babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Ignatieff never has and never will understand the country of his birth. It is unfortunate that a portion of the intelligentsia of Britain and the U.S. continue to mistake him, as they once did Conrad Black, as in some way knowledgeable of Canadian realities and sentiments.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head.
no offense, but i disagree entirely, finding that article completely devoid of valuable information and critically off the mark. the count is a lot of things, but one thing he's not is a fool - i think he's spot on in his assessments of the power of the scottish vote and the potential reverberations in canada. quebec is almost like another country within canada, there's no question about it - different language, completely different culture and values, an island - and eventually, at some point, after some awful conflict or after a string of harper-like governments, there'll likely be a split. it's a completely uncontroversial and widely held opinion in quebec, even if canadians don't seem to want to hear it. the count's point about scotting secession setting off a domino effect in federal states, though unwelcome, is also completely obvious and uncontroversial. the writer above just trots out the same old anti-igg canards and then uses them to disparage his insights, as opposed to, say, delivering a rebuke of his thinking in the form of an actual counter-argument. weak, torstar, weak.
i read that article and just hope that somehow this could be how it is.
Olive isn't being unfair. He's pointing out Iggy doesn't even know how the country was set up
That's a huge error on Count Iggy's part. Doesn't need a whole bunch of analysis. Like Ford or the Eatons he's a lazy spoiled idiot who thinks his views have value because he was born rich.
2x
I haven't listened to Iggy's interview and am thus not aware of the detail of his claims about transfers of jurisdictions after the two referendums, so take the following for what it's worth:
While it is true that the division of powers was established at the time of Confederation, there have been post-referendum agreements concerning legislative powers that have affected the exercise of those legislative powers in a substantial way. For instance, the 1991 Canada-Québec Accord on immigration. Perhaps Ignatieff had that sort of thing in mind.
Although it could be argued that devolution with regards to independent immigration was preceded by the landmark 1978 Cullen-Couture Accord, 2 years before the 1980 referendum. There is not much else, except for the transfer of manpower training to Quebec shortly after the 1995 referendum.
Perhaps.
I was commenting more on the "Doesn't he know it's in the 1867 Constitution?!?!" issue than on the link with the referendums.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/25/michael-ignatieffs-purgatory/
flight from kamakura (above)
agree with your "weak, torstar, weak" comments completely, however, just to thicken the plot, I think Iggy (obviously too smart to be so stupid) has been, all along, skillfully playing some kinda bumbling, diminutive, monster-'spoiler' role, in some twisted, Machiavellian game, of neo-con geo-politics, the goal, ultimately, being to lose the hearts and minds of his Canadian audience - esp. the more left-leaning variety - to deliberately facilitate a decidedly further-right-wing, pro-neo-con, US-style of government in Canada.
... when all is said and done, what's he really got to lose? a popularity contest?
call it 'paranoic', but Iggy did completely 'blow it', and the neo-con-loving Cons "won" - and are loving it.
In a similar convolution, Barack Obama was supposedly The Avenue to "Hope", "Change", and "Transparency", etc, for an increasingly-seen-to-be Ugly America - ie, more Leftward - and we all know how that turned out.... decidedly Rightward...
(ditto, Diogenes)
If Iggy could sing, he'd sound like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFUaHWAJ9_4