heh sigh....i have a forum question for you....does this title take up 5 lines in the "recently active" frame for you?  I know I have frame issues, so it could be resizing yours, but not mine.   Just thinkin' that if it does, maybe you could shorten the title..

now back to the topic **********************************************************

I doubt they will blame the leader, or that their leader will allow enough discension  (?) to occur to actually do anything about it.

Graeme - is Ignatieff just like Harper, on everything?  I don't think he is as socially conservative.    I feel like his economic perspective is very similar, and he'll play the solid-economy card over improving lives of poor/disabled etc most times. 

What about his green policies?  I know they have shelved any interest with the Green Party. 

Do we get to see a new policy outline anytime soon?

****

Harper needs to go, but I am leery of another election right now.  At least there are ample signs that the Conservatives seem to think Harper's time is gone.  I'd love to see action on that front.  Will they let him fight another election? 

Actually, I'm feeling out of touch lately with what Ignatieff is up to.

I think 12% is Green's high, but that is good - I wonder if it reflects the Lib's move away from the Green shift.

Please do ask her!! That is cool!  She has my support.

HArper has, I think, one more chance.  Another election without a majority and the knives will be openly sharpened (I have no doubt that there is some quiet honing happening already). 

I still regret that the rough and tumble of politics did in Dion.  I liked his policy approach, I liked the Carbon Tax, I liked the fact that he is a Trudeau-Federalist.  BUt, like Joe Clark, he truly was not cut out for the reality of being a party leader.  Ignatieff?  I could leave him by the wayside policy-wise.  But he is certainly much more able in the thrust and parry of politics.

preecy, I think the reason teh NDP has never gained a foothold in Quebec is that traditionally the leftist vote has gone with the sovereigntist movement (BQ and PQ). 

Hi sighsnootles,

I sincerely hope that Ben is smarter than that.

I'm no fan of his dad.  I don't think Ben needs to be offered up as an atoning sacrifice.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Agreed Birthstone. Last election was one of the lowest voter turnouts ever and to force an election now may be even less well recieved.

Harper is not my favourite person in the world, but Ignatieff is arrogant and not the sharpest knife in the drawer. If the NDPs ever gained power they would run the country into the ground in 5 years, and the Green party, while well-meaning and principled, are a bunch of morons. The Bloc, well, obviously not the best choice for Canada.

In my opinion, none of the party leaders are worth voting for, so I would suggest living with the status quo until there is someone worth supporting.

I'm sorry graeme, but this is Ralph Nader-esque "no difference between Bush and Gore" nonsense.  It's what Layton to believe, that unless you're a social democrat you're wishy-washy liberal who is complicit with the neocons. 

Ignatieff may have taken certain positions that some on the left are upset with, but there a huge differences between his variety of liberalism and the neoconservatism of Tom Flanagan - Harper's mentor.  I don't see how anyone who has read any of Ignatieff's works can claim otherwise unless you want to use a single position he has taken - his (later regretted) support for the war in Iraq - to discredit several decades of otherwise stellar work in political theory, human rights, and journalism.

The big issue where Ignatieff gets hammered the most is interventionism, and it is here that he must be given credit for attempting to square liberalism with the realities of today's world.  Ignatieff was responding to the tendency of liberals and democrats to condemn human rights abuses on one end, and yet retreat to a knee-jerk post-60's isolationism when the topic of actually doing something about them militarily came up.  The apex of this contradiction was Rwanda, when liberal and social democratic politicians who are otherwise committed to civil liberties simply did nothing.  Ignatieff's works on intervention are an attempt forge an ethical approach to this issue, and it is his strand of liberal theory that deserves credit for giving us the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.  You can disagree with his conclusions, but it's highly disingenuous to pretend the issue he is addressing doesn't exist. 

The 1960's post-colonial isolationism simply isn't working anymore.  For example, the NDP can't decry intervention on one hand and yet demand that more be done about Darfur.  If you want to stop the bleeding, some kind of military intervention will be necerssary; if you're not prepared to go there, the  most principled thing to do is adapt an officially isolationist policy which explicitly states that genocide in Darfur or anywhere else does not concern us. 

As for attempting to discredit Ignatieff based on his social class, is this the best you can do?  So, anyone who has gone through UCC is automatically a power broker for that class?  There are no stellar Canadians to emerge from that school, people like Stephen Lewis or Timothy Findley?  You can hate inequality of opportunity in education but let's not deny that there are very talented individuals who emerge from these private schools, and as a country we're better off because of them.  Personally, I harbour no such resentment because I received an excellent education in the Toronto public school system and can hold my ground with any colleague from a private school.  As far as I'm concerned, we're in this together.  Ignatieff can't be reduced to his class because there are plenty of people who went to UCC who did not go on to achieve what he has. 

I was a delegate for Ignatieff at 2009 Convention and I don't buy any of this rhetoric.  Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff could not be further apart.  The former is a control freak who has surrounded himself by pygmies, people who can't stand up to him because they owe their fortunes entirely to his Leadership; Ignatieff spent his life in an environment where he is constanstly under fire, and he knows how to take criticism.  Look at his colleagues you see extremely talented individuals with big egos, the kinds of folks who wouldn't have qualms about raising their voices at the Leader in Cabinet meetings.  Look the steps the party has taken to open itself up to internal debate in the last Convention and once again, you see someone who isn't afraid of people disagreeing with him.  That in itself is a huge breath of fresh air after what we've seen for the past 3 years.  This kind of ideological dogmatism, it's quite un-Canadian and it's hopeful to look forward to a PM who doesn't see the world as one big battle between Good and Evil. 

This is an exciting time.  The Liberals are united and renewed just as the Tories are splitting up.  In the next election, Canadians will see a Leader of the Opposition who can outclass the PM in every way.  As for the NDP, I predict they will be reduced to their usual 4th-place rump status as the party that whined and whined about the Harper government but couldn't do anything to stop it.  Meanwhile, I'm stockpiling pop-corn for the Tory leadership which, without Harper, will be brutal. 

"If the government forces environmentalism on industry they run the risk of having the companies put huge pressure on them or simply leave the country. "

This is simply not true.  In Canada, and the US, most forward-thinking businesses have come along.  It's our antiquated conservative politicians who are holding progress back.  Good businesses are realizing that the future is in green products.  In China, they're making an electric car that is more efficient than even the hybrids and can be mass produced quite cheaply.  If it takes off, this will fundamentally change the auto industry.  The same thing is happening in the energy sector, especially in China and South Korea, who realize that sustainable energy is not only good for the environment, it's good geopolitics in the long run.  He who controls energy....

Environmentalism doesn't have to require a dilemma between a good standard of living and sustainability.  Wealth is after all a subjective  measure.  If value corresponds to how green a product is, then we're getting somewhere.  The solutions that will get us to a more sustainable world exist, and are being created daily through the global economy's engine of innovation. 

Wonderingg - I'm disagreeing also with you over the Green Party - Elizabeth May has done a great job at coming up throug the middle to win respect, and she dances circles around the others.  I think that the candidates are a long way from being taken seriously (yoga instructors wearing hemp clothes and birkenstocks, who haven't washed their hair for 3 days to save water) (ok - I made that up) but I recognize that they dont' easly fit the mainstream yet.  Hardly 'morons' but not credible enough yet to win.

Their policies are wonderful, even if you dont' think they work.  The reason they dont' hold up is only because some wealthy arrogant power-hungry people do anything to keep them from working.  It isn't because its a bad idea - in fact, they are the only good ideas floated around to see us through a new era of climate change & dwindling resources.  The 3 way plan -to measure all policies by financial, environmental & justice issues is the best, only way to make this world better & better.  Leaving out environment or justice might keep some powerful people richer longer, but it ain't right.  So thank goodness the Green Party keeps to their principles.  And I agree that I've seen a shift in priorities in business to Greenness - sure much of it is bull**** yet, but there has been a clear shift in public interest and business intention.

Anyway - the arrogance of Harper is his most distressing feature - by muzzling his party & the press, by controlling every little thing - that far outstrips (for me) any shortcomings of Ignatieff at this point, and also outstrips any postive features Harper himself has (like... um... um... yeah - nuthin).

However with things relatively quiet right now, and no real oomph from the Libs or otherwise, it isn't time for an election.  It's time for electioneering though.  Win us over!  Someone Puhleeeze!  Inspire us!!!

Sigh...

I guess I'm just jaded. As much as it would be easier for you all to paint me with the "right wing brush" because I don't applaud the left wing, if you'll read my post, I dislike all the parties and their leaders.

My only irritation with Wondercafe is that if someone DARE speak out against the left, they are instantly and irreversably branded a conservative...

Politics and hope, for me, are mutually exclusive.

To be fair Free_thinker there is a general view among pundits right now that Ignatieff is fairly close to Harper on many (most-depends which pundits you listen to) and he has not taken a copntrary stand all the often.  EI was his first definitive stance.  Now I am all for giving him time to prove himself (unlike most did with Dion but that is beside the point).

Peace

Joel

"He has also been quite willing to bend what appeared to be his principles."

With his biggest liability - Iraq - I just don't think that was the case.  His support for the war did not win him any friends and may have well cost him the 2007 Liberal Leadership race.  Now, did the war accord with his principles?  Based on what he argued, probably.  He approached the invasion with a mentality that was still haunted by Rwanda and re-affirmed by Bosnia; for liberals like him, removing Saddam was an extension of humanitarian interventionism.  This was a huge error of judgment but it's something that should not undo a lifetime of otherwise prescient judgment-calls.  Intellectuals should be held to the same standard as everyone else, but it's fresh that some of the intellectuals on the left who are criticizing Ignatieff over Iraq are the same people who for example support Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution.  With Noam Chomsky, you have an entire laundry list of failed autocracies he has supported - beginning with the USSR.  The point isn't that their criticisms aren't valid, it's that even our most educated people make bad judgment calls when it comes to regimes in foreign countries.  No one school of thought has 'got it right' all the time.  Remember how the '68 student protesters in Paris thought Mao was a good guy?  Funny how that worked out...

Ignatieff was not the only person of his calibre to support the war.  Originally, quite a few people were willing to go along with it in the belief that the transition to power would be handled smoothly, buyoed by public opinion in Iraq.  If the Bush Administration had followed Powell's advice about enlisting more Allies and sending at least half a million troops to handle the post-invasion period, this may well have been the case.  Instead, what followed was a farce. 

"If it was not stunning naivete - and I suspect it was not - then it was a calculated betrayal of any princiiple he ever claimed to stand for."

I don't buy that because none of the 'rich and powerful' could help him get anywhere with his support for Iraq.  Quite the opposite: most of his colleagues at the Ivies opposed to the war, and his support for it opened him up to intense scrutiny.  In the one position of power he sought, the war was his greatest liability.  So, call him naive but there was no professional gain for Ignatieff in supporting the war.  He was already well-established by then, he earned no new friends and probably lost a few in the process

And re-read his article on torture.  He opposes it unconditionally. 

"BTW, if it is wrong to support Chavez and his revolution, t hen who would you support? Have you looked at the alternatives?"

I don't have to buy into this Bolshevik dilemma because Venezuela had a social democratic alternative in the same kinds of parties that are governing the rest of the Latin America pretty equitably so far.  Look at Brazil, Chile and Argentina: all of them are led by left-wing governments which have expanded the welfare state without destroying the foundations of democracy the way Chavez has done.  Just look at how Chavez is now turning on the very same labour movement whose goals he claims to be upholding. Why is that? 

The 'it's us or the imperialists' dilemma was posited by the Bolsheviks to excuse their buffet of horrors, as if Russia had no democratic alternative to the Tsar, as if the Bolsheviks were popular among the very people who got rid of Nicholas in the first place.  I don't have to choose between left-wing autocrats and right-wing autocrats; they both lead to governments which create similar results. 

For myself, I'm ready to see a changing of the guard. And the EI deal might just be enough. I'm not sure its true that the oppostion parties don't want an election. Both the Bloc and NDP stand to lose seats if the Liberals continue to climb, so its to their advantage to pull the trigger now. Harper has burned too many bridges for either Layton or Duceppe to trust him in any 'keep me in power" deal.  And the Liberals, while not in good shape, are putting in place the mechanisms that stood Obama in good stead last year - so they may not be quite as "unready" as one might think. On top of that, I agree with graeme. I think Ignatieff wants to be in power. And I don't think he wants to wait very long. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. 8-)

And Harper, by rolling out his attack ads, has already proven that he not only isn't interested in the "let's all work together" schtick he keeps spitting out of one side of his mouth, he seems to be demonstrating that he's lost his grip on reality. From what I've seen, the "just visiting" crap isn't working, and the ads actually work in Iggy's favour. Not all Canadians want to be led by guys who set policy at Timmies (and I like Timmies). Harper has never figured out that that is the real reason he can't get a majority. Not to mention that by claiming 80% of Canadians can get EI, a statistic so easily countered as to be laughable, he's alienating that very group.

He used to be a skilled tactician, but his day, like that of Bush, is past. Iggy isn't Dion.

as to principles - there was a time when I would agree that Harper exhibited that trait - especially since I was so opposed to most of them. No more. The guy has worn so many different masks since becoming Prime Minister, he must have a fetish for those old French masked balls. But at the end of the day, he always comes off as a dictatorial ideologue. Again, the day is past when it worked. 

Iggy does indeed shift as circumstances change, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing right now. Again, for me, I'm willing to give him a chance.

Which brings up the point of "voter turnout." I think it would be a mistake to say that last election's dismal showing was "voter apathy." I think it was more like "voter disgust." We didn't want a Conservative majority, and we didn't think Dion had the cahones to handle the country. There just aren't enough people who can imagine a federal NDP gov't working (rightly or wrongly) So we stayed home.

I doubt that will happen this time around.

Check out the new attack-ad site the Tories have rolled out, ignatieff.me, whose domain they had to buy off a Montenegrin pornographer.  It's so over-the-top, it makes the Tories look ridiculous.  I wouldn't be surprised if the site turns out to be the work of an undercover Liberal strategist. 

Here are a few gems:

"Whether he's on the cover of GQ magazine, singing opera or just drinking coffeee, Canadians wonder what makes Michael Ignatieff tick."

Ignatieff has appeared on the cover of a fashion magazine!  Well, that's one possibility we wont have to entertain with the current PM.  What's more, Ignatieff drinks coffee!  We can't possibly trust a coffee-drinker who listens to opera to understand our problems. 

Publicly, that's about what its amounting to. Privately, he's probably thinking "Thanks Steve, I couldn't get better press if I ... well, I cant' think of a damn thing that would give me better press."

It's quite likely that Harper's campaign is an acknowledgement that the Liberals are a force again. Certainly he won't want an election. Ignatieff might. Some would grumble, but an election that seemed likely to defeat such an unpopular government might be accepted.

The NDP was more effective, in practical terms, as the CCF. By merely existiing and not acting like a traditional party with all the necessary accomodations and compromises, it was able to force changes. It really hasn't represented as much in the way of chage for a good many years. Wanting power has actually weakened its impact.

graeme

We're getting close to agreement. Trying to win elections and trying to change minds are incompatible goals. you win elections, for the most part, by going where people are, not by bringing them to where  you are. That's why Obama as a president looks a hell of a lot like George bush as a president.

I think there can be a political role. but it can't be one concerned mainly with getting elected.

graeme

"That's why Obama as a president looks a hell of a lot like George bush as a president."

I don't understand how anyone who has been paying attention over the past 100 and so days can say something like this.  From removing the ban on stem-cell research, to enacting a massive pro-environment stimulus bill to turning more land into National Parks than Bush did during his entire Presidency, Obama is doing things that were unthinkable less than a year ago.  He's not magic, but he's pretty darn close. 

well, let's see. Obama wil not withdraw from Iraq, it seems, but will keep some 50,000 troops who, by the  magice of words, will not be combat. And Bush's plan was?

Obama has increased the troops in AFghanistan. And Bush's plan was?

Obama has as extended the war into Pakistaan/ And Bush's plan was?

Obama tries to hold back Israel without alienating it, and also delivers threats to Iran. And Bush's plan was?

Obama will not introduce medicare, but will simply ask the health care industry to keep costs down? And bush would have?

Bush is throwing hundreds of billions at banks, etc., while keepinig much the same gang in charge taht Bush had. Gee. I dunno. I'm happy for stem cell research  but....

graeme

graeme