Democracy is about choice. It’s about the right to look at differing visions of the country and make a choice about which you think is best. Some people say the more political parties there are, the more varied the choice and, thus, the stronger the democracy. Is this true? When different political parties take similar stances, is that still a choice?

It has become painfully obvious that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party no longer represent distinctive options to the Canadian electorate. Stephen Harper has proven time and again that he is willing to compromise his beliefs in search of his majority government (to see how far Harper has come, look up some old Reform Party platforms; the Conservatives are pushing for none of it). The Conservative Party is now far more centrist than it was intended to be, the most glaring proof being the acceptance of deficit economics. Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are suffering an identity crisis. Harper’s strategic move to the centre has taken a large piece of the electorate away from the Liberals. Stephane Dion’s response was to propose a radical environmental policy that was intended to win over all progressive voters. The left-of-centre vote never unified behind Dion (remaining split between the Liberals, NDP and the Greens) and drove more traditional Liberal supporters into the arms of the Conservatives. With that strategy deemed a failure, Ignatieff has been forced to subtly acknowledge that his version of the Liberal Party wouldn’t do things very differently than the Conservatives (see Ignatieff’s support of the budget). The Liberals are being squeezed out of the political picture, and since they can no longer offer anything distinctive in terms of policy, they are left hoping Canadians will think Ignatieff is the more capable leader.
(more…)

The media/pundit response to Ignatieff and the Newfoundland MP commotion last week made no sense to me. I could appreciate words like “precedent” and “weakness” being applied to the situation, theoretically. But in reality, how did Ignatieff’s decision to allow MPs to vote against the budget make him a bad leader? Phrases like “Harper would never allow it” were being thrown around, but recklessly. Is Harper our yardstick for what a good leader is? I seem to recall Harper’s downfall having much to do with an inability to cooperate, listen…give a little… Others threw caution to the future. Apparently, Ignatieff’s leniency was set to “return” to “haunt him” in the form of other provinces throwing their weight around, or increasing demands from Danny Williams. But must we assume that Ignatieff will bow to all future demands because he deemed one demand legitimate? Can I suggest we cross that bridge when we arrive?
(more…)

The budget better be a good one. Canada lost 34,400 jobs in December and 70,600 jobs in November. Now, January’s report indicates that Canada has lost 129,000 more jobs. Again, the manufacturing sector was hit hard primarily in Ontario, with BC and Quebec also taking a significant loss. I hope Prime Minister Stephen Harper will begin to take this situation seriously.

Last month, Harper said that while our job losses are “troubling,” the US is far worse off. It’s time for him to stop looking to the US and to take action to fix Canada’s economy.
(more…)

So now that Lord Ig has wisely and graciously bowed out of an immediate election scrap, all thoughts shall turn to the next main stage tussle. But first a word on the current state of the political nation. To use the Professor’s own criminal analogy; if the Conservatives are “on probation”, the Liberal’s have a “suspended sentence”, the NDP are suffering from a “hung jury” and the Bloc will once again be relegated to “solitary confinement.”

So where does it all lead? I’m guessing a Spring 2010 federal election. Forget about the Liberal budget amendment for quarterly parliamentary updates triggering a snap confidence vote and election. Not going to happen. Because we still have to go through “double secret probation”, “electronic monitoring probation” and “parole” stages before the Liberals are anywhere near capable of fighting an election. And Harper won’t call it for fear of being branded an opportunist. Again.

So all eyes will now turn to the upcoming 2009 BC spring election where the right wing, privatizing, carbon taxing, big Owe, Olympic Liberal government will be put to the test by a kinder, gentler (but still the same old beast) provincial NDP party. Will Gordon Campbell live to see another term? I’m betting yes – despite a rapidly deteriorating economy. If only so he can take his debt-laden bow at the Olympics – along with the PM. Their one saving grace being that CTV is covering the games this year.
(more…)

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff Will Support the Federal Budget With Conditions

As we’re all probably aware of by now, (since NOTHING else has really happened in Canadian politics for the past month…yawn) Michael Ignatieff has decided to support the Conservative budget that was unveiled 2 days ago. But not without an interesting twist:

The Liberal party will only support the minority Conservative government’s federal budget if Prime Minister Stephen Harper agrees to an amendment calling for a “clear marker” of regular updates to Parliament on the impact of economic stimulus projects, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Wednesday.

By supporting the budget, Michael Ignatieff is passing on an opportunity to take down the Conservative government and in doing so, trigger an election or enter into a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. Many Liberals are obviously not happy. The last thing they wanted was for their leader to abandon the coalition. But it’s all part of Ignatieff’s long-term agenda to seize power.

So what’s really behind Ignatieff’s demand that Harper provide regular updates to Parliament? An interesting Liberal strategy – I call it the Waiting Game.
(more…)

On December 10th, 2008, Michael Ignatieff became the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He replaced former leader Stéphane Dion to become the official leader of the opposition when Bob Rae withdrew from the race. Ignatieff takes over the Liberal leadership role amidst political disarray and a poor performance in the recent federal election. He also heads a party whose popularity has been slipping as of late, according to a recently published poll. Ignatieff currently represents the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Michael Ignatieff was born on May 12th, 1947 in Toronto, Ontario to Canadian diplomat George Ignatieff and his wife Alison Grant. His grandfather, Count Pavel Ignatiev, was Minister of Education to Tsar Nicholas II. After graduating from high school, Ignatieff studied at the University of Toronto where he met Bob Rae, future Premier of Ontario. He then proceeded to study at the University of Oxford in England, influenced by the well-known historian and philosopher Isaiah Berlin. Ignatieff completed his studies by earning his PhD in History at Harvard University.

Ignatieff’s roots with the Liberal Party began at the age of 18, where he volunteered to canvas for the York South riding. Three years later, he worked for the Liberal Party as a national youth organizer and party delegate for the Trudeau campaign His loyalty to the party has continued ever since.
(more…)