Another Liberal Failure, Part 2

Exactly Stock. It's quite scary actually how politically braindead the Liberal party has become.

Liberal leadership woes persist and just won't go away.

Tory budget confirms seismic political shift

This political turf invasion comes at a time when the Liberals are still dealing with a persistent lack of leadership and a policy vacuum.

However, the metamorphosis of the Conservatives is more elaborate than just adopting part of the former Liberal agenda. As we saw in the budget, Harper has adopted a soft economic approach to appeal to the so-called "radical centre," while retaining some law-and-order initiatives to appease the increasingly nervous traditional Conservative electoral base.

So where does the budget leave us?

First, we are not going to have a spring election. Just like Stéphane Dion, Ignatieff has had to swallow his pride, telling voters that the budget is awful but the Liberals will not defeat it because "Canadians are not ready" for an election.

The fact of the matter is that he is not ready, and people are already asking themselves why this is the case after he has had more than a year as leader - and at a time when Canadians are reeling from a devastating recession and double-digit unemployment.

The electoral ball will return to Harper's court in the fall. The economy will grow stronger during the summer and by September the Prime Minister should be in a good position to go to the polls with a reasonable hope of achieving that elusive parliamentary majority. This was his government's last good news budget. Next spring, he will want to implement the first significant cuts, which would be very dangerous for a minority government. This means that the best time for the Liberals to face the electorate would be next spring.

However, according to sources close to the Conservative leadership, the Tories believe that with Ignatieff as leader the Liberals will never be ready. And considering the results to date of his four years in politics, who can blame them for thinking that way?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/federalbudget/article/775841--persich...

Written by a Liberal, and is representative of what many Canadians think, both inside and outside the LPC.

Iggy still not convincing
Michael Ignatieff isn't the leader Canadians need, he's a political letdown

But as someone who identified strongly with the Liberals, I remain unconvinced.

First of all, Ignatieff has never been able to come off as sincere-unless you count Question Period.

That's where he looks like someone sincerely peed in his Cheerios.

Other than that, though, I just don't get the feeling he means what he says.

That's one of the few things I admired Dion for-his readily apparent concern for Canadians.

I can distinctly remember watching the English language debate in the 2008 election when Dion looked into the camera.

When he looked at you and spoke, you saw and heard a man of compassion, intelligence and sincerity.

Fast forward to the infamous "Narnia" ads the Liberals ran around the middle of 2009.

When Ignatieff looked into the camera and spoke I perceived something rather different.

He was patronizing, aloof and arrogant. I didn't perceive the powerful intellect of a highly intelligent man.

Instead, Ignatieff was more of a daddy trying to explain to his four year-old why Stephen Harper is a bad man.

In addition to failing at sincerity, I still don't know what kind of vision he has for the country.

Oh sure, I could tell you some of the stuff he wrote while he was at Harvard, like how torture can be justified, but I still don't know what he wants for Canada.

I don't know if I would vote for him because I don't know what would happen if he were elected.

Maybe he would give everyone free iPhones. Maybe he would ban cheesy teen soap operas like Beverley Hills 90210 from being broadcast over Canadian airwaves.

He's in the gray. Michael Ignatieff doesn't raise the bar.

This is a problem I have with all the federal party leaders.

Instead of giving a clear-cut choice between two good leaders who differ on principles, or between someone who would be a good Prime Minister and who would be a bad Prime Minister, the 2008 election gave Canadians something much different.

We got four leaders we could look at and say, "meh."

Elections in a democracy shouldn't be a choice between the lesser of four evils.

There should be a plurality of good candidates or a leader who stands out above the rest.

The acclamation of Michael Ignatieff as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was supposed to give Canadians that democracy.

Instead, we're still looking at the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals, shrugging their shoulders and saying to each other, "So, did you go to see Avatar yet?"

Canadians don't want to be patronized or pandered to in an insincere way.

They get plenty of that from the current Prime Minister.

Neither do we want a guy who could pass a law requiring every university student in Canada read his plethora of books because he needed an ego trip.

Canadians certainly don't need more of the same boring political sludge that's been served up ever since Mulroney stepped down from office.

Canadians need a leader of principle who will explain and not patronize, lead with a clear vision and stir up political debate on important issues.

Michael Ignatieff isn't that man.

And that's why I'm not convinced.

http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2010-03-12/opinions/iggy-still-not-con...

Dan McLean resigns as Liberal candidate

http://www.thespec.com/News/article/783838

Discredit the leader, discredit the party, and the Tories are doing a great job on the Liberals in that area while leaves the field wide open for the NDP to stay out of the frey, and propose some constructive, exciting, and progressive new policies for Canadians.

Harper Tories pounce on Ignatieff's leadership

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-tori...

Once again the Liberals show their shear lack of political savvy.

Stephen Harper outflanks Liberals from the left

Last year, the New Democrats - building on proposals put forward by the Canadian Labour Congress- called for a doubling of CPP benefits to deal with this pension crisis, all to be paid for by gradual increases in the payroll taxes levied on workers and employers.

Michael Ignatieff's Liberals, fearful of angering small business owners (who hate payroll taxes) responded with their own proposals for a more modest and voluntary supplementary scheme.

Initially, the Conservatives said little. Then, last week, they leapfrogged over the Liberals to embrace a diluted version of the NDP proposal, a move that nonetheless won them lavish praise from Canadian Labour Congress chief Ken Georgetti.

The Conservatives have "felt the heartbeat of Canada on this one," he told one news agency.

Whether labour will wax as enthusiastic over what finally emerges is another question. An expanded CPP could be used as an excuse to dismantle other social programs for those over 65. It could also be partially or fully privatized.

Indeed, Harper's strategy with popular social programs is not to eliminate them outright but to transform them over time into forms that he and his political base find more ideologically amenable.

But in the short run, this is a political coup. The Conservatives have claimed ownership of a significant chunk of the Liberal legacy.

With an election almost certainly in the offing, Ignatieff has been left to champion pension reforms that, by comparison, seem singularly weak-kneed.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/825825--walkom-harper-outflan...