All eyes on Ignatieff

[Edward Campbell]

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.

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 - it may even be a majority - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - later expanded into a book: The Future of Freedom) as illiberal democracy - 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 “ 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 - which leads, inevitably, to Marxism and social, economic and political failure.  I also believe that there are, in Asia, a few conservative democracies - which are possible in the very conservative Asian societies.  I have no problems with liberal or conservative democracies â “ 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.

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

Sagging in the polls with a outbreak of internecine bickering and a senior resignation in the party's Quebec flank, the real Liberal crisis of non-confidence seems targeted more at their party leader than the government they aim to defeat this Thursday.

What's worse, it was a Liberal ultimatum last June that forced Prime Minister Stephen Harper to produce Monday's gleeful report card on his government's stimulus package  -- 148 pages of Tory-blue election-pamphlet-ready achievement fleshed out by robust graphics and upward arrows to show job growth and spending.

But despite the billions of alleged deficit spending and hints of a recovery highlighted in a report card demanded by the Liberals, Mr. Ignatieff raised his hara-kari blade three hours later to signal this is the moment to take a stab at an election increasingly seen as suicidal inside his party.

His non-confidence motion won't succeed, of course. The pretzel-principled New Democrats will bend over to support the Conservatives to spare Canada from an election the Liberals seem hopelessly unprepared to fight.

Besides, the report card offers precious little ammunition to engage an electoral battle. Sure, it's basic plagiarism from the earlier fiscal update and arguably more a compilation of press release announcements than actual construction blueprints.

There's also some proof the Conservatives will, by accident or design, fail to deliver on their intended spending spree. Hidden in the annex on the last page of the report card, the government admitted it could not spend a full third of the $3-billion it rammed through the House of Commons last March on the pretext of emergency cash for shovel-ready projects. If they can't spend $3 billion, how will they dump $27 billion out the door in a hurry?

But the underlying point is that most Canadians hunger for good news and Stephen Harper is feeding that appetite with this upbeat progress report, leaving Michael Ignatieff to fret and fume in gloom and doom about growing unemployment and the risk of continuing economic slippage.

For Liberals about to trigger another month of blackboard-scratching speculation about an election, there's also concern at how Mr. Ignatieff's leadership honeymoon ended with almost Dion-esque speed, setting him up as a frenzied-feeding target by one and all.

A senior party strategist noted that the Liberal advance team, seeking to highlight the government's alleged tardiness in spending stimulus money, had used the wrong field for an Ignatieff photo op last week, and that the park wasn't scheduled for construction until next year anyway. "In our rush to dump Stephane Dion, we have given ourselves John Turner," he sighed.

Ouch.

Even Mr. Ignatieff's own loyalists blame him for the mess in Quebec, where former justice minister Martin Cauchon was strong-armed out of a nomination bid so that Quebec lieutenant MP Denis Coderre could deliver the party banner uncontested to a female candidate.

The fury following that decision, featuring a public backlash from senior sidekick Bob Rae, forced Mr. Ignatieff to reverse the decision Monday, which sent loud and proud Denis Coderre, seeking maximum television exposure for his tantrum, to quit as the party's Quebec organizer.

But the pile-on goes beyond the Parliament Hill bubble.

Mr. Ignatieff will face evisceration on Rick Mercer Reports tonight in a spoof on his new television commercial. With Ignatieff talking up environmental issues before a forested background, a charging grizzly bear bowls over the leader before a graphic appears declaring: The Liberal Party of Canada: Playing dead. Ouch again.

He can't even escape ridicule in his overseas stomping grounds. Last weekend The Observer took some nasty swipes at the former broadcaster, who paused in London for an interview during one of his summer vanishing acts. Writer Rachel Cooke beautifully dissects the pale persona she encountered.

He's no longer the flamboyant intellect familiar to British readers and television viewer, she laments.  "His tone . . . is slow, excessively careful and completely without irony, none of which would be surprising were he a career politician. 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."

Smugly surveying this twitching Liberal body is Mr. Harper, the one party leader with public opinion at his back who fervently wishes the non-confidence motion would succeed and send Canada to the polls immediately.

He can't be seen inducing its defeat, but he'll do nothing to prolong his government's survival. That sets up a tricky fall full of scrambling opposition leaders trying to prop up a Conservative government that doesn't want to be saved.

National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com

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]

... 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

September 30, 2009

Michael Ignatieff should have taken inspiration from a classic speech in 1947 in which Louis Saint-Laurent laid out his vision for Canada's foreign policy.

It was a truly magisterial speech -- one which laid the foundations for Canadian policy in world affairs. Like all great pieces of oratory on such weighty matters it identified clear principles that would serve as a guide for future action. It was not unduly partisan. Instead, it spoke to the heart of Canadian values and interests by identifying a number of key principles for action.

Among them, "we dare not fashion a policy which is based on the particular interests of any economic group, of any class or of any section of the country. We must be on guard especially against the claims of extravagant regionalism no matter where they have their origin ... a disunited Canada will be a powerless one."

It underscored that our "conception of political liberty" which "is an inheritance from both our French and English backgrounds" should "shape our external policy." It also stressed the importance of basing our foreign policy on a "conception of human values." It stressed our "willingness to accept international responsibilities," while recognizing that "on the major question of participation in international organization, both in peace and war, we have taken our decision to be present."

The speech also looked to the practical application of these principles. In the case of the United States, it observed that, "The relationship between a great and powerful nation and its smaller neighbour, at best is far from simple. It calls for constant and imaginative attention on both sides." How true.

The speech was given more than 60 years ago by then secretary of state Louis Saint-Laurent (Gray Memorial Lecture, University of Toronto, Jan. 13, 1947). It was a speech that laid the foundations of our foreign policy in the decades that followed. It is a speech Michael Ignatieff should have read more carefully before offering his own vision of our place in the world.

Louis St Laurent
The picture of St Laurent was not in the Citizen article.

Michael Ignatieff delivered his first major address on foreign policy as leader of the opposition earlier this month. If it had been bold and creative, it might have turned heads. If the rhetoric had soared, Canadians would have felt inspired and taken notice. Instead, it was a dud that landed with a whimper, not a bang.

One of the problems with Ignatieff's speech is that it was based on a faulty premise. "After the last four years," the leader of the opposition opined, "it's hard to remember how much Canada once mattered. ... We need a government that catches up with the Canadian people's own internationalism and inspires it to further heights." However, we are not a nation of aging Norma Desmonds -- the star of the 1950 movie Sunset Boulevard -- who dream about making a triumphant return to the world stage. Anything but.

Public opinion polls suggest that there is a declining constituency for and general lack of public interest in foreign policy. This extends to the parliamentary level where even our engagement in Afghanistan has fallen off the radar screen and most of our politicians (Ignatieff included) duck for cover behind the 2011 expiry date of our combat mission. This lack of interest about most things international has been reinforced by the recent economic crisis where the most important issues confronting Canadians are job losses and economic recovery.

Much of Ignatieff's speech was devoted to offering a long laundry list of initiatives that he would pursue if he were to become prime minister. Some are noteworthy but most looked like they had popped up in his rear view mirror. Ignatieff said he would champion the expansion of the G8 to include the countries of the G20 and also offer to host and fund a permanent G20 secretariat in Canada. The G20 was an idea of former prime minister Paul Martin. George Bush gave the idea life when he convened a summit of 20 world leaders to deal with the world's economic and financial crisis last November.

The G20 has already replaced the G8 as the centre of gravity in dealing with the world's economic and financial problems, and it increasingly looks as if the G8 and G20 are going to merge because there is only so much summitry that the world's leaders can take. Ignatieff is behind the curve on this one.

The bigger challenge is to fix the UN and to enlarge the UN Security Council to make it a more representative and effective body. Ignatieff might say what he thinks about this. Right now Canada prefers the status quo because all of the reform proposals that are on the table would reduce if not eliminate our chances for getting a non-permanent seat on the Security Council. At the end of day, however, these are not the kinds of issues that are going to make Canadians rush out and buy tickets, so Ignatieff would be wise to talk about something else.

Ignatieff chastised the Harper government for not paying nearly enough attention to China and India. It is true that Harper ran cold on China. But the Conservative tap is now running hot -- so hot, in fact, that after a flurry of high-level ministerial visits this summer Harper plans to buy his own plane ticket to Beijing if there is not an election. Following Washington's own strategic dialogue with India, Harper has raised the level of our own engagement with exploratory discussions about a comprehensive economic partnership agreement and the opening of new trade offices in key Indian cities.

It is not clear what Ignatieff's shop-worn idea for more "Team Canada" missions would add to this mix. What we do need is a comprehensive strategic framework and clear objectives for engaging the world's rising powers which are attuned to Canadian values and interests.

On the U.S., Ignatieff promises to "renew our relationship" and to "engage Americans in strengthening not weakening the North American space."

It is hard to see how Ignatieff could do any more than Harper is doing now to engage President Barack Obama, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. media. "Constant attention" is not the problem. Harper has launched a strategy of attrition political warfare with America. If Ignatieff has a better strategy to cope with the "imagination deficit" in our bilateral relations, he needs to tell us what it is and how he plans to get any more air time from a president who is now deeply immersed in other battles.

Ignatieff retreats into process when he urges the appointment of a high-level envoy to Afghanistan. He does not explain to what "ends" he would deploy our "diplomatic muscle." We have sent special envoys to war zones before -- Lois Wilson to Sudan, David MacDonald to Ethiopia -- but their missions floundered because our own goals were not clear.

Ignatieff's accounting of the government's foreign policy record contains other inaccuracies while his policy prescriptions are thin. However, his bigger failure is to articulate the general principles and instruments that would animate Canadian foreign policy under a Liberal government. There is pay dirt there.

Fen Osler Hampson is chancellor's professor and director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. In the coming weeks he will profile the foreign policies of the other major parties.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen​

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]

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

Thursday, Oct. 01, 2009

For a leadership that looked so promising at the start of the year, how did it come to this?

Michael Ignatieff recently pledged his party to bringing down the government and forcing an election. His party recoils at the thought. Here's Toronto MP Judy Sgro: “Ninety-nine per cent of us don't want an election.”

The Liberal Leader is under the gun for being held captive by a small group of unelected advisers. Members say he hasn't been reaching out. For a case in point, try this: Former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien told visitors recently that Prime Minister Stephen Harper calls him for consultation – they talk about foreign affairs – more often than does Mr. Ignatieff, the leader of his own party!

Iffy, as some now call him, has had just one meeting of his shadow cabinet all year, shadow member Gerard Kennedy confirms. Bob Rae, who was his chief rival for the leadership post, is making no secret of his disillusionment with Mr. Ignatieff's performance.

The party rides low in the polls, as do the leader's personal numbers. The Quebec lieutenant resigns. Caucus wants changes to the inner circle, although members backed away from making such a demand at their caucus meeting yesterday. It's not all grim – Mr. Ignatieff's team has put the party on sound financial footing and boosted membership numbers to record heights. But no one disputes the sagging fortunes. The Grit numbers are back where they were in the days of Stéphane Dion.

How did it come to this?

According to insiders and caucus members, there were two major factors.

One was a big assumption that turned out wrong. The initial strategy was predicated on a deep and dark recession that would drag the government down. The Liberals would only have to oppose, not propose. They would reboot organizationally and, with a leader offering much more allure than Mr. Dion, all would be well.

By early summer, the strategy was showing fault lines. The recession, softer than expected, wasn't taking a big bite out of Conservative support. The Grits couldn't win on Mr. Harper's negatives. They needed to retool, but – second big misstep – they failed to do so. Mr. Ignatieff was kept under wraps. Given his Zeus-like scholarly reputation, Canadians expected fresh and exciting ideas. But his inner sanctum, led by Ian Davey, whose ideas cascade from the old-time religion of his famous father Keith, convinced him otherwise. “The Opposition's duty is to oppose,” Mr. Davey has emphatically stated.

The Liberal Leader was turned into the exact type of creature Canadians didn't want – another conventional politician. There had been a mystique about Mr. Ignatieff, but it began to fade. Once a grand communicator, he was reduced to boilerplate.

Don't bring out bold plans, they told him – the Conservatives will either steal them or attack them. Mr. Ignatieff also appointed a 31-year-old bureaucrat, Kevin Chan, as his policy chief. He was smart as a whip but miscast. The job required a veteran heavyweight. He was a kid.

Throughout the summer, the elevator music from the leader's office played on. There was some carping, but Mr. Ignatieff was committed to dancing with the ones who brung him – the Toronto group that had convinced him to leave Harvard and come to Ottawa. It became a replay of what happened to Paul Martin. A palace guard, jealously holding power, cutting off the arteries.

Adviser Paul Zed, not a Toronto club member, wanted Alex Himmelfarb as a new chief of staff. He was Ottawa-savvy, and Mr. Zed was prepared to stay on himself if that happened. But the plan was nixed. Mr. Zed, disillusioned because of this and other things – he had been told not to talk to the media – departed.

At Mr. Ignatieff's daily meetings with a small group of caucus members, dissent was increasingly frowned upon. “If you challenged Iggy's advisers,” said one participant, “you got the leper treatment.” Ken Dryden and Ms. Sgro have just been added to the morning group. It may be a sign of change.

Advisers always get the blame, sometimes unfairly. At the root of the problem is the man at the top. 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. Academics aren't good at that.

But there's the rub. His party members don't want him thinking in terms of traditional politics. They're telling him, correctly, that Canadians tune out that kind of junk. They want him to tune it out as well.

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]

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

Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2009

Dubbed a cerebral sex symbol when he entered politics, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff now faces a wall in his appeal to women. They don't much like him.

The issue is hugely significant for his party, which historically has enjoyed high levels of women's support. Ignatieff predecessors such as Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien held 20-point leads in the polls with women over their Conservative opponents.

But Monday's Strategic Counsel poll shows women age 35 and over – and particularly women age 50 and over – have rejected the Liberals in droves in the past six months.

As for the issue of leadership, a summertime poll indicated women had the same lack of interest in Mr. Ignatieff as they do in Prime Minister Stephen Harper, even though women are inclined to vote left of centre and Mr. Harper has been labelled the most right-of-centre national party leader in modern Canadian history.

Only 30 per cent of women favoured each leader and a plurality liked neither.

-------------------------​

“ I really want to like him. I really want to get excited about him as a leader, but he's not giving me much to work with.” — Calgary businesswoman Anette Ceraficki

-------------------------​

Party leaders have a big impact on how people vote; thus if Mr. Ignatieff had a more positive connection with women voters, Canadian politics might be wearing a different face. But whether it's his media image or his party's step to the right, women aren't warming to him, something the Liberals acknowledge.

“Reaching out to our traditional base of women voters is a priority,” said a high-ranking party source. “Hence you can expect to see a focus on women in the [next election] platform.”

The Liberals are on track for women – many of them prominent community members – to comprise one-third of their candidates in the next election campaign. But that's not going to help them: Women tend to vote for men.

“The relevant question,” said the party source, “is not current level of support from women but rather the extent to which women are open to being persuaded by a campaign. We have huge room for growth and will be orienting our efforts to achieving a broader and deeper level of commitment from women to the Liberal agenda.”

Which is as positive a way of putting things as words can produce. Whether it will help Mr. Ignatieff is moot.

When he was host of BBC Two's The Late Show in the 1990s, Mr. Ignatieff was called the thinking woman's crumpet.

But interviews with Canadian women voters – businesswomen, academics, writers, PhD students in their 20s and 30s – elicited words well removed from crumpet. They called him stuffy, drab, arrogant, inauthentic, paternalistic, unmemorable, unsexy and, most of all, untrustworthy.

Toronto author Patricia Pearson, the granddaughter of former Liberal prime minister Lester Pearson who wrote Mr. Ignatieff into her 2003 comic novel Playing House as a smouldering bodice-ripper, says he appears totally out of place as a politician.

“He is so palpably uncomfortable in this role and I think that's the source of the turnoff,” she said. “Did you see that political commercial of him standing in a meadow or something bucolic? It just made me laugh so hard. He looks like he has heartburn.”

Megan Campbell, 55, a senior university administrator in Toronto, described Mr. Ignatieff's “thing in the forest” as unfortunate and lacking in authenticity. She compared him unfavorably to Mr. Trudeau, whose emergence into politics “seemed very real and rang true.”

Sarah Knudson, from Vancouver, a doctoral candidate in sociology, said: “For me, it is more Ignatieff the person than Ignatieff the ensemble of ideological and policy perspectives that turns me off. I do not see him as a trustworthy person. He is intelligent but has crossed over into arrogance – so unsexy. The Ignatieff persona does not appeal to me, and I am a woman.”

Heather Andres from Winnipeg, a doctoral candidate in atmospheric physics, said she lost trust in Mr. Ignatieff when she found out he originally supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He hasn't said anything since, she said, that has made her change her mind.

“And I don't find his appearance memorable,” she added. “He looks just like another business person or another academic or another politician. I guess that suggests I'm still not very familiar with him. My brain doesn't recognize him.”

Calgary businesswoman Anette Ceraficki, 44, said of him: “I really want to like him. I really want to get excited about him as a leader, but he's not giving me much to work with.

“When you see him in public, he's surrounded by men in grey suits. He's not supposed to be one of those guys. I like to think of the parallel being Obama. This is my dream. He's got women all around him, smart, strong women.”

Which is ironic. Because one of those smart strong Obama women is a close Ignatieff chum: former Harvard professor Samantha Power, who has spoken glowingly of Mr. Ignatieff as a fun guy to talk with – about politics, baseball, her romantic life – over a glass of wine.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 liberal rails and became Liberal 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

A scathing message attacking Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff appeared today on the Facebook site belonging to Janine Krieber - the wife of Mr. Ignatieff's predecessor, Stéphane Dion.

The message, a copy of which was obtained by The Globe, says the party "is falling apart, and will not recover." It also blames "the Toronto elites" for being out of tune, arrogant and unrealistic.

Mr. Ignatieff's leadership is openly questioned, as is his decision to shun the coalition deal struck by Mr. Dion, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe.

"The time for choices is now," the message says.

The Canadian Press reports, citing unnamed sources, that Mr. Dion himself was not involved in producing the note.

It was deleted from the Facebook site this afternoon, and Liberal officials are refusing comment.

The text of the note, and The Globe's translation, follow.

---

Ça fait un an et une semaine que je n'ai pas écrit dans mon blog. Ah! que la présidente est paresseuse. Mais maintenant, il faut faire quelque chose.

Le parti libéral est en pleine déconfiture, il ne s'en remettra pas. Comme tous les partis libéraux d'Europe, il deviendra une pauvre petite chose à la merci des coalitions éphémères. Pour avoir refusé la coalition historique qui pouvait le mettre à la tête de la gauche, il sera puni par l'histoire.

Bon, j'en était convaincue au moment où Paul Martin a traité si cavalièrement Jean Chrétien. Ce moment a signé la mort de notre parti. Si les élites de Toronto avaient été plus éveillées, humbles et réalistes, Stéphane était prêt à prendre tout le temps et les coups pour reconstruire ce parti. Mais ils n'ont pas avalé le 26%, maintenant nous sommes à 23%.

Le temps des choix est arrivé. Je ne veux pas que les conservateurs continuent à changer mon pays. Ils sont en train, doucement, comme n'importe quelle dictature, de transformer le monde. La torture n'existe pas, la corruption est une vue de l'esprit. Avons nous vraiment le bon chef pour discuter de ces questions? Est-ce que quelqu'un peut vraiment écrire toutes ces insanités et nous faire croire qu'il a tout simplement changé d'idée? Pour justifier la violence, il faut avoir réfléchi sérieusement. Sinon, c'est très dangereux. Qu'est-ce qui nous garantie qu'il ne changera pas d'idée une autre fois?

Tout ceci, la base du parti l'avais compris et le citoyen canadien est en train de le comprendre. Les supporters de Ignatieff n'ont pas fait leurs devoirs. Ils n'ont pas lu ses livres, n'ont pas consulté ses collègues. Ils se sont contentés de son habileté à naviguer dans les cocktails. Certains d'entre eux sont enragés maintenant. J'entend: pourquoi personne ne l'a dit? Nous vous l'avons dit haut et fort, vous n'avez pas écouté.

J'amorce une réflexion sérieuse. Je ne veux pas donner ma voix à un parti qui risque de finir dans les poubelles de l'histoire. Je regarde autour et il y a certaines choses qui me plaisent. Comme un parti dédié, qui ne conteste pas son chef à chaque hoquet des sondages. Un parti où la règle serait le principe de plaisir et non l'assassinat. Un parti où l'éthique du travail et de la compétence seraient respectés et où les sourires ne seraient pas factices.

Je ne rêve peut-être pas.

La présidente

---

It's been a year and one week since I last wrote on my blog. Ah! "la présidente" is lazy. But we have to take action now.

The Liberal Party is falling apart, and will not recover. Like all liberal parties in Europe, it will become a weakling at the mercy of ephemeral coalitions. By refusing the historic coalition that would have placed it at the helm of the left, it will be punished by history.

Anyway, I became convinced of it the moment that Paul Martin treated Jean Chrétien so cavalierly. The party died at that moment. If the Toronto elites had been more in tune, humble and realist, Stéphane would have been willing to take all the time and absord all the hits needed to rebuild the party. But they couldn't swallow the 26%, and now we are at 23%.

The time for choices is now. I don't want to see the Conservatives continue to change my country. They are, slowly, like any dictatorship, changing the world. Torture doesn't exist, corruption is a fabrication. Do we really have the right leader to discuss these questions? Can someone really write these insanities and lead us to believe that he simply changed his mind? In order to justify violence, he must have engaged in serious thought. Otherwise, it's very dangerous. How can we be sure that he won't change his mind one more time?

The party grassroots had understood all of that, and the average citizen is starting to understand it too. Ignatieff's supporters have not done their homework. They did not read his books, consult his colleagues. They were satisfied that he could be charming at cocktails. Some of them are outraged now. I am hearing: Why did no one say it? We told you loud and clear, you didn't listen.

I am starting a serious reflection. I will not give my voice to a party that will end up in the trashcan of history. I am looking around me, and certain things are attractive. Like a dedicated party that doesn't challenge its leader at every hiccup in the polls. A party where the rule would be the principle of pleasure, and not assassination. A party where work ethic and competence would be respected and where smiles would be real.

Maybe I'm not dreaming.

"La présidente."

---

Update The Canadian Press has a full story, which we've posted here.

And The Star's Susan Delacourt notes that Ms. Krieber "has not been seen much since Dion stepped down a year ago; she did not show up at the tribute to Dion at the Liberals' convention in May."

 

[RangerRay]

Now, why does she call herself the "President"?  ???

 

[The Bread Guy]

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]

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]

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

Here’s what we need in 2010 — the youth to take over. Everybody is sick and tired, or at least they should be, of the eternal grip on power of the post-war baby boomer cohort.

These people are old, intellectually worn out, shorn of idealism and duller than the Manitoba tundra.

Take, for example, our federal party leaders. They are all very smart, erudite men. But if you’re looking for an inspiration deficit, look no further. Stephen Harper is only 50, but he’s about as hip as a Toyota Corolla. Bookworm Michael Ignatieff looks like he hasn’t seen a ray of sunshine since the ’60s. Jack Layton has a demeanour that conjures up Russia in the throes of Bolshevism. And Gilles Duceppe? Well, go back a bit further. The pre-Cambrian era might do.

The youth of the nation look on and, understandably, look away, especially on voting day. But it can’t stay like this. It’s their country. They have to make a move.

Among our elected representatives, in the cobwebbed chamber that is the House of Commons, there is one guy with the potential to light a fuse.

Justin Trudeau, 38, is the politician who can change things. He is young, articulate in both languages, dashing, magnetic. Wherever he goes he draws a crowd. Charisma is a rare political gift. About one in 1,000 have it. He has it.

Trudeau initially had the reputation of being a bit flaky. But he hasn’t come across that way since arriving in Ottawa. He’s shown a sense of discipline and a willingness to be patient and learn. At the same time he has a sense of humour while coming across as an independent thinker. (Interpolation: I sat through a public appearance and speech Trudeau gave and came away with a quite *different* impression of the Young Dauphin)

Others who come to politics at a young age lose their freshness. Given the pressures of the game, they get turned into party hacks. James Moore, the talented young Tory heritage minister, runs that risk. Trudeau, on the other hand, comes across as a breed apart.

The Liberals should do all they can to showcase him. The youth vote is up for grabs in this country and the party that gets it will be the party on the move. It’s how Barack Obama won. As his campaign manager, David Plouffe, relates in his book, The Audacity To Win, what the Obama campaign did was change the electorate. It reached down below the boring baby boomers to the emerging younger cohort and awakened it.

That’s what has to happen here.

Lawrence Martin is a journalist and author of 10 books who writes about national affairs from Ottawa.