What a curious summer it has been for the Liberal Party and its leader, Michael Ignatieff.
Summer, it should be said, is a tough time for an opposition leader to command much, if any, media attention. Deprived of a parliamentary platform, whatever he says seldom echoes across the country.
Still, the leader has to try to be heard, have something to say, and stir up at least his troops. On all these counts, it’s been a curiously wasted summer.
When the parliamentary session ended, Mr. Ignatieff did not bring down the government. Instead, he huffed and puffed, and secured a study into employment insurance.
For this, the Ottawa media pack devoured him for delivering at the end of the shenanigans what the people wanted: no election. Such is the media mentality that judges everything by who wins and loses little tactical struggles, and reads significance into picayune events.
The Liberals were not then ready for an election, and the people did not want one. On both counts, Mr. Ignatieff rather skillfully avoided the bad option of an election urged on him by a surprising number of Liberals.
[More]
Notes:
I’m not a Jeffrey Simpson fan but I think he hit this one out of the park.
I’m not a Simpson fan either. He’s one of the embedded Parliamentary Press Gallery types who depend on “unnamed sources close to the Prime Minister” and other such rot…
It has been a curious summer politically… Quiet undercurrents of activity… I suspect Count Iggy isn’t making much headway in the backroom.
Ignatieff is a strange one. He is far more personable than Harper, and quite possibly more honest politically, he is unable to bring his better public skills to bear on the issues of the day. Ill-advised, perhaps, but my own guess is that the Libs are being too clever by half – trying to time an election to the precise moment when they can be assured of a victory. Unfortunately, no election is ever a sure thing, even for a political party that thinks it is the naturally governing one.
The Liberal party is still all ” leftovers & hamburger helper ” from the Chrétien era and has no core values other than the old myths and sacred cows of the 1960′s in my opinion.
A return to the real meaning of Classical Liberal would be more conservative than the current Conservatives.
Their only core value is being ” The Natural Ruling Party ” and if Ignatieff uses his big brain he will forgo a quick election and work on making a Party that even committed conservatives would at least consider voting for ! But then again a Liberal Party I would vote for would be truly ” Liberal ” in having personal freedom and the respect of the individual way above whinny special interest groups.
“He is far more personable than Harper, and quite possibly more honest politically”
I guess I’m living in a parallel universe. In my universe, “coalition if necessary but not necessarily coaltion”, “carbon tax if necessary but not necessarily a carbon tax”, “asbestos is evil when not in Quebec, but not necessarily evil when in Quebec” is not my idea of an honest politician. On the other hand, every interview on record with Harper has been respectful and, more importantly, he answers questions directly, a feat never accomplished by any Liberal, not even Ignatieff.
As far as “personable” is concerned, who cares? The PM needs to be effective, not your pal.
Jean, the classic Liberals of old are dead and buried. The Liberal constitution now revolves around “social justice”. There’s no way classic liberalism and social justice can occupy the same space without butting heads. Clearly the Liberals will sacrifice individual rights and freedoms in the name of social justice. Just ask any Liberal if he or she believes in private property rights. The Liberals are now firmly entrenched on the left side of the political spectrum. No true conservative could possibly vote for this party (not ruling out protest votes, however) without asking some pretty hard questions. Not that their answers will mean anything. One only has to look at the history of the federal Liberals, the Ontario Liberals and the BC Liberals to realize that being duplicitous is part and parcel of being Liberal.
johndoe124: I completely agree with you about the present ” Liberals ” having nothing in common with the ” Classical Liberals ” but then I was fantasizing about a ” Liberal Party ” I could vote for, and not the sorry politically correct mess the Liberal Party is now, and only a miracle or a real leader could get them out of their very deep rut ! So don’t mistake me for someone who would currently vote Liberal but it would be nice in some ” theoretical future ” to have two Parties worth considering and where a ” Liberal win ” wouldn’t be very worrying or depressing !
So basically I was comparing what they are ( very sad ) and what they used to be when they actually had principles LOL.
Jean, please explain when the Liberals ever had principles. I go back as far as the Pearson years and all I can remember is that their principles were always based on getting elected.
Strangely, Iggy in spite of not announcing and policies except to say ‘we’re not the Tories’ is neck in neck with the CPC in most polls.
I guess the old saying ‘silence is golden’ still has some value for Iggy – the Emperor has no clothing (policies) comes to mind.
JohnDoe124 – you are right that a PM needs to be effective rather than a pal, but to be elected he generally has to be liked. The dark cloud that surrounds Harper is one of the impediments that the Conservatives have to confront. That weakness makes Ignatieff’s performance, and he is a far more pleasant man to listen to (warts and all), even stranger.
Cuntator — I think the majority of citizens not only assess PM Harper’s personae combined with performance exactly as johndoe123 has outlined above. As to Ignatieff being a “more pleasant man to listen to”, it’s necessary to point out the “substance of what one’s listening to.” Like Dion, whose budget exceeded the stimulus monies by a country mile at least, the Liberal budget was not only unimplementable, but hornswaddled voters, like President Obama’s current agenda, that it’s possible to throw money at the problem and the fixes follow. After Chretien and ADSCAM, et. al., alert Canadian citizens are no longer that placatable. As UV above notes, a policy or two is important.
Another point, Harper has performed with great graces, practicality in terms of economic leadership proposals on the world stage along with attending to the degraded domestic economy due to job losses and corporate failures. He and Angela Merkel of Germany are directly confronting/handling the economic downturn, applying economic stimulus measures where their effects will work down the road.
His team’s performance to date, if anything, would qualify them as the “real pals” of average Canadian citizens — definition of pal: mutual interests towards actualizing a citizen agenda that, has the great potential for benefits alround. Job creation and wage equity (not a lone gov’t initiative) is where they’re focused. R & D jobs, trade jobs, IT jobs, drawing foreign investment opportunities through lowered taxes. The reason the Liberals are peculiarly quiet at the moment — they can’t talk about the massive tax takes they covet TILL they succeed in taking the reins again. They are to be headed off, as they say, “at the pass” for the simple reason their planned economic measures (Dion/Layton’s past budgets) would downspiral Canadian economics in the critical time ahead. Citizens want to go forward, no time to go backward. There’s been support — unofficial polls on Tory policies and initiatives hovering between 70-80 percent for those paying attention, the 50/50 official polls are a fixture and actually, dull rote daily reading. You’ll tell me I need to do more research.
E.J.: Quote “ Jean, please explain when the Liberals ever had principles. I go back as far as the Pearson years and all I can remember is that their principles were always based on getting elected. ”
Oh, maybe sometime in the 1920″s LOL ??? And maybe not the ” Liberals ” as in the Canadian political party but maybe small ” L” liberals as in idealistic but concerned about personal freedom at the end of the 18th century.
Liberal used to equate with freedom, having an open mind to new things, respect for the individual above the State not an ever increasing nanny State buying votes with the voter’s own money !
Cunctator, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, then. Personally I find Ignatieff a ponderous oaf with nothing of any real consequence to say to Canadians. He has been hyped at some great intellectual and, frankly, I’m still waiting for even a hint of that wonderful intellect. As far as I’m concerned he’s yet to prove he’s anything but another empty suit.
On the other hand, though not flashy, Harper seems to have a firm understanding of any topic that’s thrown at him. With Harper it’s worth making the effort to listen. Maybe that’s the difference. You know Harper has something to say and it requires effort on your part to follow his reasoning. On the other hand, Ignatieff pontificates, doesn’t really say anything, but everyone can nod their heads sagely in agreement because Ignatieff, having been crowned a Harvard intellectual, must have said something profound and irrefutable.