Topic: All eyes on Ignatieff

[E.R. Campbell]

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]

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).

[Baden Guy]

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]

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.

[E.R. Campbell]

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.

[Petamocto]

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]

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html#

2 Sep 10

[ModlrMike]

If the big red tent is anything like the big red book, then we're in for a lot of style and little substance.

[recceguy]

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.

[Petamocto]

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]

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

[E.R. Campbell]

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]

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]

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.

[E.R. Campbell]

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

Published on Friday, Sep. 03, 2010

Michael Ignatieff’s interminable summer of small towns, small crowds and small media coverage is now over. Privately the man must be ecstatic. And yet all he has to look forward to is another session of parliament where he remains a lame duck to be constantly humiliated by new Government House Leader John Baird and Stephen Harper's other wild dogs.

He can say what he likes, but it's hard to believe that every day in every way, Mr. Ignatieff would not give the moon to regain his previous life. As a late-blooming politician, it's been a long, hard, often demeaning four years.

His fall from grace actually began shortly before his Great Canadian Adventure. While still a fashionable Harvard-based public intellectual who referred to Americans as “we,” Mr. Ignatieff had caused incredulity among many of his previous admirers – of whom I was among the fervent – by justifying both George Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq and his approval of torture. These positions haunt Mr. Ignatieff still, as they should.

“After four years, it's hard to see why Mr. Ignatieff has bothered at all. He appears to stand for nothing except the centre, wherever and whatever that is. ”

Mr. Ignatieff’s plunge into partisan politics back home in Canada did not enhance his reputation. He was immediately complicit in violating the constitution of his chosen riding association when his backers unilaterally closed nominations well before the appointed time. This blatant attack on democracy, he insisted, was democracy in action.

Then came the insufferable unction. Every day, every event, every development, was the proudest of the new Michael’s existence. Never mind his previous lifetime of international celebrity and awards. Putting in his nomination papers (even unconstitutionally) was his proudest moment ever. So was the formal nomination meeting. So was being elected to Parliament. It was a wonder he could cope with the burden of so many firsts, poor chap. But the phony-baloney humility didn't work. He just wasn't a natural politician. For the life of him he couldn't fake sincerity.

Finally, though, destiny wove its predestined web. Mr. Ignatieff became Liberal Party Leader without a single vote being cast, very possibly a first in the long history of democracy. From there on up it's been downhill all the way. Soon the Ignatieff Liberals were being embraced by the same 25 per cent of the voters even Stéphane Dion couldn’t alienate. Facing the most dangerous Prime Minister in Canadian history yet sensibly terrified of forcing an election, Mr. Ignatieff allowed Mr. Harper to operate as if he had a majority government.

Come the dog days of summer 2010, the Liberals find themselves lower than a snake’s belly. Almost weekly Stephen Harper has tried everything possible to self-immolate, but Mr. Ignatieff has taken advantage of none of it. He wants nothing more than to spend the humid, sticky days of July and August reading Dostoevsky aloud to his bride, in the original Russian. But the optics would not be good. He must be seen to be doing something. He descends to the inner circle of Canadian political hell: the summer BBQ circuit, in every province and territory.

He emerges claiming victory. What else can he say? Some believe he can now even fake sincerity more convincingly. But look at the polls. Nobody pays attention to politics in the summer anyway, Liberal hucksters fervently spin, so polls don’t count. But then why campaign all summer, fellahs? After two dreadful months for the government, largely self-inflicted, the Conservatives can attract only about one in three Canadians. Yet Mr. Ignatieff's party is still stuck somewhere between 25 to 30 per cent. At best the Liberals might be tied with this unpalatable government.

“Almost weekly Stephen Harper has tried everything possible to self-immolate, but Mr. Ignatieff has taken advantage of none of it.”

And yet the Liberal Party is doing vastly better than the Liberal Leader. In terms of personal qualities and competence, Mr. Ignatieff has failed to impress his fellow citizens as much as Stephen Harper. This would be humiliating to anyone, let alone a Michael Ignatieff. It cannot bolster his self-confidence or the undying devotion of his followers.

But only fanatical Liberals – a dying breed, alas – can really be surprised. After four years, it's hard to see why Mr. Ignatieff has bothered at all. He appears to stand for nothing except the centre, wherever and whatever that is. There are no grand policy initiatives, and barely any modest ones. There are no insights on the economy, especially the unemployment crisis. There is no sense of how he will bring democracy and accountability back to a country that is watching it deteriorate before their eyes. If he's concerned about growing inequality within Canada he has impressively hidden it. Only on the issue of preserving the long-gun registry has Mr. Ignatieff shown real leadership and courage, and for that he indeed deserves to be saluted.

Otherwise, it appears that his only real motive for wanting to be Prime Minster is that it would be a nice addition to his extraordinary curriculum vitae while keeping Bob Rae out. Who knows? Maybe that's a good enough reason, along with not being Stephen Harper.

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]

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!

[milnews.ca]

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".

[Thucydides]

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.

[E.R. Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mailm 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

Posted on Friday, September 24, 2010

Michael Ignatieff, Monday, commenting on Canada’s bid for a Security Council seat:
“This is a government that for four years has basically ignored the United Nations and now is suddenly showing up saying, 'Hey, put us on the council … Don't mistake me. I know how important it is for Canada to get a seat on the Security Council but Canadians have to ask a tough question: Has this government earned that place? We're not convinced it has.”

In contrast to Mr. Ignatieff’s words – which unmistakably ooze with his hope for Canada to fail – here’s Bob Rae, on the high road that Mr. Ignatieff eschewed, after the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday:

“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. Harper’s speech was that he emphasized Canada’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 a very long time in our history at the UN and on the world stage.

And that is why 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 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 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 wasn’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 partisan exercise. As far as I’m concerned, it is not a partisan exercise and I think that is the approach that we should be taking.”

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.

[recceguy]

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]

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

[Baden Guy]

Friday, September 24, 2010
Blogs The Hill
Reaction to Harper’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. Harper’s speech was that he emphasized Canada’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 – over a very long time in our history at the – at the UN and on the world stage.

And that is why – 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 – 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 wasn’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 – as some partisan exercise. As far as I’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

[Thucydides]

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...

[E.R. Campbell]

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.

[Technoviking]

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.