Tweet
Michael Ignatieff
The shockwaves from the Governor General’s decision to cave to Harper’s demand that he be allowed to dodge a no confidence vote by suspending parliament have toppled Dion from leadership of the Liberal Party, and made Micheal Ignatieff the presumptive next Liberal Leader. Ignatieff has stated that he will not push the coalition deal made by Dion. His position, is, essentially, that he will threaten to bring down the government to get concessions, however, absent backing from the BQ and NDP, this is an empty threat.
As with many things that Ignatieff has written over the last decade, he stands on every side of every question, being for the invasion of Iraq, and then against it as it soured. Contemptuously dismissing critics of the war one moment as the bombs fell only to muse about ideas from the luxury of the inner circle. Now he is content to let Harper govern, even as his Party secured an outright majority in the Quebec election by campaigning against the conservatives.
It seems likely that his plan is to wait, and let the crisis take its toll on Harper, and perhaps, that is all he can do, with a majority of Canadians polled wanting Harper to remain PM.
Dion’s poor communication did him in; Ignatieff, widely praised author, has no such problem. Dion’s words are a rusted compass, pointing directly, but not beautifully – where as Ignatieff is like his age: a pretty flag that waves in whatever wind is needed.
He is well known for his doctrine of "lesser evil," and now presents himself to Canada as precisely that.
22 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
God save the Queen!
Digg
I hate the way he just waltzed in as a leadership contender for the Liberal Party after living abroad for the previous 27 years.
It typifies everything that is wrong with the Liberal Party of Canada
Seriously, WTF. He’s the worst possible choice. Rae shouldn’t have stepped out of the running. Hope the other two leaders do their jobs and agitate to GET that coalition up and going, or else Harper’s just going to walk all over them again.
*facepalms*
What could have saved Dion?
Not much. At the time he became leader it was basically ‘anybody but Ignatieff’, i believe. With Bob Rae stepping out of the way, we got him instead. I’m really hoping something get shaken up by the NDP and the BQ, especially the BQ since they have a good stake in it even as just the backers of the deal.
I’m seriously going What THE freaken HELL? Crazy news to come home to on that front. I should get ahold of my uncles and see what they’re keeping track of. I’m pretty sure my cousins aren’t paying any attention to all this jockying about.
This is one of the most uncommon political moves in history. having said that only 37% of Canadians wanted Harper It is time to say good by to him as over 60% of the country wants a more left of center government. This is a chance for Canadians to really make a change “we can believe in” Lets do whatever it takes to make that change!
I know virtually nothing about Canadian politics, but this is eerily familiar.
Charest is a Conservative in Liberal clothing. He did help defeat the 1995 Quebec Referendum on independence (94% voter turnout, 50.6% vs 49.4%), while leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I will agree that the Liberal Party of Quebec is to the left of the Action Democratique, but that doesn’t make Charest a liberal.
I am not a fan of Ignatieff, and although this might be a short term solution, I’ll wager a round of beer that he won’t defeat Harper in the next federal election. I hope Ignatieff proves me wrong on both counts.
Having said that, I also wasn’t a big fan of the coalition with Dion as leader. I’m slightly happier with a coalition and Ignatieff as leader. A lesser evil than Harper for sure.
Harper does what Bush tells him to do. He keeps us sold to the US with NAFTA, SPP, NAU, etc. etc. He likes power..he likes corporations more than he likes humans. Yes, eerily familiar..he is Bush’s clone.
He likes death and destruction, too. Most of NATO has seen the light and left, or soon will be leaving Afghanistan. Not us..Harper likes our men and women to die to aid and abet Bush’s illegal invasion and occupation.
I despise the ground that man slithers across.
Skate over to the penalty box, Stirling. Referring the the Quebec Liberals as ”[Ignatieff’s] party” is a five-minute major.
Provincial and Federal parties have no organic connection in Canada. You can see this most clearly in B.C., where people who vote Conservative on the federal level mostly vote for the B.C. Liberal party.
You might have had an out if Ignatieff had made his name in Quebec provincial politics with the Quebec provincial Liberals, then ”jumped” into federal politics with the federal Liberals. But it looks like he started his career in federal politics, and has never been a member of the Quebec Liberal Party.
Sorry, Stirling, in case I’m not being clear, I’m referring to where you wrote ”Now [Ignatieff] is content to let Harper govern, even as his Party secured an outright majority…”
Just read his wiki page. Now I know what his lesser evil approach means. Fuck it..another Bush; doesn’t appear to know what the Geneva Conventions say. Evil is evil; there is not damn lesser about it. Enough of the Orwellian double speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff
That may be true of the Liberals and Conservatives, and it depends what you mean by organic, but there is a very close relationship between the federal and provincial NDP in several provinces.
if you do not understand that the Quebec Liberal party is not the Quebec provincial arm of the federal Liberal party in Canada, you have no business opining on canadian politics, whether provincial or federal .. and while I’m at it, a province is not the same thing as a state.
Ignatieff is a poor choice, but then again the federal Liberal party today is in almost as much disarray as when Brian Mulroney led the federal conservative party to losing 149 seats in Parliament in the 1993 general elections (almost wiped off the map), after which he resigned as party leader in ignominy.
The Liberals will be back some day, after Harper runs the country into the ground and Ignatieff proves that he is NOT a leader, after which the Liberals will find someone more effective. These things go in (longish) cycles in Canada.
No. Mulroney announced that he was retiring in early 1993 and was replaced in June by Kim Campbell as leader and PM. She led the party into the massive defeat of the election, although Mulroney probably would have lost almost as badly had he stayed on.
Anything would be a lesser evil than Harper, but I agree with Stirling’s description of him above — he’s on every side of every question; he builds plausible deniability into everything he writes or says; he oozes entitlement — he is a great bore, but pretension seems to impress a lot of people.
I would be a bit dubious about that poll cited in the Citizen — consider the source: it was done for CanWest Global. That said, I fear it’s true that many Canadians didn’t have a good grasp of the constitutional issues involved and the leaders of the coalition didn’t get out ahead of Harper fast enough in explaining them. Harper lied viciously and played the bigotry/national-unity card in order to divide and conquer, and in the short term, he seems to have won.
Most Canadians don’t like Harper, but they are now frightened by the economic crisis and confused about the constitutional games, so the conflicts swirl. If Ignatieff weren’t such a smug narcissist, if he would really commit to fighting Harper hard in late January, we might be ok, but of course the worry is that, for his own silly careerist reasons, Ignatieff will be triangulating all the way and will maybe try to wait things out — what or why, I don’t know, but then I’m not a tricky Liberal.
Charest was a Progressive Conservative federally, yes, but that was in pre-Reform/Alliance days, before the Harper extremists took over the party and dropped Progressive from its name. As premier of Quebec, he has to be more socially progressive than the federal Conservatives are. A recent example: the entire Quebec assembly denounced federal bill C-484, which was a “pro-life” Trojan horse (and for sure, if Harper gets a majority, they’re going to try that trick again). You don’t get that kind of unity even from the federal Liberals, some of whom are pretty right-wing.
I am very afraid of a Harper majority. If that happens, it will be almost by accident, something we fell into because people became confused. But if that man is able to, he will take apart every progressive social program we have built so carefully in this country. He will wreak vast destruction before he’s done if we don’t figure out some way to defeat him.
That may be true of the Liberals and Conservatives, and it depends what you mean by organic, but there is a very close relationship between the federal and provincial NDP in several provinces.
What I meant is that in Canada, the federal party organizations are not in any sense constituted by provincial party organizations. Here in the states, for instance, the state Democratic party organizations nominate candidates for governor; these very same organizations send delegates to the national Democratic party convention. So in some sense the national Democratic party is an organ of the state parties. (Or vice-versa, I guess – you’re right, organic as I used it a bit is imprecise; well, I gave it my best shot.)
It doesn’t work the same way in Canada. The organization that nominates candidates at the provincial level, and the one that nominates candidates at the federal level, are different organizations; the federal parties are not superordinate to the provincial parties.
Except, yes, I think I’m wrong about that with respect to the NDP; they do have some kind of provincial party affiliation with the federal NDP. I’m not sure what form it takes, but I remember that the Quebec NDP (NPD) either disaffiliated or was disaffiliated from the larger party as a result of their position on sovereignty.
For that matter, I’m not certain about the Greens, either.
No. Mulroney announced that he was retiring in early 1993 and was replaced in June by Kim Campbell as leader and PM. She led the party into the massive defeat of the election, although Mulroney probably would have lost almost as badly had he stayed on.
Yes, let’s not forget the Right Honorable Kim Campbell.
This is the end-gane (let’s hope) of the Chretien-Martin feud. Ignatieff has the backing of the Martin supporters in Quebec, who loathe Chretien. Rae was backed by Chretien’s people. Ignatieff’s play is based on the proposition that he can hold and somewhat increase the Ontario Lib vote and take a half dozen to a dozen seats in Quebec, where he is considered a soft nationalist on the basis of some unwise statements he made during the last leadership campaign.
Hard to know how he will play out as leader. Doesn’t have the money backing that Rae has.
Harper is not a Bush clone, he’s a Cheney clone. He’s more intelligent and Machiavellian than Bush. He’s not a frat boy, he’s not a drunk, he’s a policy wonk.
Thanks, Knut: that IS interesting stuff I didn’t know and I’m just hoping we can end the Martin-Chretien feud quickly now and get closer to a more ’original’ choice for the new century!
We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here if Ignatieff is the least bad/risky/treacherous option. Maybe he can write (I’m too uninspired to be bothered to check) but I’m telling you guys he really doesn’t come across much better than the hapless Dion (which nothing could have saved, I’m afraid, it now looks like maybe it wasn’t Harper’s bullying that sunk him).
So let’s try the ”safe” option and tick that of the list. I guess.
I have seen Ignatieff speaking on tv and that triangulation comes across as hemming and hawing and having nothing inspiring to say: actually it IS kinda like Cheney. It’s really awful and painful to have to watch: he’s on the national cbc news tonight following Harper’s slimy interview last night and I am not looking forward to having to watch him. I suppose as ”Harper-lite” Iggy may appeal to some who are put off by DFH’s and move the polls that way, but gosh shit moves slow doesn’t it?
And as such, Ignatieff has no leadership qualities that I can see. I don’t see him inspiring the renewal of the Liberal Party. The deep insiders may like him but in a shocking way I think the Liberal Party needs the drama of standing up to Harper. I don’s see how Ignatieff doesn’t get slammed and rejected pretty quickly.
Harper was asked AGAIN last night to take some blame for the parliamentary chaos and oh no he’s having none of that, on his high horse and cocking his head, leaning on his arm, eyeing the anchor with one eye squinting. He looks like Putin!!! He’s going to keep on keeping on the same way. Ignatieff is a fool to think anything else.
I really hope Rae (as a college roomate of Ignatieff!) who was incredibly gracious, human, AND tactical in his withdrawal yesterday is called upon to play a major role. Speaking of leadership, he showed (and spoke) more in 24 hours than we have seen here in years after a steady display through this whole mess. I saw that he’s really grounded as a good leader must be ~ he’s not bitter at all and don’t believe anyone who tells you he is. Rae now has the number 2 spot in the leadership hierarchy so maybe his turn comes next AND maybe Ignatieff will falter within months or weeks!
Thanks skdadl: I knew there was something wrong with that poll it smelled so badly out of step with any debate, the recent election outcome, and the outcry on both sides of the argument. CanWest strikes again!
And thanks Stirling for setting a side-table for us here at FDL! I think I kinda get what you mean by the Liberals doing well in Quebec on Monday; apart from all the inside baseball in the thread here, it did show that Charest (Liberal, if only in name) could hold and improve his placement in spite of any backlash created by Harper’s dis-unity arguments which might have sent voters to the sovereignty option. But Quebec politics are so complex it’s really hard to say this means much of anything at all beyond 8 pm Monday night.