Ignatieff Points out Key Difference (s) Between him and Harper

In his address to the Toronto Board of Trade earlier today, among all his enlightened economic proposals, he mentioned the key difference between him and Stephen Harper. Ignatieff believes in the role of government, Harper does not.

As Ignatieff perceptively observed “Stephen Harper thinks no taxes are good taxes because he believes that the only good government is no government at all." He went on to say that "Liberals say no. We don't believe in big government, but we do believe in good government”

Wouldn't it seem logical to elect a party to government that believes in that office, rather than a party that consistently undermines the ability of the government to discharge its responsibilities. How is the government supposed to operate if it does not receive enough revenue? There is only one way and that is cutting programs.

Stephen Harper may be cutting taxes, but Ignatieff has ideas that help the average Canadian far more than a tax decrease. In his speech he envisioned investing in manufacturing research and development, in regional economic development, in protecting Canadian companies from foreign takeovers, and in building new bridges to China and India.

Such policy shows that Ignatieff believes government can be a source of good greater than simply making business friendly decisions. These policies and initiatives would benefit every Canadian.

The greatest difference between Harper and Ignatieff is thereby clear. One uses his office, in general, to lessen the bad for the few. The other would use his office for the good of Canada. The choice is clear.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Ignatieff Rules out Coalition in Smart Move

Today Ignatieff unequivocally ruled out the substance of the ubiquitous Conservative attack that if they do not obtain a majority, the Liberals will form a coalition government. This was the right move. It has negated as much as possible the Conservatives' most potent fear-mongering strategy for this election.

We saw in the surreptitiously recorded video of the Prime Minister practicing his stump speech that this would be the greatest Conservative attack. We saw to what extent Harper is willing to believe in a coalition. He says that the opposition parties will deny this until they are blue in the face, and subsequently form one anyway. We have seen instead that Stephen Harper will yell himself blue in the face about a coalition until he is blue in the face.

If the polls last December are any good indication, this was promising line of attack. Significant sections of the country were outraged at the possibility of a coalition, deeming it an unseemly power grab. However, now that Ignatieff has strongly denied it, this attack is much less potent.

Especially as Ignatieff can point, and did point, to his refusal of the coalition deal when he assumed the leadership of the LPC. No matter what the Conservatives throw at him, it is a strong piece of evidence.

So far what the Conservatives have mustered against this refusal is a quote from Ignatieff last December: "prepared to form a coalition government and to lead that government." At the time, Ignatieff could not have said anything different, lest he be seen, as deputy leader no less, as opposing his leader.

His actions after he became leader surely speak volumes more, as he at that point had actual control over the party's policy on this issue. What's more, as he reminded Canadians, successful minority governments have operated at the federal level without a coalition. In fact, a less successful government led by Stephen Harper has survived almost four years without entering into a coalition.

Ignatieff's stark denunciation of a coalition was necessary, albeit damaging to the public's perception of a perfectly valid notion. However, what Ignatieff did was necessary. Without it, he would have been highly vulnerable to Harper's baseless attacks. And we all know what happens when you are vulnerable to Harper's baseless attacks. You lose the election.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

French Ads Should be Model for Future English Ads

With the release of 3 Liberal ads today, some criticism of the English language ad "Worldview" has been made surrounding what some see as a hokey and bland ad. However, the French-language ads are anything but. They are damning criticisms of Harper's management of the economy and the environment, two issues that are at the forefront of the national consciousness.

In "Bilan Deficit" (translated "Deficit Assessment"), Ignatieff points out how Harper's continually changing stance on a deficit, from total denial to having to admit it is over $50 million, shows a real disconnect with reality. Hardly bland and hokey words:



In "Bilan Deficit"/ "Assessing the Environment", Ignatieff exposes the failure of Harper's government on the environment by highlighting the fact that 3 environment ministers have been responsible for Canada being in the worst shape among all the G8 on the issue of climate change. In contrast, Ignatieff promises to restore our environmental leadership.



Of course, none of these ads as of yet have revealed any policy. But the French language ads give confidence, indicating that the Liberal Party is indeed able to go blow for blow with the PM.

With much deeper pockets than under Dion, and an ability to produce hard-hitting ads, Harper's time really is up.

I don't wonder about the quality of the ads or the ability to produce them, my question is why the difference between the French and English ads.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

What Ignatieff's Campaign Narrative Should Be

Since it would seem that an election is forthcoming, Ignatieff is probably developing a narrative for the upcoming campaign. Since Ignatieff will be seen as triggering the election, it is imperative it be convincing, compelling, and inspiring. In other words, the opposite of Tory small ideas, a narrative that will draw out the forlorn Canadian voter, especially those that did not vote in the last election, as well as the youth.

With the economy seeming to recover, with a job gain of 27000 in August, some may think that Ignatieff's best opportunity at such a narrative has disappeared, that Ignatieff capitalized too late on this window of opportunity.

This is not the case. If the economy is recovering, Ignatieff can stress all the more the need to supervise this recovery, to ensure that we emerge from this recession with a stronger economy, a fairer economy and a greener economy.

Ignatieff can also point out that the Tories will be perfectly willing to let the economy follow the same path it did prior to this downturn, once the economy has fully recovered. Furthermore, he can attack the Conservatives with the OECD's recent conclusion that Canada will be the Western industrialized country that will have the slowest and longest recovery.:




Perfect material for an attack ad.

If Ignatieff took on Dion's motto in the last election of a "Richer, Fairer and Greener Canada" and changed it to be "A Stronger, Fairer, and Greener Economy", I believe it would inspire people. People really do care about an issue this time around, and it's the economy. If the campaign is based around this portfolio and the Conservatives failure at managing it, people will listen. All sorts of people that didn't vote last time. The young for example, who care about a green economy quite a lot.

Essentially, this strategy entails going where the Conservatives cannot go, and attacking them for they have gone, on the issue that people care most about. If you make them feel you will improve the economy, improve their lives and the environment, they'll vote you in. What's more, this time around you have the money to tell them about it.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Ignatieff Wants a Coalition, Conservatives Say. Norman Specter Says He Nixed One.

If you visit the Conservative Party website, you will realize that Ignatieff is willing to engage in coalition negotiations, or so the Conservatives hope. However, these claims are unsubstantiated, sanctimonious, and communicate a purposeful impression of such a coalition as undemocratic.

Apparently, "[t]his week, Michael Ignatieff admitted that the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition is alive and well. Ignatieff is ready to bring back the Coalition if it means he gets to be Prime Minister."

But, whereas the document substantiates a statement by Ignatieff on the coalition crisis last December, it does not point to any source for these allegations. One doubts that there is any real basis for this claim, as if there were, wouldn't the Conservatives be all too ready to provide it? What's more, I haven't come across any such stories, and I doubt most people have. Perhaps the news was communicated only to the Conservatives?

In fact, Norman Spector wrote a blog post the day before this document was published entitled Iggy nixes a coalition

Secondly, the document brings forward the inevitable attack on Ignatieff: "While the Liberals and NDP and Bloc Québécois play petty political games, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government remain focused on the economy."

This, obviously, is based on the premise that there have actually been talks of a coalition. Be that as it may, these words exonerate Stephen Harper and his government from any such "petty politics" that they maintain the others are engaging in. Doesn't making up false news and then calling the other parties petty constitute a highly ironic example of petty politics?

In all of this, the document purposefully portrays any idea of a coalition as an undemocratic agreement, nothing better than a power grab. Informed observers know however that a coalition is in fact a perfectly democratic and legitimate form of government under the constitution.

The reminder that last fall, "In order to seize the power that the voters had denied them, the Liberals entered a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois in order to overturn the results of the last election." shows this lack of understanding of the constitution of this country, or a deliberate misleading of the public.

In other words, all these three aspects make this attack a truly Harper/Conservative one.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

The possible excuse for Ignatieff's silence

In the last few federal elections, there has been only one instance of a grand idea being at the centre of a party's platform, a grand idea that could be the basis of a wide-ranging, encompassing and compelling debate. If Ignatieff is preparing his first move in such a debate, then his summer hibernation would be warranted.

For one, this would ensure that Ignatieff would not need to tip his hand too much on other issues, as the media would be focused instead on his grand "idea", and so would Harper and his cronies. This would also provide an opportunity to conceptualise new policies.

Not only that, but coming up with a grand "idea", if done right, can interest people in politics more than business as usual. People get engaged, and they get to meet the new leader who proposed such an idea.

And, as an added bonus, it motivates young people to come out and vote, and youth vote more consistently for the Liberals and the NDP.

Let's hope this is what Ignatieff has been up to.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Ignatieff squanders opportunity, again

Today Harper announced that his government would be working "to see her [Suaad Haji Mohamud] get on a flight back to Canada." What, you say, did Ignatieff offer up on the subject? What grand and eloquent words did he use in his defence of Mohamud against a neglectful government? Nothing.

With the end result being that Harper emerges virtually unscathed from an opportunity for the opposition to expose the sheer callousness of this government.

One wonders what Ignatieff will speak out on right now. Not much it looks like.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Why are our leaders silent about Suaad Haji Mohamud's ordeal?

In the Suaad Haji Mohamud story what is conspicuous is the silence of our political leaders on the issue. In fact, the only one whose opinion I've come across is Dalton McGuinty's. As for the PM, and the Leader of the Opposition, they're keeping up their summer strategies of avoiding the public. Which baffles the mind.

It is demonstrably in favour of both leaders that they speak out on the issue. For Harper, he needs to seem apologetic for the ordeal this Canadian citizen has been through. He needs to seem compassionate and caring. However, he has not uttered a word on the subject, so far as I can see.

Ignatieff, on the other hand, comes across in much the same light. Of course, this does not affect him as negatively as Harper, after all it was not his government that remained inactive and uninterested in Mohamud's plight. But, there is no conceivable reason why he should not speak out on the behalf of a fellow Canadian, especially if she is being maltreated by the government he is supposed to oppose.

Harper has a lot more to lose by inaction, but Ignatieff had a lot more to gain. Not to mention common human decency.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Ignatieff, give Canadians something to talk about around the barbecue

One would think the summer would be a perfect opportunity for Ignatieff to connect with Canadians on a greater basis, making sure they are familiar with him. As the novelty of his leadership has worn off, not much has been found in its wake. Seeing as the Liberals are now virtually tied with the Conservatives, it would seem reasonable to expect at the least one policy for Canadians to digest while we sit around our barbecues.

I have written before of some of the dangers involved in revealing certain policies before elections. However, that is not to say that there should be no policy positions revealed.

For instance, it is a good idea to reveal policy on wedge issues, controversial issues on which other parties would find it difficult to follow you. We saw such a policy with Dion's carbon tax.

Unlike Harper, Ignatieff has not had 3 plus years to show Canadians what his policies are through governing. Meaning that the onus is on him to make policy announcements, not on Harper.

What's more, on controversial issues it may be a good idea to reveal your policy so that you can prep the electorate for your election platform. If done right, this can also pique the nation's interest and form some manner of national debate. Granted, this gives Harper time unleash the formidable Conservative arsenal of attack ads, but it also gives time for your own ads.

With some thinking Harper might be eyeing yet another election in the fall, it's as good a time as any.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Ignatieff's "knowledge society" would be a "leap for mankind"

Today was the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon, perhaps the greatest example of human innovation. And it also provides support for Ignatieff's calls for a "knowledge society."

The Apollo missions were the result of such knowledge that would be encouraged in a "knowledge society". All those that worked on the mission and made it possible received significant education. They, and the mission, were the results of education.

Ignatieff has implied that in his "knowledge society" access to post-secondary education would be freer and more money would be put towards this. Such measures would make our post-secondary institutions more likely to yield significant research and innovation, continuing a long Canadian tradition.

Not to mention that engineering and scientific innovation in particular also contribute to the economy in significant ways, creating many jobs and wealth.

Although the improvements Ignatieff envisages are unclear, they would hopefully yield small steps for man and large leaps for mankind.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

EKOS poll reveals 2% Conservative advantage

An EKOS poll released today reveals a story many of us do not want to hear: the Conservatives are back, ahead by 2% with 34.1% and the Liberals at 32.4%. Although this can be covered by the margin of error, it is of some concern seeing as the blame is entirely on Liberal shoulders.

Can anyone think of anything substantial and positive that the Conservatives have done since Ignatieff's potential election? All I can come up with is the settlement they produced, the commission to review EI, with 3 Liberals and 3 Conservatives. Other than that, it has been mostly scandals. Not to mention that before the election scare, they weren't doing much better.

So, it seems to me that our leader, Ignatieff, is to blame for fomenting an election scare, and subsequently revealing it was just that. The public is reacting predictably to what it perceives as politicians playing games, instead of performing the duties for which they were sent to the capital.

What's more, these results are probably down because Ignatieff is losing his new leader aura, an aura of something new and fresh. Although every leader loses this after a while, it was all the more confirmed by what is seen as waffling.

The Liberals do not have the Conservatives to blame for these numbers. However, it is too harsh to say that the Liberals made wrong decisions. Ignatieff made a principled decision of compromise, and attempts at co-operation. He is to be admired for that.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Ignatieff, there are many other people in it with him.

With today being the deadline for the second quarter of 2009, it is an opportunity to reflect on the changes that we are seeing as far as Liberal Party funding, as well as general party health.

The reality that seems to be developing is that the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff is finally showing some signs of being of a more grassroots nature. By this, I mean a greater ability to raise funds, and also a greater party membership. What is more is that increases in both these areas are happening at overwhelming rates.

In this Toronto Sun article , these improvements are outlined. The most significant statistics are that funds raised have tripled over the same period last year, and what's more, membership is up to around 90 000, up from 40 000 in January.

Clearly the Liberal Party is growing in significant ways. And, what's more, this can be linked to Michael Ignatieff. It would seem that Canadians are not as averse to cosmopolitan people as Mr. Harper. It would seem that Canadians embrace this, and are willing to see how Ignatieff can fare.

What is more, Canadians, when Harper started attacking Ignatieff's character, realized that if they wanted to avoid the disgrace of Dion style attacks, they had to enter the political scene in their way, and not only voting, but also giving money and getting memberships.

Faced with such massive change in his opponents' party, Harper must be shaking in his boots. He's just figured out that Ignatieff is not just in it for himself, and that there are many other people in it with him.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

A great opportunity slips through Michael's fingers

Michael Ignatieff had a great opportunity this week to bring down the government, and to ensure, among other things, that real, effective, and crucial change would occur in relation to Employment Insurance. Instead, we have been offered a panel to study EI reform, consisting of 3 Liberals and 3 Conservatives. It is permissible to believe that nothing coming within the realm of nationwide EI standards will be achieved.

So let's bemoan our loss. Because a loss it is. Ignatieff and the Liberals were leading in the polls by a 5% margin, and were riding a wave of Conservative flub ups. What with a ballooning deficit just waiting to spirit the Conservatives out of office, there was little doubt of the issue of the potential election: a Liberal minority government.

And, instead of taking this opportunity, Ignatieff has created in co-operation with Harper, a panel that will effect some changes, but not what we need. If Ignatieff had taken his chance, there would be no doubt as to the change. Now, we are forced to wait and see what will be offered up to us.

The only consoling hope is that maybe, just maybe, Ignatieff has something up his sleeve. That he is using this time over the summer to strengthen his party's campaign-readiness, and so to increase the margin of victory in an election I want to see in the fall.

Cling to that hope. It's the best we can hope for in this missed opportunity.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

They said Harper was smart... Looks like he thinks we're stupid

Which of course may reveal he's smart, at least in reference to some in the population. I'm not saying they're stupid per se, but they don't pay attention in politics and are easily fooled.

Anyway, why is this so? Looking at Harper's offer to the Liberals, only two options are clear: 1. he thinks we are easily hoodwinked. 2. He has lost his strategic touch, which may have never been there as much as the media said, but that's for future posts.

These conclusions are inevitable as Harper's offer to Ignatieff consists of as much real action as his policy on the environment. Offering to discuss the issues that Ignatieff has raised, after the vote, is ludicrous. This would have absolutely no effect in calming the Opposition parties, and rightly so.

Discussion of components of a stimulus package is not, reasonably, taken after a no-confidence vote. For, in this way, Harper can say to Ignatieff, trust me, we'll duke it out later, while he manages to stay on for another three months. Furthermore, during these three months of recess, Ignatieff has no power to change any of Harper's actions.

For all these reasons, Ignatieff has made the right move. It is necessary to talk about the four issues Ignatieff raised, if not more, before the vote so that the Liberals can vote in conjunction with our principles and views for the country.

So, Harper clearly thinks the general public cannot see this. Yet more evidence of a snobbish attitude. And he said that "Count" Ignatieff was aristocratic.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

To pull or not to pull the plug, that is the question

To pull or not to pull the plug, that is the question. On the one hand there are clear benefits for Michael Ignatieff in attempting to force an election now. Not only would this corroborate well with what he has been saying, the polls are looking up for the Liberals and it could be that they would be able to ride the "sexy" wave into office.

However, on the flip side, outside of us political junkies, I doubt the public has an appetite for an election right now. One only needs to look as far as the voter turnouts for all the elections of the last year, federal and provincial, to understand that elections at this time seem to be a turn-off.

The concern here is that Harper would pull off an ad campaign in which he spins the story that Ignatieff is the one who caused the whole summer election. Of course, it takes two to tango. But our PM will forget this, especially as he is the one most responsible for the threats of an election. At a time like this, when the opposition parties represent more than 60% of the electorate, it would be wise to follow their demands.

Ignatieff has a tough choice. Pull the plug and you may win the election, or you will get blamed for it. At the end of the day, it comes down to this. Are Canadians frustrated enough with the lack of leadership, economic management and attitude from Conservatives to pull themselves away from their BBQs to vote this summer?

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Cheap politics is career advancements

Yesterday, Canadians were informed of the sexy allure of cancer and radioactive leaks, something I guess we must have all missed. And today, we were informed that being rightly outraged about this fiasco surrounding Lisa Raitt, and pointing it out in the House of Commons, is cheap politics.

Harper clearly is grasping at straws. Pointing out such an obvious flaw in the government's handling of issues certainly does not constitute cheap politics. As Michael Ignatieff pointed out, the fact that Lisa Raitt saw this as a career advancement opportunity is a much greater instance of cheap politics. She is hoping for sexy problems for her to solve. What is cheaper?

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

A response to Rex Murphy

In his recent article, Rex Murphy accuses Ignatieff of being adept at attacking Stephen Harper without taking any positions of his own. This time, shockingly, the verbose Newfoundlander has it wrong.

It is hardly surprising that not many of Ignatieff's positions are known. What would happen if Ignatieff presented them? The answer to that question is obvious. Stephen Harper, a committed pragmatist ever since entering office, would adopt most of these ideas faster than Madonna faced with Malawi kids. He hasn't done so on EI, granted, but that is because he wants to see how far Iggy will go.

In addition, it is not a common occurrence that the Opposition leader unveil a ready election platform. It is obvious that there would be a difference between the extent to which we know Harper's policies and the extent to which we know Ignatieff's. Harper is PM, Ignatieff, sadly, is not.

As for Rex's assertions that Ignatieff is shocked by the deficit. Wrong again. Ignatieff is outraged, as most of the country should be, about the way in which this deficit is ballooning with no clear stimulus to show for it. Most of the money hasn't even gotten out the door, and yet this deficit, one that Conservatives denied would exist until the last possible moment, is soaring up faster than an old widower's house attached to helium balloons.

If in office, Ignatieff would not draw back on spending, I believe. He would spend responsibly, providing economic stimulus while making sure the money goes to those who need it. He would also be reasonable in his predictions, unlike the current government.

Take for example EI reform. This will cost even more to the government. And guess who proposed this. That's right Iggy did. Sorry Rex.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Let's get a steadier hand at the tiller

In the last election campaign, one of Stephen Harper's recurring messages was that the Conservatives would be able to keep a steady hand at the tiller. We were told that only they could successfully navigate the murky and dangerous economic waters ahead. Now fast forward to today. Does this assertion seem to be true?

If it is, then I don't know what a steady hand at the tiller is. Does a sudden increase in projected deficit figures seem like that to you? Because that is what the "steady hand at the tiller" Conservatives are presenting us with. A few months ago, the federal deficit was going to be only $34 billion. Now it's $50 billion. Who knows what it will be next.

Flaherty, and his Prime Minister, have shown that they are anything but steady hands at the tiller. I appreciate and fully support the creation of stimulus packages for the economy. I understand that this stimulus requires deficit spending. However, what I fail to understand is how the Conservatives can be considered good fiscal managers?

Previously, they maintained that there wasn't even going to be any deficit. They clearly are out of touch with the economy. So when Ignatieff says that he is contemplating an attempt at a mid-summer election, I agree. We need to get government that is at least able to predict deficits, and have the courtesy to warn the public. Unlike the Conservatives, who tell half-truths to get elected.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Disunity shows it's time to pull plug?

It seems that Stephen Harper's Conservatives are unable to govern, as in the media they decide to contradict themselves on crucial policy regarding arms given to Pakistan. It may just be the time to attempt to pull the plug on this government before they mess up even more.

Oh, and watch as the Conservative spin machine tries to play this down, or play it up as some sort of evidence of cabinet freedom etc... They're willing to try anything. They're falling apart at the seams, and they're down in the polls.

Which begs the question, will Iggy pull the plug?

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Chalk River leak reveals who are the elitists, and no it's not Ignatieff

As was predicted by Linda Keen a year and a half ago, the reactors at Chalk River have run into a new series of problems, and being one of two sets of reactors producing critical medical isotopes, these problems are of quite a stature. A heavy water leak is the problem this time. And, much to Conservative anguish, this could have been prevented, by their government. If only they weren't elitists.

Who fired Linda Keen for informing government that the best strategy would be to renovate the reactors? The Conservatives. And when did they fire her? At 10 o'clock at night. The Conservatives look more and more awkward on this issue. They looked awkward then, but think of what they look like now.

They fired, in a very ungraceful manner, the person who predicted this whole fiasco. And now, either they implement the strategy that she suggested, or we are hit with another such event a few years down the road. Meanwhile, Harper will also face international pressures to bite the bullet and admit that Keen was right, as a result of the international reliance on this reactor.

Of concern here is that this is a trend in the Conservatives governing patterns. They continuously have proven to be elitist, arrogant and brutish, not accepting the advice of their civil service. So really, who is the elitist in Canadian politics at the moment. It could possibly not be Harper, but it certainly is not Ignatieff, and it's one of the two.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere