties only  exist because they have been blind siding us with BS. Parties may exist, but that does not mean we cannot change. Crooks, rapest and molesters exist too, and we do not condone their activities, so why should we condone political parties being used as vehicles to high-jack our "government" so the few can exist or those who wish to be social climbers can crawl over top of us using "our tax dollars?"


----------



## jmacleod (11 Jul 2005)

Canadians have the opportunity to change governments - it is called "voting" - the name on the
ballot that gets most of the "X"s wins - been doing it for years. Liberals win most of the time
because they get most of the "X"s - one would never find a discussion like this on a Liberal or
Conservative web site, but that is the type of democracy we have, flawed, annoying, but there
and I cannot see any significant change on the horizon - why? primarily because of Canadian
Media, who have adopted the Liberals. Even the Sun newspapers, advocating the election of
Conservatives are owned by a consortium with very strong direct links to the Liberal Parrty of
Canada. The media started the move towards Ignatieff, not the Party - the media have written
off Manley already - and Stephen Harper is a target. His political career is over, regardless of his
summer sojourn. They will start on Layton when he realizes that he got royally shafted by the
Martin government - what will he do? why not a "Letter to the Editor". MacLeod


----------



## jmacleod (11 Jul 2005)

I had not intended to post another comment on this site, but the points of view are well thought
out and appreciated - but I feel I must point out a common fallacy when discussing "Liberal Politics"
- the Liberal Party and the "Liberal Government" is not the same thing. The Party deals in the
mechanics of elections - the focus is on winning. No one in the Party will care what Ignatieff thinks;
his strength through nomination and election is acceptable only in winning. The Liberal Party thrives
on patronage - the Senate of Canada is an example. With the exception of P.M. Pierre Trudeau,
no Liberal Leader since MacKenzie King has had control and the total loyality of both the Government
and the Party - I doubt in the forseeable future if any Liberal Leader or P.M. will have that same
rapport that Trudeau had (still has in fact).Just a note about Dr. John Godfrey MP; his father was
a Liberal Senator, know him well from Halifax days - he is not anti American - his academic credentials
and his links with Kings College and Dalhousie University precludes that,down town Toronto anti
Amercan nonsense. Brian Mulroney failed because he never had control or real empathy with the
Conservative (PC etc) Party - and then the media (and later the public, prompted by the media)
turned on him - same thing is happening to Harper on a daily basis. I am not debating if the Liberal
Government is good for the country, just talking about the strategy of "elections" - an exercise in
reality. MacLeod


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

JMacLeod: The number of people becoming involved in political parties has fallen off as are those people interested in voting. It is my belief that the demographics will change the way we vote and will change the party system. The old party loyalists at the ballot Box are now taking a second look at the party system, because they have retired and no have the time to look at the way these parties have managed our finances.
Church/ religion is suffering as well because of how they have managed their faith, you cannot molest young alter boys or orphans and expect to get away with it under the name of God, much as political parties have abused "our government" , to feather the nest of the party friends / elite with our tax dollars. 
Sure parties will be there, but not as they are now, they will crash, and as far as leadership, like Harper, well the media might like to think it is all about Harper, but Canada never got over Mulroney as we will not get over Cretien.

Parties are responsible for the death of many small business here in Nova Scotia, if they are not using tax dollars, they are putting in place regulation that cripples the small mom and pop operation. We have the Sunday shopping issue, which i think should not be an issue if we live in a free market society as we are led to believe we do, but this is just a myth, unless your a big box store. No Mr. Macleod, parties are slowly turning into ashes, people are starting to see through the media too.

 When you see reporters who were once reporting on dirty government are now spin doctors  or employed as speech writers, goodness they are even running for the very parties they have refused to report on. Here in Nova Scotia the number of media types employed with either "government" or their favorite party has become a concern, people are wondering just how much of the news we are not getting. 

Maybe we should start putting our X on non of the above and push for more people who are wiling to think out side the party box.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2005)




----------



## jmacleod (11 Jul 2005)

All good points Wayne - you may be right. The younger generation, like my three professional
daughters can change things - frankly I do not know how they vote, rarely talk politics with me
- but a lot of people are fed up with the system. We have undertaken a lot of development
projects in Nova Scotia - we recently refused to submit a Business Plan Proposal call for the
Digby Airport NS, because the bureaucrats who wrote the RFP (all politically appointed) did
not know what they were talking about - saw the same thing in Newfoundland a couple of
years ago - too much of that in the Atlantic region - New Brunswick is also caught up in the
same type of process. MacLeod


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> ... Just a note about Dr. John Godfrey MP; his father was a Liberal Senator, know him well from Halifax days - he is not anti American - his academic credentials and his links with Kings College and Dalhousie University precludes that, down town Toronto anti
> Amercan nonsense ...



I really fail to see how attending Kings College or Dal magically inoculates one against knee-jerk anti-Americanism, especially if, as may be Godfrey's case, it is mostly just pandering to the local electorate's prejudices.

That would just be lying to get votes, wouldn't it?  Maybe that's where his Liberal roots come in.


----------



## jmacleod (11 Jul 2005)

There is a lot of American money in Dalhousie, has been for decades. There are strong academic
links with Dalhousie with it's best medical school and law school in Canada - actually Dr. Godfrey
is a good guy, smart as hell, an asset to the current Liberal government. We helped negotiate
a major Industrial Regional Benefit (IRB) for Nova Scotia on the LLADS and CP140 purchases
which was worth one million US, for the Dalhousie Medical School (Canadian money in American
hands)  MacLeod


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> All good points Wayne - you may be right. The younger generation, like my three professional
> daughters can change things - frankly I do not know how they vote, rarely talk politics with me
> - but a lot of people are fed up with the system. We have undertaken a lot of development
> projects in Nova Scotia - we recently refused to submit a Business Plan Proposal call for the
> ...



John I been to some very interesting meeting where the people have brought forward some great ideas and hopefully your daughters as my children will have the courage to move for change. I spoke with a nurse at the Lunenburg Craft show yesterday and she tells me that as soon as the "government" drafts the legislation , we will have practicing nurses incorporating and they will be doing as our family physicians do now, she tells me it a pay for service is coming. 
What shocked me was, the public here in Nova Scotia are not fully aware of this, they think we are still debating how our health system should be set up. The Conservative party have been working with the Medical Society and the College to draft the regulations and of course we know that our Premier is a member of this organization , once again the elite looking out for their own.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Canadians have the opportunity to change governments - it is called "voting" - the name on the
> ballot that gets most of the "X"s wins - been doing it for years. Liberals win most of the time
> because they get most of the "X"s



This is a falsehood perpetrated by the Liberal party in an effort to legitimize their tyrrany.  Federally, the Liberals have *not ever gotten* "most of the "X"s (at least since 1940), but due to constant gerrymandering of a fundamentally flawed system they have legally been able to to govern as if they have.  Canadian's "opportunity" to change governments to anything other than Liberal is restricted by an electoral system that stacks the odds against them (particularly if those Canadians are voting in Alberta or BC).


----------



## jmacleod (11 Jul 2005)

No kidding! What a surprise. MacLeod


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> This is a falsehood perpetrated by the Liberal party in an effort to legitimize their tyrrany.   Federally, the Liberals have *not ever gotten* "most of the "X"s (at least since 1940), but due to constant gerrymandering of a fundamentally flawed system they have legally been able to to govern as if they have.   Canadian's "opportunity" to change governments to anything other than Liberal is restricted by an electoral system that stacks the odds against them (particularly if those Canadians are voting in Alberta or BC).



Yes you are correct, but this does not just apply to one party and you have presented a case that would support proportional presentation and possibly a system with a re-call mechanism built in. This would be a first good step to reforming our political system.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2005)

Here is an interesting _counterpoint_ from John Ibbitson in today's _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050713/IBBIT13/Columnists/Columnist?author=John+Ibbitson 


> Ignatieff for Liberal PM? Not in this decade
> 
> By JOHN IBBITSON
> Wednesday, July 13, 2005 Updated at 8:33 AM EDT
> ...



Some army.ca members will have noted that I cite Ibbiston quite a lot.  I do so because, broadly, I find much of interest in what he has to say.

I suspect, despite Mr. MacLeod's assurances about _senior Liberal insiders_ providing Ignatieff with a 'power base', that Ibbitson is correct when he says: _â ? Other potential contenders ... already have informal organizations on standby. If Mr. Ignatieff were to try to organize against them, they would toast him, butter him lightly, and have him for breakfast.â ?_

If Ibbitson is right and the Liberal brain-trust is _en-route_ to concluding that: _"...  the Liberal Party desperately needs someone who understands the United States ...â ?_ as its next leader (the implication being that Martin does not and Chrétien (and the _Chrétienistas_) did not) then *Manley is the man*, I think.

_Caveat lector_:  I know John Manley, I like him and I respect him.  I do not know him well enough to call him a friend, but well enough that when we are in the same place, at some conference or social event, we usually take a few (of his busy) minutes to chat about a few matters of mutual interest.  I think Manley was, head and shoulders, the best minister in Chrétien's cabinet - including Martin; not the best politician or best campaigner, just the best minister.  I think Manley was an excellent Industry Minister - maybe the best since CD Howe; he was a very, very good foreign minister - the best since St. Laurent and that includes Mike Pearson (who didn't, really, do much, as foreign minister - his reputation was made as a very senior bureaucrat, where he excelled); and a good enough finance minister, too.  I think he might be a good prime minister and a good Liberal Party leader: willing and able, I believe, to wring out the last vestiges of the Trudeauistic nonsense which has prevented me from voting Liberal, ever, since the mid 1960s.


----------



## jmacleod (13 Jul 2005)

An interesting piece by Ibbotson, but inconsequential. Liberal Party are focused on Ignatieff
because they see him clearly as a winner - Ignatieff however may not want to enter the tough
ruthless world of Liberal politics (who could blame him). Alan Rock well known to us is an impressive
guy, but I doubt if he has any interest in seeking the Leadership now, and could not win in any
event - Manley is not in the picture. A competent politician and Minister, but rated average -has
no chance of Liberal Leadership (and he knows it). The Party will be focused on new faces, from
in and out of the present Liberal government, and a new direction (what ever that will be, your
guess is as good as mine) and finally Frank McKenna. My personal opinion is that he will not offer
because he cannot win - and why should he. A small town lawyer and small Province Premier
is a major player in the world of commerce, and highly rated in the U.S. a long way from a law
practice in the former Newcastle N.B. - but he would make a first rate PM. Macleod


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2005)

The bench strength of the Liberals seems to be at an all time low, the _Martinis_ haven even driven out lightweights like Sheila Copps and Alen Rock. I suspect the "buzz" around the good doctor is an attempt to get some fresh blood in the Party, but as has been pointed out in this and the new thread, there are people with residual leadership ambitions, and the internal split between the _Martinis_ and _Creitienistas_ would make it very difficult for the good Dr. to walk in and clean house.

It is a pretty pathetic picture of how debased our politics has become; a rudderless and nearly leaderless Liberal Government, backed by a party currently firmly in the grip of Mr Dithers is _*still*_ the party with the highest numbers in the polls.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jul 2005)

...Vote for Pedro.


----------



## Andyboy (14 Jul 2005)

Ligers are pretty much my favorite animal.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2005)

Someone will have to explain the preceding two posts to me.  Are they some sort of popular cultural reference?


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...Vote for Pedro.



http://preshrunk.info/2005/06/dear-hipsters.php


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jul 2005)

At the risk of getting back on topic: This is a fairly lengthy, interesting take from Andrew Potter (see: http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1498526,00.html ) in today's _National Post_.  The 'meat' - the reasons Potter reckons the Liberals will, indeed must reject Igantieff are near the end: Ignatieff is too nuanced, too independent, too thoughtful ... quite unable to work within the party's power structure.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=2291eefd-6340-4b90-a502-b790ccfa7847


> Philosophers make bad kings
> *Canadian politics is fuelled by dogma, not reason. Michael Ignatieff, stay away*
> 
> Andrew Potter
> ...


----------



## jmacleod (22 Jul 2005)

Interesting perspective from Edward Campbell. I read Potter on Ignatieff and just laughed. The
Liberal Party has already decided that Professor Ignatieff will be a candidate in a Toronto riding
(downtown, central I would think). Potter is already caught up in the clever Liberal apparatus
spin, to focus Ignatieff and cause comment in the main stream, Toronto (and Liberal) media.
The replacements for PM Paul Martin (don't call me Paulie) potentially are Ignatieff, Alan Rock
and possibly Scott Brison MP, who will be appointed Deputy PM it is felt. Wrote to a Liberal
Senator the other day and pointed out that if Brison became Party Leader and later PM, he
would be the first openly homosexual Prime Minister. Supposing, thanks to the Martin government
he got married to say, Harold, or Ralph or Irving - his formal public introduction would be "the
Right Honorable Scott Brison PM of Canada and his wife (Harold, or Ralph or Irving) - meaning that
the Liberal government could be laughed out of existance. MacLeod


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2005)

There is a brief article in today's _Ottawa Citizen_ re: Michael Ignatief's latest remarks - at the annual Beatty Memorial Lecture as part of McGill University's homecoming events for alumni,

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=505aa16a-f307-4dd8-972b-c56c13103165


> ...
> The Montreal Gazette
> 
> Sunday, October 02, 2005
> ...


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  

While I do not expect Ignatief to become our PM I am glad to see that he has achieved _star_ status in the party - similar to the status enjoyed by Tom Kent when he (through his masters Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau) caused Canada to lurch to the Left back in the '60s and '70s.  Ignatief talks sense - not popular sense, not consistent sense but, on foreign and defence policy, sense all the same.

Ignatief understand and is not afraid to say that Canada quite simply does not matter in the world.  We are, by almost every fair and sensible measure, one of the top ten countries in the world.  Using almost all those same sensible measures we will remain in the top 10% even after China and India and (maybe but less likely) a few others surpass us in most of those measures.  The sad fact is, however, that due to 40 years of inept and sometimes corrupt _leadership_ we have managed to turn a place in the top ten into irrelevance.  We may be the _moral super-power_, waggling a stern finger at Australia, Britain and, especially America but no one listens - not even the _has been_ French and Russians or the never will be Arabs and Africans; out voice is a fruity whisper and no one cares, unless we send money.  Bribery is a useful adjunct to foreign policy but in Canada it is our only tool.

Oh, well, we are, by now, _conditioned_ (in the Pavlovian manner) to understand, when the election bell sounds, that Martin + Layton = good and Harper = bad - we salivate on command.

Canada began a steady withdrawal from the world and from geo-political relevance in 1968; it slowed, but did not stop, in the '80s but accelerated in the '90s and now it goes on apace as politicians buy votes rather than lead.

The root cause of our _decline and fall_ is simple: our basic public education system has declined markedly and measurably in the past 50 years; we now have ill-educated _teachers_ perpetuating the sins visited upon them 30 years ago.  Canadians are so full of crap which now passes as _knowledge_ that they believe that wishes equal facts and that 'the world needs more Canada.'

Maybe Ignatief can make some, a few Canadians rethink their positions and maybe those few Canadians can reform the political process because only a tiny minority of Canadians actually participate in the political process so the _people_ the other 31,500,0009 don't matter - a handful of Liberals can and will decide what Canada will become, if it survives at all.  I hope some of them are listening to Ignatief; I fear more are listening to Coderre and Cauchon and their _fellow travelers_ in which case the country will crumble and fall.


----------



## UberCree (22 Oct 2005)

Very interestng thread.  I can say that Ignatieff would get Aboriginal support in Canada, not because Phil Fontaine and most of the AFN are Liberals, but because he has had past experience working with the Cree in Quebec and very eloquently summarizes their plight in one of his books....  An interenationally known advocate of human rights would steal votes from the left and right (I include myself in that catagory, mind you I would never support the Conservatives with Tom Flannigan in his current role with Steven Harper).  

I would wager that there are a shit load of Canadians that feel the way I do.  We want Canada to have a military that can travel the world and kick ass, for goodness sake, for the sake of something 'higher'.  Ignatieff had to have been influenced by Samantha Powers, also at the Carr Centre for Human rights at Harvard, and her book on Genocide that encourages the U.S. and others to act to stop genocide and human rights abuses.  If he is thinking of teh 'greater good' then he must realize that to be in a position of power in Canada would allow him to sway the country to act to prevent human rights abuses.  This is naively assuming that he is being altruistic I know.  

I would be interested to see if others think that the procurements and teh new shape that the CF is taking are a result of Ignatieff's influence on Martin and gang.


To the point, he has my vote if he runs.  As long as the Liberal party doesnt recruit some corrupt wife beater Chief to run from my riding, as they did last time.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Oct 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> mind you I would never support the Conservatives with Tom Flannigan in his current role with Steven Harper).



Not a fan of First Nations, Second Thoughts?


----------



## UberCree (23 Oct 2005)

I may agree with some of its points but it is not in my self interest to support it or him as you can guess. ;D  I enjoy the $5.00 a year I get from the federal goverenment.
Thats at least 1 milliion voters (Aboriginal population plus any that sympathize wth Ab rights) the C's lose by having Flannigan on board.  How many do they gain by adopting such extremst policies ... that have been supported by supreme court decisions ... none.  They just solidify the old guard of the party.
Not smart.

Sorry for the tangent.  Mind you ths was related to the issue we were discussng on SOCNET and emailed Ignatteff about.  He had an interesting response.  It had to do with Treaty rights vs. CDN human rights charters vs. Int. Human rights and which supercedes which.

Sua Sponte


----------



## Infanteer (23 Oct 2005)

That was a good discussion and I think we both learned a bit; I won't derail this thread.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Infanteer (28 Nov 2005)

A bit of an update - Michael Ignatieff has announced that he will run for election in the riding of Etobicoke Lakeshore.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1133133016624&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/28/star-candidates.html

With the writ to be dropped in the next hour, the campaign will be on.   Wonder if he'd get a Cabinet seat if the Liberals get another mandate?


----------



## UberCree (29 Nov 2005)

Here's why I would support Ignatieff as PM.

"Good public policy is not a politics of propaganda and national self-delusion. It is an attempt to match our national self-image and our capabilities as a people. The present government is struggling to close the gap between pretending to be a good international citizen and failing to fund our foreign aid commitments; pretending to be a peacekeeper and failing to fund our defence establishment; pretending to be green and failing to fund our investment in environmental sustainability. 

It is as if we conquered the deficit in the 1990s, at the price of starving those areas of core responsibility - foreign and defence policy - that are essential to the maintenance of federal authority at home and abroad. The government is now putting this right, and it is to be hoped that, pressures of minority government notwithstanding, they will stay the course. 

A strong foreign policy is essential to the maintenance of national unity at home, just as a strong federal government at home is critical to our influence abroad. 

If we are committed to a "responsibility to protect" strangers from genocide and ethnic cleansing, and fail to fund, equip and deploy a combat capable military, it is not just our foreign partners who will start to think we are a joke. Our fellow citizens will lose confidence in their country."

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/060205_ignatieff.htm


I suppose now we'll see how all his rhetoric works out in real world politics.  I would guess he'll get a top cabinet pos'n if elected.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Nov 2005)

I'd vote for him - his books have cool titles.   Maybe we'll see an internal coup in the Liberal Party if Martin fails to win a majority?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2005)

Is suspect I share some of Ignatieff's views on many issues.

I hope he, like me, share's the _Globe and Mail_ editorialist's views as expressed below.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051129/EIGNATIEFF29/TPComment/?query=Arranging+for+Ignatieff


> Arranging for Ignatieff
> 
> Tuesday, November 29, 2005
> Posted at 1:48 PM EST
> ...


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2005)

It would be hilarious if this was the reason the Liberals get knocked off in that riding!


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Dec 2005)

Won't be so hilarious if they lose to the NDP, which IMO is likely to happen.


----------



## vangemeren (9 Dec 2005)

I just watched a video/documentary narrated by Ignatieff on wendsday in my A Geography of the Former Soviet Republics class. It was circa fall of the Soviet Union. I know why the Ukrainians in Toronto (or any Ukrainian for that matter) would vote for him.


----------



## UberCree (9 Dec 2005)

You know why they would or wouldn't?  They were initially protesting against him because of a quote taken out of context in one of his books.
For how many books the guy has written there must be some major scanning going on right now to try to find tidbits and quotes that can be used against him.  One thing I do like about him is that his books come out only in paperback.  He bypasses the hardcover, wait paperback BS and gets them out to the masses cheaply.
He seems to publish a book a year at a minimum and at least a major article a month.  He has to be Harvard's most prolific writer.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2005)

> Won't be so hilarious if they lose to the NDP, which IMO is likely to happen.



Whiskey - as an arch-conservative myself (well maybe just a CPC supporter of convenience) I would not be at all bothered if the NDP took that riding - or for that matter many of the other Liberal "bastions".   In fact I would be right chuffed to see a parliament with NO Liberals but instead 4 parties driven by policy and principle - failing that I will accept a parliament of CPC, NDP, BQ and Greens.

Humour aside - it would be nice to have debates and decisions in the open, not behind closed doors with only "right answers" being trotted out for peddling to the masses.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2006)

> Macleans
> 
> January 18, 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2006)

Prospective Liberal Part of Canada leadership candidate and, therefore, prospective Prime Minister of Canada Michael Ignatieff has reaffirmed a tried and tired but true Canadian political maxim: leadership means finding out where the people are going and then rushing to the head of the line to lead them there.

He said, according to the _Globe and Mail_: _” "[Mr. Chrétien] … felt that the country was against it, and if he took the country in, it would divide the country. And those are the kinds of responsible decisions a prime minister has to make."_  In other words we must still support Prime Minister King’s decision (in 1939) to send the _SS St. Louis_ on its sad, deadly way back to Germany because, in his own words, _”This is no time for Canada to act on humanitarian grounds … Canada must be guided by realities and political considerations."_ Those _realities_ were that many, likely most Canadians opposed any Jewish immigration – even though, only months before, the _Globe and Mail_ had made _Kristallnacht_ and the Nazi campaign against the Jews – for the ‘crime’ of being Jews – front page news in Canada.  The opposition was strongest in Quebec and _Orange Lodge_ dominated Southern Ontario, the Liberal’s power base.

Not too long ago Warren G. Bennis (Harvard, MIT, USC) said: _ “Leaders are people who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right.”_  This has become somewhat axiomatic in military circles; it is frequently cited to describe the difference between command _*decision*_ and the hard, detailed work of the staff to put flesh on the bare bones of the commander’s plan.  But most soldiers understand that it means something else too.  It means that leaders do not shirk their duties, not even when their duties are hard and dangerous and, especially, not just because their *duty* is likely to be unpopular.

Michael Ignatieff will have endeared himself to legions of Canadians: to those who put great value in Canadian _pragmatism_ in all things controversial.  He sets out the fundamental difference between Churchill (a _lion_ in 1939, snarling defiance at Nazi Germany and at British appeasers, too) and King (as always, a _pragmatist_ in 1939, weighing each act of leadership on the scales of domestic _‘realities and political considerations’ _). 

I would argue that Jean Chrétien did the _right thing_ but for he wrong reasons – which may be worse than doing the wrong thing or, even, dithering.  Even though I, personally, would have opted for war in Iraq – to stay _onside_ with out best friend, good neighbour and all-important trading partner, it is likely that had I (or Stephen Harper) been making the decisions we would have ended up doing little good in or (mostly, because our major contribution would likely have been naval) around Iraq and we would, equally likely, have been unable to go to Kabul (limited value, but good publicity) and, now, Kandahar - where we can, arguably, make a major contribution to regional and global stability (by denying the Arab extremist/fundamentalist Islamic _movements_ a secure base from which to continue their was on the West) and to our own international _leadership_ aspirations.  Chrétien and Martin stumbled into the _right thing_ – I’m glad we made it but I would have been really pleased if someone, anyone had *led* Canada in the right direction.

Many, including Michael Ignatieff, one supposes, will argue that _pragmatism_ usually gets to something like the _right_ answer while allowing this diverse country to get its ideas together, first – that must be why we welcomed Jewish refugees after we knew all about _*Auschwitz*_, six years and six million too late.

</rant>


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2006)

Steven Harper may not be a "smart" as Ignatieff, but he has demonstrated he is very smart indeed when it comes to politics. If the media annoints Ignatieff as the new "philosopher king", in the hopes of creating Ignatieffmania, this time they will be faced by a legion of bloggers who can apply any amount of intellectual horsepower to examine his statements, positions and actions.

From the sounds of it, he is too clever by half, and a Mr Dithers in the making (trying to catch all the political breezes).


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2006)

Here is a somewhat long_ish_ editorial from today’s _Globe and Mail_; it is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

I think Ignatieff and his (mostly _Chrétienista_) backers and handlers are not aiming at the _economic_ Centre-Left, as the ‘Good Grey Globe’ appears to fear; they are targeting the anti-American/anti-capitalist _social_ Centre-Left, the still strong remnants of the _Trudeauites_: people who are, generally, anti-military, too.

There is, I think a strong _Trudeau_ wing in the Liberal Party – it, like its _patron saint_ is focused, if incoherent.  Its main tenets are:

•	Capitalism is not about economics, it is about the organization of society.  The Trudeauites understand (even if they hate to admit) that they need private enterprise (capitalism) to create jobs and create revenues for governments but they do not want the free market to influence society because they know best what you and I ‘need’ and how much we should ‘give’, too;

•	America is bad – *not evil*, just bad for ‘good’ people like us; and

•	The “military-industrial complex” *is evil*, not just bad, and it is centred in America.  (Russia and Cuba do not, apparently, make and sell arms.)  The Canadian military is, temporarily, a necessary evil but one which can and should be reduced to the status of a blue-bereted boy scout troop as soon as possible.

I, personally, do not think Ignatieff believes much of this rubbish but I suspect he really does want to lead the Liberal Party of Canada and he does believe that he can lead it to power (and himself to 24 Sussex Drive) if, and only if, he can reconstitute the Trudeau/Chrétien version of the Party – the one Paul Martin threw away, along with a majority government.

Anyway:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060412.ELIBS12/TPStory/Opinion/editorials 


> The Liberals' true place is in the political centre
> 
> In a startling prescription, Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff has advised his struggling party to embrace the "centre-left" of the political spectrum. That airy counsel, delivered when he launched his candidacy last week and again at a recent Edmonton gathering of prospective candidates, has provoked whispered debates among party faithful. If nothing else, Mr. Ignatieff's musings indicate the extent of the party's reconstruction challenge when even the basics of Liberal-ism in the 21st century must be defined. The problem is that, as the race begins, a probable front-runner seems to be tilting his party away from the sensible, middle-of-the road approach to fiscal and social issues that is its greatest strength.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Apr 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Steven Harper may not be a "smart" as Ignatieff, but he has demonstrated he is very smart indeed when it comes to politics. If the media annoints Ignatieff as the new "philosopher king", in the hopes of creating Ignatieffmania, this time they will be faced by a legion of bloggers who can apply any amount of intellectual horsepower to examine his statements, positions and actions.
> 
> From the sounds of it, he is too clever by half, and a Mr Dithers in the making (trying to catch all the political breezes).



So, in conjuction with Edwards posting immediately below, he has somehow managed to become both philosopher king and the national village idiot at the same time? Big surprise there.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> So, in conjuction with Edwards posting immediately below, he has somehow managed to become both philosopher king and the national village idiot at the same time? Big surprise there.



More like the Emperor and his clothes. As long as you ignore the "fabric" of his policy robes, he can still _seem_ to be the Philosopher King.

Like I said, my take is he seems to be trying to trim his sails to catch the prevailing political breeze, so we will probably end up with the "Dithering King" instead.


----------



## GAP (12 Apr 2006)

Whether it is Ignatieff or one of the other hopefuls, I think you are going to find something similar to what has happened each time a long term PM has been replaced. The opposition becomes the government, in this case the Conservatives, with either a majority or a likelyhood of a majority in the next election. The new leader of the former government that got turfed, rushes in with high hopes of being PM in waiting, only to discover that he/she is nothing more than a caretaker (see: Turner, Cambell, etc).
Why do you think all the supposedly "Power Houses" backed out??..There's nothing in it for them and they don't want the loneliness of being a nothing leader of a nothing party.  Watch the leadership reviews 2 to 4 years (depending on how well the Conservatives do) for the next leader of the Liberal Party


----------



## exsemjingo (3 Jun 2006)

Are people still talking about Micheal "Soviet Union" Ignatieff?

In my opinion, should anyone support him as a canidate for the Liberal leadership, it would only be because they though that would destroy thier chances of winning the next election.
That said, I wholeheartedly support his bid for leadership of the Liberal Party.  Conservative Majority, here we come!


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2006)

I am posting this in two threads: _All eyes on Ignatieff_ and _ What Countries Should be Part of the Lebanon Security Force??_ (_pace_, Mods) because, despite the fact that Bob Rae has raised the most money and that some pundits note that Martha Hall Findlay is the _dark horse_ who might be the late vote compromise at a convention, Ignatieff is still the front runner  in the Liberal leadership race and he _*might*_ be prime minister of Canada in a few years; what he thinks and suggests, therefore, should matter.

Here is what he says, as quoted in today’s _Globe and Mail_ (reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act) (*my emphasis added*):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060803.IGNATIEFF03/TPStory/


> Ignatieff details ceasefire proposal
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI
> OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
> ...



I think there are three points worthy of note:

•	Ignatieff proposes that Canada should join whatever peacekeeping force is authorized;

•	Ignatieff does not propose that the aim should be to _disband_ Hezbollah – rather he suggests that it will be sufficient to _” prevent missiles and military technology from entering Lebanon, where it would be used to assault Israel”_; and

•	Ignatieff proposes that Canada act, in part, as a surrogate for the US.

The views of the politically active (and generous – in money, skill and time) Jewish community are reported to be of concern to the Liberal Party’s brain-trust.  Some fear that important Jewish community leaders/members will, at best sit on their hands (and wallets) in the next election or, worse (for the Liberals) actively support the Conservatives.  The larger and generally loyally Liberal Arab/Islamic communities are, I hear, regarded as less important because they are less politically active, less wealthy/generous and their active support is also seen as a disadvantage.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Aug 2006)

Let's be honest here - if we weren't in AStan, we would be all over this like a fat kid on a Timbit, or a Logggie on the last slice of pie...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I am posting this in two threads: _All eyes on Ignatieff_ and _ What Countries Should be Part of the Lebanon Security Force??_ (_pace_, Mods) because, despite the fact that Bob Rae has raised the most money and that some pundits note that Martha Hall Findlay is the _dark horse_ who might be the late vote compromise at a convention, Ignatieff is still the front runner  in the Liberal leadership race and he _*might*_ be prime minister of Canada in a few years; what he thinks and suggests, therefore, should matter.
> 
> Here is what he says, as quoted in today’s _Globe and Mail_ (reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act) (*my emphasis added*):
> 
> ...



This is related to the last point in the earlier article.  It is from today’s _Globe and Mail_ and is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Liberal power couple back Harper on Mideast
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...



This issue is divisive amongst all Canadians – Liberals are no different.

I am, relatively, shocked by the depth of emotion which this issue creates amongst Canadians who are neither Jews nor Muslims and who have had little if any contact with the region.  I am even more shocked by the reactions of those who neither Jewish nor Muslim and who have had some experience in the region.  The latter should know that this is an intractable problem for which negotiation and compromise are of dubious utility.  As I have said elsewhere: we had best prepare ourselves to receive tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees when – *as I believe will be the case* – one or another radical Islamic movement or government manages to mate a nuclear or chemical warhead to a sufficiently long range missile or manages to smuggle a so called _suitcase nuke_ into Israel.  That will provoke a full scale nuclear/chemical war which will result in the destruction of Israel and the death of tens of millions of Arabs in the firestorms which will result from Israel’s awful, massive retaliation.

A friend, an active Liberal, opined in a recent E-mail that massive, visible Muslim support for some Liberal candidates (and the consequential visible opposition to others) will hurt the party.  My friend worried that some newspapers and (worse) TV stations will report extensively on Muslims making violently anti-Semitic and anti-Western remarks in front of Liberal Party of Canada banners.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Aug 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Let's be honest here - if we weren't in AStan, we would be all over this like a fat kid on a Timbit, or a *Logggie on the last slice of pie*...



...unless it's a KBR piece of pie....


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2006)

Here is an excellent counterpoint to Michael Ignatieff’s recent musings re: peace in the Middle East from  Lysiane Gagnon (my choice for PM of Canada!) of _La presse_, writing in today’s _Globe and Mail_.  Her column is reproduced here (with my *emphasis* added) under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Is Ignatieff now too Canadian?
> 
> *LYSIANE GAGNON*
> 
> ...



This should be required reading in both the Conservative and Liberal lobbies on the Hill.

The _”march to the abyss”_ is, I repeat, the most likely outcome and, in this case, I suspect Ignatieff is more ‘right’ than Gagnon: both sides are marching in lock-step; neither has the wherewithal to fight this war in any other way.  Israel is a modern, liberal-democratic nation-state which is bound by and generally follows the _“laws and usages of war”_ while Hezbollah is a _movement_ (mass movement?) with one clear, focussed aim; it is totally unconstrained by any 19th and 20th century Euro-centric ideas about _”humane warfare”_.  If, as I suspect might be the case, a nihilistic terrorist organization cannot be subdued by _”conventional”_ military operations and an Islamic nuke is inevitable then we see the edge of the abyss.

On the other hand: Ignatieff and his backers are smart Liberals.  *Power* is their clear, focussed aim and they are totally unconstrained by such 19th and even 20th century ideas like intellectual consistency and morality in public service.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2006)

Here is an interesting _backgrounder_, from today’s _Globe and Mail_, which ties all the way back to the start of this thread: Michael Ignatieff’s address to the Liberal Party of Canada’s convention.

One of the things I find interesting is that Ian Davey wasn’t looking for Ignatieff, _per se_, just for a certain _type_ who would provide continuity in power.

Here it is, reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060807.DAVEY07/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/  





> Rainmaker's son keeps legacy afloat
> 
> Senior political writer JANE TABER explains how a famous father's off-the-cuff remark gave birth to Michael Ignatieff's Liberal leadership campaign
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Aug 2006)

And a rip at Mickey I. from John Robson of the _Ottawa Citizen_:

Wake up, Mr. Ignatieff, please wake up
http://www.thejohnrobson.com/columns/2006/060804.htm

Excerpts:

'Dreamland is a place where the enemies of the West cannot be defeated militarily or politically and Canada is a neutral nation that speaks with a voice like thunder. Where something called "pressure" is forever building on right-wing politicians to do what left-wing journalists want and we trust news stories filed under the watchful eye of Hezbollah guys with guns.

And Michael Ignatieff, a certified Deep Thinker, just hurled a thick sheaf of nonsense into my file with his Aug. 1 statement on the Middle East.

One cannot even take seriously his initial warning that "Hezbollah's strategy is to lure Israel into an escalation of violence that will radicalize the Arab world and cause Israel to lose its remaining international support." Would that be the Arab world where the grand mufti of Jerusalem spent the Second World War in Berlin urging Hitler to bomb Tel Aviv? Where the secretary-general of the Arab League in 1948 predicted "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre"? Where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is widely available, government newspapers explain how Jews put the blood of gentile children in Purim pastries, and the answer to any problem from corruption to poverty is a public chant of "Death to Israel, Death to America"? Shall we take policy advice from a man who fears the consequences if these people now get "radicalized"? Phooey...

...we get Mr. Ignatieff's own "solution" that, improbably, manages to be even more absurd: "Canada ... should call for an immediate ceasefire, authorized by the Security Council. It should line up with the Europeans and moderate Arab states ... Israeli forces would withdraw, aerial bombardment would cease and Hezbollah would stop rocket attacks and incursions into Israeli territory. Once a cease-fire has taken hold, Canada should propose the deployment of an international naval, air and land force to prevent the movement of missiles and other military technology into Lebanon.... authorized by the UN Security Council to seize any weapons destined for Hezbollah or any non-state actor ... Such a force would not engage in direct confrontation with Hezbollah or with the Israelis but patrol a buffer zone between them." We're lost in the "woulds" of dreamland here. Hezbollah won't stop trying to kill Jews until someone does "engage in direct confrontation" with them. It's the whole reason we're in this mess...

Mr. Ignatieff winds up (or down): "As a nation of immigrants from the zones of war, we have a special vocation for peace, and it is by exercising this vocation that we maintain our unity as a people. We have a voice that other countries listen to. Let us use it." I didn't even know most of us came from war zones, and if other countries listen to our voice, how come Cuba got more votes for the new UN Human Rights Council than we did? But see, it doesn't matter. It's not about the Middle East. It's about us. We maintain our unity as a people by yelling into our own navels in response to foreign crises. It's both goofy and repellent...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2006)

Inevitably the media _backlash_ has begun.

Here are two opinion pieces from today’s _Globe and Mail_ – by Jeffrey Simpson and Rex Murphy; they are reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060901.wxcosimp02/BNStory/National/home 


> It's all about Ignatieff— but it shouldn't be
> 
> *JEFFREY SIMPSON*
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...



As is so often the case the Canadian media is preoccupied with <drum roll> and <surprise, Surprise!> the Canadian media and, equally surprising the print media is preoccupied with the print media’s _contributions_ to the political debate.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060901.wxcomurphy02/BNStory/National/home 


> So how new is the new guy?
> 
> *REX MURPHY*
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...



It is important to remember a modern definition of _journalism_ (By Rupert Murdoch? I think, maybe) as being the business of filling up the white spaces (and air time, too, I guess) between the adverts with something _newsworthy_ - which means salacious, bloody murderous, bizarre (man bites dog) or, at the very least, controversial.  Simpson and Murphy are trying to _manufacture controversy_ (with apologies to Noam Chomsky) because they, and their publishers, really, really want to fill some white spaces with Liberal leadership gossip and none will be forthcoming if Ignatieff gets a stranglehold on the leadership too early and too easily.

Personally I rather like Brison, Dion, Dryden and Ignatieff (in alphabetical order) because, I think, as Brian Mulroney famously said of Stephen Lewis they think in complete sentences.  None is likely to make me change my 40 year old voting habits because none is likely to wring the vestiges of Trudeau’s policy vandalism out of the Liberal Party.  Tom Axworthy (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41980/post-436029.html#msg436029 ) interesting and unintentionally (given his own background) _*might*_ accomplish that whoever succeeds for whichever of the 10 becomes leader at the end of this year; but that’s a different topic.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2006)

Here is yet more, this time from Adam Radwanski in today’s _National Post_; it, too, is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Radwanski raises a good point: the next Liberal leader may have to be a _Pearson_ and hold the fort through successive minority governments, mostly Conservative, while the national political scene sorts itself out.

My personal _guesstimate_ is something like:

•	Another Conservative minority after a summer 2007 general election;

•	Liberal minority, with NDP support – à la Peterson/Rae in Ontario in 1985 (with similar downstream results: the ‘governing’ party being discredited for consorting with the NDP while the economy is eratic, or worse) - after a late fall 2009 general election; and

•	Conservative majority after a spring 2011 general election. 

I wonder is either Ignatieff or Rae is up for the job.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=05781c44-12b9-477d-b512-f83290eda686 


> It's time for Liberals to read the tea leaves
> *Adam Radwanski*
> National Post
> 
> ...




Edit: spelling Peters*o*n


----------



## paracowboy (2 Sep 2006)

the thing that annoys me is the media's interpretation that this current Conservative gov't is merely a mild inconvenience to be borne out until the *Rightful Rulers* of our nation can once more reclaim the throne and lead us poor, misguided, simple-minded, fools  along the Golden Path, helped along, of course, by those _brave champions of all the is Canadian_, the media.


----------



## canadianblue (2 Sep 2006)

If the Liberals were to win the next election then this country has truly lost its way. The conservative's have actaully stayed true to their election promises, have held principled positions that for the most part were not influenced by polls. I'd have to agree that the media is trying to make us all believe that the conservative minority is simply an inconvenience until the Liberals find the right leader. Right now I've noticed that all the hype is on Ignatieff, but that will probably cause more problems for the party, remember what happened to two political leaders [Paul Martin, Stockwell Day] in the past who failed to live up to the hype.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Sep 2006)

Here's the interesting bit -

The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are roughly where they were at the time of the last election.  There was a lot of speculation that the Conservatives were just getting the fairweather "Chuck em out" vote and that those numbers were soft.

Guess what after all the negativism those numbers are now firm.  They can be counted on as a fairly solid base - including that portion of Quebecers that voted with the Conservatives last time.

What has been lost is the spike that happened after the election, especially in Quebec, when the focus was on fiscal imbalance, sovereignty.  With those and the environment coming back on to the radar there is an opportunity for the government to regain ground.

In the mean time most Canadians feel that Harper has been principled, moderate and reasonable, that he has exceeded expectations and that he deserves to be re-elected, and that includes about 20% of Liberal party members.

This at a time when Liberals are all things to all people.  Sooner or later they will have to nail their colours to the mast and present a stationary target.

Look at it this way - Harper secured ground during the last election and has gone firm despite raids and harassing fire. In the meantime he has had some succesful raids of his own where he exploited forward and found further exploitable axes of advance.

I think the next election is still the Conservatives to lose.  If only they will quit harassing me with so many phonecalls and letters requesting donations.  They are becoming worse than that company that constantly calls wanting to steam clean my carpets.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> They are becoming worse than that company that constantly calls wanting to steam clean my carpets.



You're getting calls from the Conservative carpet company too? (Let us get the Adscam out of your carpet!)


----------



## canadianblue (3 Sep 2006)

> I think the next election is still the Conservatives to lose.  If only they will quit harassing me with so many phonecalls and letters requesting donations.  They are becoming worse than that company that constantly calls wanting to steam clean my carpets.



Yeah I know what you mean they kept on bombarding me with phone calls when I was a member. Strangely enough when I was with the Canadian Alliance I would rarely get those annoying phone calls, but then again I was on the BOD.


----------



## TCBF (3 Sep 2006)

" If only they will quit harassing me with so many phonecalls and letters requesting donations.  They are becoming worse than that company that constantly calls wanting to steam clean my carpets"

- Same guys.  Same list.



- I told them "I got you there - you want money?  Earn it: dump the SAP (Prohibited 12/5) regulations".  I want to be able to teach my son how to shoot my FN C1A1 legally.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Sep 2006)

I suppose the mark of a philosopher is the ability to keep two contradictory ideas in his mind at the same time. Just imagine what will happen when people start taking some of these policy prescriptions seriously.

http://dissonanceanddisrespect.blogspot.com/2006/09/iggys-master-plan.html



> *Iggy's Master Plan *
> 
> The Liberal Party's would-be next great philosopher king has finally unveiled his policy platform. And he's just lost Quebec and the isolationalist left in his party with it, and added another level of confusion to the constitutional debate:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2006)

The Liberal leadership campaign has finally started.

Some Liberals do not intend to _anoint_ Michael Ignatieff.

This interesting article by John Ibbiston is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from today’s (13 Sep 06) _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060913.wxibbit13/BNStory/National/home 


> A hatchet aimed squarely at Ignatieff
> 
> *JOHN IBBITSON*
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...



The political _flat earth society_ which is the remnants of the Trudeau wing of the Liberal Party of Canada will be energized by one of its own intellectual patron saints, Denis Smith ( http://www.trentu.ca/admin/library/archives/04-019.htm for a brief bio).

I think Ibbitson is right: _”… only the United States can lead and protect the West, and that only the West can protect the weak and vulnerable from their oppressors …”_  

That doesn’t mean that Ignatieff is ‘right’ – I, personally, find him too vague on too many important issues and too busy trying to appeal to the _Liberal-left_ because that is the _natural_ constituency of his main rival: Bob Rae.  Maybe Dion will come up through the middle, between the two front runners.

(No. NO! *Not Celine!* The other Dion.  <makes cross with fingers, to ward off the undead>)


----------



## a_majoor (13 Sep 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> That doesn’t mean that Ignatieff is ‘right’ – I, personally, find him too vague on too many important issues and too busy trying to appeal to the _Liberal-left_ because that is the _natural_ constituency of his main rival: Bob Rae.  Maybe Dion will come up through the middle, between the two front runners.
> 
> (No. NO! *Not Celine!* The other Dion.  <makes cross with fingers, to ward off the undead>)



I think I would rather vote for Celine myself. The opening of Parliament would be worth seeing for the show alone.....


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2006)

Since Celine Dione is not available for the opening of Parliament, we have to go back and look at the potential results of the good Dr's plan for Canada (sigh)

How about:

http://www.dustmybroom.com/?p=4483



> *Opening up a big can of smoke*
> The Manitoba government has stated they will abide by but also appeal a court ruling that states that anti-smoking laws should apply to First Nations reserves. Confused? Check this:
> 
> Meanwhile, the province is appealing the legal basis of the ruling, fearing the idea that everyone must be treated equally under the law could threaten employment equity measures and programs that offer special incentives to aboriginals, farmers or any specific group. (CBC)
> ...



Ignatieff's plan to recognize every group, province and wannabe as a "nation" (http://dissonanceanddisrespect.blogspot.com/2006/09/iggys-master-plan.html) certainly contradicts the idea of "equality before the law", and by implicitly advocating competing polities in the same geographical jurisdiction, he certainly blurs the very concept of legal jurisdiction. I'm not a Harvard scholar, but it seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## TCBF (15 Sep 2006)

It's the liberal/progressive long term plan for The Balkanization of Canada.  Toronto will be a province. All of Ontario north of the riverline Mattawa/French River will become an aboriginally administered area, as will most of Manitoba and Saskatchewan north of the N Sask/Sask Rivers, Alberta North of the N Sask and all of BC east of the continental divide.  Canada will also turn most of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago over to the UN to be administered as a nature preserve for the good of the planet.

Canada will also fund our Kyoto Carbon Credits by allowing Sri Lanka to lease Newfoundland as a colony.

Red China gets to rent Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlottes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2006)

What a difference a year makes.

It has not been quite 14 months since I posted this: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27392/post-173379.html#msg173379  His speech did, indeed, electrify the Liberal Convention in March 2005; see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27392/post-177428.html#msg177428   

Now, this: a column by Don Martin in today’s (9 Nov 06) _National Post_:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=409608f7-fdea-436c-9617-7d5f8fd5d609 


> Ignatieff may be bound for palliative care
> *Gaffe-plagued campaign seems to be dying a slow death*
> 
> Don Martin
> ...



So many, including me, had such high hopes for Ignatieff.  For my part I hoped he might, finally, rid his Party of the last vestiges of Pierre Trudeau’s nonsensical, even juvenile forays into foreign and defence policy.  In Jun 05 I opined, using Isaiah Berlin’s fox/hedgehog analogy:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27392/post-233221.html#msg233221 


> Most good leaders, it seems to me, are foxes, but many not so good leaders are ill-disciplined foxes;  they have a wide range of interests but they are unable (unwilling) to focus on the ones that matter.   In my time St. Laurent, Pearson, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin were all foxes but only St. Laurent, Mulroney and Chrétien were well disciplined foxes.   Ignatieff is a fox, too, and, on the evidence to date, unlike Trudeau, Ignatieff does have a resumé with real accomplishments in the real, wide world; he may be an interesting challenger.



I guessed wrong when I agreed with John Ibbitson - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27392/post-238911.html#msg238911 - that Ignatieff could not make a run at the Liberal leadership.

I was dismayed, but not overly surprised, when, in April of this year, Ignatieff embraced the Liberal’s famous _’centre=left’_ wing - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27392/post-365319.html#msg365319 .  I was not surprised because the Liberals have a long traditional, intra-Party and nationally of campaigning on the left and then returning, promptly, to the polices of their big banks, big business, big labour and big _special interests_ paymasters.

Anyway, it appears that even those (Martin and I) who liked Ignatieff a year, even six months ago, are tired of his dithering.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Nov 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Anyway, it appears that even those (Martin and I) who liked Ignatieff a year, even six months ago, are tired of his dithering.



Not so sure that it is dithering vs learning, rather publically, that intellectual masturbation is a) gratifying b) done in private and c) no one ever asks you to perform on cue.

Politics is the antithesis of all of that - as is governing.

I too am dissapointed, but still hold out hope that he can grow into the job.

Dave


----------



## GAP (9 Nov 2006)

With the exception of Ignatif, I see all the others basically...more of the same ol' Liberal stuff. I don't hold Ignatiff as the new Trudeau, but he's got to get a grip.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Nov 2006)

Hey, if Michael Ignatieff versus Bob Rae are being weighed as _Liberal_ party leader......can locusts, rivers turning to blood, and death of the firstborn be far off?


----------



## exsemjingo (11 Nov 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Anyway, it appears that even those (Martin and I) who liked Ignatieff a year, even six months ago, are tired of his dithering.



I agree: the more you know about a Liberal, the less you like them.


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2006)

Nik on the Numbers...Quebec as a Nation – A Liberal Albatross
http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-F06-T199.pdf

The symbolic recognition of Quebec as a nation has traction only in Quebec. Outside of Quebec – it is quite likely to push voters away from the federal Liberals. The two key battlegrounds for the next election are Ontario and Quebec. Think of the trade-off. On the one hand you have a net negative impact in Ontario (10% more likely to vote Liberal while 54% say they would be less likely to vote Liberal), while there is a potential upside in Quebec (40% more likely to vote Liberal while 12% less likely to vote Liberal) where voters can already opt for the pro-Quebec Bloc. This is dangerous and volatile ground for the Liberals.


  Methodology
Polling between November 5th and November 10th, 2006 (Random Telephone Survey of Canadians, 18 years of age and older). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. 


  Canadian Voters (N=1,002, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
Question: If the Liberal Party of Canada adopted a motion to symbolically recognize Quebec as a nation would you be more likely to vote Liberal, less likely to vote Liberal or would this have no impact on your likelihood to vote Liberal 

More likely to vote Liberal (16%) – (40% in Quebec)
Less likely to vote Liberal (40%)
No impact on vote (36%)
Unsure (8%)

Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the “SES Research National Survey.”


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2006)

Nik on the Numbers...Mixed bag for Liberal leadership hopefuls
http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-F06-T200.pdf

In order to understand the possible impact of the new Liberal leader, SES has looked at the how Canadians voted in the last election and correlated that against whether Canadians would be more or less likely to vote Liberal under the new leader. Overall, it’s a bit of a mixed bag with no candidate having a clear advantage over the other. 

However, of note – Bob Rae has the ability to attract some of those who voted NDP in the last election to the Liberal banner. Stephane Dion is a non-starter among BQ voters in Quebec – not surprising considering his pro-federalist views. Michael Ignatieff generally trades off those he would attract compared to those he would not attract with the exception of NDP voters would be less likely to vote Liberal under an Ignatieff leadership. Gerard Kennedy could hold onto the Liberal vote in the last election but would have difficulty growing Liberal support. 




  Methodology
Polling between November 5th and November 10th, 2006 (Random Telephone Survey of Canadians, 18 years of age and older). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. 


 Canadian Voters (N=1,002, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
Question: For the last federal election earlier this year, which party did you vote for locally (724 Canadians who provided an answer)

Conservative 37.5%
Liberal 31.0%
NDP 14.9%
BQ 12.5%
Green 4.2%

Because of the complexity of the tables, you should visit our website at www.sesresearch.com to download the stats. Here are the highlights. 

Ignatieff as Liberal Leader
More likely to vote Liberal 16% (Among 2004 NDP voters 14%)
Less likely to vote Liberal 20% (Among 2004 NDP voters 29%)
No impact 47%
Unsure 17%

Rae as Liberal Leader
More likely to vote Liberal 20% (Among 2004 NDP voters 30%)
Less likely to vote Liberal 24% (Among 2004 NDP voters 22%)
No impact 42%
Unsure 14%

Dion as Liberal Leader
More likely to vote Liberal 14% (Among 2004 BQ voters 14%)
Less likely to vote Liberal 23% (Among 2004 BQ voters 29%) 
No impact 48%
Unsure 15%

Kennedy as Liberal Leader
More likely to vote Liberal 12% 
Less likely to vote Liberal 21%
No impact 50%
Unsure 17%

Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the “SES Research National Survey.”


----------



## a_majoor (12 Nov 2006)

If the Liberal Party isn't going to be consumed by convulsions and internal dissent (and to make it even mildly attractive to the bulk of Canadian voters) I think electing Stephan Dion as party leader would be the best possible choice. The Saturday National Post had an interesting comparison of Dion to Harper, both men are strategic thinkers and have a very deep understanding of politics. Dion does politics well, and so is the real Liberal weapon that can take on Prime Minister Harper on equal terms.

The fact that he is a principled man is also hard to ignore.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's _Globe and Mail_ is the complete text of Michael Ignatieff's recent article in the _New York Times_ in which he _revises_ the historical record and explains to political science students the brutal realities of politics and politicians:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070804.wignatieffiraq0805/BNStory/National/home


> *Canadian Exclusive*
> Getting Iraq Wrong
> 
> MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
> ...



This is a pretty thorough repudiation of most of what he's said and written for the past five or six years.  Perhaps it's a return to the Ignatieff of a decade past – the one who wrote the outstanding biography of Isaiah Berlin, who he quotes new the beginning of the article – not to be confused with the prophet he quotes at the end.

Here is the key lesson, I think;

_*Fixed principle matters. There are some goods that cannot be traded, some lines that cannot be crossed, some people who must never be betrayed. But fixed ideas of a dogmatic kind are usually the enemy of good judgment. It is an obstacle to clear thinking to believe that America's foreign policy serves God's plan to expand human freedom. Ideological thinking of this sort bends what Kant called "the crooked timber of humanity" to fit an abstract illusion. Politicians with good judgment bend the policy to fit the human timber. Not all good things, after all, can be had together, whether in life or in politics.*_

The mistake too often made, arguably by Bush and Ignatieff and most of us, is to fail to understand that not many ideas, not even many _ideals_ are *principles*, and especially not principles which ought to be fixed in one's moral star-chart. He might have gone farther and suggested that people with too many principles do not fare too well in politics.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2007)

Staying on the topic of revisionism and fixed principles, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's Ottawa Citizen is an interesting column by Leonard Stern:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=8a20b251-d1c4-4d84-b3be-670764d62459


> Stories of brutality make for a feel-good movie
> *Leonard Stern, Citizen Special*
> 
> Published: Sunday, August 05, 2007
> ...



We, seemingly, find it easy to compromise what ought to be fixed principles when enough celebrities say _x_ is good and _y_ is bad. In my opinion torture is always unacceptable – that doesn't mean that I, like LTC West, would not resort to it under some circumstances but in so doing I would hope that I would understand that I was breaching an important fixed principle in the pursuit of some other worthy goal.


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Aug 2007)

A guest-post at _Daimnation_!:

Mickey I.'s road to Baghdad
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009927.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Aug 2007)

Here is another rather lengthy piece reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3b1ec6d4-0898-4dbc-9f1b-7e3ebe5ec5d2


> Ignatieff's about-face
> 
> Robert Sibley, The Ottawa Citizen[/b]
> 
> ...



I agree with Sibley that there is a fundamental difference between Fukuyama’s rejection of Bush’s _strategy_ and Ignatieff’s _apologia_, but I tend to agree with Ferguson’s analysis:* there was nothing wrong with the immediate goal, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but the administration botched the _nation building_ bit – in large part, as Ferguson mentions, because the US situation in 2005 is markedly different than it was in 1945: the US is now a major debtor nation.

There was a major debate, I *guess*, within the Bush administration re: why and how to rebuild Iraq.  There certainly was in 1945, in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, as Michael Beschloss points out. It appears that in the Bush administration the proponents of something akin to the _Morgenthau Plan_ won the day – as they did not in 1945.

This brings us back to the idea of R2P (Responsibility to Protect) about which so many Canadians have preached for so long.  President Bush, arguably, _practised_ what Pink Lloyd Axworthy preached.  He went a protected the people of Iraq (and its neighbours) from the depredations of a murderous, barbaric tyrant.  But who decides which people ought to be _protected_ from which tyrant?  Is that really something we want to entrust to the UN?  Shall we have an annual “Name that SOB!” contest in which the UN General Assembly decides which _regime_ needs to be toppled (by the USA) next?  Any guesses on who’s first on the list?  Is Israel really *that* bad?


-------
* And don’t miss his scathing assessment of Ignatieff’s _atonement_ as a Canadian MP, something Ferguson describes, about half way down, as “a cruel form of penance.”


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Aug 2007)

A sitting politician publicly admitting a mistake... must check the weather channel to see if the temperature has dropped in Hades.  While this is relatively uncommon of late in Canada, many south of the border are doing the same and attempting to distance themselves from the American decision to take military action in Iraq.  Mr. Ignatieff, despite commentary about a lack of political judgement, may be taking a long term approach to changing his image as a "war supporter".  He may be simply positioning himself to take another run at the Liberal Party leadership.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Aug 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> but I tend to agree with Ferguson’s analysis:* there was nothing wrong with the immediate goal, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but the administration botched the _nation building_ bit – in large part, as Ferguson mentions, because the US situation in 2005 is markedly different than it was in 1945: the US is now a major debtor nation.



Absolutely.  I believe that Iraq has become a case where defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory.  The fact that a neo-conservative ideological flop and mismanagement of post-invasion Iraq doesn't erase the fact that their was good geopolitical/economic reasons for going in.  Most of the bad things we see arise out of the failure of the Iraq strategy are due to the above mentioned shortcomings of the Bush administration and not the fact that we (the collective "we" of the West, mainly the Anglosphere minus Canada) went into Iraq in the first place.  If anything, we should learn not to dress up our _hard_ realpolitik moves in _soft_ altruistic wrapping, as things can get convoluted fast - as we saw with the piss poor performance of the CPA and L Paul Bremer (go here for a good overview).

Now, back to Ignatieff and his politiking.  His support, along with Fukiyama and co., was the result of an odd pairing of Wilsonian idealists and the neo-conservative movement steering the US administration at the time, which both deep down believed that the spread of democracy was the key to progress in the world (of course for what end, the two differ).

Ignatieff's apologia is merely an example of what many have been doing for the last couple years - jumping off the leaky, sputtering neo-conservative ship as fast as they can to avoid going down with it.  We are seeing this today in US politics with the various repudiations of the Bush Administration (the Congressional elections, headhunting guys like Libby and Wolfowitz, etc, etc).  I see Ignatieff doing this in order to get himself into step with the anti-US core of the Liberal Party and to keep himself fresh in the event of a Dion collapse.  It doesn't change the fact that Ignatieff is Wilsonian in the core and would not hesitate to expand liberalism and democracy on the end of a bayonet.  The failure of his support for the Iraq invasion would not stop him from sending Canadian soldiers to the Sudan, where the same mix of oil and radical Islam means the chance for another Iraq is high.

Don't be fooled by this one folks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Aug 2007)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...
> Now, back to Ignatieff and his politiking.  His support, along with Fukiyama and co., was the result of an odd pairing of Wilsonian idealists and the neo-conservative movement steering the US administration at the time, which both deep down believed that the spread of democracy was the key to progress in the world (of course for what end, the two differ).
> ...



Perhaps the Bush administration should have paid more attention to the _Jeffersonian_ view that America ought to be more concerned with safeguarding democracy at home than spreading it abroad.

There is no doubt that all people prefer to make their own political choices but people making choices, even at ballot boxes, is not the same as democracy.  Democracy, liberal or conservative, requires a foundation, a base upon which it can rest.  There needs to be, _inter alia_ a deep, ingrained respect for, indeed belief in the ‘rule of law’ and an equal belief in the inalienable right to equality at and under the law – for all, rich and poor, governed and governors alike.  Until those conditions obtain all the elections in the world do not produce *real* democracy.  They may produce what Fareed Zakaria called illiberal democracy – the sort of thing which _passes_ as democracy in some of what The Economist* calls ‘full democracies’ and almost all of those it describes as ‘flawed democracies’ and ‘hybrid regimes.’   

Trying to _export_ democracy to a country or, worse, a whole region that lacks the requisite base is a hopeless quest.

One fully understands – to continue with Mead’s descriptors – the _Jacksonian_ impulse to counter-attack after 9/11, but the belief in _Hamiltonian_ or _Wilsonian_ values was misplaced.

The _Islamic Crescent_ must find and fight its own way out of the morass into which it has sunk over the past 500 years or so.  There is no quick fix.  Democracy – because it will be *illiberal democracy* - is only a façade, as it is in parts of Europe and Asia, most of Latin America, and almost all of Africa, the Middle East and West and Central Asia.


----------
* I do not agree with The Economist’s methodology.  It, like Freedom House, is so highly biased towards *liberal democracy* that it doesn’t even consider *conservative democracy* nor does it recognize that some 'full democracies' are highly *illiberal*.


----------



## observor 69 (12 Aug 2007)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Free subscription required to view full article. 

August 12, 2007
How the ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad 
By DAVID ROHDE and DAVID E. SANGER
Two years after the Taliban fell to an American-led coalition, a group of NATO ambassadors landed in Kabul, Afghanistan, to survey what appeared to be a triumph — a fresh start for a country ripped apart by years of war with the Soviets and brutal repression by religious extremists.

With a senior American diplomat, R. Nicholas Burns, leading the way, they thundered around the country in Black Hawk helicopters, with little fear for their safety. They strolled quiet streets in Kandahar and sipped tea with tribal leaders. At a briefing from the United States Central Command, they were told that the Taliban were now a “spent force.” 

“Some of us were saying, ‘Not so fast,’ ” Mr. Burns, now the under secretary of state for political affairs, recalled. “While not a strategic threat, a number of us assumed that the Taliban was too enmeshed in Afghan society to just disappear.” 

But that skepticism had never taken hold in Washington. Since the 2001 war, American intelligence agencies had reported that the Taliban were so decimated they no longer posed a threat, according to two senior intelligence officials who reviewed the reports.

The American sense of victory had been so robust that the top C.I.A. specialists and elite Special Forces units who had helped liberate Afghanistan had long since moved on to the next war, in Iraq.

Those sweeping miscalculations were part of a pattern of assessments and decisions that helped send what many in the American military call “the good war” off course. 

Like Osama bin Laden and his deputies, the Taliban had found refuge in Pakistan and regrouped as the American focus wavered. Taliban fighters seeped back over the border, driving up the suicide attacks and roadside bombings by as much as 25 percent this spring, and forcing NATO and American troops into battles to retake previously liberated villages in southern Afghanistan. 

They have scored some successes recently, and since the 2001 invasion, there have been improvements in health care, education and the economy, as well as the quality of life in the cities. But Afghanistan’s embattled president, Hamid Karzai, said in Washington last week that security in his country had “definitely deteriorated.” One former national security official called that “a very diplomatic understatement.”

President Bush’s critics have long contended that the Iraq war has diminished America’s effort in Afghanistan, which the administration has denied, but an examination of how the policy unfolded within the administration reveals a deep divide over how to proceed in Afghanistan and a series of decisions that at times seemed to relegate it to an afterthought as Iraq unraveled.

Statements from the White House, including from the president, in support of Afghanistan were resolute, but behind them was a halting, sometimes reluctant commitment to solving Afghanistan’s myriad problems, according to dozens of interviews in the United States, at NATO headquarters in Brussels and in Kabul, the Afghan capital. 

At critical moments in the fight for Afghanistan, the Bush administration diverted scarce intelligence and reconstruction resources to Iraq, including elite C.I.A. teams and Special Forces units involved in the search for terrorists. As sophisticated Predator spy planes rolled off assembly lines in the United States, they were shipped to Iraq, undercutting the search for Taliban and terrorist leaders, according to senior military and intelligence officials.

As defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed credit for toppling the Taliban with light, fast forces. But in a move that foreshadowed America’s trouble in Iraq, he failed to anticipate the need for more forces after the old government was gone, and blocked an early proposal from Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and Mr. Karzai, the administration’s handpicked president, for a large international force. As the situation deteriorated, Mr. Rumsfeld and other administration officials reversed course and cajoled European allies into sending troops.

When it came to reconstruction, big goals were announced, big projects identified. Yet in the year Mr. Bush promised a “Marshall Plan” for Afghanistan, the country received less assistance per capita than did postconflict Bosnia and Kosovo, or even desperately poor Haiti, according to a RAND Corporation study. Washington has spent an average of $3.4 billion a year reconstructing Afghanistan, less than half of what it has spent in Iraq, according to the Congressional Research Service.

             /////////////////////////////////// Break Break

In Washington, officials lament that NATO nations are unwilling to take the kinds of risks and casualties necessary to confront the Taliban. Across Europe, officials complain the United States never focused on reconstruction, and they blame American forces for mounting air attacks on the Taliban that cause large civilian casualties, turning Afghans against the West. 

The debate over how the 2001 victory in Afghanistan turned into the current struggle is well under way.

“Destroying the Al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan was an extraordinary strategic accomplishment,” said Robert D. Blackwill, who was in charge of both Afghanistan and Iraq policy at the National Security Council, “but where we find ourselves now may have been close to inevitable, whether the U.S. went into Iraq or not. We were going to face this long war in Afghanistan as long as we and the Afghan government couldn’t bring serious economic reconstruction to the countryside, and eliminate the Taliban’s safe havens in Pakistan.”


But Henry A. Crumpton, a former C.I.A. officer who played a key role in ousting the Taliban and became the State Department’s counterterrorism chief, said winning a war like the one in Afghanistan required American personnel to “get in at a local level and respond to people’s needs so that enemy forces cannot come in and take advantage.”

“These are the fundamentals of counterinsurgency, and somehow we forgot them or never learned them,” he added. He noted that “the United States has 11 carrier battle groups, but we still don’t have expeditionary nonmilitary forces of the kind you need to win this sort of war.”

“We’re living in the past,” he said.

Among some current and former officials, a consensus is emerging that a more consistent, forceful American effort could have helped to keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s leadership from regrouping. 

Gen. James L. Jones, a retired American officer and a former NATO supreme commander, said Iraq caused the United States to “take its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. He warned that the consequences of failure “are just as serious in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq.”

“Symbolically, it’s more the epicenter of terrorism than Iraq,” he said. “If we don’t succeed in Afghanistan, you’re sending a very clear message to the terrorist organizations that the U.S., the U.N. and the 37 countries with troops on the ground can be defeated.”
Carlotta Gall contributed reporting.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Aug 2007)

The _NY Times_ article is typically trying to equate Iraq with Afstan.  Unlike Iraq the situation in Afstan has not gone "bad" in any general sense.  The Taliban resurged in the south and east in 2005 and especially 2006 after having had time to regroup in Pakistan where there was little the US could have done beyond what it did.  It may well be that much greater development/reconstruction/governance/ military training assistance in Afstan from 2002-2004 might have helped the country greatly but probably would not have stopped the Taliban from trying to resurge--and having quite a bit of success.  In any event the international community as a whole dropped that ball at least as much as the US did.  

And can you imagine the international outcry--not to speak of the negative impact in Afstan--if the US had stationed say 30,000 troops there in 2002 without too many people on the ground actually to fight against?  Perhaps training the ANA might have been done quicker, but given the huge factional differences--esp. after the defeat of the Taliban--I have doubts.

While the US certainly short-termed things in Afstan I can't see that being at the root of current problems--unlike the situation in Iraq.  Putting the fragments of the Afghan state and economy firmly together (if it can ever be done) was not going to be done in the three years after the defeat of the Taliban.  The whole _Times_ piece is essentially _post hoc ergo propter hoc_.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is an indication that at least some of the “eyes on Ignatieff” may be disenchanted with what they’ve seen:

 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=522245


> Ignatieff rubs some Liberals wrong way
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> 
> ...



It’s important to remember that this is just one report but only one robin is the first sign of spring, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

Here is an excerpt from Warren Kinsella’s blog:

_”Ignatieff’s speech yesterday morning to the Economic Club of Canada was significant – because it was good, because it was delivered with aplomb, but mainly because it almost anticipated the chaos that beset the markets a few hours later. Ignatieff asked the simple, but most obvious question: where is the Harper government’s plan for what almost certainly lies ahead? I encourage everyone to read the speech, supra – it is the best critique of current Conservative fiscal policy anyone has seen in this campaign. (And you can tell it worked by the number of Notional Pest lickspittles who were called into service to attempt to attack it, immediately afterwards.)”_

Others, including the “lickspittles” of the _National Post_, suggest - and I agree – that _“talk has moved on about the outcome of this election to the next one: The race to replace Stéphane Dion in the leaders chair of the Liberal party.”_

And, as the horse race course announced says, "_Theeeeeeeey’rrrre *off!*” 

Bye bye, Celine._


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2008)

And it just doesn't stop sliming sliding downhill

But, what about Herb ?
Monday, September 29
Article Link

A quiet lunchtime at Ottawa's top steakporium. But, such as it was, nuggets of insight were traded over bowls of piping hot split pea soup with ham and leafy plates of Caesar or spinach salad. 

Notables notabling the decorum included a sprinkling of the city's top lobbyists, Canada's top internet newshound, even a few familiar TV faces . 

But it was over by the bar that some of the finer variables were exchanged over victuals. Two people in particular, let's call them Pat and Matt for the sake of alliteration, stoked what will become the flames of a political revolution. 

"Pat," said Matt. 

"Matt," replied Pat. 

"Do you believe the polls ?" 

"Which ones ?" 

"Pick one, they're a dime a dozen," said Matt, in case you are keeping track of who said what. 

"It's looking lopsided, regardless of which one," noted Pat. 

"Precisely", said Matt as he zeroed in with precision on his nibbly nuggett of caustic gossip. 

"Well ... ?" Pat sipped his beer, the same variety Don Newman was sipping nearby. 

"Herb has left the building", Matt dead-panned. 

"Herb?" Pat choked on his wake of intake. 

Matt nodded. 

"What do you mean Metcalfe has left the building ?" 

"He's no longer working the campaign", Matt whispered. "It's all hush-hush, but he's fed up and he's quit the campaign." 

Pat looked over towards Newman to see if he had heard anything. 

"At least that's what I'm being told by someone who knows someone who should know", shrugged Matt. 

"Jeeziz H ...", hissed Pat, "he was an absolutely key component of Team Dion, where does that leave us now ?" 

"Knee deep in homemade pickle brine, I'm afraid". 

"So, what do we do now ?" 

"Pat, there's only one thing I can think of at this time ... and I need enough to submerge at least three olives." 

With that, Pat slumped in his seat, dejected, while Matt signalled to the bartender for his second three-finger three-olive Grey Goose martini. After all, party membership does have its priviledges.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2008)

That will be this Herb Metcalfe who is the husband of Liberal insider and former candidate Isabel Metcalf. Herb was a John Manley supporter in previous Liberal leadership races even as his wife supported Sheila Copps.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2008)

Peter C Newman is not my favourite historian or political analyst, nor do I think very highly of him as a biographer (but he’s readable – a solid _wordsmith_), but I do agree with his assessment of the challenges facing _Iggy_ and the nature of his responses, to date, in this commentary, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:
--------------------
 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wconewman15/BNStory/politics/home

 A sub-Arctic, WASP Obama is just what this country needs

PETER C. NEWMAN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
December 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

Over the past week, I have watched with mounting fascination Michael Ignatieff's coronation as the Liberal Party's putative saviour. His liturgical face was afire. Having been toilet-trained at Harvard and Cambridge not to surrender to history's unpredictable bear traps, he assumed his new status with equanimity and verve. His daunting assignment is to ride herd over a bitch's brew of a political party that needs taming, while avoiding Harper-style self-immolations.

It will not be an easy gig.

This cool dude's political run had been remarkable. From the start, the Ignatieff campaign was based on the identical convictions that fuelled his university, literary and social-activist careers - namely that the world exists to be put in order, so that its scattered causes will make sense and can be mobilized. That takes as much guts as brains. Why else would he have advocated, during his initial run, constitutional reform that has ensnared every Canadian politician brave enough to venture into that quagmire since the Fulton-Favreau formula?

Looking back at Mr. Ignatieff's campaign two years ago, it seems as if he woke up each morning mumbling to himself, "Which beehive do I poke today?" At the time, he failed to develop the swordsman's eye for being alert to counterthrusts, so that he frequently had to wrap his sallies in retroactive, explanatory nuances.

In his second time around, which crested in his assumption of the Liberal Party's acting command last week, there was nothing accidental about his tactics or remarks; he adopted the manners of a prince and the tactics of a chess master. No campaign strategy has been so minutely executed since the 1968 leadership run by another party outsider, Pierre Trudeau, who similarly appeared to grab startling pronouncements out of the autumn breezes, although he was programmed down to every shrug.

Mr. Ignatieff decided early on that he had to differentiate himself from the Liberal brat pack. He did so by jettisoning many of the political verities that had kept his party in power for most of the past century and the first half-decade of this one. Instead of maintaining Canadian Liberalism as the sacred instrument of sedate populism that legitimized its claim to being the country's "natural governing party," he gave notice that he intended to push the envelope right out of the ballpark - to coin an overreaching metaphor. He has aimed at nothing less than ultimately creating a new political movement, one with a contemporary vision and brave thrust that would move the party's rank and file, as well as veteran apparatchiks, into the 21st century.

This is a gamble that might have tested Kenny Rogers. As one of his closest advisers told me, "All of us are saying to each other, 'Jesus, is he going to blow himself up before he gets there?' " He almost did. Each time, the litmus test of his precarious endeavours was whether he would stand behind his tactics and pronouncements. He did, with the determination of the 16th-century theological reformer Martin Luther's famed cry: "Here I stand. I can do no other."

Mr. Ignatieff's half-dozen books on ethnic nationalism and the uses of moral indignation have won a significant following, but unlike most public intellectuals, he has also ventured into fiction. His novel Scar Tissue was nominated for the Booker Prize, while Charlie Johnson in the Flames has been compared to Graham Greene and Len Deighton.

Michael Ignatieff could be just the man for our time. Canada's most serious dilemma is not the continuing calamitous state of our health-care system, not our growing irrelevance on the world stage, nor our recent test run as a banana republic. It is the belief among ordinary citizens that they can no longer improve their lives through the political process that deserves the most urgent tending. At the moment, we are in danger of sinking politically to the dismal level of professional wrestling.

Because democratic activism is Ignatieff key doctrine, he just might turn out to be a sub-Arctic, WASP Obama who restores the civility, trust and vitality that will steer us back on course.

He is our first postmodern politician, which, if it means anything, should allow him some slack in resolving his inner contradictions. He cares more for ideas than people and sports a fatalistic approach to history as an accumulation of tumbling paradoxes. He recognizes that while the essential issues may remain insoluble, they are susceptible to creative improvisation; that while it may be absurd to actualize innovation and basic reforms of Canada's faltering political system, it's even more absurd not to try.

_Peter C. Newman is the author of the recently published _Izzy: The Passionate Life and Turbulent Times of Izzy Asper.
--------------------

Too much is made of Ignatieff’s lesser writings (the _”half-dozen books on ethnic nationalism and the uses of moral indignation”_) and not enough on his best (only really ‘good’) book: Isaiah Berlin: A Life. The book has been well criticized for its (many) failings but Berlin remains such a huge subject for (real) liberals that we will not see a full, useful biography in my lifetime and scholars may be writing about him 250 years from now – as they still do about e.g. David Hume. The book, I think, tells us nearly as much about Ignatieff as it does about Berlin – for a start he is an unstinting Berlin admirer – something which cannot and will not please the left wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, the wing that constitutes the most powerful part of the Liberal base. But it does give *hope* that Ignatieff *might* be more, maybe just a bit more than the average retail politician – the likes of which are all to familiar to Canadians in the 21st century.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2009)

Here, in a column reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, Lawrence Martin (_pace_ Rifleman62) asks the questions: *”Where’s Iggy*:
-------------------- 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090104.wcomart05/BNStory/specialComment/home

 Ignatieff is a man of magnitude. So where is he?

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
January 4, 2009 at 9:30 PM EST

Michael Ignatieff has been completing a book over the holidays, the last chapter in a family saga. That's fine and well, but there are Liberals who wish he'd chosen another time – a better moment than the immediate aftermath of becoming party leader.

With the departure of Stéphane Dion, it was thought there would be a rush of momentum for the Grits, heady sensations of relief and revival. With the eloquent Mr. Ignatieff as the new regent, hopes were further heightened.

By comparison to his predecessor, he is a man of magnitude. But where is the new dynamism? And where is he? At a volatile political juncture when the moment needs be seized, Iggy's off to a quiet and rather unremarkable beginning.

It's not so much his own doing. Circumstances have not been kind. There was no leadership race. That meant no high-profile campaign, no media-saturated convention, no hallmark speech. His overnight enthronement served the good purpose of quickly terminating the Dion stewardship. But coronations cannot be said to be democratically edifying. Rather than bolstering credibility, they can bleach it.

Iggy's investiture had the added disadvantage of coming just before the Christmas break. It meant that, with all the holiday distractions, he couldn't showcase himself. Instead, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has maintained the higher profile with his year-end interviews and hockey tournament photo-ops.

The public discussion centres not so much on the new lord of the Liberals but on the continuing aversion to the idea of a Liberal-led coalition. Archduke Ignatieff, perhaps for good reason, has not wanted to disown the coalition concept.

But it's hard to stake out a leadership image that's crisp and gallant when you're seen as flirting with the concept of hooking up with others.

Iggy's quick ascension also deprived him of the opportunity of developing and brandishing a new set of policies to accentuate his differences with Mr. Dion. On events since his takeover, he has been reluctant to put out firm policy positions. He is seen as strong on foreign policy, but developments abroad have brought him more unhelpful news. The renewed Israeli-Palestinian clash highlights an area where his credibility is, at best, suspect. On the invasion of Lebanon in 2006, the reputed wordsmith stumbled over his words twice, first saying he wasn't losing any sleep over civilian casualties, then saying the Israelis had committed war crimes.

The party he inherits is not in the gruesome shape that some suggest. The last election was actually far from its worst performance. In four other elections, the Liberals finished with lower seat totals. In most other defeats, the party didn't hold the winner to a minority as it did this time. Its record low score in the popular vote total was misleading because five parties competed in this election, whereas there were three in many of the others.

But the Liberals' image has to be turned around, and the thinker doesn't have the luxury of much thinking time. He has to move quickly. At least thus far, unlike in Mr. Dion's case, he has been spared the bite of Conservative attack ads. He warned Mr. Harper against resorting to that kind of garbage and the PM, pilloried over his bid to strip parties of public funding, is perhaps reticent to unleash his dogs of war, at least for the moment.

He may feel he doesn't have to, considering all the negative publicity over the coalition. Mr. Ignatieff is in a bind on this. It isn't exactly a sponsorship scandal he has been handed, as was the case for Paul Martin. But it's an albatross just the same.

Public opposition to the coalition idea has been allowed to cement. No concerted attempt by Mr. Ignatieff or his followers has been made to discredit misconceptions surrounding it. If Iggy really wants to keep this option open, he should be loudly making the case of how coalitions have worked in Europe, how they are more democratically representative than single-party governments, how the Bloc Québécois could be kept at arm's length with no veto power in a coalition.

It's probably too late to succeed with such a campaign. But the coalition question is one on which Mr. Ignatieff has to fish or cut bait, lest he be Dionized. He has to get himself out of the early limbo. It needs to be emphasized that he has only just begun his leadership journey. But it also needs to be emphasized that opening steps are steps remembered. His low profile speaks too much of a party inclined to stay the course, as opposed to being in a rush to change it.
--------------------

Aside from the neat bit of linguistic manipulation that turns a _noun_ (Dion) into a new _verb_: *Dionize*, I don’t see much with which to disagree:

•	Ignatieff has been pretty nearly invisible since he became leader;

•	His ‘coronation’ as Liberal leader deprives him and the Liberals of great gobs of adoring, *free* media coverage; and

•	The much unloved (if not downright despised) coalition is a problem for him.

The Liberals are not ready for another election campaign – not financially and not in any other way, including having and established, trusted leader on offer. The country does not want another election and will punish whomever they perceive to be to blame for provoking one. Harper/Flaherty are going to offer a budget that will meet most of the demands made by Ignatieff, Brison and McCallum – it will be hard to vote against it and wear the blame for bringing on another election over a few small details. Ignatieff does, indeed, therefore risk being *Dionized* by the Bloc and the NDP for voting with the government – for not being the ‘real’ opposition.

All eyes are, indeed, on _Iggy_ - or, at least, they will be when he comes out of hiding.



Edit: typo


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2009)

How appros.....Dionized .

Dion has now defined a category that all future party leaders, especially Liberal ones, will want to avoid. You never heard other leaders labeled as Turnerized, Cambellized, or Martinized (although that came close with Mr. Dithers).....


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> How appros.....Dionized .
> 
> Dion has now defined a category that all future party leaders, especially Liberal ones, will want to avoid. You never heard other leaders labeled as Turnerized, Cambellized, or Martinized (although that came close with Mr. Dithers).....



Ah!  But you forget Trudeaumania and the Trudeauites.   ;D


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2009)

oops......the salient point I can use to my defense is that they do not  describe total incompetence......


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ web site, is a (nasty) opinion piece:
--------------------
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/09/kelly-mcparland-michael-ignatieff-s-magical-mystery-tour.aspx

 Kelly McParland:
Michael Ignatieff, king of the road
Posted: January 09, 2009, 8:30 AM by Kelly McParland

Michael Ignatieff is a travelin’ kind of guy.

As I may have mentioned before, the Liberal leader has a new book coming out in the spring. It’s called “True Patriot Love: Four Generations in Search of Canada”, and it’s about his “illustrious family tree” and their experiences here in the new country. 

As part of his research, Ignatieff set out to retrace the steps of one illustrious tree member in particular, great-grandfather George Munro Grant. He and the wife, according to a puff promo, “begin their journey at the rent-a-car counter at the Thunder Bay airport and visit old Hudson’s Bay forts, traversing mile after mile of the Canadian shield, following the Yellow Head highway through the farm lands of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and visiting Canadian landmarks from Fort Francis to Wanuskewin to Batoche, from West Edmonton Mall to the Fraser River Valley.”

Great. Now, you may have noticed that Mr. Ignatieff -- who apparently spent the Christmas holidays finishing up the book -- is off on another cross-country adventure, this time a “listening tour” that started Thursday in Halifax. The new Liberal leader plans to spend several weeks on the road, accompanied by fellow MPs Scott Brison and John McCallum, getting a feel for where the country stands on this economic calamity situation that’s going on. Oh, there’ll be town hall meetings, and sessions with businessfolk, and get-togethers with local Liberal worthies -- a real cram session on just what the people think.

“At a time when Canadians are worried about their jobs, their pensions, and their savings, Michael and the Liberal party are committed to holding a national conversation about Canada’s economy,” according to a Liberal release.

It’s probably churlish to wonder why Mr. Ignatieff needs to fly around the country with his pals from the caucus, asking folks if they’re worried about their jobs, when he’s already crossed the country once, and presumably had a chance to make inquiries about the local economy when he wasn’t searching out tidbits on Grandfather Grant. What was he doing out there on the Yellowhead highway, or nosing around Batoche ... swatting flies?

Yes, the two are different. One’s his day job, the other’s just for extra cash. I get it. Still, I can’t help feeling a little like the object of an anthropological expedition. Mr. Ignatieff’s career as a writer and academic tends to centre on similar excursions, in which he visits war zones, hot spots and ancestral homelands in search of wisdom with which to spice up  his latest work of academic insight. He explored his Russian roots in "The Russian Album". He criss-crossed Europe to examine the dark corners of nationalism in "Blood and Belonging". Now he’s going to sort out Canada. (Look -- Eskimos! And what’s that thing they do with their noses?)

I’m also worried about the prose that may result. Here’s an example from "True Patriot Love": “Loving a country is an act of the imagination. You love the country because it gives you the possibility of sharing feeling and belief. You cannot love the country alone. The emotions you have must be shared with others in order for them to make any sense at all. A solitary patriot is a contradiction in terms. Love of country is an emotion shared in the imagination across time, shared with the dead, the living and the yet to be born.” 

Five bucks to the first one who puts that in talk a hockey player can understand. “You cannot love the country alone.” No kidding ... not unless it was a real small country. 

“You love the country because it gives you the possibility of sharing feeling and belief.” Also because it means you don’t have to live in Iran and pretend you think Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is a really bright guy.

Look, it’s a free country, and I kind of admire that Mr. Ignatieff spent the holidays finishing his personal book project rather than wasting time trying to save the party that just chose him as leader. Still, why do I suspect that, should the leadership job fail to work out as expected, there will be a book soon after examining Canada’s political failings and our inability to appreciate his gifts?

National Post
-------------------

As I said, it hardly qualifies as a _puff piece_ but Liberals might want to contemplate what they have bought into.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Look, it’s a free country, and I kind of admire that Mr. Ignatieff spent the holidays finishing his personal book project rather than wasting time trying to save the party that just chose him as leader. Still, *why do I suspect that, should the leadership job fail to work out as expected, there will be a book soon after examining Canada’s political failings and our inability to appreciate his gifts*?



 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2009)

Mr Ignatieff's positions on a lot of things have suddenly sounded like Prime Minister Harper's, while on other things he engages in doublethink. I am a little less than impressed with the new "new" leader of the Liberal Party, but then again, with Bob Rae as the alternative where do Liberals turn?

http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2009/01/10/ignatieff-the-emperor-has-no-clothes/



> *Ignatieff: The emperor has no clothes!*
> 
> Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is like the emperor with no clothes. Look at the analogy. It’s obvious for all Canadians to see.
> 
> ...



I suspect the last line is more of a wish, the Liberals are hardly in a position to run an election right now, and I doubt Mr Ignatieff wants or needs to have Jack Layton as his political saviour.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2009)

Without further comment:

http://crux-of-the-matter.com/ignatieffiggyisms/



> *IN MICHAEL IGNATIEFF’S OWN WORDS *
> 
> This list of “Iggyisms” are in chronological order with the name or handle of the person who submitted it and a link to a verifiable source.  See also “Endnotes” below.
> 
> ...


----------



## Yrys (1 Feb 2009)

Ignatieff subject of glowing New York Times profile, PC

WASHINGTON -- Michael Ignatieff has caught the attention of the New York Times, 
serving as the subject of a largely fawning profile Sunday that described the Liberal 
leader as a keen intellect waiting in the wings to assume power.

"His ascendancy puts his country on the cusp of an unusual moment, in some ways 
a throwback to the era of the dashing Pierre Trudeau, another smart-set intellectual
 who served as prime minister," the Times' Eric Konigsberg wrote.

The Toronto-placelined piece, under the headline "Running on Charm and Book Sense," 
delves into Ignatieff's unconventional upbringing and his rise in power just three years 
after entering politics. "Mr. Ignatieff's life story is positively novelistic in its detail," 
Konigsberg writes. "His father, George Ignatieff, was a Canadian diplomat, and his 
grandfather and great-grandfather were both Russian counts who served as cabinet 
ministers in the czarist government. His mother's brother, George Grant, was a famous 
political philosopher."

The piece, on the front of the paper's Fashion and Style section, was picked up by the 
Manhattan media blog Gawker, which asked: "Is Michael Ignatieff Canada's Barack Obama?" 
under the subhead "Canadawesome."

"All hail Iggy!" read the post.

In addition to his intellectual background and his writing acumen, Gawker pointed out 
that just like the new American president, Ignatieff has heartily embraced modern 
technology to reach out to his supporters. He's joined Twitter, a micro-blogging site 
that features short status updates by its users. The Liberal leader's latest tweet was 
from Jan. 28, when he wrote he was putting Prime Minister Stephen Harper "on probation."

The 61-year-old Ignatieff is also on Facebook, his page regularly updated with statements, 
news, video and Flickr photos.

Nonetheless, comparisons to Obama make the Liberal leader uncomfortable. "There's only 
one Obama," Ignatieff has said. Privately, he disdains such parallels, saying any politician 
perceived as trying to emulate the popular president makes himself a target of mockery.

*Book explores relationship with U.S.*

And in fact, Ignatieff has adopted many of Harper's tactics -- not Obama's -- in terms of 
message discipline and rebuilding his party. He has instructed his caucus that they are to 
speak publicly with one voice: his.

In the eight weeks since he was acclaimed Liberal leader, Ignatieff has also installed his 
own people on the party's executive, dismissed loyalists to Stephane Dion in the opposition 
leader's office and cleaned house in the Liberal Research Bureau.

Politically, the Times piece suggests Ignatieff has taken some stances that are diametrically 
opposed to Obama's. It recalls, for example, the Liberal leader's onetime support of the U.S. 
invasion of Iraq and his public defence of torture. "He has openly acknowledged, without 
much self-censorship, regret over his initial support of the Iraq war and has movingly -- 
if painfully -- wrung his hands in print, most notably in the New York Times Magazine, over 
both the decision and his ensuing volte-face," Konigsberg wrote.

The article mentions that Ignatieff's next book, "True Patriot Love: Four Generations in Search 
of Canada," will be published in late April. The Liberal leader told the Times that the book 
explores a common preoccupation in Canada -- its relationship with the United States, the 
country he called home for five years.

"Every generation, they are all obsessed with the idea of how to maintain a Canadian empire 
in the face of America, this behemoth right next door," Ignatieff said.


----------



## Yrys (1 Feb 2009)

Running on Book Sense and Charm, NY Times






CEREBRAL TACTICS Some see Michael Ignatieff, the opposition Liberal Party leader, 
as a throwback to Pierre Trudeau.

IN the last few years, Michael Ignatieff’s friends in the United States and England 
began receiving self-deprecating e-mail messages from him lamenting how dull 
and low-profile his life had suddenly become.

He had spent most of the preceding four decades making a name for himself in 
both countries — writing essays on the world’s war zones for The New Yorker, 
The New Republic and The New York Review of Books; writing novels and screenplays; 
enjoying popularity as a television-show host in Britain and a regular at the Groucho 
Club; and teaching at Harvard and Cambridge universities.

Now, he joked, he was stuck in the pedestrian life of a freshman civil servant — in Canada 
no less. Mr. Ignatieff shocked friends and colleagues three years ago by chucking the life of 
the mind for the hurly-burly of politics and returning, after a long exile, to his native country 
to win a seat in Parliament. And if he was bored, it wasn’t for long. Last December, after a 
tumultuous fortnight of machinations in parliament, Mr. Ignatieff, 61, became the leader of 
the opposition Liberal Party, which has been called Canada’s “natural ruling party” and has 
been in power for much of the last century.

Should his party win control of the government, something it came close to doing last week 
and still hopes to in the coming months, he would become the next prime minister of Canada.

Among the circles in which Mr. Ignatieff once traveled, there might be a sense that anybody 
capable of writing a novel (“Scar Tissue”) that becomes short-listed for the Booker Prize — 
anybody, for that matter, who had the writer Martin Amis and Michael Palin of Monty Python 
as guests at his wedding — could figure out a way to jump the queue of Canadian politics.

Even so, his ascendancy puts his country on the cusp of an unusual moment, in some ways 
a throwback to the era of the dashing Pierre Trudeau, another smart-set intellectual who 
served as prime minister. “He was brought in to reinvigorate the liberal brand, to go for the 
big game right away,” said Nelson Wiseman, a political scientist at the University of Toronto. 
“I think a lot of the party thought, ‘We need someone who has the intellectual gravitas of 
Pierre Trudeau.’ Like Trudeau, he came in as a fresh figure, but he also had a reputation 
abroad that Trudeau didn’t.”

Mr. Ignatieff has proven savvy enough in his own country. Although his opposition coalition 
split apart and backed down last week from its efforts to defeat the Conservative government 
led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, political watchers say that Mr. Ignatieff is probably just 
biding his time. “He wants the crown in his own right — not through a coalition but via an election, 
which most of the pundits think we’ll have later this year,” Mr. Wiseman said. “He also wants 
the Harper administration to have to wear the recession for a while.”

Mr. Ignatieff’s rise in Parliament happened fast, he said in an interview in late January. He said
 that he gave up a lot by leaving behind the private contentment of a serious writer’s life to run 
for office. “But I’m in here to be serious,” he said, and added: “This is the only place where I can 
be a participant, not a spectator. I’ve been a spectator, and now I’m in the boat fishing. That part 
of it, from a spiritual point of view, it feels good.”

A FEW years ago, a survey conducted by Foreign Policy magazine and Prospect, a British journal, 
ranked Mr. Ignatieff as the 37th-most influential “public intellectual” in the world (the Nigerian 
writer Chinua Achebe was 38th). Although the clauses “for a Canadian” or, now, “for a politician” 
are often attached, people almost always describe Mr. Ignatieff as glamorous. Maclean’s magazine 
once named him Canada’s “Sexiest Cerebral Man.” He was famous in London during the 1980s and 
1990s when he was the host of a television talk show devoted to books and ideas. He was a sort of 
Anglophone version of Bernard-Henri Lévy, but with a pedigree and without the money or aversion 
to shirt-buttoning.

Mr. Ignatieff’s big-time ambition is so much a part of his public identity that he often scores points 
by making fun of it himself. At a recent address to a group of 700 business leaders, he opened with 
a shout-out to a member of the audience who, he kindly noted, had run against him for his parliamentary 
seat. “And I beat him,” Mr. Ignatieff said, after a nicely timed comedic pause. The crowd laughed heartily. 
...

Mr. Ignatieff held the captainship of his boarding-school soccer team, produced a Harvard dissertation 
that involved spending nights watching over state prison inmates in Massachusetts and has written 
more than a dozen books: political tracts, three novels, a family history, a biography of his former mentor 
Isaiah Berlin, and — mobilized by what he saw in the Balkans — several books about human rights and 
intervention.

In 2004, when he was serving as the director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Mr. Ignatieff 
was visited by three strategists from Canada’s Liberal wing who were leading an effort to infuse a party 
weakened by scandal with new blood. “It was a bolt from the blue,” he recalled, when during dinner 
they asked him to consider coming back to run for office. “The chance to be in the arena was pretty 
irresistible,” he said.

It was simultaneously of a piece with his background and somewhat incongruous. “My dad worked for 
four prime ministers,” he said. “I grew up in a house where public service was something you ought 
to do. But elected public service my father thought of with horror, because he knew how brutal it was.”

In seeking his party’s leadership position in 2006 and 2008, Mr. Ignatieff ran both times against Bob Rae, 
a longtime politician who happened to be one of his best friends; they had been roommates at the 
University of Toronto. “It was difficult running against Bob — we are old, old friends, and our dads were 
in the foreign service together, ” Mr. Ignatieff said.

In 2006, neither was elected leader, but in 2008, Mr. Rae bowed out of the contest at the last minute 
to throw his support to Mr. Ignatieff. “We had some very emotional conversations,” Mr. Rae said in an 
interview in Toronto. “My feeling was that Michael had the support of the small and influential group 
of party officials who were voting — these were special, last-minute circumstances — but that if it had 
been a broader election throughout the party, I’d have won.” To this, Mr. Ignatieff said, “We’ll never know, 
because Bob pulled out of the race, because he made a very fine gesture.”

Mr. Ignatieff’s friend Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, described him as “a 
genuinely introspective individual,” but said that in the more than two decades he has been editing 
him, he had never heard mention of an interest in running for office. “He is, in spirit, a humanist, 
not a politician,” he said.

Mr. Wieseltier added: “When I would see Michael, he and I would stroll arm in arm around Covent 
Garden singing — poorly, of course — some of the great quintet in the first act of ‘Così Fan Tutte.’ 
There was in him a hunger for intellectual authority and for a certain degree of social recognition, 
but it was never about power."

While Mr. Ignatieff is blessed with many attributes that an elected official is supposed to possess — 
poise, focus and an instinct for self-preservation — he has a number of other traits that probably 
wouldn’t play on an American stage. He has openly acknowledged, without much self-censorship, 
regret over his initial support of the Iraq war and has movingly — if painfully — wrung his hands 
in print, most notably in The New York Times Magazine, over both the decision and his ensuing 
volte-face.

In Canada, he has faced criticism for his stance on the war, not simply because of all the agonizing, 
but because, as Andrew Potter wrote in a 2006 issue of Maclean’s, “his arguments reek of the 
necessary compromises you need to make as a liberal in the U.S.”

In fact, over the years, Mr. Ignatieff has been very plain about his affinity for a country not his own. 
In 2002, writing in Granta, a literary magazine, he discussed his youthful opposition to the Vietnam 
War: “I loved my own country, but I believed in America in a way that Canada never allowed. I was 
against the war because I thought it betrayed something essential about the country. I marched 
because I believed in Jefferson and Lincoln.” Considering those words now over tea and biscuits 
in Toronto, Mr. Ignatieff said, “There are moments when I’ve identified passionately with America, 
and there are moments of total recoil.” (The invasion of Iraq, he said, came to encompass both feelings.)

“I think I’ve always felt passionately and proudly Canadian, and the way I prove that is that I’ve never 
sought another passport,” he said, then smiled as he added that he keeps a statue of Thomas Jefferson 
in his study. Charges of carpetbagging — Mr. Ignatieff and his second wife, Zsuzsanna Zshoar, moved 
into a condominium in an area of Toronto that he doesn’t represent — and impatience to rise to the 
top have also provided red meat to conservatives and Canadian tabloids.

David Rieff, an American friend and author, said: “Canada, like a lot of culturally small countries, has 
an ambivalent relationship with countrymen who leave and make it big in the United States or in Europe. 
He’s considered a celebrity at home, and they’re very proud of him, but there’s also some graceless 
carping. It’s tall-poppy syndrome.”

MR. IGNATIEFF’S next book, “True Patriot Love: Four Generations in Search of Canada,” will be 
published in late April, on the eve of a possible federal election. He described it as an exploration of 
Canadian identity — his, as well as those of his grandfather, father and children (he has two).

“Every generation, they are all obsessed with the idea of how to maintain a Canadian empire in the face 
of America, this behemoth right next door.”


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Feb 2009)

Not sure if this is the right place, so MODS move as needed.


How nice of you Iggy  : didn't know we had to act like the Borg

Ignatieff allows N.L. MPs 'one-time' protest vote against budget
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 | 12:56 PM ET CBC News 

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he will allow four of his MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador to break party ranks and have a one-time-only protest vote against the budget on Tuesday night.

Liberal MPs Scott Andrews, Siobhan Coady, Judy Foote and Scott Simms have argued that they cannot support the budget because it singles out their province and robs it of an estimated $1.6 billion in federal transfer payments.

"I decided to permit them in the budget vote tonight a one-time vote of protest to signal their displeasure and my displeasure at these unilateral actions which, in my view, weaken our federation, cause strains in our federation at a time when Canadians should be pulling together."

The MPs' position puts them at odds with Ignatieff, who has said the party would vote with the government if the Conservatives backed an amendment requiring regular reports to Parliament on the budget’s implementation and costs.

On Monday night, that amendment, with Tory support, passed.

Ignatieff said that the "radical unprecedented" cut to transfer payments by Prime Minister Stephen Harper was made unilaterally, a move Ignatieff said weakens the federation.

Ignatieff said he met with Harper on Monday and asked him to "pause" the cut until they can come up with a reasonable solution. He said the prime minister said no.

The NDP and Bloc Québécois have said they will vote against the budget. The Conservatives need the support of the Liberals to ensure the budget passes.

A defeat would topple the minority Tory government and possibly lead to some kind of coalition government or another election.

Ignatieff defended his decision when asked by reporters why he won't allow Quebec MPs to vote against the budget. The province has also expressed frustration over changes to the equalization payments.

The Liberal leader said the situation is different because Quebec was informed last year about the changes and that those changes affect the whole federation. Ignatieff said the cuts announced in the budget single out Newfoundland and Labrador.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Feb 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> ...in my view, weaken our federation, cause strains in our federation...



And precisely, how does climbing into bed with the Bloc strengthen our federation?  :


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2009)

"One Time Only" coupons and the new Liberal leadership:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/282333.php



> Now that Michael Ignatieff has formerly recognized the principle of a one-use only coupon to be cashed in by MPs to vote contrary to the Liberal Party line, I have some questions regarding how this coupon works.
> 
> Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff has created a new dynamic within the Liberal Party - the one-time opportunity for any Liberal MP to vote against the party line.  Not everyone thinks it's a good idea:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2009)

New leader, same old trough:

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-michael-ignatieff-giving-federal.html



> *Is Michael Ignatieff giving federal Liberal Party control to Paul Martin-Stephane Dion forces?* Why is Bruce Clark running big donor Laurier Club?
> 
> Some federal Liberal Party activists are wondering if and why new interim leader Michael Ignatieff is giving back power to key players who backed Paul Martin in the internally bitter and divisive leadership battle with Jean Chretien to become Prime Minister.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2009)

Wow, talk about getting "all eyes" on Ignatieff. Getting a picture with the POTUS and payig to have it displayed on electronic billboards in Times Square and (apparently) Las Vegas? Hardly the act of a self confident individual who is setting his own agenda...

http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2009/02/michael-ignatieff-embarasses-himself.html



> *Michael Ignatieff Embarasses Himself and the Liberal Party*
> 
> Well. I'm scratching my head over this one. After this blog actually supported the Ignatieff leadership bid, seeing him as perhaps the only thinking, and somewhat sober, Liberal of the bunch, he goes and does this.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2009)

The company you keep:

http://ezralevant.com/2009/02/ignatieff-campaign-files-5mill.html



> *Ignatieff campaign files $5-million lawsuit to cover up Adscam involvement*
> By Ezra Levant on February 23, 2009 2:52 AM
> 
> A senior aide to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has filed a $5,000,000 defamation lawsuit against me for discussing his involvement with Adscam, the corruption scandal that brought down the Liberal Party.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Feb 2009)

Am I the only one left who hasn't sued Ezra Levant?


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Feb 2009)

There's at least two of us.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2009)

Well, at least we will not have to talk about ADSCAM anymore; an entertaining new scandal for us to contemplate:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/283856.php



> *Michael Ignatieff opens the door to future scandals*
> Thursday, March 05, 2009 at 08:54 PM
> Comments: 13
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2009)

If you can't get new donors, just find a loophole so existing donors can flout the law....

http://stevejanke.com/archives/284767.php



> *Michael Ignatieff uses leadership fund surplus to do end-run around donation limits*
> Monday, March 23, 2009 at 06:36 PM
> 
> Here are excerpts from an email from incoming Liberal Party president Alfred Apps:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2009)

More on the reality vs the rhetoric:

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-not-in-power-liberals-show-disdain.html



> *When not in power, Liberals show disdain for parliament*
> 
> The so-called “natural governing party” of Canada, those duplicitous Liberals, have little interest in and respect for the House of Commons, except, of course, when  they are the ones calling the shots. Long has this been obvious, but seldom are we able to see such clear proof of their casual disregard for our parliament.
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (3 May 2009)

Since I read _Blood and Belonging _ a few years back, I've respected Ignatieff as a thinker. He hasn't hesitated to take a far more _realpolitik _ view of the world than the Liberals have generally been known for. Now, despite the naysayers, he's got the helm of the Liberals. I certainly don't want an electionright now, but if there were to be one, and the Liberals were to win, I think I could be OK with him as PM (and I've voted Tory all my life)

Cheers


----------



## Journeyman (4 May 2009)

pbi said:
			
		

> I certainly don't want an election right now, but if there were to be one, and the Liberals were to win, I think I could be OK with him as PM (and I've voted Tory all my life)



That sounded like the political version of an AA meeting   ;D


----------



## c_canuk (5 May 2009)

I wouldn't feel comfortable with him in power, he's too easily lied to by activits, case in point Bill C-301 is about abolishing the long gun registry and combining the Authority to Transport certificate for restricted weapons into a restricted weapons licence since the ATT grants you 24/7 transport authority to the range, which is the only place you can legally take it anyway. the ATT is redundant since the rules don't change without it.

when questioned by a citizen writing to him requesting he support the bill, he responded that that bill c-301 will allow restricteds and prohibiteds to be carried freely when that is not the case, and that he couldn't support it on a matter of public safety when it's been proven that people who have take the time to:

take the classes
write the tests
fill out several different forms
provide personal information about their personal lives
provided a character reference from any Ex in the last 6 months
legally purchased a weapon
completed the registry forms
waited a month to recieve permission to transport the weapon to their home
gave notice of officially joining a gun club
waited another month for the authority to take it to a range 

rather than pay a 100 bucks to a shady dude in a back alley, aren't a danger to the public.

that kind of BS makes me doubt his mental capacity and ability to look beyond the title page of anything he's given to read.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 May 2009)

Considering they're still going on about universal child care when they promised to implement it 15 years ago... they're not likely to get my vote any time soon. Of course there's also "we will eliminate the GST" to fall back on.

All hail the king.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2009)

Now that Michael Ignatieff is formally confirmed in his job he faces several challenges:

•	The Liberal Party of Canada, despite Mr. Ignatieff’s policy ambiguity, remains deeply divided;

•	The Liberal Party of Canada still has huge financial problems;

•	The Liberal Party of Canada is, essentially, a large metropolitan organization – only loosely “connected’ to the suburbs and smaller towns where about half of Canadians live.

The internal divisions in the Liberal Party go back to around 1946. Until then, until 1967, in fact, there was little to choose between Laurier, King, St Laurent and Pearson: all were believers in the utility and even efficacy of government. The fact that Laurier and St Laurent were internationalists while King was, by inclination, an isolationist made no difference; on the fundamentals – capitalism and a George W Bush like attachment to “big government conservatism” – they were as one.

The change came in the wake of the 2nd Word War. Québec, which was the Liberals’ firm base, had been on the wrong side of history – badly offside. Québec’s “resistance” to military service was perceived, internally and across Canada, to have been rooted in some institutionalized sympathy for European fascism and anti-Semitism. Québec’s “leadership” (social, religious and political) understood that they had to rewrite the “narrative” to excuse a profound socio-political error. The new narrative, which persists to this day, is that Québec was not against fighting the Nazis, etc; rather it was against being *compelled* to go abroad and fight. That decision, the Québec leadership _circa_ 1946 suggested, could only be made by Québecers, themselves, for themselves. They were, in other words, a colonized, even oppressed minority.

Despite some reservations, here and there, most Canadians, Conservatives and Liberals alike, accepted this new narrative – which, directly, gave birth to modern separatism by creating a false grievance where none existed.

The change in Québec’s “narrative” led to a left/right split in the Liberal Party. Until the late 1940s there was no economic “left wing” in the Liberal Party. The Party was, firmly, in the centre – it was the party of *BIG*: big business, big labour, big cities, big banks, big projects and, above all, big government. As late as Walter Gordon, the “split” was between the “nationalists” and the “internationalists” in the party. But, despite King’s reference to the socialist CCFers as “Liberals in a hurry” the party was united in its (and, broadly, Canadians’) faith in regulated capitalism. The arrival of Marchand, Pelletier and Trudeau, the “three wise men,” changed all that. They were Québec “nationalists,” amongst the creators of the post war “narrative” and decidedly “left of centre” in political and economic terms – far, far removed from the Liberals’ paymasters in Montreal’s Victoria Square and Toronto’s Bay Street. Increasingly Québec Liberals were both also “nationalistic” and quite economically “left” of centre. This was, I think, the result of two factors:

1.	The socio-educational system; and

2.	The “new narrative.”

For most people of a certain age, educated in the Anglo-American tradition, the Paris commune of 1871 was nothing more than a historical footnote. But, I have been told by several _Franco_ colleagues, it was a mainstay of he Québec (and French) educational system. The “ideas” of the commune – economic equality, etc – were force fed to at least a couple of generations of French speaking school children.

The “new narrative” – aimed at _excusing_ Québec’s socio-political attitudes in the first half of the 20th century – incorporated a socialist face, to further distinguish itself from Canada and the big, powerful Anglo-American world.

The _nationalization_ of _Hydro Québec_ in 1944 and, again, _circa_ 1960 resonated with Québecers. It was both _nationalistic_, making Québecers _”maîtres chez nous”_ – as Québec Liberal premier Jean Lesage put it when he completed the nationalization of Québec’s remaining private hydro companies – and _socialistic_, notwithstanding that Ontario established its own public hydroelectric monopoly in 1906!

This heady mix of emerging Franco-Québec nationalism and socialist economics drove Marchand, Pelletier and Trudeau. That same mix would also drive Canada in the 1970s.

Trudeau brought one more thing (back) to the table: _isolationism_. If there was one hing that animated Trudeau it was “anti-nationalism.” It appears to me that the lesson he drew from the 1930s and ‘40s was that nationalism was entirely destructive – even the emerging Franco-Québec _nationalism_ he had embraced as an undergraduate.

Thus the Liberal civil war: Prior to 1967 there was a “debate” between the “internationalists” (Laurier and St Laurent) and the “isolationists” (King). The debate was then pushed to a full scale battle when Trudeau institutionalized the “isolationist” _principle_ in the incredibly inept 1970 White Paper, _A Foreign Policy for Canadians_. This amounted to a complete repudiation of Laurier, St Laurent and Pearson and, indeed, even of King’s legacy. To make matters worse, for most traditional Liberals, Trudeau also implemented a left of centre socio-economic agenda. The battle lines were drawn.

The insiders’ expectation was that Liberals would undergo a series of left/right “swings” – which they did – that would result in a chance for Canadians to decide which brand of _*L*_iberalism they preferred, but that did not happen. There was a left/right “swing” but it was Trudeau/Mulroney (with Turner as something of a footnote) and Chrétien/Harper (with Martin as the footnote). The “right wing” Liberals never got a chance to govern; both Trudeau and Chrétien were of an insular mind, preferring to spend any and all available monies on domestic social programmes – the difference being hat Chrétien actually understood that money had to be taken from productive taxpayers before it could be spent on the Liberal Party of Canada’s client base.

This is the situation Ignatieff has inherited; he *may* be able to paper over the cracks but there is no way that the real battle is over. The “soul” of the Liberal Party of Canada is, still, very much up for grabs.

The Liberals have doubled their fundraising over this time last year but they still remain at about 15% of the Conservatives’ level when party member donors are measured. This is a major problem that Ignatieff must address because if (when) Harper gets a majority government funding of political parties is gone – never to return.

The Liberal Party of Canada is no longer a “national” party – but nor are any of the others. The Conservatives are the party of rural, small town and suburban Canada; the NDP is the party of the hip, green urbanites; the BQ is the party of the hip, green _Franco_ urbanites and the Québec nationalists; the Liberals are the party of the not so hip, modestly green, urban middle classes and of big business, big labour, and big governments. But “sub-national” parties cannot win substantial majority governments in a “balanced” political system. (Chrétien racked up successive majorities because here was a split in the normal opposition; that has changed and we now have three, maybe four, “balanced” Canadian parties and one regional party, the BQ.) But the Liberals must break through in the prairies or they, too, will risk being a regional rump: “Old Canada” plus the big cities.

Ignatieff has plenty of challenges. We’ll see if he has the “right stuff” to meet hem.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 May 2009)

From: small dead animals, a very good blog site and an award winner.

http://smalldeadanimals.com/

The First American Prime Minister In Waiting


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (5 May 2009)

Sorry E.R Campbell I don't believe that malarky, you as an anglo-canadian, living in the here and now, cannot, I repeat cannot tell me how thousands upon thousands of franco-canadians, felt about heeding the call of the British Empire for World War 1.

Now I'm not trying to say that they all felt the same way, which we know all know would be inacurrate.

You can't tell me how they felt, and therefore I can't believe everything you just said, because:
1) I don't see any factual evidence on your part, just hearsay
2) You're not in their situation (minority, colonized and marginalized by other cultural group)


Obviously the more important of the 2 points, is the factual evidence.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2009)

BG2BD

Malarky is hardly a useful characterization if wishing to pursue a civil discussion.

As to knowing how Quebecers felt about WW2 - how about reading books by Quebecers about how they felt about WW2 (not 1 - Mr. Campbell's reference is to the change in polity as a result of WW2)?

A good starting point is Pierre Trudeau: The Early Years.

One area in which I think Edward soft-peddles is the role of the Church, in particular the Papacy which as a result of a series of misfortunes launched an assault against democratizing institutions and liberal, free-thinking education.

The Church, defender of the old order, blamed Capitalism, democracy, the Masons and Britain for its demise. It had been fighting these institutions in the open since at least the 1730's when it started taking swipes at the Masons because they allowed anybody to join, allowed anything to be read and allowed people to believe anything they wanted.



The misfortunes I refer to were the loss of the Papal states, guaranteed by French kings from the original donation of Pepin in 756 to the last of the Bourbons in 1848. Over a thousand years of protection and mutual support.  The French fought for the Pope.  The Pope legitimated the French King.  That loss was a major psychological blow.

Between 1848 and 1870 it found a new, temporary, Guarantor in the form of Napoleon III of France but when he lost the Franco-Prussian war in 1871 and was deposed by the Paris Commune the Pope was left with no support.

That left the road open for Victor Emmanuel of Savoy and Garibaldi to occupy the Papal States, Rome, Vatican City and the Vatican itself.  The Pope suddenly found himself not the dictator but the one doing the listening.

From that point on the Popes fought a campaign to control education, to separate Catholics from Protestant ideas and re-establish the old order.  The only thing the Popes considered a greater threat than democracy was communism.  Together with looking for a new secular patron (more of a body guard) to replace the Bourbons the Popes were lead towards corporatism - and Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and de Valera, as a compromise.  Ultimately they found themselves trapped in a bargain with the devil himself - Hitler

Canada's first foreign service crisis occurred in 1868 when a group of Quebec volunteers left Quebec to fight for the Pope against the Italians.  Despite their efforts the Pope lost the struggle.  (Aside: I wonder how many Quebecers went to fight for Franco against the Mac-Paps who illegally fought for the Communists?)

That loss happened despite the Pope taking the radical step of having himself declared infallible on matters of Church doctrine.

In my opinion - and note it is only an opinion - it is not possible to look at post-confederation Canadian history (Fenian Raids, Metis Rebellions, Papal Zouaves, Quebec Education and Manitoba Schools decision, Jesuit Lands, Conscription Crises (1917 and 1944) amongst many others, without taking into account the antipathy of the Papacy to the style of government that Canada represented.

That association can also be seen in the rise of the Liberal Party as an association of Scots, English, Irish and French Catholics opposed to the Scots, English, Irish and French Democrats - an early example of Lasky at work: the Bleu- the Authoritarian Quebecers including the Church and the Seigneurie became Rouge as the only route to effectively opposing the democratizing tendency exhibited by both MacDonald's Conservatives and Laurier's Liberals.  The alliance of the Bleus with the Liberals happened under the auspices of MacKenzie and propelled him to power and sustained him there.

The book on Trudeau contains two relevant and pithy anecdotes:

In one instance one of Trudeau's teachers tells the students that Quebec owns nothing to France and the Tricolour.  Ever since France severed the ties with the Church in 1907 then good Catholics owed nothing to France. It got what it deserved in WW1 and WW2 for turning its back on the Church.  Quebecers owed nothing to the Tricoleur of France. Their loyalty should be to the old flag of the Bourbons (actually the Quebec Flag is the Flag of Calais, which became the flag of the Merchant Marine under the Bourbons wih the Fleur de Lys of the Ile de France imposed on it).

In another reference in the same book it is pointed out that while all Protestants had access to any book in up to 400 libraries in Ontario when Trudeau went to school, in Quebec there were about a dozen libraries and the most of those were to serve the Protestant community.

The Priesthood controlled who got an education, for how long, what they learned and what they were to do with it.  Trudeau, the great free-thinking liberal, was picked by that system, trained by that system and, all the way into his University years only read books approved by that system.

Quebec as a society is acclimated to being told what to do and expects the Seigneur to provide.

Unfortunately the Quebecois have company in that belief amongst the recent immigrant community in Canada - many of whom come from authoritarian regimes and/or have a great faith in inherently authoritarian religions.

When the Quiet Revolution occured, after John Paul XXIII renounced papal infallibility, instituted Vatican II and the Americans elected a Catholic President (JFK), the Quebec threw off the priestly garb - but it couldn't throw off it sense that Someone will provide.  The Government replaced God, the King and the Church.

Attitudes were perpetuated by the fact that many of the old clerical workers continued doing their same jobs in health, welfare, education and culture, that they did before the Parent Report commissioned by the Lesage government.   They secularized in that they traded in their habits and cassocks for civilian clothes, and they swapped paymasters, but they continued to believe that the world was better ordered from the top down.  That democracy, an Anglo-Saxon invention, was too dangerous.  Likewise with capitalism.

The split in the Liberal Party is the split between the party of Laurier (the radical Rouge that were anti-clerical, anti-authoritarian, supported Laicete, democracy and capitalism) and the party of MacKenzie King (the conservative Bleu that werepro-clergy, authoritarian, denounced Laicete, democracy and capitalism).  The common ground that was found was the desire to strip power from the latitudinarian Protestant capitalists who dominated Canadian politics.


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2009)

Looking at Edward's post from a different angle; how can the CPC, NDP and Greens exploit the split in the Liberal Party in order to clear the deck and break the political deadlock that has paralyzed Canadian Government? The CPC has obvious reasons to want to eliminate the Liberals, but the NDP and Greens can certainly see the Liberals effectively prevent the growth and evolution of their parties as well. 

From Ignatieff's side of the fence, the question is the mirror image; how to rebuild the Liberal Party. To my uneducated mind, the simple solution might just be to "purge" the opposing wing of the party, but that is only about 1/3 of the problem; finding and articulating a philosophy that resonates with all Canadians should be job one (for every party), and building the resource base of funds and party members to do the work is also badly needed. 

Certainly a "purge" would allow the creation of a unifying philosophy and platform to take place (how it resonates with all Canadians is another matter), and I suspect the unveiling of a real, sound and coherent platform based on an underlying philosophy will do wonders in terms of attracting members, money and resources. 

Jack Layton, Steven Harper and Elizabeth May might want to take note as well.......


----------



## RangerRay (6 May 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The CPC has obvious reasons to want to eliminate the Liberals, but the NDP and Greens can certainly see the Liberals effectively prevent the growth and evolution of their parties as well.



However, during the last election and the ensuing "coalition" mess, the Greens and NDP were solidly in the Liberal camp.

The Green/Liberal footsy during the election cost the Greens from making any serious gains.

The NDP/Liberal coalition that Layton sucked Dion into made absolutely no sense, from the NDP point of view.  Harper gave Layton a gift with the proposal to ban public funding of political parties (the NDP, like the Tories, get most of their funding from donors) and instead, Layton jumped into bed with Dion and the seperatists!

Had Layton supported Harper, they could have financially destroyed the Liberals, and the NDP would become the credible party of the centre-left.

I still can't figure out why May and Layton were so easily duped by the Liberals, when it makes more sense for them to help destroy the Liberals.


----------



## c_canuk (7 May 2009)

the NDP, and Green are made up of the fringe who wanted and still want to paint Harper as Bush 2.0 (they like to just state "harper is evil!" and can't back it up with anything other than "Well he scares me because he's bush's best friend!!!") so they couldn't side with the CPC without biting the hand that feeds them. 

They probably figured it was better for them to attempt to overthrow the CPC than to alienate their voter base, especially since more liberal voters would probably switch to CPC or not vote rather than vote for the Green or NDP.


----------



## a_majoor (7 May 2009)

Irony isn't dead at all...........

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2009/05/iggy-cuts-the-pork-and-the-line/



> *Never get between a Liberal and his pork
> *
> We get letters! From a Conservative staffer on the Hill today…
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 May 2009)

Without further comment:

http://kitchenerconservative.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/charles-adler-calls-count-iggy-on-his-fake-it-until-you-make-it-patriotism/



> *Charles Adler calls Count Iggy on his ‘Fake it Until You Make it Patriotism’
> *
> Fake it Until You Make it Patriotism
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 May 2009)

A good read. But who will read it? The LPC still has the CBC, CTV, G & M, and the Star wrapped up.

Speaking of polls I see that good old Quebec is at it again favouring the LPC, with the CPC in the basement. Too bad Quebec controls (with Ontario) Canada's destiny, even though lots do not want anything to do with Canada other than our handouts and bribes to get their votes.


----------



## PanaEng (8 May 2009)

Great discussion and informative!



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> From Ignatieff's side of the fence, the question is the mirror image; how to rebuild the Liberal Party. To my uneducated mind, the simple solution might just be to "purge" the opposing wing of the party, but that is only about 1/3 of the problem; finding and articulating a philosophy that resonates with all Canadians should be job one (for every party), and building the resource base of funds and party members to do the work is also badly needed.
> 
> Certainly a "purge" would allow the creation of a unifying philosophy and platform to take place (how it resonates with all Canadians is another matter), and I suspect the unveiling of a real, sound and coherent platform based on an underlying philosophy will do wonders in terms of attracting members, money and resources.


I agree with you on the need for some cleansing in the Liberal party.  A purge, to be pallatable to the public, has to be done after a solid policy and vision  are in place and with enough time before an election to get the spots filled up and the new faces put on display.

cheers


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 May 2009)

If Ignatieff is really the intellectual some claim him to be*, he can start by explaining how he is going to stop the unnecessary deficit spending dead in its tracks and start whacking great chunks off the net federal debt instead of parading around pretending that the December Coalition's spending goals do not belong to the Liberals and that the Liberals are exemplary managers of the nation's finances.  So far I see proposals for halfway reform of EI and for national child care, the latter undoubtedly favourable to voters in Quebec: Quebec would greatly appreciate any additional federal transfers of funds (preferably a net gain from the rest of Canada) into its existing child care program which it will continue to insist it run quite independently of any federal interference.  It's not hard to buy votes in Quebec with dollars from outside Quebec.

*I've read some of his books; I have concluded that entry into politics has adversely compromised his abilities.  If he isn't going to perform to his abilities, he isn't needed.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 May 2009)

So much for uniting the country:

LINK


Michael Ignatieff says the coalition would have deeply divided Canadians
Published: Sunday, May 10, 2009 | 9:21 PM ET
Canadian Press Jessica Murphy, THE CANADIAN PRESS

MONTREAL - If the proposed coalition of opposition parties had come to power last year it would have deeply and enduringly divided Canadians, says Michael Ignatieff.

In Montreal on Sunday to promote his most recent book, the federal Liberal leader also said the coalition came at a time when the party's right to govern would have been called into question after one of the worst election results in its history. 


PS: Michael... NO party has the RIGHT to govern!


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 May 2009)

Good of him to say so after he signed the document and failed to openly oppose and denounce the coalition.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 May 2009)

As an interesting aside, I notice that there is no ability for readers to comment on the article on the CBC website. Surely such a reversal of opinion for the Liberals is worthy of comment?


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> As an interesting aside, I notice that there is no ability for readers to comment on the article on the CBC website. Surely such a reversal of opinion for the Liberals is worthy of comment?



The Dear Leader is infallible. Nothing to see here, move right along...............


----------



## a_majoor (24 May 2009)

How important is "Just Visiting"?

http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/further-examination-of-ignatieff-and-just-visiting/



> Further Examination Of Ignatieff And “Just Visiting”
> May 23, 2009 — Raphael Alexander
> 
> iggy
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 May 2009)

"Hi, I'm a Liberal Prime Ministerial hopeful.  You've been paying EI premiums for (check one):
[ ] 10 years
[ ] 20 years
[ ] 30 years or more
and I need to use your contributions to buy the votes of people who work for 9 weeks*.  Vote for me."


*about the length of a high school student's summer job


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2009)

Although the writer is talking about a different leader, Ignatieff and the "young Dauphin" Trudeau also fit the description. Even Taliban Jack Layton has a (sort of) resume and a clear philosophical position; I don't agree with him or his views, but at least I know where _he_ stands:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YTYzYzI0NGYzNDMzMzIwOGZlNzc3M2VjMzE2ZWUxYzE=



> *Burke and Obama*
> Edmund Burke (1729–1797) had a lot to say about the Obama administration.
> 
> By Thomas Sowell
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2009)

More on how Ignatieff really thinks:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-telling-take-on-yellow-quill/article1190237/



> *A telling take on Yellow Quill*
> 
> Ignatieff's melodramatic interpretation deserves second thought
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jul 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is a column that, inadvertently, makes a very important point:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=859203b4-2b59-4884-8b43-89f833df2712


> Once an intellectual
> 
> Colby Cosh
> National Post
> ...




The important bit is not about Michael Ignatieff, rather it is the reminder that there are *liberties* and _liberties_. The all important *negative liberties* are, broadly, those which protect us from something (such as the power of the church or the state) by requiring the absence of the coercive powers of large collectives. The positive liberties impose upon us all a requirement to provide something to others, maybe to ourselves and others – public education and health care, for example. No one denies that some (many? even most?) of the “public goods” (such as education) are good things, beneficial to society at large and so on but they are, still, *impositions*.

Just as we have negative (good) and positive (sometimes not so good) liberties we also have, I remind you, real and _rubbish_ rights. The latter are found in the bottom half of the atrocious United nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Read Articles 22 and beyond. Are we really willing to send Canada’s soldiers to fight and die so that others may have a *right* to “rest and leisure” or to “enjoy the arts”? Rights, real rights, are those for which we ought to be willing to fight and die, or to send our sons and daughters into battle. Liberals, of the Ignatieff variety, have forgotten the basic tenets of liberalism.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a quite devastating critique of Michael Ignatieff, far better than the Bogus Peacekeeping matter:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/ignatieff-plays-fast-and-loose-with-liberal-creed/article1226710/


> Ignatieff plays fast and loose with liberal creed
> *In many ways, liberals and conservatives have swapped principles over the last 100 years. But Gladstone reminds us that the great leaders tend to practise the best of both philosophies*
> 
> Neil Reynolds
> ...




Reynolds is dead on in saying: _“The _[Ignatieff’s]_ assertion is absurd.” “Mr. Ignatieff insists that 21st-century liberals still believe in limited government but defines the limits in a remarkably expansionist way.”_ and _“ Mr. Ignatieff exemplifies this intellectual corruption. Did public schools bestow freedom on Canadians? Did medicare? If so, the Canadians who created the Canadian nation were slaves or serfs. If so, the Canadians who sacrificed their lives in two world wars went to their deaths as slaves or serfs.”_

Ignatieff, and the Liberal Party of Canada as an institution, are *intellectually corrupt* and they are aided and abetted by an equally intellectually corrupt, lazy, ill educated, partisan (but not necessarily pro-Liberal) press corps – Mr. Reynolds being an exception who proves the rule.

Big L Liberals are not liberal, at al. They, like Jack Layton, are, really, *conservatives*. Stephen Harper would, I think, like to be a real (small l) liberal – in other words a worthy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada – but he wants to govern Canada so he has to be a real conservative: a statist and a collectivist. Pity.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2009)

The one thing that makes me discount Mr Ignatieff as leadership material is the way he runs away from his past positions.

The Bogus Peacekeeper speech was mostly true (it was the Liberal Party rather than all Canadians who manipulated the language and values of peacekeeping....), and if he was man enough to stick to his guns and argue the position I would be vastly impressed. (Of course I would be equally impressed if Mr Harper took real Conservative positions on taxation and government spending and was willing to stand for those positions by word and deed as well.....).

Now it seems he is using his intellectualism to throw smoke around his past positions, present location and future intentions.

DS assessment: ineffective


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2009)

This column, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is more about _Prince Michael_, himself, than about the election he says he wants:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-wants-to-be-a-warrior-king/article1284955/


> Ignatieff wants to be a warrior king
> *The Liberal Leader can only bluff and bluster so many times without looking silly – and that's why we're going to the polls*
> 
> Margaret Wente
> ...




I have said, elsewhere, that _Prince Michael_ threatens an election because he understands that he must not be Dion_ized_ or he will join Edward Blake and Celine Stéphane Dion in the tiny pantheon of Liberal leaders who never became prime minister. (George Brown doesn’t count; he was never more than interim leader in 1867.) But, if we go to an election in 2009 and if, as I suspect he will, he finishes second, again, then he is likely "out" of _Stornoway_ and into that sad little group of Liberal losers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and mail_ is another _critique_ that continues to wonder: which Michael Ignatieff? and why Michael Ignatieff?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/michael-ignatieff-is-he-just-acting/article1284872/


> Michael Ignatieff: Is he just acting?
> *All the political world's a stage, but the voters still can't decide whether the Liberal Leader's performance is believable*
> 
> Denis Smith
> ...



I think Prof. Smith has diagnosed _Prince Michael_ very well. _”What we see,”_ according to Prof. Smith, _”is the actor playing at politics – or the academic thinking about it – not the politician doing it.”_ Earlier, in an interview (linked) in Vancouver he said: _”He's a good writer. He's obviously intelligent. He has a political tin ear,”_ and he _”still has a condescending air, a superior air”_ that is not _”going to go over well in a national campaign.”_


----------



## Journeyman (14 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Margaret Wente
> Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009
> ---
> *Iggy's big ideas are rather hazy. He seems to want us to hand him the job without explaining what they are. *


And there, in a nutshell, is the Liberal's problem. 

In recent conversations with friends holding varying degrees of political interest, the consensus is this is no more than a Liberal power grab -- no rationale; no substance; no resonance with the people. So far, the closest to a substantive Liberal message is "Harper - bad; I want to be boss."

Mind you, if/when the election comes, the local default setting will likely remain, "Vote for the Peter Milliken (Lib.) of your choice." ***






> Even Stéphane Dion had an idea, although it was a dumb one.


 :rofl:




*** Peter Milliken has represented Kingston and the Islands since 1988, when he unseated long-time Conservative member, Flora MacDonald.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2009)

I wonder is _Iggy_ will not be renamed _Icarus_ after the election - IF, indeed, it comes?









Flying to near to the sun is not recommended for novices.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Sep 2009)

Journeyman 
"* Peter Milliken has represented Kingston and the Islands since 1988, when he unseated long-time Conservative member, Flora MacDonald."

And a Queen's grad to boot. Yesss!  :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (14 Sep 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Journeyman
> "* *Peter Milliken* has represented Kingston and the Islands since 1988, when he unseated long-time Conservative member, Flora MacDonald."
> 
> And *a Queen's grad* to boot. Yesss!  :nod:



Yes, but I'm sure he has some redeeming characteristics as well.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2009)

The best part about this is getting to the end and reading who the author is!

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2009/09/must-read-scathing-criticism-of.html



> *A Must Read Scathing Criticism of Ignatieff
> An absolute must read on Michael Ignatieff.
> *
> Who is the author you ask. Well you will find that out at the end of the post.
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Sep 2009)

It will be interesting to see how Iggy fares now that he's been outmanoeuvred by all the other parties in his effort to bring down the government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see how Iggy fares now that he's been outmanoeuvred by all the other parties in his effort to bring down the government.



I think you can argue that _Prince Icarus_ is, actually, a winner.

The _Bloc_ and the _Dippers_ can now be accused, are being accused of propping up the hated Conservatives while only the Liberals *oppose* as *opposition parties* should do.

Ignatieff is not Dion_ized_ because he supported the Tories too often.

Harper is denied the election he wants and many (most?) Liberals do not.


----------



## Bass ackwards (18 Sep 2009)

E.R. I'm curious: why would Mr Harper want an election ? 
I can't see it resulting in anything other than yet another Conservative minority government -at best (and a Liberal minority at worst). 
And if he fails to gain that majority, would he not find himself looking for work (so to speak) ? 
Surely he knows that...no ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2009)

I think the Harper inner circle thinks that:

•	A majority just _might_ be within reach if they can find a good "ballot question;"

•	Another minority is good enough if it results in a failure for Ignatieff which might cause yet another Liberal leadership debacle contest;

•	A Liberal government is highly unlikely.


----------



## Occam (18 Sep 2009)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> E.R. I'm curious: why would Mr Harper want an election ?
> I can't see it resulting in anything other than yet another Conservative minority government -at best (and a Liberal minority at worst).
> And if he fails to gain that majority, would he not find himself looking for work (so to speak) ?
> Surely he knows that...no ?



On the contrary, if the Liberals were to trigger an election right now, I suspect the voter backlash would send the Conservatives to a majority.  Any party siding with the Liberals to trigger an election would probably incur the same voter wrath.  Jack and Gilles aren't completely thick, and, for the moment, will distance themselves from the Liberals as it's in their best interest to do so.

What I don't understand is the press constantly going on about Harper being propped up by the NDP, or being accused by Iggy of having a 'new love for the socialists'.  I don't remember seeing a gun to Jack's (or anyone else's) head today when they voted with the Conservatives.  Is Harper supposed to wield some sort of Vulcan telepathic mind control technique to get Jack and Gilles to side with him?  They voted what they voted without the benefit of a written or unwritten coalition, and I hardly see it as Harper getting into bed with any of the opposition parties.


----------



## Bass ackwards (18 Sep 2009)

OK, thanks for the responses, gentlemen. 
I must be a pessimist because I can't for the life of me envision a Conservative majority. Especially under Mr Harper.
I'd sure _like _ to see one -again especially under Mr Harper (if for no other reason than sheer curiosity to see what he'd do with it). 

I guess for now I'll just be glad the election is averted.
And I'll go top up my glass of rum (damn thing's half empty...)


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2009)

I think there's two more factors, beyond what Occam added:

1. Ignatieff is not stupid; and

2. The Liberals are, temporarily, at least still divided over _Iggy_'s leadership.

The temporary Liberals divisions will not last if _Prince Icarus_ becomes stronger and stronger.

Ignatieff is not Dion. He's tougher and smarter and he has a much, much better team. As he "finds his footing" as leader, as he becomes politically "smarter" he will likely be a more formidable opponent.

The Conservatives want to fight him sooner rather than later, before he becomes stronger and while the Liberals are not wholly united behind him. If, as they assume they can, the Tories can beat Ignatieff's Liberals - even if they (the Conservatives) have a weaker minority - then they hope that the many ambitious left-wing/anti-_Iggy_ Liberals will sharper their daggers for the (hopefully inevitable) back stabbing.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2009)

Is the Ignatieff/Bob Rae split going to be a cage match like the Chretien/Martin one?

Is this a "new" split or just a continuation of the old one?

Where does the "Young Dauphin" fit in?

Inquiring minds want to know!


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Is the Ignatieff/Bob Rae split going to be a cage match like the Chretien/Martin one?
> 
> Is this a "new" split or just a continuation of the old one?
> 
> ...




This is just the old one, the one that goes all the way back to 1967 when Pierre Trudeau overturned the Liberal, indeed *national* consensus forged by King/St Laurent and extended, albeit weakly, by Pearson.

Pearson lurched leftwards because he never had a majority and needed to appease the newly formed _Dippers_ to stay in power. He also lurched towards appeasing Québec because of the “quiet revolution” and because he needed to head off Réal Caouette and the _Ralliement des créditistes_.

Trudeau happily extended the leftward stagger and extended the “French fact” in Ottawa – both to the consternation of the St Laurent wing of the party, which was rapidly purged.

Trudeau’s internal opposition came for John Turner. Turner was originally recruited into active federal politics by Pearson’s team (as were Trudeau and Chrétien) and he served in Pearson’s cabinet and in Trudeau’s, finally as finance minister. He resigned (as finance minister) in 1975. Some reports say he quit because he refused to impose wage and price controls which most competent economists regarded as stupidity – pure, partisan, vote buying politics.

Turner eventually won the Liberal leadership in 1984 and, very briefly, became prime minister – for 79 days before Brian Mulroney won a landslide victory in the late summer of 1984. For the next several years, while Mulroney won back-to-back majorities, Turner served as Liberal leader but he was stalked, constantly, by Jean Chrétien, a Trudeau acolyte.

Chrétien was (is) actually a very small “c” conservative in fiscal matters but he was a classic _retail politician_ who believed in the politics of big social spending and of active anti-Americanism. To say that Chrétien and the Trudeau_ites_ stabbed Turner in the back is not far off the mark.

The tables were turned on _’tit Jean_ Chrétien when he became PM because he was, in turn, relentlessly stalked and eventually back stabbed by his finance minister, Paul Martin. Martin was, philosophically, in foreign policy, a near throwback to St Laurent.

Ignatieff? Who knows? Rae? A Trudeau_ista_!


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Is the Ignatieff/Bob Rae split going to be a cage match like the Chretien/Martin one?
> 
> Is this a "new" split or just a continuation of the old one?
> 
> ...




The _Dauphin_ is a wild card.

His main opposition is this guy:







Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre talks to reporters at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan, Monday, Oct.8. (TORSTAR)


Coderre is well organized and his positions are well known and popular in Québec.

The _Dauphin_ appears, still, to be a cypher.

IF _Prince Icarus_ leads the Liberals into an election and fails (the most likely outcome) I have no doubt that the knives will be out and Coderre's will be the sharpest. After Coderre, the next Liberal leader will be an Anglo. The next "turn" for a _Franco_ Québecer might not be until 2020, when Trudeau will be around 50 - an _appropriate_ are to become PM.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting analysis of _Prince Michael_ from resident _loony lefty_ Rick Salutin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/narcissieff-in-the-mirror-of-politics/article1300483/


> Narcissieff in the mirror of politics
> *Judgment day: Michael Ignatieff will make a seriously bad candidate*
> 
> Rick Salutin
> ...




The key to Salutin’s _analysis_ is in the opening sentence: _”Perhaps Michael Ignatieff's views weren't as sinister as they once seemed.”_ One had to be pretty far “out” of the mainstream to find _Iggy_ _Icarus_ *sinister*, unless one is of a classical bent and remembers when _sinister_ meant *left* (and _dexter_, from which we get _dexterous_ or “able,” meant *right*).

The political left in Canada, which includes a large slice of the Liberal Party of Canada, mistrusts Ignatieff.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Sep 2009)

The following article from The Observer, a left-leaning British newspaper, is reproduced under the Fair Comments section of the Copyright Act. It makes a number of surprising statements, including that he is most likely to be the next Prime Minister and that the Conservatives are on their knees. However the real zinger is the last line of the story, "[h]e sounds wistful: in exile, somehow, whatever he says about having come home."

Michael Ignatieff: from The Late Show to Prime Minister in waiting?

Michael Ignatieff – writer, thinker and star presenter of BBC2's The Late Show in the 90s – is back in Canada after nearly three decades, and is the man most likely to become the country's next prime minister. But is his national pride the real thing or is he, as his critics sneer, 'just visiting'? Rachel Cooke finds out.


The bald fact is that when Michael Ignatieff, novelist, journalist, philosopher and former presenter of the BBC arts programme The Late Show (catchphrase: "Let's just bro-o-a-aden the frame a little…"), returned to his native Canada in 2005, after an absence of nearly three decades, he did so because he was asked to. The country's Liberal Party was mired in trouble – if you want the details, it had been tainted by a slush-fund scandal in Quebec – and some of its younger Turks saw in Ignatieff a leader uncorrupted by the small matter of previous involvement in politics. They went to see him at Harvard, where he was a professor, and they were blunt. "Will you stand?" they said.

Ignatieff, who answered their question in the affirmative, is now not only a Toronto MP but the leader of the Liberal Party and thus the man most likely to be Canada's next prime minister. (The current Conservative administration is on its knees and there could be an election at any time.) But he likes to attribute his return at least as much to homesickness as to pragmatism. Honestly! It wasn't like he disliked Canada, or anything, for all that he chose to live elsewhere, and for so long. He missed the place: the cold, the skating rinks, the desperate need for mittens in winter. The way he tells it, he might have come back anyway, and sod the top job. "The price of expatriation rose for me over time," he says. "It didn't go down. I began to feel it very strongly. I had a wonderful run in London, but it was a run, and I felt it had come to an end. I missed not belonging. I began to feel, not a stranger, but… coming home gave me a sense of being at home." His voice rises a note. "I'm home! I'm home!" he cries, softly. Then it falls again: "That has been a good feeling."

Of course, not everyone is ready to take his word for this. "What will he do if he loses? Go back to Harvard?" wrote one Canadian commentator recently. The Conservatives, meanwhile, who currently lead Canada's minority government, have broadcast a series of ads attacking Ignatieff for his long absence. "Michael Ignatieff," sneers the voiceover. "Just visiting." Reviewers have approached his new book, True Patriot Love, with a certain amount of suspicion. A companion volume to an earlier memoir about his father's Russian ancestors, it tells the story of his mother's family, the Grants: Anglophiles, who thought Canada would only accrue real status if it was able to hang on to its imperial identity. But the book also contains a lot of stuff about the nature of patriotism; how it functions; why it is A Good Thing. ("Loving a country is an act of the imagination," writes Ignatieff. And later: "The country in question for me has always been Canada.") This is what has had them holding their noses. Now that he is a politician, they say, it's hard to see True Patriot Love as anything other than a grotesquely over-blown campaign leaflet.

Ignatieff, who has the aloof manner and the half-closed, upwardly-tilting eyes of a pedigree cat, looks at me more in sorrow than in anger when I bring this up. It is so very... painful because, after all, he was a writer long before he was a politician. "The book was a voyage of discovery, as books always are," he says. "It really is a book about my family, and their connection to Canada. Yes, I did want to say, since I am under constant attack for various things: 'Wait a minute, here! You don't know who you are dealing with.' That was a motive. But the overwhelming motive was just to figure out how the story held together over three generations."

But what about his new fetish for patriotism? In the 1990s, Ignatieff reported from the Balkan wars, and he has written several books about the dangers of nationalism. Isn't it odd, now, to be praising as a virtue what he once suggested could so easily become a dangerous vice? "Yes, there is a very murderous nationalism out there, one based on purity. But there's also another nationalism, which we call patriotism, which is a love of country and is perfectly inclusive, and I don't think you can run a country unless you can appeal to it. You gotta reach down into something: some shared sense of common history, tradition, enterprise. You don't want to overdo it. You don't want to get sentimental about it. But [if it isn't there] you've got nothing to go on. Patriotism is the secret resource of a successful society."

His tone as he tells me this is slow, excessively careful and completely without irony, none of which would be surprising were he a career politician. Since when did irony and politics go? But Ignatieff used to be a writer. Listening to him now, it's as if he's been sedated, or body-snatched, or something. He's like a jazz man who's lost his sense of rhythm. 


Today, Ignatieff really is just visiting. We meet in a grand room in Canada House, on Trafalgar Square, to the sound of squawking from the Gormley plinth outside. He is in London only briefly. This morning, he had meetings at the foreign office and with David Cameron. This afternoon, it is the turn of Lord Mandelson. In between, he hopes to meet up with a few old friends, "occasionally sneaking out for a little ramble through the old haunts". His London schedule, like his meeting earlier this year with Barack Obama, is, I guess, a sign of how seriously politicians outside Canada now take him – and he returns the favour. I ask how he found Cameron. "He's serious. He's got real answers to real questions. He knows what he believes, and he is intensely political in the best sense of the word. I thought he was personally charming. It was fun!"

Fun! But Ignatieff used to be a writer, a man who could say whatever he liked, and now he is a politician, and is able to say precisely nothing unless it comes straight from the script. How can that be fun? The Ignatieff brow – portcullis to his great big brain – wrinkles in the approved manner. "In politics, there's a kind of literal-mindedness," he says. "It's what you say, not what you mean, and you have to say only what you mean. Your question implies that I've suddenly had to tie myself in knots. No, I don't have to tie myself in knots, and I don't have to cease being who I am. But I have to watch what I say because the public has no other way to judge me than by what they read. I can't walk around saying: 'I keep saying these dreadful things, but I'm actually a nice fellow!' Why should they believe that?"

But writing is about nuance, and politics is, well, not. I don't know how he contains himself. "Again, I don't see it that way. I see this as the most exciting thing I've ever had to do. The most difficult, but when it's going well, the most rewarding." Writing and politics are both, he insists, about listening, about expressing what people are thinking and feeling. But the bonus in politics is that, in theory, the politician gets to make people's lives better. "The idea that there is this contrast between a world of subtlety, and a world of bald, flat generalisations doesn't sound like what it's like at all. The best part of what I've been doing in the past four years has been listening intently to Canadians in big rooms and small rooms, in wharves and bars and airport lounges, just trying to pick up the music here, so that what's really on their minds gets into the policies."

But isn't dishonesty built into politics? Admittedly, everything I know about Canada has been gleaned from the stories of Alice Munro, and the novels of Carol Shields [Ignatieff nods approvingly at this: "Good for you!" he says, in the manner of a kindly don to a kid from a council estate.] But if Canadian politicians are anything like British politicians, they say only what they're told to say, even when they clearly believe the opposite. "Well, you should never knowingly tell a falsehood because it really does poison the well of politics. But in [just] the same way that you really should not tell a falsehood in your private life. I'm not sure I see this huge gulf between the moral world I've entered and the moral world I've left." 

When I saw him in the newspapers, sitting with Obama, I thought of all those Hollywood movies – like Dave, with Kevin Kline – where an ordinary guy is somehow spirited into the White House, and spends the rest of the picture wandering the corridors of power feeling bewildered. I know Ignatieff is not exactly a plumber… but still: doesn't it all feel preposterous?

"Again, not really. I don't want to give the wrong impression. Going to meet the president of the United States is a big deal. You do get, erm, a little apprehensive. But he is a master political animal. Grips you by the elbow, tells you that he's read your books, sits you down, makes you feel like you're the only guy in the world. Thirty-five minutes later, you think: that was a great guy. But you don't feel surreal. You feel you're sitting down with an extremely intelligent, good listener who's locked right in. A month into his presidency, and he conveyed the impression that he's always been president. That was genuinely astounding. He was at ease in some amazing way."

Ignatieff will not – he cannot – divide his life into two: before politics, and after. "It's a slightly complicated life. But you stitch it together." He is tougher now, no doubt about it, but he relishes the fact that no one could ever call him a career politician. "I like the fact I've lived a full other life. Everyone thinks I lived in an ivory tower, but I lived as a freelance, I lived by my wits, for 15 years, and it wasn't always easy. If you lived in literary London and had as many bad reviews as I did, you kind of toughen up anyway. And painful as it is to say, I've learned more from bad reviews than good reviews. Politics is like getting a really bad review: a stinker that you know all your friends are reading."


Michael Ignatieff is a scion of one of Canada's grandest families – his father, George, the immigrant son of a Russian count, was a senior Canadian diplomat – and attended one of its most prestigious boarding schools, Upper Canada College. (After he was elected leader of the Liberals, a Canadian newspaper sent a reporter to interview his former classmates. One described how the young Michael would walk around with a copy of Paris Match underneath his arm, telling people that his goal was to be prime minister. Another recalled Ignatieff lecturing him on the meaning of the 1905 destruction of the Russian navy in the Russo-Japanese war.) But in 1978, shortly after his 30th birthday, he left the country of his birth to seek his fortune elsewhere. 

He went first to Cambridge, to continue the academic career he had begun in Canada, and then, tiring of his ivory tower, to London, to live as a freelance writer. As freelances go, he was more successful than most. He wrote an acclaimed biography of Isaiah Berlin. He wrote a column for the Observer. A first novel, Asya, received a royal slagging, but a second, Scar Tissue, was shortlisted for the Booker Prize. Plus, there was his presenting work on Voices on Channel 4, and Thinking Aloud and The Late Show on BBC2. ("Soooo… Martin Amis. You've written a book called The Moronic Inferno.") In this period, he was famed for his looks, and was sometimes to be found wearing a black polo neck. Yes, he had endured a painful and expensive divorce from his British wife, Susan Barrowclough, by whom he has two children, now grown up (in the past, he has referred obliquely to the difficulties he had over access to them). But he had found new love with a Hungarian-born publicist Zsuzsanna Zsohar. Life was good. After his second wedding, which took place at Hackney Town Hall in 1999, there was a party at the couple's minimalist Hoxton loft. It was attended by, among others, Jonathan Miller, Michael Palin and Simon Rattle. 

Soon after this, though, it was all change again. Enough with the freelancing! In 2000, he returned to Harvard, where he had studied for his PhD, as the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F Kennedy School of Government. This was an important and influential job, and many famous ears were soon flatteringly cocked in his direction. It was at this point, however, that he shocked his leftist friends by coming out in favour of the war in Iraq. In the years since, he has recanted his position in the most absolute terms, but in Canada, his former support for Bush continues to hang over him, like a cloud of midges. Worse, there have also been accusations that he supports so-called "torture-lite", though Ignatieff insists that this is not so, a position in which he has been backed by the director of Human Rights Watch.

Ignatieff tells me that he now feels more optimistic about the future of Iraq, but that this does not for one moment change his stance. "Even if Iraq finds some way to stability, you can't justify leading people to war on the basis of lies, and you can't justify the horrendous human cost Iraqis have paid to get where they are. I thought then, as now, that Saddam was a genocidal tyrant, and that conviction led me too far, and I made an error that I think I've taken responsibility for. I've never shied away from admitting that I was wrong, wrong, wrong." What about torture? Will he able to keep his anti-torture principles intact if he becomes prime minister? "Canada sent Maher Arar [a Canadian engineer] to Syria, and a court found that he had been subjected to extraordinary rendition, that his claims [of torture] were true and that he had delivered no intelligence to anybody. It was a disgrace. So, we don't do it. Ever. Period. Off the table. We don't get other people to do our dirty work for us, and we don't do dirty work ever."

How, then, to deal with international terrorism? Ignatieff has always said that our democracies are under threat from the bottom up, thanks to extremism. But without the intelligence services and their dirty methods, what weapons do we have? "One of the conditions of modern life is that you look into any crowd and you think: who's the person with the bomb in their head? But the only solution is politics. Give people tolerant, non-dogmatic, pragmatic good government that serves their interests. I don't know of another solution. That's all there is."


In Canada, feelings about Ignatieff can be split roughly in two. There are those who complain that it is a sign only of the country's feebleness and insecurity that it is seriously considering an intellectual who has spent a lifetime abroad as its future leader; and there are those who boast that it is a sign of its sophistication, maturity and wisdom that it is seriously considering an intellectual who has spent a lifetime abroad as its future leader. Obviously, Ignatieff himself would fall into the latter camp, if pushed. When I ask if he would like Canada to make more noise on the world stage, he says: "There are forms of noise that no country wants. We don't make noise because we work. Some of the quietness and modesty I obviously like, and prefer to our noisy neighbour in the south." Even so, can his donnish sensibility withstand the bullying and bluster and 24-hour news cycle that power, even in Canada, will bring with it? 

He thinks so. "I married the right woman," he says. "That has turned out to be the most important single fact. I'm not going to die out there if people don't like me because there's someone at home who thinks I'm OK. I can't put it more directly than that. I have a sort of confidence, not necessarily in myself, but in the life I've led. I've done a lot of things. I'm not a kid any more. I feel I know some things about human beings, and what they're likely to do." Is he working harder than he's ever worked in his life? "Yes!" So when was the last time he read a novel? "Oh, I haven't read a novel in a while. I miss some of the reading. I miss reading for nothing other than the pleasure of it." He sounds wistful: in exile, somehow, whatever he says about having come home


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2009)

The article above, found by Old Sweat, highlights the one area (or one of the areas?) in which Ignatieff ≈ Trudeau: their views on _nationalism_.

Trudeau was, using an analog developed by the subject of _Prince Michael_’s best work, Isaiah Berlin, a “hedgehog.” (Berlin posited that thinkers are like “foxes,” darting, quickly and often unpredictably, from idea to idea, or like “hedgehogs,” staying fixed on one idea.) Trudeau had one idea: _nationalism_ is the cause of all the world’s problems. He equated 19th and 20th century British _jingoism_ and German nationalism to 20th century Québec and American nationalism and found them all equally dangerous and destructive.

I think that _idée fixe_ coloured everything he did in public life: socially, economically and, above all, in terms of foreign and defence policy where his, Trudeau’s, actions were, in my view, *destructive* of Canada’s vital interests.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is yet another _analysis_ of _Prince Michael_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-ignatieff-muddles-and-befuddles-us/article1302307/


> Why Ignatieff muddles and befuddles us
> *The Liberal Leader is a credentials candidate who is missing a message*
> 
> Rex Murphy
> ...




Murphy is right, it may be that Trudeau _”haunts us still”_, as biographers Christina McCall and Stephen Clarkson wrote back in 1990, but _Iggy_ _Icarus_ baffles and "befuddles” us, temporarily at least, today.

And the comparisons with Trudeau never end, do they? It must annoy the hell out of Justin, the _Dauphin_.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2009)

Re: the Rachel Cook article.

Despite the scanty Canadian research on her part (resulting in the conclusion about the Conservatives);
despite the peculiarly British sensibiliities where, even in the Guardian, anyone with a title immediately belongs to a "grand family" (and that such things are found in all countries);
despite the "Dave for President" comment (where only a fellow traveller like Cook, finding a kindred spirit in Ignatieff, could consider Ignatieff "a common man" or perhaps even "a virtuous man" ideally suited for, but unlikely to achieve real power);
despite all of that Ms. Cook does seem to latch on to something that rings true for me:

Ignatieff really is dabbling.....It is just another adventure that one day will supply fodder for the next volume in his memoirs.  

I can sympathise with Ignatieff, at his age, slowly realizing a desire to return "home".  For some that urge seems akin to that of the Chinook Salmon.  If you have been wandering for a while then "home" starts to look just about as attractive as "away" did when you were at "home".  Unfortunately, your community shapes you and changes you while age hardens you so that, after a certain period of time, it becomes increasingly difficult to transition from one community to another.

Ignatieff's real community is Rachel Cook's community - the cosmopolitan, post-nationalist community of BBC, the Guardian, OxBridge and Harvard and the London School of Economics.  I suggest that that also was a community in which Trudeau felt at ease.

I further suggest that one of the contributing factors (sorry Edward, broken record time again) for Trudeau's cosmopolitanism (a trendy word for internationalism) was the belief, inculcated from birth, that society worked best from the top down with strong hands guiding the lives of billions.....and that, of course, he was best suited to do the guiding. In my opinion that is where Trudeau, raised as a Pius Catholic found common ground with Socialists, if not the Communists.  Both (all three?) systems preached against the evils of national borders and local, unauthorized, Princes.  Both have difficulty with allowing people, in my Grandfather's phrase, "gaunin' tae h*ll their ain gait" (going to h*ll at their own pace and in their own style).

That, regardless of minor policy variations, is ultimately what, in my view, sets Harper and his supporters, apart from the Trudeau/Ignatieff's and their supporters. Harperites (to use the pejorative) want government to stay out of the way, and they get upset if Harper acts to "govern" by such measures as imposing a dubious stimulus package.  Trudeauvians demand a "leader", with a plan, and a rule book, to solve problems that they themselves find insoluable - and intolerable.  To survive as a Harperite demands an ability to tolerate "the intolerable".

Or to quote one of Trudeau's influences:

"God give me the courage to change the things I can,
the strength to accept the things I can't 
and the wisdom to know the difference."

Too many progressives lack the ability to accept, which requires an ability to tolerate.  Toleration is not about accepting people with whom you agree.  It is about accepting people with whom you disagree, people with whom you disagree so viscerally that you may allow yourself to be driven to hate them.

Unfortunately that tendency is not unique to progressives....

What churns my belly though is that the progressives assert their moral superiority while failing to recognize their failings.  

And I believe that that sense of superiority comes from the comfort associated with abdicating their personal responsibility and putting their trust in "the great leader and his plan".  If you believe the leader is right, and his plan is right, then all you personally have to do is follow the plan to be "right" as well.  If the plan fails, then the leader was wrong, or they were the wrong leader. You weren't wrong.  You were just following the plan.  That alleviates you from any personal responsibility for failure.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Sep 2009)

Substitute "fascist" for "progressive" and the picture clarifies.  Some view all persons as a project to be managed - often and conveniently with the viewer holding a membership in either the privileged management castes or the privileged receiver castes, and not so often in the producer castes - and some do not.  Ignatieff and the Liberals belong in the former camp, regardless of the party's chosen name.  Additionally, Ignatieff has chosen to embrace past Liberal mythology and propaganda rather than chart his own path by reasoning it for himself.  I do not see in MP Michael Ignatieff very much of author and scholar Michael Ignatieff.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Sep 2009)

Motivational


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2009)

Et tu Brute...


Denis Coderre is expected to step down Monday as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090928/coderre_quebec_090928/20090928?hub=TopStoriesV2


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Sep 2009)

Post at _Dust my Broom_:

Mickey I.'s Liberals to replace NDP on Socialist International?
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12513:mickey-i-liberals-to-replace-ndp-on-socialist-international&catid=38:here-comes-the-science 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is Jane Taber’s analysis of the Coderre/Ignatieff fuss:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-must-rebuild-after-rifts/article1304795/


> Ignatieff must rebuild after rifts
> *With support sliding in the polls, and the resignation of his Quebec lieutenant, Liberal Leader is facing some dark days*
> 
> Jane Taber
> ...



Many people view Ms. Taber’s political _analysis_ as being biased and the final six paragraphs, in my view, paint an unrealistically optimistic picture of a disastrous situation.

The Liberals had better send the _Dippers_ a bunch of “Thank you!” cards because _Taliban Jack_ Layton’s NDP is shooting itself in the foot: of course it (the NDP) will lose some seats to the Conservatives and maybe even to the Liberals and Greens, but, right now, they stand to *gain* many more seats from disaffected Liberals.

I think this was the first real test of _Prince Michael_’s *leadership* ability; he failed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I regard myself of something of a _conservative_ civil libertarian; I like to think that I am a _classical_, 19th century liberal - someone who thinks John Stuart Mill got it just about right about 150 years ago and that there has not been much, useful, added since.*
> 
> I find myself attracted to much of Ignatieff's _world-view_ as I understand it.  (I am especially impressed with the ideas he brought out in his biography of Isaiah Berlin.)  I share his belief in fundamental human rights for all - regardless of race, colour, creed and so on.  I also understand his support for prosecuting the war against the Arab, extremist, fundamentalist Islamic _movements_ which declared war on us.
> 
> ...




I appear to have been wrong. Ignatieff is not, after all, _"the guy to rescue a once proud national institution from 40 years of rot and corruption"_.

According to this column by Don Martin, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, _Price Michael_ has stumbled, badly:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/28/don-martin-liberals-look-at-ignatieff-and-see-john-turner-on-sedatives.aspx


> *Don Martin*: Liberals look at Ignatieff and see John Turner on sedatives
> 
> September 28, 2009
> 
> ...




I wish I had said _”pretzel-principled New Democrats”_!

But, to Martin’s main point, that _Prince Michael_ has failed his leadership test: yes, indeed. Can he survive and, eventually, be _"the guy to rescue a once proud national institution from 40 years of rot and corruption"_? Maybe, but it is a lot harder than it was on Sunday.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... is there a St. Laurent in there?




I asked the question four and a half years ago. Now Fen Osler Hampson, director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, answers it, in this article, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Saint+Laurent/2048789/story.html


> He's no Saint-Laurent
> *The worldly Michael Ignatieff has disappointed us so far with his vision for Canadian foreign policy*
> 
> By Fen Osler Hampson, Citizen Special
> ...




You can find a copy of St Laurent’s famous Grey Lecture, to which I have referred many, many times, here.

Not surprisingly, I agree with Hampson, _Prince Michael_’s recent foray into foreign policy was: _”a dud that landed with a whimper, not a bang,”_ and _”was based on a faulty premise_” [that we] _” dream about making a triumphant return to the world stage”_ when, in fact, most Canadians are not interested, at all, in foreign policy.

_Iggy_ _Icarus_’ position were, as Hampson points out, thin, tired and trite and he offered nothing Harper is not already doing or that any sensible prime minister would not refuse to do (the G20 secretariat, for example, being a just plain silly (and wasteful) idea).


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2009)

According to Lawrence Martin, who I often criticize for his uninformed views on foreign/defence policy matters but not for his knowledge of politics or, especially, for his _insider_ knowledge, _Prince Michael_, AKA _Iggy_, _Icarus_ and now _Iffy_, has messed up. His report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/how-iffy-and-the-liberals-dropped-the-ball/article1307580/


> How ‘Iffy' and the Liberals dropped the ball
> *Michael Ignatieff hasn't been able to figure out the kind of leader he wants to be*
> 
> Lawrence Martin
> ...




Ignatieff was, always, _too good to be true_. He has been, for nearly five years now, all _hope and promise_ – and not just for the Liberal Party – but he has been forced, by the practicalities of Canadian partisan politics into _positions_ for which he is _may be_ ill suited.

Martin says: _”Mr. Ignatieff hasn't been able to figure out the kind of leader he wants to be. Traditional politics, he has discovered, requires intellectual dishonesty.”_

I’m not sure that’s entirely fair to either Ignatieff or traditional politics, but he is, clearly, trying to figure out *how* to lead a fractious, indeed fractured Liberal Party. It is not clear, to me, that he is succeeding. The question is: how long will he be allowed to finish his _on job training_?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is more bad news for _Prince Michael_, mined from the recent polling data:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/women-and-ignatieff-where-did-it-go-wrong/article1313172/


> Women and Ignatieff: Where did it go wrong?
> *The Liberal Leader's appeal was taken for granted when he entered politics. But now his party is struggling to reconnect with women who say they find him stuffy, inauthentic and untrustworthy*
> 
> Michael Valpy
> ...




Yet another reason for the Liberals to hope and pray that the _Bloc_ and _Taliban Jack_ Layton’s _Dippers_ keep propping up Prime Minister Harper’s Conservatives: _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ is not quite ready for prime time.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Oct 2009)

The title and subheading spell it out.



> *Women and Ignatieff: Where did it go wrong?
> The Liberal Leader's appeal was taken for granted when he entered politics. But now his party is struggling to reconnect with women who say they find him stuffy, inauthentic and untrustworthy*


It's not that women _find him _ stuffy, inauthentic and untrustworthy.... 

it's that he _is_ stuffy, inauthentic and untrustworthy

Personally, I only have issues with his latter two attributes. His inauthenticity (posing as a political leader), and his untrustworthiness (assuming you could find a political platform for him to adhere to), have been discussed several times already.

Being "stuffy," however, is problematic only if you're deciding upon Miss Congeniality....which, sadly, is often the case in Canadian politics.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Oct 2009)

J man I assume you have the name of a politician who isn't "inauthentic and untrustworthy"  ?  .........and let me add my personal take, stuffy = Harper.

Iggy's biggest problem is he's scared he'll do even worse if he starts speaking the truth.
Now that takes a very talented politician. Know anyone in our parliament who qualifies.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2009)

Bob Rae waiting at the Grit gates
Article Link
National Report by Lawrence Martin October 13, 2009  

One of Michael Ignatieff’s close caucus supporters said to me the other day, “We’re still supporting Michael, but Bob Rae has gained our trust.”

He went on to list some of the reasons he and others now have more faith in Rae than Iggy. At the Sudbury party meeting last month, Rae got it right. He was saying, behind the scenes, that Iggy should not be pushing for an election because it would make him look just as the Conservative attack ads were depicting him — an opportunist. Iggy didn’t take Rae’s advice.

He vowed to bring down the government as soon as possible. But the gambit has done more to bring him down than the prime minister. Caucus members now say they will undercut any order by Iggy to defeat the government by conveniently being absent on voting day.

In June, Ignatieff’s team was pressing for a summer election. Rae cautioned against such a move, saying the party wasn’t ready and summer wasn’t the time. But the leader came out sounding hawkish, ready to go. Then he suddenly pulled back when told his party wasn’t financially ready. In so doing, he looked feckless.

The far more experienced Rae has told associates he is not happy with Ignatieff’s handling of the job. A participant at morning meetings with the leader and some MPs says Rae’s performance there has been noticeably less enthusiastic in recent times.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien, whose old team is replete with Rae supporters, complained recently that he hasn’t been hearing much from the Liberal leader. Even Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he said, calls him more often.

On the weekend, Rae had to come forward to deny he orchestrated a move by a group of Liberal senators to amend a crime bill, a bill that Ignatieff was supporting.

As common sense would suggest, Rae, who fell short in a couple of runs for the crown, still has leadership ambitions. He can protest that he is being loyal, that he is doing nothing to encourage his supporters. But with the party in a free fall, disgruntled caucus members are going to talk and journalists are going to listen.

The last thing the Liberals need at this point is a new outbreak of leadership feuding. But unless Ignatieff reverses his slide, that’s what they’ll get. 
end


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2009)

I'm of two minds about Michael Ignatieff:

1. I think his biography of Isaiah Berlin was masterful. If that was all he had ever done in his life it would count as a life well lived; but

2. I think he has, thus far, anyway, *failed* as a political leader in Canada.

That being said I think the mainstream media is, in relation to his failing leadership, _piling on_.

This photo





Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff addresses the Vancouver Board of Trade during a luncheon on Oct. 13, 2009.
THE CANADIAN PRESS

it seems to me is *intended* to do even more damage. I think it is, at best, kicking a guy while he's down. I'm absolutely, 100% positive Ignatieff did not _sneer_ or _snarl_ during 99.9% of his time in Vancouver. This is the equivalent of the infamous Stanfield fumble, photo - and the intention is the same.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2009)

You're wavering ER......you're feeling sorry for the little tall fellow from Schawinigan Boston.....you're going to give him a pity vote....aren't you!!  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> You're wavering ER......you're feeling sorry for the little tall fellow from Schawinigan Boston.....you're going to give him a pity vote....aren't you!!  ;D




Nope!

I read some of his books and articles - but nothing recent, nothing since he went off his _*l*iberal_ rails and became *L*iberal Party leader. His did some one or two admirable things, with his pen, years ago; that's it.

But I do think he deserves a bit better from the national media. At least he knows how the soldiers in Kandahar must feel. The media there is, about 99% on a *death watch*; they never go outside the wire because to do so risks missing the *big story*: another death. That's what they're doing to _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ - waiting until he gets just a little bit farther up, until the wax melts and he falls to his political demise.

As a Tory partisan I rather hope he does, but it's a shame the journalists vultures are going to get a free meal from it.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2009)

The silver lining for us is that it leaves Bob Rae a clear shot at the title. We've all heard that he's too far left for some of the most ardent Liberals, so it will be interesting to see how he manages.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The silver lining for us is that it leaves Bob Rae a clear shot at the title. We've all heard that he's too far left for some of the most ardent Liberals, so it will be interesting to see how he manages.


Can't. He's not a pur laine Kebec Liebral. It's their turn again. ;D


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2009)

There is soooo much hatchet PR waiting to done on Bob Rae........he may have won over some, but his provincial NDP background and trackrecord is going to haunt him.

As for someone from Quebec...who? A Coldaire wannabe? 

Manley comes to mind...he's kept out of the fray, kept his nose clean, is bland, but better than most that would come forward.....There's also a couple from the maritimes (can't remember their names....but I think most here do...)


----------



## Journeyman (13 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But I do think he deserves a bit better from the national media. At least he knows how the soldiers in Kandahar must feel. The media there is, about 99% on a *death watch*; they never go outside the wire because to do so risks missing the *big story*: another death. That's what they're doing to _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ - waiting until he gets just a little bit farther up, until the wax melts and he falls to his political demise.
> 
> As a Tory partisan I rather hope he does, but it's a shame the journalists vultures are going to get a free meal from it.



I quoted the lion's share of this to emphasize the [cynical] view that "the true measure of brilliance is in how much someone agrees with _you_." I agree whole-heartedly with ER Campbell's view here (often elsewhere, as well). 

I am capable of viewing "the other's" perspective. While I have no great love for this country's Liberals, I think the media is just as much junk in this case as they are when mindlessly Tory-bashing.

As for Ignatieff's literary pretentions, I'm afraid I've read only one of his books -- Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond. Having read the book after my seven months between Glogovac/Kosovo-Polje and the UK Bde HQ in Pristina, it was obvious that Iggy's shameless marketing of the Revolution in Military Affairs© was in no way informed by the reality on the ground. As such, I've read nothing else he has written; perhaps my loss.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At least he knows how the soldiers in Kandahar must feel. The media there is, about 99% on a *death watch*; they never go outside the wire because to do so risks missing the *big story*: another death.



[ sidebar ]

Staff in KAF:  Today we're taking medics on patrol to provide polio vaccinations.

Well-known Canadian reporter:  Polio.  That so... Africa.  When am I going to get to see some action?

[ /sidebar ]


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2009)

It must be really bad when Stephan Dion's _wife_ is wading in:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/dions-wife-goes-rogue/article1372858/



> *Dion's wife goes rogue?
> *
> Stephen Wicary
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (21 Nov 2009)

Now, why does she call herself the "President"?  ???


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2009)

Here's the _Toronto Star_ version:


> .... After they had all feted the popular senator with great words of love and affection, some MPs – invited by Rae for a drink – moved "100 yards away from the Hill" into the Château Laurier. Here the façade of unity vanished, the true face of today's Liberal party materialized and the real work of politics, which no longer takes place on the Hill, was in full swing.
> 
> Glen Pearson, an MP from London and one of those present for the nightcap with Rae, said that in his opinion Ignatieff was losing the loyalty of the party and Rae was "the only one the party trusts." Carolyn Bennet, also present at the meeting, said that David McGuinty, Justin Trudeau and others are already planning their leadership runs and it was time for Rae to do something.
> 
> Then the conversation shifted to some concrete proposals. In particular, they told Rae that many MPs believe he should become "the deputy leader with authority to manage all the files in the House of Commons," basically a kind of CEO. They also said that Ignatieff shouldn't be asking questions in the House but travelling throughout Canada "attending functions." ....



.... and here's the version from a blog posting by one of the alleged participants in the alleged "Freedom ASAP Plan for Iggy" chat:


> .... Our discussion about Mr. Ignatieff did cover his trouble in the polls and how we trust he’ll do better, but the rest of the talk was about how we could help him in the House and how we could take on more of the load. Mr. Rae, Ignatieff’s competitor for past leadership bouts, called no such meeting and I feel the sorriest for him because he neither led the discussion (no one did) and he affirmed that Michael Ignatieff has the loyalty of caucus and that was a good thing ....



Thanks to a Tweet from David Akin....


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2009)

So my MP is a disloyal weasel as well:



> *Glen Pearson*, an MP from London and one of those present for the nightcap with Rae, said that in his opinion Ignatieff was losing the loyalty of the party and Rae was "the only one the party trusts." Carolyn Bennet, also present at the meeting, said that David McGuinty, Justin Trudeau and others are already planning their leadership runs and it was time for Rae to do something.



(I re read the article in question and note IRuby is also bitter over the loyalty question. Go team!)

Judging from the alleged leadership candidates, the LPC is still thinking its all about the Dear Leader and have little or nothing to say about policy and issues...

The NDP should be looking at splitting the "orange liberals" from the LPC and absorbing them, which will make the Dippers far more competative in urban ridings. Longer term, the Greens and BQ are philosophically aligned with the NDP, so a long term plan reaching out to 2014 (when new seat redistribution makes it possible to win a majority without Quebec) brings the NDP in position to finally become a national party with true prospects of winning elections and the House.

Mind you, I wouldn't look forward to that day, but having a coherent, effective opposition is needed to keep the governing party clean, sharp and effective.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2009)

Looks like some members of the press are pulling for the Young Dauphin. Sorry Bob:

http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/comment/article/408229--trudeau-poised-to-lead-a-canadian-youth-movement



> *Trudeau poised to lead a Canadian youth movement*
> Lawrence Martin
> 29 December 2009 08:00
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2009)

I coulda swore that mob were opposed to promotion on the basis of genetics....... or did they suddenly become closet  monarchists?


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Dec 2009)

So the most important characteristics of a national leader are that he be fun and popular?  Charisma is too effective a camouflage for basic incompetence, inability, and lack of focus - it should be derided and ignored, and its proponents ridiculed and shunned.

Consider young Trudeau's accomplishments and education to date.  Would you like him to handle your personal affairs on your behalf?  If not, then why the country's?


----------



## brihard (30 Dec 2009)

Trudeau, like Obama, hasn't *done* anything to merit serious consideration for leading the country. Obama got in as much because he wasn't Bush and wasn't Conservative as he did because of his charisma and Pr department. very little of his success related to his abilities or his accomplishments.

Trudeau needs many more years and much more experience before he's a viable contender. Our generation isn't ready to lead the country yet.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2010)

More on the leadership vacuum:

http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2010/01/liberal-woes-are-self-inflicted.html



> *Liberal Woes Are Self-Inflicted*
> 
> Paul Wells has a new post up linking to Steve at Far and Wide and his blog posting criticising the Liberal war rooms slow response time and linking it to Ignatieff's poor polling numbers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is a comment by a well known, senior NDP insider:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/04/john-baglow-everyone-shut-up-so-ignatieff-can-start-a-conversation.aspx


> *John Baglow*:
> Everyone shut up so Ignatieff can have a debate
> 
> Posted: January 04, 2010
> ...



“Bleating, _en passant_,” “intellectual catatonia” and “empty suit” al work for me as fair descriptors of _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ as he flies closer and closer to the sun.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2010)

And here is another comment, this time from a Liberal activist (whatever in hell an ‘activist’ might be), also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/04/jeff-jedras-and-the-lady-byng-award-for-polite-politics-goes-too.aspx


> *Jeff Jedras*:
> Still waiting for that Liberal leadership moment
> 
> Posted: January 04, 2010,
> ...




It looks like the Liberal rats are preparing to abandon the (sinking?) ship. What is Donolo doing? Will _Prince_ Michael take advice from anyone?

Better, I think, to lead the Liberal faithful in a brave but foolhardy charge “into the valley of death” (a general election) than to let Harper govern as though he had a majority while the _Dippers_ gnaw away at the “soft underbelly” of Canadian Liberalism. At least _Icarus_ can, metaphorically, die fighting, die like a man, and let someone else - _Coderre_? Cauchon? The _Young Dauphin_? - take over.


----------



## GAP (4 Jan 2010)

and Bob Rae is drooling all over the placemats at each pronouncement by Iggy.....Each time I see him on some comment or other you can just feel the anxiety.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Jan 2010)

I think there are more Liberals now who hear the sharpening of knives rather than the rattling of sabres.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2010)

And here, from yet another Liberal insider, is a counterpoint to all the doom and gloom, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_’s web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/exactly-where-michael-ignatieff-wants-to-be/article1417679/


> Exactly where Michael Ignatieff wants to be?
> 
> Robert Silver
> 
> ...




Silver is very correct: low expectations are a politician’s best friend. And no one is lower in the expectation polls than _Prince_ Michael.

Can he stop digging and then pull himself out of the hole? Donolo is a smart guy and a skilled political operative; he will build a good team. But _Team Harper_ is good, already, and _Team Layton_ is already pretty good, too.


----------



## leroi (14 Jan 2010)

I agree with Silver that it's not good underestimate an opponent:


> In other words, what happens if six months from now all the pundits are writing that the same Michael Ignatieff is connecting with a broad coalition of Canadians *based on a specific set of well-thought-through ideas* while working harder than any other politician in Canada? Might that put an end to Ignatieff's future making cappuccinos?



But,
Ignatieff's on a cross country university talking tour right now and according to this student-editor quoted in the Jan. 14/10 article below, Iggy's speaking notes are _not_ based on *well-thought-through ideas.* If he wants to impress Canadian students he will need to work _a lot_ harder.  Ignatieff, Jettison Those Speaking Notes!

I assume he's using the university crowd as a testing ground.



> Michael Ignatieff’s cross-Canada visit to 11 post-secondary institutions might as well be called Prorogation Tour 2010.
> 
> That is, it seems like the Liberal leader has spent much of his time on campus attacking Prime Minister Stephen for dismissing parliament until March. (Nova Scotia Community College, Dalhousie University, Concordia University and l’Université de Montreal have been visited so far. As I write, Ignatieff has finished speaking at McMaster and Toronto and is headed west to Manitoba and Calgary).
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Jan 2010)

Small Dead Animals

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013166.html

January 19, 2010

*How Did Michael Vote?*

"I for one, think some enterprising wag should ask Prof. Ignatieff his opinion of the special election outcome in his home state".

Posted by Kate at 10:21 PM| Comments (16)


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Mar 2010)

The _Globe and Mail_'s editorial cartoonist, _Anthony Jenkins_, offers this pretty accurate summary of the Liberal's decision to vote against the budget but not with enough members to force an election - reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:






http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/cartoon/


----------



## GAP (6 Mar 2010)

This not showing up stuff works two ways you know......

The three opposition parties show up, sans a few choice cut of Liberal moral strength, all raring to vote NO!! to this despicable budget.........then at the crucial time to stand up for what's right.......a few Conservatives dodge out to pick up milk for the kids, a pack to help relive the stress, etc.....oops, darn missed that vote......and Steve said it was important too!!


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Mar 2010)

The Liberals hide in the curtains, and the Liberal Whip and Assistant Whip count the heads. If it looks close, boom, a Liberal appears out of the closet!

It could happen though GAP. Good editorial cartoon.

But, I don't think anyone wants an election.


----------



## GAP (6 Mar 2010)

Well, with the delivery of the budget, which hurts no one.....the Liberals have acknowledged they will not vote it down, the public doesn't care, it's the PSC the governments going after and they make more money than them, the HST hasn't hit Ontario & BC......

If the government can engineer an election, they just might squeek out a small majority, especially with the poor showing of Iggy...


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Mar 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ...
> But, I don't think anyone wants an election.




I think you're right but I also agree with Ibbitson that this budget is an election manifesto preaching Chrétien/Martin style spending restraint and fiscal prudence to a country that is still, properly, enamoured with balanced budgets. The question is: will this budget, and one or two other things including a steadily improving economic picture, give the Conservatives enough support to survive the hit that forcing an election will bring and then to win a majority in that election?


----------



## GAP (6 Mar 2010)

To tack onto ER's cartoon....


----------



## observor 69 (6 Mar 2010)

Just because I don't like Mr.Harper does that make me a Liberal/liberal ?


----------



## GAP (6 Mar 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Just because I don't like Mr.Harper does that make me a Liberal/liberal ?



Not if you wash your mouth out with soap..... ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Mar 2010)

"the Liberal's decision to vote against the budget but not with enough members" Does that mean the Liberals have prorogated some of their MPs? Does it mean they will not work, but still collect their pay?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2010)

More on how the Dear Leader does things:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/torture-claiming-professor-owed-iffy-huge-debt/



> *Torture claiming professor owed Iffy huge debt*
> March 6, 2010 — BC Blue
> 
> Steve Janke digs into the background of Dr Amir Attaran who alleges that detainees in Afghanistan were deliberately transferred so that torture could be used to extract information and that he has uncensored documents proving it. (see CBC story here)
> ...





http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2003-March/004425.html



> *[Ip-health] Carr Center says funding for Amir Attaran is from anonymous source,but claims funding does not pose conflicts of interest*
> Michael H. Davis michael.davis@law.csuohio.edu
> Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:38:17 -0500
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Mar 2010)

I wonder if, after reading this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, the ratio of Liberals who oppose _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ will grow from 3 in 10 to 4 in 10?

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/11/john-ivison-ignatieff-delivers-his-dream-from-the-throne.aspx


> John Ivison: *Ignatieff delivers his dream from the throne*
> 
> Posted: March 11, 2010
> 
> ...




If Ivison is right then it speaks to disorder in the OLO (Office of the Leader of the Opposition) where the question period _strategy_ is crafted. I agree that *most* Canadians are worried about the economy, jobs, _recovery_ and so on and they really are, I think, looking for an alternative to Harper, an alternative that they *know* Jack Layton cannot offer. That being the case, _Prince Michael_ is leaving the field open to Harper … and Rae?

For whom is Peter Donolo really working?


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Mar 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_'s editorial cartoonist, _Anthony Jenkins_, offers this pretty accurate summary of the Liberal's decision to vote against the budget but not with enough members to force an election - reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I admit I'm a bit late in noticing this, but I recall that there was a $10000 reward offered for the hockey gear, and nothing for the spine.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2010)

_Pathétique_ doesn’t mean quite the same as pathetic, in English, but it is hard not to feel great sorrow for Micfael Ignatieff if this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act is to be believed:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-backs-off-bipartisan-immigration-reform-deal-amid-caucus-revolt/article1593177/


> Ignatieff backs off bipartisan immigration reform deal amid caucus revolt
> *Dissension brewing even as Bevilacqua continued to work with Tories on bill*
> 
> Campbell Clark
> ...




Ignatieff said, “_'I'm tough on that stuff … I want a legitimate, lawful refugee system …'_ but most of my MPs want to find narrow, partisan _wedge_ points so I’ll get back to what I really, really want, which is to get back to Harvard with some small shred of my dignity still attached to my name."

He’s pathetic, and his situation is _pathétique_, full of pathos.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2010)

He's got a real problem with Denis Coderre and the rest of the Quebec caucus, if this is any indication. The whole party seems unsettled in what it wants to represent, other than getting back into power.

I never thought I would say this, but Rae strikes me as being a better potential leader than Iggy. I hope they keep Iggy.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Jun 2010)

And then there is this piece by Jim Travers in the Toronto Star, reproduced under the Fair Comment provisions of the Copyright Act:

Some Liberals aren’t laughing at Jean Chrétien’s barbed joke about a return from the political grave. With another federal election fast approaching and Michael Ignatieff leading the party nowhere, panicking Liberals are looking everywhere except within themselves for a quick fix.

This week’s caucus implosion over support for Conservative immigration change is one of many symptoms of a once dominant party in steep decline and startling disarray. Ignatieff has lost his personal compass and seems physically exhausted. Alf Apps, one of the supplicants who lured Ignatieff back from Harvard, is expected to step down soon from the presidency of a party failing to fill its campaign coffers. Liberals in and out of Parliament are again searching for a messiah, or even an NDP coalition, to lead them from the wasteland back to power.

A measure of the madness here is the seriousness some backroom Liberals are lending to Chrétien’s mischievous remark that he, like Britain’s iconic William Gladstone, might return in old age for a fourth term. Astonishingly, Chrétien’s resurrection as interim leader continues to circulate here along with speculation about the NDP coalition the former Prime Minister is exploring.

Chrétien was arguably his generation’s most shrewdly intuitive politician and at 76 is still impressively vigorous. But retreating to the future would be as risky a Liberal solution as abandoning its brand.

A nostalgic Chrétien honeymoon would soon be cut short by nagging Conservative reminders of his Quebec sponsorship fling. And Liberals seduced by the idea of uniting the political left are forgetting that that their party wins when it controls the policy centre Harper is shifting right. 

That’s not all Liberals are forgetting. Their current agony is rooted in expedient leadership decisions that began with letting Paul Martin escape the necessary crucible of a testing campaign. Forgotten, too, is that parties shooting inwards become wounded prey for outside predators.

One thing Liberals are noticing is that the problem isn’t staff around the leader; it is the leader. Dumping Ian Davey for Peter Donolo hasn’t significantly improved Ignatieff’s performance or provided a sustained opinion poll lift.

Liberals who saw in Ignatieff’s public intellectual persona the potential to race up a steep political learning curve now see only a surprisingly empty vessel tossed by uncertainty. They whisper that a summer equivalent of Pierre Trudeau’s pre-resignation walk in the snow would improve party prospects and Ignatieff’s mood.

But what then? Bob Rae might save seats Liberals now consider lost but the former Ontario NDP leader still faces fierce internal resistance. Falling back on the old guard signals desperation and the next leadership generation is far from ready to move the party forward. 

There’s no sudden exit from this self-made labyrinth. Fears are real that a listless, often loose-lipped Ignatieff may lead Liberals to disaster in a campaign already framed by Conservatives around Stephen Harper’s leadership advantage and coalition warnings.

Even so, critical self-analysis and restored discipline can still make Liberals and Ignatieff the alternative democracy demands. Public fury over summit security costs is all the hook needed to hang on Harper a history of wild spending that gnawed through an inherited $13-billion surplus and set Canada en route for deficits long before the recession. At the same time, Liberals need to climb off the coalition fence to clearly define who they are. 

Ending the current panic begins with recognizing that Chrétien’s return is a flat joke and that restoring the party is slow, hard, serious work.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And then there is this piece by Jim Travers in the Toronto Star, reproduced under the Fair Comment provisions of the Copyright Act:
> 
> ...
> Liberals who saw in Ignatieff’s public intellectual persona the potential to race up a steep political learning curve now see only a surprisingly empty vessel tossed by uncertainty. They whisper that a summer equivalent of Pierre Trudeau’s pre-resignation walk in the snow would improve party prospects and Ignatieff’s mood.
> ...




So true. Go back to the first page of this thread; there were high hopes for _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ but it appears the political "sun" is too hot and he appears to be plummeting back to earth.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2010)

U.S. academic offers Ignatieff lessons on charisma
Article Link
CTV.ca News Staff Saturday Jun. 5, 2010 7:25 AM ET

An American academic has some advice for Canadian Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff: stop talking issues and start talking morality.

George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at University of California Berkeley, told CTV's Power Play that his studies of the language of politics show that the most successful politicians are those who connect with voters by using a few simple principles.

First and foremost, he said, is the importance of talking about why a policy or program is important rather than simply listing off its merits.

And that is what Ignatieff needs to learn, Lakoff said.

"What Ignatieff does is he talks about the details of policy rather than start with the moral principle … and saying: ‘Here is why this is right,'" he said.

"Secondly, you have to connect with people. People have to feel that you're authentic, that you're believable and that you care about them."

Lakoff, who has written extensively about what he calls the "cognitive linguistics" of American politics, said the Liberal leader has a lot of work to do.

"He has to seriously connect with the population. He has to stop just giving lists of programs and tell why those programs are there, what are the moral values behind them," he said. "He has to say those moral values over and over and then tell how they apply … so that people get it and they aren't confused."

Lakoff took his greatest lessons from right-wing American politicians, such as former president Ronald Reagan, who became known as "the great communicator."

"People wanted to vote for Reagan even when they didn't like his policies," Lakoff said.

That was because the former actor talked about values and morality, instead of issues, could connect with the public and came across as authentic.

"If you have those three things then people will trust you … even if they disagree with you," he said. "And then they can identify with you."

Even former president George W. Bush learned how to talk and act like a stereotypical Texan, boosting his popularity enormously.

"Charisma is not just magic," Lakoff said. "It takes some training and understanding what it is you're saying and saying what you believe."

"(But) if George Bush could create it, then so could Michael Ignatieff."
end


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jun 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> "Charisma is not just magic," Lakoff said. "It takes some training and understanding what it is you're saying and saying what you believe."
> 
> "(But) if George Bush could create it, then so could Michael Ignatieff."



So Iggy just has to learn to fake sincerity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2010)

I think Prof. Lakoff is missing one thing: *values*. Reagan and Bush had 'em, even though a _majority_ of Americans did not share them. It is not clear to me that _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ has any or, assuming he does, they may be in a state of flux or perhaps he has suspended them for the duration of his visit to Stornoway.

_Prince Michael_ *had* some values; he made a good living as a "public intellectual" _intellectual provocateur_ in Britain and America, challenging the "liberal" assumptions of his colleagues in academe and the media and offering some interesting views on policies and the politics involved in implementing them. Perhaps his own values were not always on display; perhaps he kept - and still keeps - himself 'under wraps,' inaccessable to the _hoi polloi_.

In any event, it is hard, maybe impossible, to follow Lakoff's advice (with which I agree, by the way) unless and until one expresses a set of values.

Stephen Harper, too, should consider Prof. Lakoff's views.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Jun 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So Iggy just has to learn to fake sincerity.



"If George Bush can anybody can." Rah, rah, rah! Tiger, tiger, tiger! Siss, siss, siss! Boom, boom, boom  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2010)

And with values comes predictability, which is what people, and markets, crave more than anything else.

You may not like the fact that your government causes toilet paper shortages in July and you have to:

a stock up in advance
b stand in line 
c trade that shampoo that you have in surplus from the last government created glut.

But if you know that is the way that your economy works then you can plan for the future and ensure that you have a steady supply of  TP.

Similarly you can predict which actions will get you thrown in jail and which will advance your career.

All of that falls out from leadership that is based on values.   The rules of the game, like rugby and hockey, are clearly defined and (bar some silliness like redefining the 25 yard mark as 22 meters) unchanging.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (5 Jun 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Pathétique_ doesn’t mean quite the same as pathetic, in English, but it is hard not to feel great sorrow for Micfael Ignatieff if this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act is to be believed:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-backs-off-bipartisan-immigration-reform-deal-amid-caucus-revolt/article1593177/
> 
> ...



To be fair, I think its the entire Liberal party that is pathetic right now.  It really doesnt matter who the leader is.  They are so fractured and divided among themselves that they will have a hard time uniting around anyone.  In my assessment this is the consequences of establishing policy based on the direction of the wind on any given day.  The Liberals have lost any values they once had, the only value remaining is "must get elected, no matter the strategy or the cost"


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Jun 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think Prof. Lakoff is missing one thing: *values*. Reagan and Bush had 'em, even though a _majority_ of Americans did not share them. It is not clear to me that _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ has any or, assuming he does, they may be in a state of flux or perhaps he has suspended them for the duration of his visit to Stornoway.
> 
> _Prince Michael_ *had* some values; he made a good living as a "public intellectual" _intellectual provocateur_ in Britain and America, challenging the "liberal" assumptions of his colleagues in academe and the media and offering some interesting views on policies and the politics involved in implementing them. Perhaps his own values were not always on display; perhaps he kept - and still keeps - himself 'under wraps,' inaccessable to the _hoi polloi_.
> 
> ...



The difference is that we're generally aware of Mr Harper's values, and he has, in the main, acted in accordance with them. Mr Ignatieff, on the other hand, is a horse of variable colour, depending on the moment.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (6 Jun 2010)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100606/national/ignatieff_coalition

OTTAWA - Michael Ignatieff says coalition governments are "perfectly legitimate" and he'd be prepared to lead one if that's the hand Canadian voters deal him in the next election.


Do we wonder why Harper is such a good Christian - his prayers are always answered.  I wonder if the centrist Liberals look forward to Taliban Jack as finance minister?


----------



## 57Chevy (15 Jun 2010)

Keep Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan after 2011: Ignatieff

OTTAWA — Accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of "walking away from Afghanistan as if it never occurred," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Tuesday his party would keep some Canadian troops in Afghanistan to train local police and army after the 2011 end to the current combat mission.


In a major speech about Liberal foreign policy, Ignatieff said he agrees with the Conservative government's plan to end the combat mission next year — but added the mission's termination is happening with such little public debate that Canadians may "look back and ask, what was that about?" and feel the job was left unfinished.


Harper has rejected a post-combat mission for Canadian troops by saying repeatedly he is sticking to a parliamentary motion setting out troop withdrawal beginning July 2011.


Ignatieff also pledged that Canada would resume a major role in United Nations peacekeeping missions, and that a Liberal government would make Africa Canada's No. 1 priority in development aid, establish new long-term bilateral agreements with India and China, propose an international accord on the Arctic, and boost Canada's profile in the United States.


Those were among an array of announcements in a major speech Ignatieff delivered in Toronto and in a 25-page report — entitled 'Canada in the World, A Global Networks Strategy' — that outlined the foreign policy component of the official Opposition party's election platform.


An overarching theme of Canada's defence, development and diplomatic policies under a Liberal government would be the spread of "peace, order and good government" — the phrase in the section of the Canadian constitution that outlines the law-making powers of Parliament, referred to by Ignatieff to as Canada's vocation.


The report singled out Canada's mission in Afghanistan as an exception to what the Liberal platform paper described as "a long and growing list of embarrassments and missed opportunities" in the Conservative government's foreign policy.


It cited a weak climate change position, a "polarizing" approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a rebuke from China's premier when Harper took four years to visit his country and bluntly worded policy disagreements on abortion and other issues from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her recent visit.


"Canada has lost ground on the world stage," the Liberals asserted.


While Ignatieff praised Canada's engagement in Afghanistan so far, he expressed frustration that Harper has shown little willingness to debate the future.


"Harper behaves as if the Afghan mission never happened. It happened on his watch," Ignatieff said. "He's walking away from it as if it never occurred. There's something about this that doesn't seem right to Canadians. We have to have an honest national discussion about where we go from here."


He said he's very concerned that Canadians may feel that they let themselves, Canada's allies or Afghanistan down.


"The whole purpose our engagement in Afghanistan was to enable that country stand on its feet and be self-sufficient," he said. "We're not there. Are Canadians going to to walk away with a job half done? I think not."
 http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Keep+soldiers+Afghanistan+after+2011+Ignatieff/3157935/story.html#ixzz0qyDYhZyG


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Jun 2010)

The PM is waiting, and has been waiting for a long while, for the Liberals to put forth a motion in Parliament  





> keep some Canadian troops in Afghanistan to train local police and army after the 2011 end to the current combat mission.


.

If the new mission post 2011 goes south, the government can honestly say it was the Liberals idea, and we, the government agreed.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Jun 2010)

My favourite:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100615/national/ignatieff_foreign_policy

To pay for it all, a Liberal government would reallocate the $1.7 billion currently being spent each year on the Afghan combat mission. It would also "re-evaluate" all major defence procurement programs.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2010)

Full party paper:

Canada in the world
A global networks strategy
http://can150.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/canada_world_jun2010.pdf

Parse P. 22:



> ...Since 2005-06, as a result of both Liberal and Conservative budget decisions, Canada`s defence spending has risen nearly 50 percent and is set to continue growing even after the combat mission in Afghanistan has concluded. The Liberal Party, supports the recent investments in the Canadian Forces, but the trajectory for future years must be re-evaluated. A properly-resourced military is essential to our sovereignty and our constructive role in the world, but is not sufficient on its own. It’s a matter of balance.
> 
> The government estimates that the annual incremental cost of the combat mission in Afghanistan is nearly $1.7 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that the incremental costs of the mission are even higher than what has been disclosed. After the combat mission ends by December 2011, a Liberal government will re-allocate that incremental spending in a balanced manner across the full spectrum of defence, development and diplomacy. A Liberal government will also re-evaluate all major procurement programs in a post-Afghanistan combat era. A well-resourced military will remain essential, but as one element of a broader concept of what Canada does in the world, compared to the narrow view of the current government.
> 
> This change will free up resources to reinvigorate other international capacities across the federal system, better reflecting the full range of integrated functions and forward-looking engagement that will drive the Global Networks Strategy...



Emphases in original.

Then there's this R2P/UN invocation, p. 15:



> ...
> Under the umbrella of Peace, Order and Good Government, the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) will provide a rigorous framework for preventing and addressing conflict and mass-scale human rights abuse. The doctrine emphasizes that sovereign states have an obligation to protect their citizens from harm, and when they do not, the international community must make every possible diplomatic effort to coerce them to do so. When a sovereign state will not or cannot protect its people, R2P requires intervention of the international community, including military intervention as a last resort, in UN-mandated operations to stop large-scale loss of innocent lives, such as in genocide or ethnic cleansing. By advancing the acceptance and implementation of R2P, formally adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2005, Canada will not be dragged into conflicts haphazardly, or act as a boy scout trying to break up fights wherever they occur. What principled support for R2P does mean, however, is that when the world must act to stop large-scale slaughter of innocent people, Canada will be there with a highly skilled, battle-hardened military capacity, experienced in the complexities of modern conflict.
> 
> Canada is well-placed to make an important contribution to this area, as in many others, by building knowledge networks. A Liberal government will establish a centre of excellence in conflict prevention and resolution. It will bring together experts and practitioners from around the world to deepen knowledge about ethnic and other conflicts, and what methods work best to prevent and resolve them. It will also contribute to the knowledge base needed for implementation by the United Nations of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine on a global basis.
> ...



But note earlier on p. 8:



> ...
> • Canada’s battle-hardened military will serve this human development agenda, where all diplomatic efforts are exhausted, through Canada’s return [we have not left, see following brackets] to United Nations-backed peace operations [*i.e. not necessarily UN-run; and ISAF is UNSC-backed--so do we just basically quit such UN-backed operations when they get tough or politically controversial?*]. Another Canadian-inspired idea, Responsibility to Protect, will ensure that military intervention is truly a last resort, but that when sovereign states fail to protect their people and the international community mobilizes to stop large-scale harm to innocent life (for example in genocide and ethnic cleansing), Canada will be there...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2010)

I think the poor guy is about to be overwhelmed in the fall session and may get turfted sooner than the next (putative) election:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/13/kelly-mcparland-maybe-ignatieff-just-isnt-that-smart/



> *Kelly McParland: Maybe Ignatieff just isn’t that smart*
> 
> Kelly McParland  July 13, 2010 – 12:23 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Jul 2010)

Swing ridings Iggy, swing ridings.  Campaigning in Alberta is a total waste of time.  All Conservative except for 1 NDP who had the good fortune to be running against Rahim Jaffer, whose constituents figured  him out before the rest of Canada.  A lot of Conservative wins were in the 80% range.  What am I saying?  Come back soon and spend lots of money here.


----------



## armychick2009 (15 Jul 2010)

Anyone else find it kind of funny that just days after the Queen had a chit-chat with him, _alone _-- that he hops onto his magical tour bus for a cross-country tour? And how that none of the other leaders were asked by the Queen to have private time with her?


----------



## HavokFour (15 Jul 2010)

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread and watching as it went from "Iggy is a pretty cool guy" in 2005 to "wow this guy is pathetic!" in 2010.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2010)

armychick2009 said:
			
		

> Anyone else find it kind of funny that just days after the Queen had a chit-chat with him, _alone _-- that he hops onto his magical tour bus for a cross-country tour? And how that none of the other leaders were asked by the Queen to have private time with her?



Expand on this please. Let's see what you have under that tinfoil


----------



## observor 69 (15 Jul 2010)

Am I to take this last comment as pro-LIBERAL ?  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Am I to take this last comment as pro-LIBERAL ?  >



You would have to be a liebral to misconstrue that as support. However, scapping the bottom of the barrel, poll wise, party wise and leader wise, I can see how they would grasp at anything that might possibly give a positive spin, even if they have to, typically, misrepresent it  8)


----------



## armychick2009 (15 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Expand on this please. Let's see what you have under that tinfoil



and



			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Am I to take this last comment as pro-LIBERAL ?  >



Ahh, my friends. Not pro-liberal... or PC... or Green Party... or NDP... or anything, just 100% conspiracy theorist and it's workin' overtime in my brain! 

Present evidence!

See, first we have this....  July 2nd:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100702/queen-friday-100702/20100702/
(Queen urging him to change the face of gov't in Canada? Go back to traditional liberal??? I imagine their conversation something along the lines of:

"Dude, you ARE aware you can overthrow the minority government, right?" says the Queen, smoking her Demaurier cigarettes (I know she smokes them, I've seen her do it about 10 years ago!) as she doles out political advice to the fledgling.

"Well, yea..." says Ignatieff, "But I just don't have them in my pocket yet... hard when you lived in the US for years, as a result of the Brain Drain... It's almost as bad as being accused of being a Red back in the Cold War! You'd think I have cooties or something..."

"You better hurry up and make your move because I heard some stories about that G-20 summit of Harpers, that sort of reached The Kingdom. You don't want Canadians thinking about THAT for too long, do you? You better change the subject pretty fast. Either get a coalition or, at the very least, swing me a fall election, would you? I heard you have a magic tour bus, get it out and do a cross-country tour, practise your public speaking and maybe you won't bomb your next debate, eh?"

"Yea, maybe that's a good idea," says Iggy, "Can I bum a ciggie? And a light? I think I need a drink...." 


and then we have this, July 8th:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100708/new-gg-david-johnston-100708/20100708/

Harper announces one of the most prestigious scholars on political affairs as the next governor general... perhaps Johnston can find a loop-hole to this whole, "minority gov'ts that can topple with a coalition" bit and find a way to have it declared illegal due to some obscure grammar error....


And, then we have this, July 14:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100714/liberal-express-ignatieff-100714/

Ignatieff and his merry-men (and journalists) are covering a cross-canada tour in their magic tour bus, when suddenly it (QUOTE!) *BREAKS DOWN* (UNQUOTE!). 

"Didn't we just have this thing certified?" Iggy asks his public policy advisor.
"Um, yes. I do believe the Angus Reid polls indicate we DID in fact, have it fixed -- an overwhelming 88% says we DID have it certified and in working condition." he replies.
"Huh, strange..." says Iggy.
"Hey!" shouts out one of the very astute and observant journalists, "I see a garage! We can get it fixed there!"

They all look out the window to where the journalist is pointing, to see "Harper's Diesel Garage". What they don't see is Stephen Harper's long-lost cousin -- Stevie Harper -- hiding behind the bushes, laughing at his successful attempt to sabotage the bus .... and subsequently -- have it fixed by him. 


So ... yea, conspiracy all the way! And it began with the Queen of England having a chit-chat with Iggy on a 'slow-day'.


P.S. Today was apparently a day, where I had too much time on my hands.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Jul 2010)

armychick2009 said:
			
		

> So ... yea, conspiracy all the way! And it began with the Queen of England having a chit-chat with Iggy on a 'slow-day'.
> 
> 
> P.S. Today was apparently a day, where I had too much time on my hands.




As the leader of HM's Loyal Opposition, it's within both their purview to meet. No conspiracy here.


In addition, when she's here on an official visit she's here as Queen of Canada, not of England (although she maintains that title none the less).


----------



## armychick2009 (15 Jul 2010)

But, conspiracies are more _funner_....


----------



## HavokFour (15 Jul 2010)




----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2010)

Mr Ignatieff is free to see whoever he wants, the problem isn't who he sees, its what he _says_ and _does_.

I would be inclined to think that the real issue here is that Mr Ignatieff has very limited "real world" experience, somewhat like another politician who was inaugurated with real "rock star" cred, but is also tanking in the polls and struggling to make his administration run. Since he has no well of experience to draw upon, he is really either at the mercy of his circle of advisors (many of whom I imagine are professional politicians and political hangers on themselves) who have similarly insular world views.

This is not to say that there is lots of strength in the other benches, and may explain the rather stilted world views coming from so may capital cities these days (national, state/provincial, regional etc.). Combine that with a powerful set of vested interests who feed off the public and will fight to the last taxpayer to defend their privilage and you have a toxic environment for politicians and policy making.

Who knows, maybe Mr Ignatieff really is as smart as advertised, but since he has really only functioned in an academic environment, he can only respond to events as an academic. (This theory can be applied elsewhere. I first came across it in a biography of George Armstrong Custer [Son of the Morning Star] which implied that the battle of the Little Big Horn unfolded the way it did because that is how he had approached and won other battles during the Civil War. Don't forget Custer was considered one of the better Union cavalrymen at the time).

In the longer term, this means we as voters should demand people with practical experience as our elected representatives, and reward such people who come forward by electing them to office. Term limits also come to mind as a way of infusing the body politic with fresh ideas and blood.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a somewhat fawning but still useful assessment of _Iggy’s Iffy’s Icarus’_ ‘What I did on my summer vacation’ essay:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/youve-come-a-long-way-iggy-is-it-far-enough/article1687877/


> You’ve come a long way, Iggy. Is it far enough?
> *As his bus tour winds down, Michael Ignatieff is finding his voice and connecting with crowds. It remains to be seen whether it will translate at the ballot box*
> 
> Michael Valpy
> ...




Ignatieff came to the (Canadian political) fore after a barn-burner of a speech at the 2005 Liberal convention. He can be engaged and passionate, as he (evidently) was in Toronto in 2005. Perhaps his problem, in the intervening five years, is that he really doesn’t believe in what he’s selling. The Liberal brain trust is looking for another Trudeau. I do not think _Iggy Iffy Icarus_ is that – not in his heart and mind, anyway. He is, I guess, a classical liberal pragmatist, in the mould of St Laurent and Pearson, not an ideologue like Trudeau or Harper, nor a retail politician like Mulroney or Chrétien. But I doubt the core of the Liberal Party of Canada Toronto has room for any classical *liberal* pragmatists.

Big L Liberal and _liberal_ have been at odds since 1967.


----------



## 57Chevy (28 Aug 2010)

I take it you don't like too much Mr. Ignitiative  ;D
long time big 'L' Liberal......
liberal ? someones best guess
Iggymania ?..........a crap shoot.
my  :2c: worth ( any more would be too much )


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2010)

Actually, I rather liked the Michael Ignatieff who delivered the 2004 Skelton Lecture and the 2005 Keynote Address at the Liberals' national convention. the _Iggy Iffy Icarus_ I dislike is the one who is captive to the idiot ideology of the Liberal Party of Canada Toronto.


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Aug 2010)

My mother saw him last month at the Comber Fair in SW Ontario (about 20 min from Windsor) and she said that it seemed like 90% of people had no idea who he was.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> My mother saw him last month at the Comber Fair in SW Ontario (about 20 min from Windsor) and she said that it seemed like 90% of people had no idea who he was.




Yes, this bus tour was a risk. Despite the rather fawning piece by Michael Valpy (above), my sense from reading the _national_ media - as I was away in China for a large part of the summer, I didn't see much Canadian TV - was that he wasn't getting any _*advance*_ publicity at all and precious little follow up, either. Sometimes it appeared that Harper got more _exposure_ by taking a vacation than Ignatieff did by touring the country.

Such are the perils of being the opposition leader.


----------



## observor 69 (29 Aug 2010)

As the years pass I am evolving into a "progressive conservative", socially progressive fiscally conservative, or is that just the definition of the majority of Canadians. Anyway I don't/haven't seen anyone to fit this description recently that I could vote for.
And Edward I agree that once again an individual who appeared of great promise has succumbed to the pressures of "realpolitik."


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> As the years pass I am evolving into a "progressive conservative", *socially progressive fiscally conservative, or is that just the definition of the majority of Canadians*. Anyway I don't/haven't seen anyone to fit this description recently that I could vote for.
> And Edward I agree that once again an individual who appeared of great promise has succumbed to the pressures of "realpolitik."




My guess would be that most Canadians are *fiscally conservative*, at least they are when they are forced to think about taxes and spending (in 'good times' most Canadians appear unconcerned about or even to welcome wasteful, unproductive government spending), and *socially indifferent*, we do not necessarily _approve_ of e.g. equality for homosexuals or Tamil migrants but we aren't prone to worrying too much about it, either. 

How do greedy and smug sound?


----------



## hold_fast (29 Aug 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Am I to take this last comment as pro-LIBERAL ?  >



Would that be a problem if it was?


----------



## SeanNewman (3 Sep 2010)

New polls today show the Liberals and Cons are essentially tied, after the Cons starting the summer with a double digit lead.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> New polls today show the Liberals and Cons are essentially tied, after the Cons starting the summer with a double digit lead.




Which means what, exactly?

See Dief the Chief on 1 Nov 71.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Sep 2010)

I think the likelihood of a fall election is remote. The new GG will be installed on 1 Oct, I believe, and I doubt that the PM will dissolve parliament within the first 30 days of Mr Johnson's tenure. If we're thinking of a 6 week campaign, then that just about does it for this year, on one's going to risk election over the Christmas season. The next likely opportunity will be either Feb or Mar 2011 to coincide with either the Throne Speech or the budget. Of course this is politics, and I might be right the f*** out of it. The Liberals might realize that Mr Harper's time really has run out, and trigger a vote (as opposed to just flapping gums about it).


----------



## observor 69 (3 Sep 2010)

From today's  TO Star:

Much of the turnaround can be attributed to the stumbles of the Conservative government — on the census and “unreported crime,” among other things. But Ignatieff deserves some credit for capitalizing on these mistakes by offering an alternative vision — a “big red tent” for voters more interested in pragmatic solutions than in wedge issues. “Canadians are tired of a politics of division, a politics of wedges,” says Ignatieff.

This is good as far as it goes. But it is still mostly rhetoric. Ignatieff and the Liberals need to back it up with more substance to show how they differentiate from the government on major policy issues.


----------



## Nostix (3 Sep 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> New polls today show the Liberals and Cons are essentially tied, after the Cons starting the summer with a double digit lead.



However, the interesting thing about the polls is that while the Cons are down nearly 4 points, the Liberals are up only 1.  The recipients of the difference are the Green, the Bloc, and the NDP. 

With our style of voting, that makes it really hard to know exactly what sort of effect that would have on any seat races.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2010)

I think the Big Red Tent is a good idea, one that might resonate with Canadians if the Liberals can flesh it out and make it into a campaign theme. They (liberals) have to fight in four fronts:

1. Against the Conservatives almost everywhere;

2. Against the NDP, especially in BC and On;

3. Against the BQ, in QC; and

4. Against the Greens, who are, now, prior to an election , sucking up votes from all over.

Political 'life' is neither easy nor simple, but it is "nasty, brutish and short." They need a good, clear, simple, attractive and saleable _narrative_; the Big Red Tent might work.


----------



## SeanNewman (3 Sep 2010)

Nostix said:
			
		

> However, the interesting thing about the polls is that while the Cons are down nearly 4 points, the Liberals are up only 1.  The recipients of the difference are the Green, the Bloc, and the NDP.



That is incorrect other than the Greens.  Bloc is about the same and NDP has also gone down.

The Liberals have gone up a bit over the summer but Greens were the biggest gainers, being almost equal with the NDP now (although really spread out so they still might not get any seats).


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Sep 2010)

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html#

2 Sep 10


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Sep 2010)

If the big red tent is anything like the big red book, then we're in for a lot of style and little substance.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Sep 2010)

It's only a big red tent because it's staked in. Not to say it's grounded by any substance, of course. Remove the pegs and it becomes a big red hot air balloon.


----------



## SeanNewman (3 Sep 2010)

I'm not the biggest Iggy fan, but he's certainly doing an effective posturing job.

His Info Ops campaign has effectively painted his enemy as unapproachable and not wanting to be in touch with common folk, and then he effectively did the bus tour thing all summer answering unscripted questions.

That has nothing to do with platform that someone may/may not agree with, is just good-old-campaigning.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2010)

He's not doing badly now that he's not letting the handlers shove their hands up where the sun doesn't shine and play him from the inside.  He's starting to connect, if not in a bit of an awkward way, but connecting.  I'd like to see how the Dipper's go in Ontario...I think they're still profiting from the Liberals' mistaken belief that they'd pull Dipper votes away with Bob ("Don't check the history that I prorogued Ontario's provincial legislature three times while I was Premier") Rae.  Old Dalton McG is not really help the FedLibs either.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If the big red tent is anything like the big red book, then we're in for a lot of style and little substance.




But the Red Book worked - and worked well. As Kim Campbell correctly (but impoliticly) said, "Election campaigns are not a good time to discuss policy." In fact, when dealing with the overwhelming majority of Canadians there is *never* a good time for a substantive policy discussion. Canadians, by and large, don't like substance. Style works and the media knows how to _report_ on style while substance just confuses most journalists.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Sep 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the Red Book worked - and worked well. As Kim Campbell correctly (but impoliticly) said, "Election campaigns are not a good time to discuss policy." In fact, when dealing with the overwhelming majority of Canadians there is *never* a good time for a substantive policy discussion. Canadians, by and large, don't like substance. Style works and the media knows how to _report_ on style while substance just confuses most journalists.



True, but substance, or the lack thereof, seems to be the issue for the Liberals right now. I'm reading a lot of "where's the beef" stuff in response to Ignatieff's cross country tour.


----------



## stealthylizard (4 Sep 2010)

I could have almost brought myself to vote for Ignatieff a while back.  He lost that when he came out promising to review the fighter plane purchase (brought back memories of the helicopter fiasco), and his intent to whip his party on the gun-registry vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2010)

Gerald Caplan, former national campaign director for the New Democratic Party and author of _The Betrayal of Africa_, is a pretty _hard left_ NDP big shot so his views, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, may not be 100% “fair and balanced” but there is a ring of truth to some of them:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/michael-ignatieffs-highly-overrated-summer-vacation/article1695652/


> Michael Ignatieff’s highly overrated summer vacation
> *Instead of reading Dostoevsky aloud to his bride, the Liberal Leader hit the BBQ circuit – yet his party still trails the unpalatable Tory hordes*
> 
> Gerald Caplan
> ...




This little diatribe, no matter how close to the mark, must be seen as part of the NDP’s counter-attack – after the Liberals blasted _Taliban Jack_ Layton for failing to whip his caucus on the long gun registry vote. The Liberals and the _Dippers_ are at each other’s throats: they know they cannot profit, now, from an election so their attacks on the government are _pro forma_ but they are competing for about 10 or even 15 percent of the electorate that is _soft left_ and willing to shift between the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens. That means that Ignatieff is Layton’s *real* enemy, and vice versa. 

One point: Caplan says that Stephen Harper is _”the most dangerous Prime Minister in Canadian history.”_ I’m not an unalloyed Harper fan but he (Harper)  has done nowhere near the damage to Canada that Pierre Trudeau managed in the first four years of his too long stay in power. But that sort of comment is consistent with Caplan’s “world view.” For more of that, with a military focus, see here.


----------



## prouver (21 Sep 2010)

My criteria of a good prime ministerial candidate is one who candidly addresses the townfolk that free enterprise works, that we have to cut taxes to induce investments, praise CSIS and RCMP when they bust a terrorist conspiracy and that Canada should not be a haven for Chinese and Cuban spies. I have only one candidate in mind who passes my criteria: STEPHEN HARPER!!! Ignatieff hides under carefully selected semantics...Man, you cannot fool the townfolk!


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'd like to see how the Dipper's go in Ontario...I think they're still profiting from the Liberals' mistaken belief that they'd pull Dipper votes away with Bob ("Don't check the history that I prorogued Ontario's provincial legislature three times while I was Premier") Rae.


If anyone's NOT going to vote for Bob, it's those who hated "Rae Days".


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2010)

Pinnochio has been pandering to the Public Service unions since day one of his election, and will now have about eight yeas to convince them that only the Liberals can funnel the massive amounts of tax dollars to the Unions that they demand. That will buy a lot of support, advertising and demonization of the opposition. Add the various schemes to pander to the other special interest votes (remember a million dollars to a cricket club in Toronto?) and the the large dependent population, Ontario Liberals should be very difficult to dislodge in a Provincial election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_m indicates that _Iggy Iffy Icarus_ – or, at least, his _handlers_ and speech writers – has taken the 'low road' and put petty, partisan politics ahead of patriotism and the national interest:



> UN chase shows that Grits got the wrong guy
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...




A lot of people may not like Mr. Harper, especially for not doing major surgery to the Liberal's _Veterans' Charter_, but there is, simply, no alternative. Ignatieff is neither fit for nor worthy of the job. I don't think Rae is, either, despite his well chosen words on this issue.

But this shows Ignatieff as shallow and mean spirited – just what he accuses Harper of being.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2010)

I have to agree. I couldn't believe it when I saw Ignatieff on the news trying to sewer Canada's chances at the table for his own personal, petty, political gains. What an arrogant prig.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Sep 2010)

Does Canada deserve Mickey I.?/Bobbity’s smooth move
http://unambig.com/does-canada-deserve-mickey-i-bobbitys-smooth-move/



> John Robson of the Ottawa Citizen  wonders where the Mickster’s brains are at, and why we should even bother to care about winning a (temporary) seat on the UN Security Council...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (24 Sep 2010)

Friday, September 24, 2010
Blogs The Hill
Reaction to Harperâ€™s United Nations Speech
By DAVID AKIN
Last Updated: September 23, 2010 5:30pm


Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered a speech this afternoon at the UN General Assembly that was a “straight-out pitch” for a seat on the UN Security Council. Some reaction:

Bob Rae, Liberal Foreign Affairs critic:

The key thing is this is a bid for Canada. This is not a bid about one government or another government. I think what I found in Mr. Harperâ€™s speech was that he emphasized Canadaâ€™s 65-year commitment to the United Nations and I think that is the point. It is a 65-year commitment, it is not a one or two or three-year commitment. It is not about what a government has done this year or last year, it is about what Canada has done over â€“ over a very long time in our history at the â€“ at the UN and on the world stage.

And that is why â€“ I think all Canadians would be very supportive of a place for Canada on the Security Council, not based on the record of the last year or two or three one way or the other, but based on what we as a country have done over â€“ over 65 years, since the formation of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945. I think that is the key point.

I think the case for Canada is very very strong and I think the case was made effectively by the prime minister, but I think frankly it transcends partisanship and it transcends one political party or another, you know, when the prime minister is at the United Nations, speaking on behalf of Canada and talking of 65 years of Canadian experience, that is, I think, a story that everybody needs to hear and he wasnâ€™t just talking about his own government, he was talking about the achievement sand the accomplishments of many different governments and I think that is the way we should approach it. I think we would be much better off in foreign policy if we looked much longer and harder at the things that we are doing together as a country and not see it as some â€“ as some partisan exercise. As far as Iâ€™m concerned, it is not a partisan exercise and I think that is the approach that we should be taking.

http://www.torontosun.com/blogs/thehill/2010/09/23/15456111.html


----------



## a_majoor (24 Sep 2010)

Even Bob Rae has good days.

+1 for that one, Bob.

Now let's see you keep the same level head and generous spirit in other matters, and maybe I'll be more attentive to what you have to say...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

I listened to Michael Ignatieff's concession speech last night: it was elegant and thoughtful, rather like the man himself.

I doubt he will have much to say about the future of the Liberal Party of Canada - and that's probably a good thing because, despite the idealism which we saw in the speech at the very top of the first page of this thread, he appears to have had little to say that Canadians, even traditional Liberals, wanted to hear.

I think his line about learning all the lessons from defeats was especially memorable and it is one we should all apply in our own lives. Just as in the military, where the study of our recent defeats often offers more and better lessons than the study of our distant victories, so, for political parties and individual, a careful, honest, clear eyed analysis of setbacks is more productive than resting on one's laurels.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think his line about learning all the lessons from defeats was especially memorable and it is one we should all apply in our own lives. Just as in the military, where the study of our recent defeats often offers more and better lessons than the study of our distant victories, so, for political parties and individual, a careful, honest, clear eyed analysis of setbacks is more productive than resting on one's laurels.


Once again, Mr. Campbell, you have provided us with some very sage words.

My initial take, so soon after the election, is that there are many lessons for all parties.

For the Liberal Party of Canada, they don't need massaging, but I think massive surgery is required.  Dominic Leblanc last night used the term "Centrist" several times during an interview, which was conducted before the polls closed in Quebec and west.  I'm not sure if it was broadcast widely.  I think that four years of building a strong, centrist message would be welcome by many Canadians.  For the NDP, I think that they are the benefactors of a mild federalist surge in Quebec, and they are the only party that even comes close to the policies of the BQ, so it was a natural shift for them.  For the Conservatives, I believe that they benefitted most from the implosion of the Liberal Party.  Looking at where the votes went from the Liberals in Canada (not including in Quebec), there was a split from the Red to both Orange and Blue.

But it's soooo early.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2011)

And see here: Ignatieff resigns as leaders of the Liberal Party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an article about Michael Ignatieff's exit from Canadian partisan politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/exit-michael-ignatieff/article2013347/ 


> *EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW*
> Exit, Michael Ignatieff
> 
> MICHAEL VALPY
> ...



One quibble: the attack ads worked not because they were inherently dishonest and not because they were well crafted but, rather, because Canadians, by and large, still mistrust the Liberal Party of Canada and we are ready to believe the worst about it and its leader. We believe the Liberals would do anything to regain power, including bringing in a “star' _carpetbagger_ to mesmerize us all.

Is this the last we will hear from Michael Ignatieff? I hope not. Go to the first page of this thread, read the excerpts from the Marc 05 speech that excited so many people – including people here. _That_ Michael Ignatieff had, and I suspect still has important things to say to Canadians about Canada and our future. Perhaps he will speak to us again, after he has shaken off the Liberal party of Toronto handlers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is another, rather less fawning, view of Michael Ignatieff's departure:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/douglas-bell/iggy-we-hardly-knew-ye/article2013920/ 


> Iggy, we hardly knew ye
> 
> DOUGLAS BELL
> 
> ...



Indeed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2011)

The Liberals and the MSM are in complete denial and will be for some time. They still can't accept that their messiah fumbled the ball and that the Canadian people had finally had enough.



> Well, that may appear to be an arrogant assumption, and I don't want to be arrogant.



He really should have thought, and done something, about that a whole lot sooner. Like the first time he stood in front of a camera. As it was, he brought that attitude in spades to the Leader's english debate and it put him in the sewer.



> Well, you would have thought that someone associated with highly expensive and pretentious higher education would actually be the right messenger for a passionately egalitarian message about education, for a passionately egalitarian vision of the country. Whatever else is wrong about me, I'm not a snob about this stuff.



Well, if the _'natural governing party'_ had the highly expensive and pretentious higher education they profess, they would know plain and simple that mainstrean, hard working pay check to pay check Canadians don't trust or like that type of person. And being a snob is exactly the way they think about them and the way Ignatieff came across to the common voter.


The whole unfortunate part is that while the rest of the country wants to move on into a new era of solid politics and renewal. The arrogant Liberals are looking to blame anyone but themselves for their demise. And the Liberal friendly MSM is only to happy to keep their laments, wailing and gnashing of teeth front and centre, because in fact, the MSM lost as much credibility during conflagration that consumed the _'natural governing party'_ and are totally emeshed with the fiasco. The Liberals are now seen as second rate and not to be trusted and so are the MSM. They now suffer the same disease as the people they shilled for.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 May 2011)

Michael Ignatieff's dignified farewell is here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2011)

A bit of 9/11 reflective whinging from Michael Ignatieff, reproduce under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/september-11/michael-ignatieff-911-and-the-age-of-sovereign-failure/article2160153/singlepage/#articlecontent 


> Michael Ignatieff: 9/11 and the age of sovereign failure
> 
> MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...




Ignatieff is, as usual, partly – but only partly – right: the sovereign state has failed. He is also right when he says: _”While there are a lot of things a government might do, there are a few things that only a government can do: protect the people, rescue them when they are in danger, regulate against catastrophic risk and safeguard the full faith and credit of their currency.

Sovereigns matter. And rebuilding their legitimacy, their capacity and their competence is the political task that matters most.

Competent doesn't mean bigger. It may even mean smaller, nimbler, more digital, less bureaucratic and more responsive in the face of the ceaseless ingenuity of greed.”_

Where he goes wrong is to try to draw some distinction between _liberal_ and _conservative_ – no matter how one defines those terms. Some of the worst failures of sovereign states have come in some of the most _liberal_ and most _conservative_ states.

It is time for all* Canadians, even Michael Ignatieff, to end our war against George W. Bush. He's gone; history will not, I think judge him kindly but nor will it declare him to be some sort of stumbling monster with a small brain and a huge club. But that's what Ignatieff is, now, all about: George W Bush and the USA failed, Stephen Harper is a Bush acolyte ... it's a different tune than the one he sang in 2001.


__________
* Well, maybe not all: the _Good Grey Globe's_ Lawrence Martin and Jeffrey Simpson are, probably, genetically unable to stop hating Bush – same as they are genetically unable to stop worshipping Trudeau and praying for his second coming.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> Ignatieff is, as usual, partly – but only partly – right: the sovereign state has failed. He is also right when he says: _”While there are a lot of things a government might do, there are a few things that only a government can do: protect the people, rescue them when they are in danger, regulate against catastrophic risk and safeguard the full faith and credit of their currency.
> 
> ...


_


I don't accept his government taskings without qualification.

It is not true that ONLY a government can protect the people.  People can and should protect themselves.  They organize to protect themselves against larger, more complex threats.  Government is simply a higher level of organization.  Governments protect against other Governments and Anarchy.

It is not true that ONLY a government can rescued them when in danger.  Again that task starts with the individual and, like defense becomes more and more collective as the danger and risk evolve.

It IS true that ONLY a government can safeguard the full faith and credit of their currency because the currency is the expression of its society and its value is reflective of the manner in which the rest of the world perceives that society. That is true whether the currency is the Canadian Dollar, the Linen Bank of Scotland Pound (they used to issue their own notes), a Visa Card or even the Euro. Question: Which of those four currencies is accepted everywhere?

As to regulating against risk - I should rather my Government proceeds cautiously on that front and permit risk but prepare to absorb the effects of failure.




_


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I don't accept his government taskings without qualification.
> 
> It is not true that ONLY a government can protect the people.  People can and should protect themselves.  They organize to protect themselves against larger, more complex threats.  Government is simply a higher level of organization.  Governments protect against other Governments and Anarchy.
> 
> ...




You first three preconditions are fully agreed.

It seems to me that the government's role regarding risk is to put in place and enforce regulations that promote honesty and protect the individual from larger collectives - be those 'collectives' corporations, organizations or governments, themselves. But, in the end, he who takes the risk must be prepared to pay for it - I do not ask or expect the government to bail me out when I take more risk than I can afford, nor should anyone else.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You first three preconditions are fully agreed.
> 
> It seems to me that the government's role regarding risk is to put in place and enforce regulations that promote honesty and protect the individual from larger collectives - be those 'collectives' corporations, organizations or governments, themselves. But, in the end, he who takes the risk must be prepared to pay for it - I do not ask or expect the government to bail me out when I take more risk than I can afford, nor should anyone else.



Fair comment.  

I don't expect the Government to save me from my own stupidity.  But, I do expect them to hold me safe from the idiocy of others, especially when it is Government mandated idiocy. And also to hold me safe, to such extent possible, from larger forces in exactly the same manner as an insurance company to which I pay premiums rather than taxes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2011)

I consider Ignatieff's musings to be at least partly full of sh!t.

Bit sh!t happens; no surprise.  But my opinion of people whose political leanings are coloured by the idea that government can protect us from all the bad things that can happen is that they are fools (as in prone to foolishness).  It is important to have an actual short list of priorities, instead of bleating lip service to everything as a "priority".  Don't waste resources (time, money) trying to regulate and manage every ill out of existence, so that resources are available for the big crises.  (The height of this foolishness is expressed as "if it saves even one life, it's worth it".)

Services and responders function most effectively when they are locally-focused and decentralized.  The likely emergency scenarios of BC are different than those of Newfoundland, as are those of Kamloops and Victoria.  Higher levels of government are sometimes needed to co-ordinate activities in large areas of operation and provide high-cost niche capabilities, but mostly to serve as a public insurer: to pay the bills for public emergencies, so that the costs of events which befall the unfortunate are distributed among the fortunate.  The human cost of centralizing and federalizing is to render people impotent (unable or unmotivated) in the face of crisis, which is the real lesson of Katrina.

And it is just the height of stupidity to believe that the answer to the unintended consequences of some legislative dirigisme is more dirigisme, as if it were ever possible for a relative handful of humans organized as a public bureaucracy (with all the attendant rules which tend to empower people to say "No" rather than "Yes") to manage vast chaotic systems.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2011)

An interesting post mortem on Mr Ignatieff:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/16/the-michael-ignatieff-exp



> *Jordan Michael Smith: The rise and fall of Michael Ignatieff*
> 
> Chris Mikula/Postmedia News
> Poor Iggy killed the Liberal party. At least he'll always have Harvard.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jan 2012)

A rather sad and, I'm sorry to say, sophomoric "New Year's Message" from distinguished _public intellectual_ and failed political leader Michel Ignatieff, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/michael-ignatieff-theres-no-way-out-but-a-new-politics-of-fairness/article2287995/singlepage/#articlecontent


> Michael Ignatieff: There's no way out but a new politics of fairness
> 
> MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
> 
> ...




I say *"sad"* and *"sophomoric"* because there's nothing here but a few commonplace observations and some _fluff_ where one would expect prescriptions from an _intellectual_. His points about corporate CEO remuneration are fine ... but hardly original and our key public servants like Mark Carney and Julie Dickson are making sure our system is "fair" and competitive.






    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Mark Carney                                        Julie Dickson
Governor                                             Superintendent
Bank of Canada                                   Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions

We already tax the rich - probably adequately but, like our US confreres, we have a too complex tax system which appears unfair because the _loopholes_ appear to benefit the rich rather than enrich society at large.

I expected better of Ignatieff ... I'm disappointed at this _fluff_, better he goes back to Harvard where it passes for insight. He clearly still doesn't understand the country he aspired to lead.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jan 2012)

My thoughts :

Michael who ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Mar 2012)

Michael Ignatieff's reflections upon (or whinges about) his brief career in politics are reported in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/14/michael-ignatieff-admits-mistakes-and-airs-grievances-he-and-harper-both-denied-standing-during-election/


> Michael Ignatieff admits mistakes and airs grievances: He and Harper both ‘denied standing’ during election
> 
> Joseph Brean
> 
> ...




There are some good points here: his explanation of "standing" is interesting, although I dislike the word ~ I'm not sure what the better one is; and I think he is correct about Harper wanting to have _“seized the centre and moved it 10 degrees to the right ..."_ ~ but he errs in suggesting that Harper has done that, it's Harper's aim but he has not, yet, accomplished it. But most of the rest is self serving fluff ~ Ignatieff can and should do better. He should admit that politics is about _alternatives_ and as unattractive as Stephen Harper may be he, Harper, made himself and his party and his programme more attractive than Ignatieff and the Liberal Party and the Liberal programme. Plus, of course, Jack layton ate Igantieff's lunch.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... self serving fluff


  :nod:

"...he came across not so much as a sore loser but an intellectual one." 
Seriously? I suspect that I have a different definition of "intellectual," given what Brean wrote here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2012)

Harper didn't win because he beat Ignatieff. He won because the people wanted him and his party. They wanted rid of corrupt, nanny state, socialists.

Iggy lost not because Harper beat him, but because people saw him for what he was. An elitist, self serving leader of an overbearing, pompous 'natural governing party'. They said 'No mas Miguel'

If he is such a high minded intellectual, able to suss the finer points that escape us mere mortals he lost of his own accord. I would expect someone of his stature to not make whine from sour grapes.

Guess he's mortal after all. Who knew?

Not him, obviously.


----------



## RangerRay (14 Mar 2012)

> In a speech lamenting the vicious tone of the attack ads used against him, former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff on Tuesday told a law school audience that his party did the same thing to Stephen Harper, unfairly tarring him as a dangerously right-wing, American-style political extremist, bent on undoing cherished Canadian values.



Payback's a b****, eh?


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2012)

Michael Ignatieff holds forth on Québec in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ and in this case I think he is right, _grosso modo_ about Québec having already decided on sovereignty:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-year-after-running-for-pm-ignatieff-warns-of-quebec-separation/article2411663/


> A year after running for PM, Ignatieff warns of Quebec separation
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...




I neither know nor care about Scotland; if the Scots are stupid enough to push for sovereignty then I wish them ...

But Québec has, I believe, made its decision and we are all just waiting for the right circumstances to give effect to it. What we ought to be doing in the interim period is lining up our positions. The plural is important because there are four 'players:'

1. Québec, by which we really mean post independence Québec;

2. Canada, by which we also mean post independence Canada;

3. Ungava - the Northern peninsula of Québec which did not become part of the province until 1912 and, almost certainly, will not be part of post independence Québec. Ungava is, primarily, Cree territory and the Cree, unlike Québec, actually have a decent case for independence in international law; and

4. The new Québec _separatists_ which I expect to be very strong in regions bordering Canada.

The end result, in my view, is that Québec, 10 years after independence is finally voted, will be much, much smaller and poorer than is now the case - it will look a lot like Greece, with about the same GDP, territorial base and prospects for success.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2012)

>The problem here is we don't have anything to say to each other anymore

The problem is that politically the conversations always start with "I want...".


----------



## GAP (23 Apr 2012)

I think that with each passing year, Canadians grow more and more comfortable that Quebec will separate.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think that with each passing year, Canadians grow more and more comfortable that Quebec will separate, paying Canada $13 billion and keeping half of the previous RCAF F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at Quebec Air Force Station - Bagotville.



There, GAP, fixed that for you.  


Regards
G2G


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Apr 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The problem here is we don't have anything to say to each other anymore
> 
> The problem is that politically the conversations always start with "I want...".



In reality the deal will be "I don't care what you want, take it or leave it." I agree with Edward, Quebec will become an insignificant speck in North America, our own banana republic... without the bananas.


----------



## GAP (23 Apr 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> There, GAP, fixed that for you.
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Give them the F18s


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Give them the F18s



Oh, they can have their share of those too, and the CPFs...bienvenue à l'étage mondiale, nos amis!  Quebec will be broke within a year of independence.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But Québec has, I believe, made its decision and we are all just waiting for the right circumstances to give effect to it. What we ought to be doing in the interim period is lining up our positions. The plural is important because there are four 'players:'
> 
> 1. Québec, by which we really mean post independence Québec;
> 
> ...



The striking thing about the Soverenty vote is it is concentrated on the historic boundaries of New France (looking at any riding map of Quebec with the Yes and No votes highlighted will demonstrate this). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quebecref.PNG

The best going away present to give the any independent Quebec should be their share of the National Debt and unfunded liabilities. Knocking off anywhere from 25 to 38% of the national debt (one roughly calculating on a per capita basis while the high figure roughly adds up how much benfit Quebec has received on account of National spending). The United States will strongly insist the St Lawrence International Seaway does not belong, in any way to "New New France", and of course the Cree people will take Ungava for their own (a new national road/rail/power/pipeline corridor running up to Ottawa and across Ungava to Labrador and back down to the Maritimes will probably be the next "National Dream" in that scenario).

You know, put that way (dumping a large fraction of our debts and liabilites, creating a new national level infrastructure project and strengthening our ties to the United States) makes this sound like an Epic Win for Canada...


----------



## Maxadia (24 Apr 2012)

So they separate, go broke, and we'd probably end up taking them back in worse shape than before - or the US will.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Apr 2012)

_Assuming_ a Quebec separating and collapsing  -- and I'm not willing to accept either, just yet -- but with Germany as a model, having bought Greece's _current_ debt .....is it inconceivable that an India or China would not buy a failed Quebec?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _Assuming_ a Quebec separating and collapsing  -- and I'm not willing to accept either, just yet -- but with Germany as a model, having bought Greece's _current_ debt .....is it inconceivable that an India or China would not buy a failed Quebec?



*Assuming* that Québec separation goes as I suggest, that is without Ungava, then what does it have that China or India might want?

Now, the new, poor Cree nation-state on the Ungava peninsula is another matter - it will have all kinds of new "friends," all eager to "help" develop its resources.

Germany is buying up Greek debt because the alternative, default and HUGE losses for German banks, is even less attractive. No one, except Canada, has much of a stake in Québec.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The striking thing about the Soverenty vote is it is concentrated on the historic boundaries of New France (looking at any riding map of Quebec with the Yes and No votes highlighted will demonstrate this). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quebecref.PNG
> 
> The best going away present to give the any independent Quebec should be their share of the National Debt and unfunded liabilities. Knocking off anywhere from 25 to 38% of the national debt (one roughly calculating on a per capita basis while the high figure roughly adds up how much benfit Quebec has received on account of National spending). The United States will strongly insist the St Lawrence International Seaway does not belong, in any way to "New New France", and of course the Cree people will take Ungava for their own (a new national road/rail/power/pipeline corridor running up to Ottawa and across Ungava to Labrador and back down to the Maritimes will probably be the next "National Dream" in that scenario).
> 
> You know, put that way (dumping a large fraction of our debts and liabilites, creating a new national level infrastructure project and strengthening our ties to the United States) makes this sound like an Epic Win for Canada...




When, IF Québec goes it will be debt free. The bond market will not allow separation on any other terms: the debt will, of necessity, remain Canadian because Québec will not have the fiscal capacity to look after it's own provincial debt, much less any share of the Canadian national debt. Canada will go from a per capita _federal debt_ of about $30,000 or 64% of GDP to a debt of about $37,000 per person (still much less than e.g. Australia) or about 75% of GDP. While our population will decline by about 20% our GDP will fall by only about 15% (to about the same level as Australia's) and many Québec companies, led by Bombardier, will flee to Canada, in search of subsidies.


----------



## larry Strong (24 Apr 2012)

And now he backtracks....thank God he never became Prime Minister

Posted with the usual caveats:


*Michael Ignatieff backtracks on controversial comments on Quebec*

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Michael+Ignatieff+backtracks+controversial+comments+Quebec/6509867/story.html#ixzz1t0Vtu2wb



> Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff backpedalled Tuesday from controversial comments he made during an interview with the BBC that Quebec will "eventually" become an independent country.
> 
> 
> Ignatieff, who left the Liberal leadership post after his party was drubbed in the 2011 election, suggested in an interview broadcast Monday on BBC about Scotland's independence referendum that Quebec and the rest of Canada have little to say to each other and that the two are already "almost" separate countries.
> ...


----------



## fraserdw (24 Apr 2012)

None of you have considered the third option, that the ROC says no and there is a civil war.  I think that unless Quebec took it's share of everything the man who promises to take it out of their hides will be the next Prime Minister.  Just the way these things go.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2012)

More on Ignatieff's _backtracking_ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-insists-remarks-on-quebec-were-taken-out-of-context/article2413268/


> Ignatieff insists remarks on Quebec were taken out of context
> 
> RHÉAL SÉGUIN
> 
> ...



And here is Prof. Ignatieff's letter to the editor:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/quebec-separation-michael-ignatieff-responds/article2412891/


> Quebec separation: Michael Ignatieff responds
> 
> Globe and Mail Update
> Published Tuesday, Apr. 24, 2012
> ...




Now I'm going to jump to Ignatieff's defence: he's no longer a working politician, he has reverted to his accustomed position as a _"public intellectual,"_ and while his remarks are interesting, even newsworthy, they matter because they _might_ provoke some thinking (in Scotland and Canada), not because of who Michael Ignatieff was. *But*: blaming the media for taking one's comments "out of context" is the normal last resort of politicians - I wish Ignatieff had said, "I'm sorry you worried more about the politics than the substance of what I said, but, while I remain opposed to separatism, in Scotland and in Québec, I fear that the lack of _reasoned_ debate with the UK and Canada promotes it and I hope that my comments will promote that necessary debate about how modern, multicultural nation-states work, or don't."


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Apr 2012)

John Ivison, writing from the point of view of a Scot, makes some interesting points in this piece from today's National Post. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

John Ivison: Michael Ignatieff has a point about Quebec separation

Apr 25, 2012 – 4:05 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 25, 2012 5:49 PM ET 

Love, we are told, is a mix of intimacy, passion and commitment. It seems to me there is no great love for Canada in Quebec — and, judging by the rising demands for autonomy in Alberta, the thrill has gone for many in the West.

The response was damning, not least from Mr. Ignatieff’s old friend, interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, who called the analysis “factually incorrect” and “completely wrong.

Mr. Ignatieff claims his comments were taken out of context and he is right. It’s doubtful if many of the people who were quick to anger actually watched his 10-minute interview in full. I did — and as a Canadian and Scotsman, the process he described is self-evident.

Related
Kelly McParland: Liberal leaders find their voice in retirement

Wayne K. Spear: What difference does it make what Michael Ignatieff says?

Ignatieff backs off prediction Quebec will become independent

Barbara Kay: Michael Ignatieff hands Quebec separatists an unexpected gift

What he actually said is that in the aftermath of the 1995 referendum, Quebec was given effective mastery in its own home, in order to appease separatist sentiment. How can anyone deny this? From Paul Martin’s asymmetrical federalism to Stephen Harper’s resolution of the “fiscal imbalance,” the accommodation of Quebec in recent years has, in Mr. Ignatieff’s words, been “pretty radical.” Mr. Harper even gave the province its own seat at the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization, recognition that its specificity should allow it to play a role in international relations.

The problem, according to Mr. Ignatieff, is that Quebec and the rest of Canada now have very little to say to one another. He certainly did not encourage or wish for Quebec separation. In fact, he said: “I can’t think of this country without Quebec.”

In the context of warning Scots what to expect after the forthcoming 2014 independence referendum, he said Canada is now “effectively almost two separate countries…. we survived the referendum but it did us damage.”

Why the fuss over the suggestion that two nations within the same state will drift further apart if the devolution of powers is unremitting?

Loath as I am to make predictions in the wake of the Wildrose pundit/pollster omni-shambles, it looks safe to suggest the tensions in the Canadian federation will be stretched to snapping point in the coming years.

The conditions are all there. Wildrose, with its agenda to blow up the equalization program that sends $8-billion a year to Quebec, lost this time around but it will be back.

There is sure to be growing tensions between Ontario and Quebec, as the country’s largest province claims a growing share of shrinking federal transfers, at the latter’s expense.

And Quebec separatists are in the ascendancy provincially, with the latest CROP poll showing the Parti Québecois in the lead.

Optimists will point to another poll this week that has the federalist NDP with a massive lead in Quebec, in part because of the election of a native son, Tom Mulcair, as leader.

But I come back to my original point – there is no love for Canada there. Quebecers, like many Scots, favour the union for what it gives them – and fear its dissolution for what it might take away. The new Coalition Avenir Québec may be doing better if it had called itself The Cynics’ Party – but then people would only join for what they could get out of it.

If the resource rich Western provinces decide they have had enough pandering to real and imagined historical grievances and subsidizing services better than they offer, Quebecers may decide they no longer want to live under the Canadian roof. Both Scotland and Quebec are, in Mr. Ignatieff’s words, parked in “way stations” on a road that leads to independence.

The difference is, many Scots only want what Quebec already has – control of its domestic affairs. They may decide to stay put, if the rest of the United Kingdom offers a plausible package that gives them more autonomy.

It is hard to see what more Canada can do for la belle province, beyond a fond kiss and the blessing to sever.

National Post
jivison@nationalpost.com


----------



## GAP (10 Sep 2012)

Michael Ignatieff heading back to U.S. with half-time post at Harvard
Canadian Press | Sep 8, 2012 
Article Link

TORONTO — Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is taking half-time teaching posts at Harvard and the University of Toronto.

Ignatieff joins the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto with a half-time appointment as professor this month.

In January he is to assume a half-time appointment as professor of practice at the Harvard Kennedy School.

The 65-year-old academic and author had already been teaching some courses at the University of Toronto.

Before becoming Liberal leader in 2009, Ignatieff enjoyed a career as an international intellectual, writing books and teaching at universities including Oxford, Cambridge and the Kennedy School at Harvard.

His short-lived political career ended in 2011 when the Liberals suffered their worst-ever election defeat and he lost his own seat in the Commons.

Janice Stein, director of the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, said Ignatieff’s appointment will benefit students.

“He brings a deeply global perspective to our biggest policy challenges and will work with our students to give them the analytic skills they need in today’s connected world,” she said.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2012)

And The Hon Michael Ignatieff wades back into the fray with an address at Stanford University about which John Ibbitson comments in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/michael-ignatieffs-timely-warning-on-the-politics-of-fascism/article4753299/


> Michael Ignatieff's timely warning on the politics of fascism
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Some good thoughts in there: _"Treating politics as a war against enemies is a mortal threat to democracy because it corrodes compromise ... loosen the bonds of party discipline in the legislatures ... focus_ [our]_ martial energies where they are needed: [against] those adversaries who actively threaten the liberty of ... our own_ [people]."


----------



## Sythen (30 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Some good thoughts in there: _"Treating politics as a war against enemies is a mortal threat to democracy because it corrodes compromise ... loosen the bonds of party discipline in the legislatures ... focus_ [our]_ martial energies where they are needed: [against] those adversaries who actively threaten the liberty of ... our own_ [people]."



Shame he didn't put his thoughts into practice when as the Liberal leader, he constantly was against everything Conservative and against the efforts in Afghanistan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2012)

We'll never know which Ignatieff we saw from 2006 to 2011: he was, I think, _captured_ by the Toronto based Liberal _machine_ - the same one which I believe has captured Justin Trudeau - and forced into their mould. The Michael Ignatieff we see in the first post in this thread was most assuredly not the man who was defeated by Stephen Harper in 2011.

My suspicion was and remains that Mr. Ignatieff is a _liberal_ who did not fit well in the Liberal Party of Canada mould; he might, actually, have been slightly more comfortable as a Conservative; he belonged in a party with e.g. John Manley and Scott Brison, not with the mob with which he was forced to campaign.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Some good thoughts in there: _"Treating politics as a war against enemies is a mortal threat to democracy because it corrodes compromise ... loosen the bonds of party discipline in the legislatures ... focus_ [our]_ martial energies where they are needed: [against] those adversaries who actively threaten the liberty of ... our own_ [people]."



And yet the entire panoply of the House is designed to remind of the violent origins of debate.  Armed parties are kept two sword lengths apart by a Sergeant at Arms armed with a massive club known as the Mace.  The original debates were of all natures, including blood debates, and the disputes were brought to the highest Judge in the land, the Sovereign, for resolution.

These debates were not peaceful then.

Nor were they much less so in the eras of North, Walpole and the Pitts.  Gladstone and Disraeli detested each other, and so did their parties.  Lloyd George had no attachment to the fair fight.

Where is this historical era of civilized debate amongst milksop clerics?  Even the Clerics were vigorous to a fault in defence of their causes:  Cranmore, Laud and Wolsely.

Parliament works because people of strong passions agree to accept the outcome of a debate, rational or otherwise, rather than spill blood.

They agree to let the Referee decide, no matter how poor, how blind, how incompetent the Ref may be.

Or, in the words of the Gladstone-Disraeli era: "Play Up! Play Up! And play the game!"


----------



## PanaEng (30 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We'll never know which Ignatieff we saw from 2006 to 2011: he was, I think, _captured_ by the Toronto based Liberal _machine_ - the same one which I believe has captured Justin Trudeau - and forced into their mould. The Michael Ignatieff we see in the first post in this thread was most assuredly not the man who was defeated by Stephen Harper in 2011.
> 
> My suspicion was and remains that Mr. Ignatieff is a _liberal_ who did not fit well in the Liberal Party of Canada mould; he might, actually, have been slightly more comfortable as a Conservative; he belonged in a party with e.g. John Manley and Scott Brison, not with the mob with which he was forced to campaign.


 :goodpost:


----------



## Infanteer (30 Oct 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Where is this historical era of civilized debate amongst milksop clerics?



Good post Kirkhill.  I call this the "Noble Savage" argument - there is always a tendency to look at the current situation as one of complete hopelessness (e.g. "Parliament is broke") and to yearn for some (mythical) time way back when things were so much more altruistic and pure....


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Oct 2012)

Yes, if I understand correctly it was always a bit of a bloodbath in the Houses of Parliment in the UK.  The days of Pitt etc were not halcyion IIRC.


----------



## observor 69 (30 Oct 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Good post Kirkhill.  I call this the "Noble Savage" argument - there is always a tendency to look at the current situation as one of complete hopelessness (e.g. "Parliament is broke") and to yearn for some (mythical) time way back when things were so much more altruistic and pure....



All very good, that was then this is now.  Our times call for mature , responsible meeting of the challenges that are many and not being addressed.
As per Iggy's speech thoughtful informed debate and compromise is absent.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Oct 2012)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> All very good, that was then this is now.  Our times call for mature , responsible meeting of the challenges that are many and not being addressed.



That's what they said about their times, but we made here in pretty good shape regardless....


----------



## observor 69 (30 Oct 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's what they said about their times, but we made here in pretty good shape regardless....



Agreed but I am very concerned  that "As per Iggy's speech thoughtful informed debate and compromise is increasingly  absent." on both sides of the border politically at both the provincial and federal level.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2012)

I, personally, am less worried about Canada. Remember, please, that Michael Ignatieff was speaking to Americans in America and so he was, mainly, addressing the partisan gridlock that, currently, characterizes the US Congress ~ the Americans have a well crafted system but it was designed to be easy to *not* do things, it was, intentionally, designed to be different from the one in London which had, and still has, a much more subtle set of checks and balances. Our, Westminster system, is _revolutionary_ (government's can be, quite summarily, turfed from power) and _responsible_ - the government/executive (cabinet) is responsible to parliament, parliament, in its turn, answers to the people. The US Constitution provides a stable, predictable and, above all, _representative_ government. Our system - even during the Gladstone-Disraeli "clash of the titans" (as a TV series described it) - was able to do its business in a generally efficient manner because the _system_ worked, the government governed, for the _common weal_, despite the mighty struggles of two powerful antagonists. The US system is less _robust_, it is more easily shifted into 'stall,' and that is what I think Ignatieff fears.


----------



## observor 69 (30 Oct 2012)

Seen


----------



## Journeyman (30 Oct 2012)

How much of that declining "thoughtful informed debate and compromise" is due to the rising focus on sound-bites -- readily broadcast but not necessarily conducive to reception by a 'thoughtful, informed' audience? No one, outside of staffers looking for gaffes or dirt on opponents....and Politics students  :boring: ....reads _Hansard_; it's way too much effort for society's 8-second attention span.

When you add slavish adherence to dogma party platform, which "separates us from _the other_" -- no matter what -- at the risk of being labelled "waffling" at election time, and there's little room for compromise.


However, I suspect that we're in no danger of Fascism any time soon, regardless of what hand-wringing university profs may tell you. It makes a great headline, but it's not very realistic.


----------



## observor 69 (30 Oct 2012)

Hey..... I was going to say that.  

Well I was thinking it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2012)

_Fascism_ was and remains and interesting and _attractive_ idea: a people 'united' are stronger than just people, on their own, just as a _fascine_ is stronger, as a _bundle_, than is any of the sticks in it.

And, sadly, it's not far from this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   to this   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   to this   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


I don't think we're going to see a neo-fascist party in America or in Canada ...


But there is one in Greece: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and it has real power, and I, personally, will not be surprised to see neo-fascists figure prominently
 in parliaments in Italy, Portgual and Spain and, of course, Le Pen's _Front National_ is alive and well in the French legislature:


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But there is one in Greece:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


<logo tangent>
Interesting how Italy's main neo-facist party uses graphics interestingly close to France's....




</logo tangent>


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Fascism_ was and remains and interesting and _attractive_ idea: a people 'united' are stronger than just people, on their own, just as a _fascine_ is stronger, as a _bundle_, than is any of the sticks in it.



As distasteful as Fascism can be, it goes to show that there is "something" missing in people's lives ere it would not grow and in some cases thrive.  What is causing the need to begin with.  I suggest that, that, is what needs to be identified and dealt with.  Just like the fire triangle.  Knock out one of the three causes and the rest become a non issue.


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Oct 2012)

Agreed. People are usually motivated in one or another to become a part of something (use a facist organization for example). 
Hatred? Poverty and desparation? Hopelessness? Maybe it should be viewed as a symptom of a larger problem.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Oct 2012)

.....cool uniforms.   :nod:

You just know that the guy on the left in the Greek Fascist pic has a Frontiersman costume like one of these at home.




....possibly the gown



I now return you to serious discussion


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2012)

Those in the London, ON, area, with a bit of time on Thur, 8 Nov 12, might enjoy this.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2013)

And Prof Ignatieff is back in the news, beating the same old drum: democracy is in danger because Stephen Harper is in office rather than me ... 

He has one good idea: more free votes, which means a clear statement on _confidence_ issues which might even lead to shorter, better crafted throne speeches. Much legislation is harmless ~ which means it's unnecessary ~ and it really doesn't matter if it passes or not. In fact, given nice, fat omnibus budget implementation bills, very few other bills matter and members should be able to vote more freely on them.

But: he remains historically ignorant. He says that _"the prime minister’s capacity to dictate House business, put together omnibus bills and ram them through, while imposing party discipline, has concentrated executive power at the expense of the legislature,"_ and that's true, and he acknowledges that it is true of all parliamentary democracies but he fails to note that it is one of the defining characteristics of Westminster style parliamentary democracies and has been since Walpole (who was the _de facto_ PM - although that title did not, yet, exist - _circa_ 1720-1740).

If Canadians want Italian style parliamentary government or Israeli style cabinet making then they should heed Ignatieff's warning and march to the beat of his drum, because that's what he and like minded folks, like journalist Andrew Coyne, are offering.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Feb 2013)

He also conveniently leaves out that it was under Trudeau that the concentration of power under the PM and PMO began. Prior to his tenure, votes were far more free. While I accept that bills should be voted on more freely, except for money bills, I don't accept that it's all the current PM's fault. If all bills were in danger of going down to defeat, we might have better crafted legislation, less work at committee, and speedier passage, and Canadians might feel that their representatives were just that - representatives.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Feb 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't accept that it's all the current PM's fault.


 It's best to avoid the Comments on CBC news articles; regardless of the topic, including today's snowfall, it's _all_ Harper's fault.   :


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2013)

Excerpt from Mr. Campbell's linked article:



> ...I don’t want to sound holier-than-thou here. I was party leader. As party leader, I wanted to keep my caucus under control. The press would be at me if there was dissent in caucus: “Liberal Party split.” “Leader can’t lead.” All that stuff. Holding power as leader of the opposition or as prime minister, you have an ongoing imperative to control your caucus. But that imperative contradicts the representative function of your MPs. This is a conflict at the heart of parliamentary democracy....



Two things: 

1)  When people start a phrase off with, "I don't want to....[insert verb here]," it usually means (and in this case is true) they intend to do exactly to that...

2)  Ignatieff seems to beg off his inability to develop still-principled caucus coherence as somehow being the champion of "parliamentary democracy", vice acknowledging his own ineffectiveness as a national political leader.

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2013)

One of Igantieff's intellectual flaws ~ one which I find inexplicable given his background and experience ~ is that he confuses _representative_ democracy with _responsible_ government. We have a _representative _ democracy but *NOT* a representative government, such as the US has. We have a _responsible_ government which is both 1) more _revolutionary_ than the US style 18th century model, and 2) more *democratically advanced* than the US system. Our _responsible_, Westminster type of parliamentary government has some unique advantages (and limitations) over other forms ~ maybe it's not the absolute best but it is, I believe, better than most other models that would be suitable for a federal state.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2013)

Michael Ignatieff's new book, _Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics_, which I have not read, has been receiving pretty consistent reviews ~ "how could he have been so naive?" being pretty much the most common thought. I'll give the last word to Robert Fulford (to whom could one better leave the last word?) in this review which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/28/robert-fulford-michael-ignatieffs-clumsy-coming-of-age/


> Michael Ignatieff’s clumsy coming of age
> 
> Robert Fulford
> 
> ...




"At last," might be the most suitable final words for Michael Ignatief's exit from Canadian politics.


----------

