Ignatieff takes over as Liberal leader

Quote:

"If the budget is appropriate, I'm willing to consider it. We can't be unreasonable. Canadians expect us to be reasonable." Dosanjh said. 

Canadians also expected Harper to be reasonable - theoretically, anyway.  How did that work out for us?

The coalition is effed.

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

If this was Rex's considered opinion on Saturday, he must have been bowled over on Sunday, during Cross Country Check-up. There was incredible hostility towards Harper while I was listening, and virtually no one spewing canned Con talking-points.

Quote:

Read the Bible for its wisdom: "He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it." Politicians should tattoo that onto their skulls.

Stephen Harper duggeth himself one vast pit, all by his shovel-wielding lonesome, when he set out to chop the public financing of his rivals. And promptly went in head first.

It was naked hardball politics. He was out to nail the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois. That triggered the mess that's roiling the country. He came within a Rideau Hall cucumber sandwich of losing power. Napoleon one day, General Custer the next.

It was his mean and near unfathomable inability to resist taking a cheap shot that brought down the whole monsoon shower of partisan hysteria and grandstanding that's electrified every Tim Hortons and Starbucks from St. John's to Victoria.

Mr. Murphy's opening remarks are spot on. There is genuine hostility from across the political spectrum toward PM Harper. This latest partisan stunt shows not only that he is incapable of governing in the best interests of Canadians but that he holds Canadians' concerns in contempt.

NDP Leader Jack Layton issued a statement, saying he is looking
forward to working with the next leader of the "Liberal-New Democrat
coalition" on proposals for the economy.

"Mr. Dion and the entire Liberal caucus have shown courage and
leadership by putting aside political differences with New Democrats to
forge a majority coalition," Mr. Layton said. "They have made a
commitment to the coalition to get the economy on the right track for
Canadian families."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081208.wPOLliberals...

Jack continues to play it very smartly. All the praise he heaps now on his erstwhile coalition partners must make them wince. And since I don't believe Ignatieff has the slightest intention of making good Dion's word - and I can't imagine Layton believes he does either - I'm now looking forward to the inevitable and appropriate blasts of indignation. When Canadians were looking for leadership, Mr Harper and Mr Ignatieff cared more about their own jobs than yours! That kinda stuff.

Boom Boom wrote:

There will be an election, instead, and Harper will be very close to a majority next time.

Harper has discredited himself so much over the last week, especially in Quebec. I can't see him winning a majority now. Especially since he won't have Dion to kick around anymore. At least Ignatieff can communicate to the public.

Iggy on the Middle East.

The Complex Missions of Michael Ignatieff

It's no surprise that he has a different speech for different occasions and audiences.  Earlier in this thread, there was mention of a hole being dug by the liberals into which they would fall headlong.  In fact, it is the partisan supporters of the NDP who will push their party into the abyss, out of a self-important desire for some scrap of ephemeral influence, like an introverted wallflower, mesmerized by the hypnotizing effects of the disco ball.  A man like Ignatieff, vilified on this board in the past as an enemy to everything the left stands for, and rightfully so, has now become an acceptable dance partner as the night wears on.

coeus wrote:

I know.. it's frightening, isn't it. That those with a realistic chance of becoming PM is either Harper or Mr. "lesser of two evils" Ignatieff.

Right on about the "evil" part. Hope you're correct about the "lesser" part...

Yeah, there's nothing better than watching two people who don't have your interests in mind fight to see who will have the chance to screw you over; wheee!

Shhh!

You're talking about our beloved Koalition Kaptain!

Remember: Harper is the bad guy, not Iggy!

Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?

Slumberjack wrote:

  A man like Ignatieff, vilified on this board in the past as an enemy to everything the left stands for, and rightfully so, has now become an acceptable dance partner as the night wears on.

Ignatieff's stand concerning human rights has been twisted for political reasons. People should consider his own words before passing judgement.

Who Are Americans To Think That Freedom Is Theirs To Spread ?
New York Times Magazine
by Michael Ignatieff

Michael Ignatieff wrote:

And then there are the prisoners, the hooded man with the wires hanging from his body, the universal icon of the gap between the ideals of American freedom and the sordid -- and criminal -- realities of American detention and interrogation practice. The fetid example of these abuses makes American talk of democracy sound hollow. It will not be possible to encourage the rule of law in Egypt if America is sending Hosni Mubarak shackled prisoners to torture. It will be impossible to secure democratic change in Morocco or Afghanistan or anywhere else if Muslims believe that American guards desecrated the Koran. The failure to convict anybody higher than a sergeant for these crimes leaves many Americans and a lot of the world wondering whether Jefferson's vision of America hasn't degenerated into an ideology of self-congratulation, whose function is no longer to inspire but to lie.

...

Americans have difficulty understanding that there are many different forms that this yearning can take, Islamic democracy among them. Democracy may be a universal value, but democracies differ -- mightily -- on ultimate questions. One reason the American promotion of democracy conjures up so little support from other democrats is that American democracy, once a model to emulate, has become an exception to avoid.

Consider America's neighbor to the north. Canadians look south and ask themselves why access to health care remains a privilege of income in the United States and not a right of citizenship. They like hunting and shooting, but can't understand why anyone would regard a right to bear arms as a constitutional right. They can't understand why the American love of limited government does not extend to a ban on the government's ultimate power -- capital punishment. The Canadian government seems poised to extend full marriage rights to gays.

I think Ignatieff is a strong advocate for human rights. That's why he was chosen to be the Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Kennedy School of Government in Harvard University.

Ignatieff to Harper: Change or fall

Quote:

“Stephen Harper’s government is not providing Canada with the leadership or stability it needs ... he’s offered no hope, no solutions, no plan for our country,” he told a news conference.

“Where Mr. Harper has failed, we can succeed.”

Ignatieff accused Harper of being “spiteful” and “divisive,” and said he must change his ways.

It looks like Iggy is willing to cut Harper some slack. Conservatives never change. Change is a terrifying experience for political conservatives

I hear ya. Like two peas of the same pod.

And here's an interview with Linda McQuaig in which she savages Ignatieff's support for war etc: 

"That quote [in Holding the Bully's Coat] from Ignatieff, where he
talks about torture [being defensible] as long as it's done by a
patriotic American, now that's an interesting quote. That one hasn't
gotten the play that some of the others [have]. That one was from an
interview he did with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. That is
an incredible statement of the notion of American exceptionalism, the
idea that America should be excepted from being bound by international
law. And for Ignatieff to come out and endorse that in the way he did
is just phenomenal. I find it striking, because he doesn't talk like
that in Canada. You don't hear him talk like that so much in
Parliament.... And yet if you actually look at some of the things he's
said, he's actually an extraordinary neoconservative. He's up there
with guys like Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith and some of those people in
terms of the extremism of his position. And yet this guy's a prominent
politician in Canada....

"I mean imagine somebody in
the U.S., a politician, spending 40 years outside the country and then
thinking that they could just sort of sweep in and run for president. I
mean the arrogance of it is just mind-boggling. And yet he came very
close."

JKR wrote:

Ignatieff's stand concerning human rights has been twisted for political reasons. People should consider his own words before passing judgement....I think Ignatieff is a strong advocate for human rights.

Is he now.  His words are contained in various publications, one of them being a book he wrote called "THE LESSER EVIL: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror," reviewed here:  The Lesser Evil

People should indeed consider his own words, especially those in favour of a coalition with this party.  There are more than a few here, hypocrites actually, who still support this concept, knowing full well that Ignatieff held these views, and that he was a strong contender for the Liberal leadership, and thus leader of the coalition.  It will be difficult to take them seriously going forward when they speak here on progressive issues, rights, dignity, etc.

The right is using the usual scare tactic against the centrists, to
draw them toward the right, namely that by aligning with the NDP
they'll be pushed to the left.

 It's more likely, in my opinion, that Jack L., in his blind drive for power,could be dragged rightward with the NDP. 

It is shocking to realize that Iggy tailors his discourse to his audiences, and the public needs to know more.

The Complex Missions of Michael Ignatieff

Quote:

he
provides conservative arguments to the liberal audience and liberal
alibis to the conservatives....Ignatieff chooses to applaud a government that goes to war in defiance
of the Security Council, that actively promotes the failure of the
United Nations, that refuses to sign international treaties, that opts
out of international justice and that ignores human rights in prisons

____________________________________________________________
http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.html

Ignatieff is all hat, no cattle.

 He can reverse or reinvent himself at the first whiff of greater "prestige." Take anything he says seriously, at your own risk.

To take some liberties with what Stockholm said earlier, at least the Liberals now have a saleman to match the sliminess of their brand.

I actually think he WILL vote down the budget and that the coalition's chances of success have never been greater.

1. The media narrative on Iggy is on what a great compromiser he is, relative to Harper. Chantal Hebert, for instance, sounded trumpets that the Liberals have learned to unite as a party... uhhh... no, Bob Rae has got to be pissed - the Liberals didn't unite, they just let the elite run the party moreso. Why is that narrative important? Blame. If the budget gets voted down Ignatieff needs to be able to blame Harper for not compromising.

2. Iggy has indicated that he will "neither agree nor disagree to meet with Harper". That sounds like a disagreement to meeting with Harper. His line "I will vote for the budget if it is good for the economy" is interesting, because it suggests he has no specific terms on the budget. In practice, he will let Harper do whatever he wants on the budget,  and try to figure out what the polls say. If they are good, he takes power, if not, he votes for the budget.

3. Under Dion the coalition would not have had the ability to keep its members in line. Wilfert was basically Dion's only caucus supporter - Iggy would never have made Dion PM. Now that Iggy is in charge though, he has a strong incentive to keep his attack dogs in line.

4. The Liberals are broke, and being in power is a great boon for fundraising. Moreover, the opportunity to run a deficit without blame is great payola for any leader. They get to create funds and programs and such all with their names on it.

Before, there is almost no way the coalition would have gone through given prorogation, with an interim leader or Dion. Now, there is a chance. Iggy can use his media honeymoon to get the benefit of the doubt on a takedown for Harper.

Now if you think he will govern as a progressive, or that Jack Layton will take him down - given how much of Layton's credibility is locked up in this deal - you don't know Jack.  

I actually agree for the most part with Parkdale-High Park. I'm actually startingt to think that ther coalition has a BETTER chance of surviving and taking power now than it did last week.

Ignatieff is a permanent Liberal leader and he is getting a honeymoon from the media. He is cleverly saying that he will vote down the budget unless Harper does good things for the economy. That is setting the bar awfully high. Does anyone see Ignatieff pronouncing that Harper has brought in a budget that is "good" for the Canadian economy?? Hardly a good way to make your first splash as opposition leader.

I generally agree with Parkdale High Park also.  I thought that Ignatief was making it incredibly tough for Harper.  Asked for details on demands he refused.  He reititerated that any budget also needs to include rebuilding of trust, which is something very subjective.  Finally, he did throw down one line in the sand, asking Harper to 'walk down the hill'.  I don't know how to interpret this, except to say that Harper has to admit error.

If it was simply economic concepts I could see Harper somehow working through the minefield, but I cannot see Harper stepping up and taking the blame.

As for the coalition, Ignatief said that he believed that the coalition deal was final and not open to amendments.

JeffWells wrote:

Even without Ignatieff making a credible outreach to progressives he is still going to appear awfully attractive after Harper, and with the menace of a Conservative majority now evident to all I expect a shitstorm of hold-your-nose-for-Iggy "strategic voting" the likes of which we've never seen.

If you're right it would seem the NDP's choice to back a coalition with the Libs instead of going up against them in an immediate election is a smart move.

It's Me D wrote:

If you're right it would seem the NDP's choice to back a coalition with the Libs instead of going up against them in an immediate election is a smart move.

I think so. Layton's been very smart about playing the hand he's dealt. If Iggy supports Harper's budget, as I think likely, that gives the NDP a good early chance to negatively define his leadership to progressive swing voters.

An election may not be as early as many people think. The Liberals are still hurting for money, and will probably seize the talk-tough-but-accomodate ground, which will appear much more credible under Iggy than it ever did under Dion. And as favourable as the polls must appear to Harper, I think he must realize he'd be punished for forcing another needless election upon the country so soon after the last.

Now Ignatieff's in place, I don't think there'll be an election before 2010.

josh wrote:

Iggy would rather take his chances and face an election with his party short on funds ....

This seems to be an article of faith with you.

They aren't just 'short of funds' or hurting for money.

They could borrow really deeply to run one election, like they just did. But they simply cannot do that again in the really near term. Even if they would be willing to bet the fram by borrowing enough for another spending limit election, they won't get the credit.

If the NDP needed to go into another election right now they would also need to borrow most of the money. But they are a reasonable credit risk. The Liberals are borrowing money just to run normal operations- let alone an election. I'm sure there are high rollers who would still guarantee their loans- but then they would be REALLY behind the 8 ball with Elections Canada.

So they aren't going to be able to immediately reload and run a full spending limit campaign. Period. And this is people who are already in serious orginazational dissaray, who then have to decide which 50% of a campaign they can survive without.