Ignatieff’s environmental plan is a bust

Yesterday I wrote a post concerning the need for Michael Ignatieff to take more policy risks. I joked that he should look into a carbon tax. I want to state for the record that it was a joke. I never thought that the Liberals would be silly enough to bring up the environment again.

The policy that they are proposing is not a carbon tax but it has a lot of the same problems, but I will get to that in a minute. This is the policy according  The Globe and Mail:

Undaunted, Mr. Ignatieff, in a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, laid out a three-pronged approach to making Canada a global leader in clean energy by investing in new technologies and new industries; by upgrading the energy infrastructure through a so-called “smart” energy grid, and by making the federal government – the nation’s largest employer and customer – a model of environmentally responsible behaviour.

“Investing” in new industries? You mean making industries out of thin air? I wonder how well that has worked for wind power these last ten years? Seriously if a new “green” industry was economically viable they wouldn’t need government “investment.” Millionaires and billionaires would be clamouring all over themselves to get in on the ground floor. Mr. Ignatieff isn’t proposing an “investment” that would pay out dividends but a subsidy that will be yet another drain on the treasury.

I am not going to even ask what a “smart energy grid” is. I’m just going to go straight to the question of how much is it going to cost:

When asked after the speech what his program would cost, Mr. Ignatieff said it was “not huge in dollar terms” and would have a multiplier effect in creating new jobs and tax revenues.

Hang on didn’t he also say that the government–the biggest employer and customer–would be implementing these new green programs? Then doesn’t that mean that they will be using tax dollars to both pay employees and purchase the products. Let me just take a look at my economics 101 textbook here…oh yeah that means zero economic gain. Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall for a few minutes.

The most galling part of this is that at the same time as proposing new spending of untold billions, the Liberals are attacking the Conservatives on the deficit. Now yes, attack the Conservatives, they deserve to be taken to task on their bloated ever-expanding budgets. But please don’t propose such idiotic spending increases at the same time.

Besides the policy being stupid, in fact, it is stupid politics as well. Didn’t the last election show that people care more about the economy than about the environment (hurray enlightened self interest)? Mr. Ignatieff had a response to that:

“The key point I’m trying to make today is that this is not marginal to an economic strategy,” he said. “This is a key piece of it for us.”

Oh yeah you tried that line in the last election too, and it didn’t work. Now that the economic situation is worse, you figure it will work this time?

People aren’t stupid. If you say the government is going to spend billions of dollars on “green jobs.” People think to themselves, “I am not in a green job, I am not trained for a green job, I’m not totally sure I know what a green job is. Therefore I have no interest in the government giving my money so that someone else can work.”

When people said that you needed to take risks, Mr Ignatieff, they needed to be more specific. You need to take smart risks.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on October 14, 2009 | Permalink

Ignatieff’s ‘Clean Energy’ Proposal Bad Politics and Bad Policy

by John Laforet
posted on October 13th, 2009 at 22:05:19 pm

I am a former federal Liberal Riding President, and have largely distanced myself on matters of federal politics since leaving that position out of respect to those I worked with, but this I felt required comment. I hope it will not require much more action that writing a letter to the Leader of the Liberal Party to correct his facts.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade demonstrated a staggering ignorance on the ‘clean energy’ file. His speech today demonstrated a total lack of understanding of this division of power. What’s more, he incorrectly accused Canada of not being a green energy leader. We are. Hydroelectricity represents 88% of the world’s installed renewable energy source. Canada is second only to China in the production of hydroelectric power, and is forth in the world for use of hydroelectricity as a percentage of supply.

The majority of Canada’s power production (just under 60%) comes from hydroelectricity. We’re three times greener than Denmark – but more importantly because of energy use, considerably more than that megawatt to megawatt.

Four provinces, and one territory have 75% or more of their power supplied by hydroelectricity. They are Newfoundland (not including Labrador) (73%) and Labrador(100%), Yukon (89%), British Columbia (90%), Manitoba (96%), Quebec (96%). – This is all clean energy.

Ontario’s Nuclear and Hydro combined represent 75% of power production – all of which is non carbon emitting and therefore would meet the definition of ‘clean energy’ in the context of Ignatieff’s speech, where clean energy was energy that did not contribute to global warming through CO2 emissions.

Michael Ignatieff is right that just 1% of installed power supply in Canada is wind or solar. That doesn’t change the fact that Canada is a clean energy leader through serious investment in reliable, predictable, and affordable renewable technology. A lack of wind and solar in the grid simply means the Provinces aren’t jumping on unreliable, expensive technology that doesn’t work. That’s a good thing.

Denmark and Germany are false idols of clean power. The majority of Denmark’s power comes from coal fired plants, and due to the unreliability of wind power, much of their production is exported to neighbouring countries that rely heavily on hydroelectric, but dial back it’s production to use the unreliable wind power when available. What it means is that Denmark isn’t nearly the clean energy leader that Canada is and that even with 19% of their grid being wind, they aren’t even displacing carbon emissions because they success in using this unreliable power is based on trading a stable source of renewable energy for an unreliable one. Germany is building 26 new coal fired plants to make up for the unreliability of wind power, and isn’t nearly as far along as Canada in carbon free energy either.

If you want to dabble in unreliable power production like wind – you need a smart grid, so you can shut the reliable stuff off when the wind decides to blow (this is seriously how the science behind this works). Smart grids cost billions and the only people who think the provinces should be developing smart grids are wind farm developers. It’s like if Ford or GM thought building more highways were a good idea. With hydroelectricity or any other proven source of power – where there is capacity within the grid you can build more supply into it, no need for the kinds of sophisticated, and otherwise unnecessary enhancements wind barons would have taxpayers paying for so we can buy their electricity at three to five times the cost any other form of power sold into the grid goes for.

As for Michael Ignatieff attacking the federal government because Barack Obama is spending six times more than the Canadian government on renewable energy this year, the United States is ten times the size of Canada, so a six to one ratio wouldn’t actually be that bad, but when you consider that over 85% of US power is produced by carbon emitting sources – the real story is how little the United States is doing. If he is worried about carbon emitting sources of electricty production he should be condemning the United States. Considering this is really a provincial issue in Canada, I don’t see why it would be that out of line for him to propose policy for another country too. After all neither is his jurisdiction. Many provinces did this work in Canada decades ago, and they did it right. It isn’t a fair comparison, and is irresponsible commentary from and political and policy perspective. The others (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and PEI) each have the responsibility to set their own production mixes, but this certainly is not the role for the federal government and never has been.

This is a really bad issue for Michael Ignatieff to seize on. He is misleading the public about the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government, the experiences in other countries, and trying to ignore what is a really great Canadian success story – hydroelectricity – so he can score some shots, irresponsibility trying to look green for supporting an unreliable technology that not only doesn’t work but isn’t part of the area of responsibility he is seeking from the public. It also costs a bizarre and indefensible amount of money and is probably the hottest political issue in Ontario with an organized grassroots opposition movement opposing it.

I will be writing Mr. Ignatieff, in my capacity as President of Wind Concerns Ontario to discuss the success story of clean energy in Canada as it relates to hydroelectricity, to share my perception of electricity as a provincial jurisdiction and to strongly advise against trying to use wind and solar as a political wedge, because it is one which such a strong force of opposition working against it, and such a limited merit that it neither makes political sense or public policy sense.

I also intend to engage the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and Green Party in defending the good work if many provinces in seeking carbon free electricity and educating Canadians on these successes and not allowing any party leader to mislead the public on the facts, should the Opposition Leader seek to continue this current line on Canada’s reputation as a renewable energy leader.

Michael Ignatieff sings: Where are his handlers?!

Hey, because it is such an amazing performance, take a few minutes to watch the full length video of Stephen Harper’s performance at the NAC Gala last week:

watch?v=_3v6CWoQBnY&feature=player_embedded#at=20

The one thing Michael Ignatieff could not afford to do is try to mimic this performance.  In any way.  At all.

So what does Michael Ignatieff do? He sings.  Badly:

watch?v=Kl-epJKaXes&feature=player_embedded

Oh, that is painful to listen to.  The cheap attempt at a political point at the end fell as flat as his attempt to hit a note.

I bet he was goaded into it by a reporter’s question, but so what?  He should just stand his ground and say that Stephen Harper’s performance is of no interest to him as it pertains to the job as Leader of the Opposition.  It was fun to watch, and that’s all that he’s going to say.

Sure the reporters would be disappointed, but then it would put some cold water on this hot story, at least when he was around.

And the Liberals desperately needed for this story to die away.

But instead Michael Ignatieff gets drawn into it, and worse, makes Stephen Harper’s great performance look even better!

Singing.  Off key with no music.  In a room full of skeptical reporters looking for a reason to make you look bad.  And with bloggers only too happy to help!

Is the Rosedale Gang just that clueless?

H/T: Plattytalk

Again, you can read the original article here.

Full article is here.

When Michael Ignatieff was an historian at Harvard, and before he returned to his native Canada to go into politics, he described the intellectual in a 2000 CBC radio interview:

“An intellectual is not an academic. An intellectual is not a specialist. And an intellectual is not a journalist. We’ve got plenty of academics, plenty of specialists, plenty of journalists. What we don’t have enough of are people who ask questions of principle, fundamental principles about political and moral issues and who put together general propositions from a host of different sources.

““An intellectual is a generalist, an intellectual is someone who is not an expert in a particular field but who takes propositions that are lying around the tables of many different places; journalism, academics, specialisms of various kinds of science and puts together general frameworks, general theories, general accounts, whose ultimate audience is the man in the street and whose ultimate purpose is to mold and shape the conversation of a country or a nation or a people. Intellectuals do that. It’s a frankly elitist function in the sense that it presumes that an intellectual does know more than other people. And we become, I think, much too apologetic about that elitism.”

He attacks outright the belief that elitism is wrong.

“Some people do know more than other people. Some people have earned the right to speak. Some people have earned the right to know things. They paid for it in hard labour. It’s not a social privilege. It’s not a financial privilege. It’s just the privilege of having read all the books you see around [me]. And it’s not something to be proud of. You put in the years.

“That’s an intellectual’s legitimacy. He’s put in the years and also the test of legitimacy is intellectual honesty. Not being in hock to some ideology, not being in hock to some institution. Being independent. Being able to stand up and say what the hell you please.”

October 12th, 2009 | Uncategorized

Some months ago I was encouraged to return to federal politics. I succumbed. Big mistake.

Yesterday I corrected that, and am returning my Liberal decoder ring. In fact, it’s fair to say my experiences in politics over the past four years have reminded me why 97% of Canadians do not belong to a party.

My motivation for dallying with MPship again was similar to my desire to maintain this conversation with you. The times are uncertain. Questionable decisions have been made. The consequences will be long-lasting. We should elect people driven to solve problems, not just attracted to power.

To date, no party or leader has treated you honestly to an explanation of what a $56 billion deficit or $600 billion debt mean for your family or your finances. Suggesting there’ll be no tax hikes, spending cuts or mortgage increases is akin to Stephen Harper telling us one year ago Canada was immune to recession and our budget would stay balanced. It’s crap. But apparently crap that people like hearing.

Such talk has surely not endeared me to the new Liberal leader. Can’t say I’m surprised. But neither can I stay.

I’m too old and crusty to cave now.

Statement by Garth Turner

After being recruited to run for MP in the Ontario riding of Dufferin-Caledon, and having my candidacy approved by the Liberal Party last July, today I informed the leader of my resignation.

My hope in returning to Parliament was to help clear the path to a viable economic future. Stephen Harper’s $56 billion deficit and profligate spending are massive threats. But also threatening is a lack of debate about viable options and an honest conversation with voters and citizens on the looming consequences.

Therefore it’s hard to see what the coming election will be about if we’re not prepared to discuss the options in the wake of the Harper fiscal disaster. Economic growth alone won’t wipe out an historic debt load or the need for spending cuts and tax hikes. The looming HST in Ontario and BC is likely but a taste of medicine to come. This is what Canadians need to understand.

A year ago Stephen Harper said there would be no recession and no deficit. That was untrue. Now he says there will be no consequences of our record shortfall. Also untrue.

In my financial books and writings I’ve warned of the need for families to invest wisely, use debt carefully and live within their means in an uncertain world. Rather than tell voters interest rates and taxes won’t rise nor spending fall, leaders should guide us all into realistic choices. Sadly, that doesn’t win elections.

In Dufferin-Caledon I have been the only nominee for MP candidate since August. I’m interpreting the leader’s failure to allow a nomination meeting as a signal my views are unwelcome.

- 30 -

13 comments ↓

#1 Vicguy on 10.12.09 at 5:49 pm

Good for you, Mr. Turner.

Mr. Ignatieff has been a bitter dissappointment. So many Canadians hoped that he would be an effective, strong leader after the hopeless performance of Mr. Dion.

I said in a comment several months back when you asked our opinion — ’should I run again?’. I speculated that Mr. Ignatieff would be like Mr. Harper re communications — if elected, he’d also muzzle his MP’s.

It is so frustrating to see the Liberals implode — if Mr Harper plays his cards right, he likely will end up with his majority, thanks to the ineptness of the current leader.

Besides, did you really want to take such a brutal pay cut?

#2 Tim G on 10.12.09 at 6:01 pm

I’m lost..what did Iggy say or do?

#3 Dr Mike Popovich on 10.12.09 at 6:46 pm

Garth

You have done the right thing as this party has lost it`s sense of direction when Canada needed it`s leadership the most.

Good luck down the road.

Dr Mike

PS — Esther , be well.

#4 S. Roseth on 10.12.09 at 6:54 pm

Politics, intelligence are at odds
Published On Mon Oct 12 2009
Article
Re:Ignatieff needs to change

the channel, Editorial Oct. 10

Your editorial about Michael Ignatieff is quite perspicacious, but Iggy’s trials and tribulations in the Coliseum or Canadian politics is more than blunders and lack of policy. It’s an example of two solitudes: academic versus politician.

Ignatieff is an erudite and thoughtful person; his writings are intelligent and profound. Not so his stammering political pronouncements. Pace his erudition, he is to political mud wrestling as a fish is to dry land – thrashing around trying to find its breath. There is really little difference in style and substance between Ignatieff and his predecessor Stéphane Dion, save the English language.

In today’s political environment, politics and intelligence is an oxymoron, and the politicians bend and sway with the winds of the latest opinion surveys.

Thomas Jefferson said “the government you elect is the government you deserve.” No politician ever went wrong underestimating the average intelligence of the electorate. A good democracy requires both good citizens and good governments. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have either.

Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga

#5 Barb the proofreader on 10.12.09 at 6:58 pm

Garth,
Besides my disappointment, I was searching for what you meant by “30″. In my search I found Pat G.’s comment last thread #30 said the very things I would say, so I’d like to quote her: “It is such a pity that no one in government can tell the truth without having some hyenas yakking it up and making outrageous claims about the truth-teller. I think this is why Ignatieff backed off his assertion that taxes may have to go up. Did the backroom boys tell him that was a dangerous statement?
At least Garth is telling it as it is and we surely do need some honesty and courage in politics.
It really hurts me that the Cons have actually achieved their goal — to spend so much money that no other party could carry on or bring in more social programs.
This has been, after all, one of the goals of the nucleus of this party. Tom Flanagan crowed that he was so very proud that Harper had accomplished this feat. I seriously fear for our health care system — Harper had another goal as Pres. of the National Citizens’ Coalition and that was to kill the Canada Health Act. Seems he’s killing a lot of birds with one rock.
At this end of my life, it really saddens me that our country has come to this. It could have been so much better. Now there isn’t even any money to deal very strongly with climate change. This is tragic. when will Canadians wake up from their distracted lives?”
………

Pat,
I couldn’t agree with you more. The only job Harper ever held was at N.C.C. as a corporate lobby faking as “citizens” though not one citizen actually belongs, formed with the main goal of making all healthcare fully “for profit” business, which will essentially eliminate our universal healthcare.
Glad you pointed out also that Harper isn’t just any lobbyist, he was president of them. I can see Harper snickering all the way to his bank. He’s turned this particular government into a spinning turnstyle of lobbyists slithering back and forth in and out of government jobs. He’s spent our last dollar on promoting himself, over, and over, and over again.

The end of democracy is when capitalism achieves Harper’s sort of unfettered control over citizens, that people’s rights become just a quaint, long forgotten notion, when rich lobbyists get their way absolutely every time, and citizens can’t afford to fight them, or usually don’t realize what’s going on behind our backs in a cynical and purposefully “sneaky” government like Harper’s.

We had been, in my lifetime, on the cusp of becoming one of the fairest, most admired nations. Harper’s blown it all for good, and when Canadians wake up it will be too late. He’s made sure of that with his checklist of how to forever hamstring core Canadian values.
………

Garth, I guess I can’t blame you for not wanting to duke it out at the top. It doesn’t matter what government we have in the future, Harper has ensured all governing will be a thankless and ugly task from now on. I don’t think Pat G. and I are alone in our mourning of our country. I particularly mourn the loss of a good politician like yourself. Keep up the great advice, I’m sure you have personally saved many people, young and old, from some very grave financial pitfalls, and since Harper’s gross destruction is so predictable, I’m sure those paying attention to you in the future will also be very lucky to have listened to your advice. I’ll stay tuned as your blogs are always such an interesting source of info.

#6 Watch Dog in D.C. on 10.12.09 at 7:04 pm

Garth,

It’s time for the real Liberal’s to stand up and be counted. Mr. Ignatieff has lost the war across Canada.
It’s time for change in the leadership of the Liberal party.
If Liberal’s across Canada thought Mr Dion lost seats.
Mr.Ignatieff will be the one responsible for the end of the Liberal party in Canada.
Wake up Liberal’s write your Liberal M.P. and Sentor’s today.
We want a new leader that will win the next Election.
Act Today

#7 no job-expired benefits-sick of the games on 10.12.09 at 8:17 pm

Garth: I won’t say I’m not disappointed with your withdrawal from candidacy but support you all the way. Iggy does not possess even a fraction of your honesty, courage and conviction.

I wanted to think he was a ‘real deal’ but have been sadly disappointed in his performance to date. People are starving, losing their homes and continue to suffer in ways not seen in decades. Stephen & Michael continue their chest thumping and calling one another names, whilst screwing Canadians.

Thank you for all that you do to educate, inform and advocate on our behalf. I wish you every success.

#8 Herb on 10.12.09 at 8:47 pm

Garth, I’m shocked but not surprised. Have another go at politics when the Liberal Party has gotten it’s act together, or another party offers a real alternative to this government, whichever occurs earlier.

I had a call from Liberal Central last week asking for my “support”. Told the sweet young thing that I would support Garth Turner across riding boundaries, but not the Liberal Party until it had done something I could support. And since they had nominated another party soldier in my riding, the NDP incumbent looked pretty good.

I was so hoping to get away from economics and real estate, but they are going to be the real story anyway.

#9 oppo guy on 10.12.09 at 9:26 pm

I’m confused Garth.

Is this because the Iffy-led Liberal party has come out in favour of the HST in Ontario and BC?

Ignatieff and the kids running the Liberal party don’t get that higher sales taxes are exactly what familes DON’T need.

Only you (on your blog) and Jack Layton’s NDP are against Harper’s HST.

#10 Van on 10.12.09 at 9:26 pm

Sorry to see you give up the fight Garth. Perhaps your conservative roots will draw you back to the Conservative Party once again after Harper has left the stage. Good luck in your future endeavours although I do hope to see you run again but as a Conservative sometime in the future.

#11 Harry G. on 10.12.09 at 9:30 pm

Sorry to see you go Garth. In these times we need people who have expertise in economic matters. Big loss for the Liberal Party and Parliament. I can’t say I blame you though

#12 hollinm on 10.12.09 at 9:51 pm

In your comments you keep talking about Harper’s $56 billion deficit. However, don’t forget it was the opposition parties who demanded stimulus to the economy and are still demanding more. Failure to deliver the requested stimulus Harper would have been defeated in the House by the three left wing parties. Frankly I am glad Harper moved on stimulus and we will work our way out of the deficit over time. Much of the money being spent is one time i.e. EI and auto bailouts. However I would rather put my faith in Harper to attack the deficit using whatever means available before increasing taxes. That’s the difference Liberals will raise taxes first rather than when everything else fails.
Unfortunately for you Mr. Turner you turned out to be in it for yourself and you have made the right decision. Move on. By the way perhaps you could tell us which specific stimulus spending you would not have done. Its easy to criticize without offering effective solutions. Let’s hear from you.

Doesn’t matter whose deficit it is, we all pay the price. Even the gracious ones, like you. — Garth

#13 wellwell on 10.12.09 at 9:55 pm

Garth, if there are backroom shenanigans to block your nomination, then your resignation is, of course, entirely understandable.

But I would add that those who have written off Ignatieff after a bad week or two simply don’t have their eye on the ball. Already, the latest Ipsos poll has the Conservative lead down to 10 points, which means that once the public digests and partially discounts the government’s overblown spin about Ignatieff, who can put together a good speech and will outperform expectations on the campaign trail, we’ll be back at a 7 point gap: the same margin as in 2004 and 2006. All Ignatieff has to do to declare victory is to restore the Liberals to 100 seats or more, which a 30% showing virtually guarantees. Harper cannot win a majority, despite media speculation to the contrary; in fact, he will obtain fewer seats in the next election than in 2008.

I thought there would be trouble when you took your stand against any near-term implementation of the HST, given Ignatieff’s support for it. (What realistic choice does he have, when a previous federal Liberal government invented the idea and provincial Liberal governments in Ontario and B.C. have embraced it?) But I didn’t suspect that the end of your political career would come so quickly — and let’s be honest, this really is the end, barring some spectacular societal meltdown (God forbid!) and the emergence of, and your involvement in, some new party like Social Credit in Alberta during the 1930s.

Your spouse is probably relieved, and perhaps you are too. More than most of us, you’ve done your duty and served your country. There are many other things you can do as a private citizen. Best of luck in those endeavours!

From the Libertas Post blog:

An unwilling defence of Warren Kinsella

I truly dislike Warren Kinsella, Michael Ignatieff’s head war-room strategist. Perhaps it has something to do with his willingness to bully people and try to strong-arm them with the authority of his position within the Liberal Party. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he seems to have a fetish for alienating people and launching frivolous lawsuits.

But no matter how much I may dislike Warren Kinsella, blogger Skippy Stalin dislikes him even more:

“For my foreign readers, I should point out that Warren Kinsella is a self-promoting huckster with an animus for the truth and a talent for creating enemies in places that he doesn’t have to, especially online.

Warren never seemed to learn the only serious lesson of political professionals, that they’re better off being neither seen nor heard. If you’re a hack who’s looking for a book deal and face-time on TV, you do what Warren, Karl Rove and James Carville do.

To be fair, Rove and Carville have done something Kinsella hasn’t, which is win a serious election, although, they weren’t the elections you would think. Carville got Bob Casey, Sr. elected governor of Pennsylvania when most people thought doing so actually defied the laws of physics. Rove brought Bush the Younger up from a 24 point deficit to beat the popular Texas governor Ann Richards in 1994. Most presidential elections are won or lost a year before election day. If the incumbent party is above or below 50% approval the preceding November, you pretty much know which way the general election will go.

Warren just sat around like a moron and watched Kim Campbell, Stockwell Day and John Tory lose. That’s pretty much what I did in all three of those elections, but Kinsella found people dumb enough to pay him to do it. That actually looks like great work, if you can get it. Besides, it gives him time to update his dopey blog and Google his own name relentlessly.”

However, in reply to a recent poll on Bourque, which voted Warren Kinsella as the greatest liability to Michael Ignatieff’s campaign, Skippy finds himself mounting a grudging defence ( all swear-words bleeped due to my own hand):

“The fact is that you can’t blame Warren Kinsella for the disaster that is the is the Liberal Party. S**t, he won’t won’t confirm or deny that he even voted for the Liberals in the last three elections. And he’s only just above the office janitor in the office hierarchy, so he doesn’t matter.

Rocco Rossi made the party a s**tload of money that no one expected him to, so he can’t be blamed for anything. He might be the only pro in that shop. And you could put everybody else in the poll who isn’t Ian Davey on milk cartons and their own families probably wouldn’t recognize them.

Of course Kinsella is going to lead that poll. He’s the only one anyone voting has ever even heard of before. Warren’s the Dallas Cowboys cheerleader with the biggest t*ts who refuses to wear a bra. Most people who aren’t students of football are going to notice that before they ask themselves whether or not the quarterback sucks.

The only name that wasn’t in the Borque poll was the one that maters the most: Michael Ignatieff. The “Inside Baseball” amateurs at Borque are missing a very important point: Even if Iggy is being failed by his motley crew, he hired them in the first place and refuses to fire any of them.

Ignatieff is the actual candidate, the leader and the guy who’s supposed to be making the decisions. The fact that Warren’s allowed to even keep a blog, let alone maintain it from the Office of Leader of the Opposition* tells me that he has no control over his own volunteers, let alone the party.”

Again, you can read it here.

Skippy’s right of course. Warren is just the most publicly-known name on the poll, who turned into the scape-goat this time around. The fact that he’s angered so many people over his years in the game probably didn’t help matters either.

Thing is, Michael Ignatieff is to blame for his own problems. He surrounded himself with the wrong people at the wrong times, and took the wrong advice. He stepped into his position without having to fight for it, and he let his own people push him around. He flip-flopped on issue after issue, from EI reform to a harmonised sales tax to calling an election. And whatever strategy he may have had, it has only served to make the CPC stronger.

Michael Ignatieff blew it. This was his summer to score a helluva lot of points, and he didn’t. And not only did he not make headway, he actually lost it.

And you can’t blame Warren Kinsella for that, no matter how scummy the guy might be.

The Liberal Party: Making family holidays even more awkward since 2008

Rocco Rossi’s got your back.

That is if you are one of the few Liberal supporters left who would dare to admit as much among family, let alone try to defend Michael Ignatieff’s spectacular flame-out of the past few weeks.

You see, Rocco knows better than most the new damage Ignatieff’s implosion on CBC Radio’s The House this morning was going to inflict on the flagging morale of paid up Liberals. Which explains this blog post in which Rocco writes:

”dinner table discussions are a great opportunity for you to cut through the spin and get to the meat of the matter (so to speak) with family and friends. In other words, don’t let recent headlines put a damper on dinner. Here are three things everyone at the table should know before dessert.”

Like handing a Shamwow to a tsunami survivor, Rocco’s thoughtfully prepared talking points are intended to defend hapless Liberals against even more eye-rolling, finger pointing and high-velocity bun throwing than most holidays, with such winning lines as “polls don’t matter” and “read Michael’s speeches”.

But the saddest part of all isn’t that anyone daft enough to heed Rocco’s advice will be eating their pumpkin pie on the stoop. No, no. It’s that Rocco’s predecessor sent out the exact same advice to party members last Thanksgiving as Liberal leader Stephane Dion was cruising towards the worst election result in Liberal Party history.

Witness …

Date: 11 October 2008
Subject: Talking Turkey

Dear XXXX,

If you watch TV news programs, you will often see spokespeople advocating on behalf of their political party. Sometimes they will be engaged in one-on-one interviews, other times they are part of a panel discussion, with each party represented.

These spokespeople make use of what we call “talking points” – concise statements on the issues of the day, which they hope will effectively make their case in the debate.

This weekend, millions of Canadians will gather with their families and friends around Thanksgiving dinner tables. If you are one of them, and if your family is anything like mine, the conversation will turn to politics. And like mine, your family probably doesn’t always agree on everything.

So I thought you might like to have your own set of talking points, to help you be a Liberal spokesperson – at your dinner table, at least, if not on a 24-hour news channel. Who knows, though? If you do a good enough job around the dinner table this weekend, you might be ready to sit in on a network news anchor’s roundtable during next Tuesday’s election night coverage.

Have a great weekend. Happy Thanksgiving.

Greg Fergus

National Director, Liberal Party of Canada

Er, Happy Thanksgiving, Liberals.

Down in the polls Ignatieff tries lying his way out.

Having again abandoned his principles Ignatieff attempts to lie his way out of his own words and threats.

Michael Ignatieff: source CBC Story :“What I’ve said consistently for a month is in those cases where the government brings forth legislation we can support or approve or amend, we’ll do so. My strategy is not to make parliamentary government impossible.”

What a joke. Now Ignatieff wants us to believe that he never said “Mr Harper, your time is up. The Liberal Party cannot support this government any further. We will hold it to account. We will oppose it in Parliament.” in early September with the same threats and talk of “principle” repeated to the press multiple times over the last month. (previous post with examples)

This has now reached the point of pure lunacy and it is becoming almost a daily occurrence to see 180 degree turns on statements and policy. I am at a loss for words as to how stupid this all is.

Speaking of which. How are the Liberals now going to reconcile what Ignatieff has just said with the fact that they voted against the renovation tax credit 3 weeks ago.

Does this mean that they really are opposed to the renovation tax credit?

It must be because after all Ignatieff has said ‘consistently for a month’ that they would support legislation they agreed with.

Or is that another lie? I am having a hard time keeping up.

To quote another blogger on Ignatieff: He is done – and if he isn’t, he should be.

Update: You can listen for yourself to Ignatieff’s historical revisionism at Dr. Roy’s.

Is It Really Just a Lack of Trust?

I’m no happier with the malaise that has beset the Liberal Party than anyone else. I genuinely hate what’s happening now and what’s been going on for the last several years.

So what happened? It’s not just one leader, we’ve had two who have utterly failed to connect with the Canadian voting public. Worse yet, we’ve allowed a guy with the charisma of wet cardboard to get between the Liberals and those voters. What is going on?

I’m kind of wondering if there hasn’t been a mutual loss of trust between the LPC and ordinary Canadians? The party doesn’t trust them, they don’t trust the party. Then again, why should they?

Just what does the Liberal Party really stand for? Don’t ask me, I don’t have a clue anymore. All I see is a party obsessed with reclaiming power. A party that seems almost indifferent to the public, their welfare and their concerns. A party that has allowed itself to drift out of touch with the very voters who elected this party to government so many times.

It burns my backside when I read and hear Liberals dismiss the public as too dumb to get it, to appreciate the Liberals and their oh so sophisticated leader. That’s the mentality that is killing this party. They’re not too dumb. You’re too goddamned lazy and too goddamned arrogant and too goddamned indifferent to reach them. They were just fine when they were electing Liberal governments but now they’re shits? People who talk like that or write that drivel or even think like that should be slung straight out of this party and that goes from the bottom to the very top. When I read that crap I wonder why anybody would vote for this party.

Look, Stephen Harper isn’t still in power because he’s good. He’s not, he’s bloody awful. Being unable to topple Harper these past 18-months is tantamount to being unable to punch your way out of a paper bag. But he’s come through unscathed, stronger than ever it seems. Our Leader and his brain trust have fumbled and bobbled and botched every opportunity. Harper has turned the tables on them. Time and again Mr. Ignatieff has puffed himself up and made fearsome pronouncements only to see Harper call his bluff. How many times do you think a guy can do that before everyone catches on? What is a politician when he’s flushed his own credibility down the drain?

One moment sticks with me from the Frost/Nixon interviews. Nixon was describing what real political leadership means. He portrayed it as the ability to persuade the public to support something generally unpopular, something they don’t like. It is the ability to gain their confidence to the point they’ll overcome their own reluctance and fears. That’s the public placing their trust in a leader. That trust is so hard to earn and so easily lost.

It was Michael Ignatieff’s job as freshly-minted leader to go out and earn the public’s trust. He didn’t do that. Instead he pursued grandiose blustering that did nothing but undermine his credibility. It certainly did nothing for the country nor did it do anything for the Liberal Party. Mr. Ignatieff is now hip deep in a hole he dug for himself. If it wasn’t for the residual strength of the Liberal brand he might be in up to his neck.

I’m not sure that Michael Ignatieff can ever recover his credibility but it’s best to treat that question as moot. Fixating on that isn’t going to get the Liberal Party anywhere. He’s the leader for now but it is time he started acting like a leader of this party. Everybody’s clamoring for clear Liberal policy, something Ignatieff has been ducking at his and the party’s expense ever since he took over. Enough of that nonsense.

To turn around this fiasco will take clear policy that engages the Canadian public and a leader of the sort described by Nixon. You have to have both. We can formulate all manner of really good policy but it’ll be for naught unless the voting public is willing to place their confidence in Mr. Ignatieff. That’s a huge challenge for the current leader but this Party deserves nothing less and it’s his obligation to deliver.

So Michael, pull your thumb out of your ass and start acting like you’re someone who deserves to be the leader of this party, someone the public can and should trust.

Good advice for a beleaguered Michael Ignatieff

Today’s editorial in The Toronto Star should be must reading for Ignatieff, his advisors, and all Liberal MPs:

“How did it come to this? Over the summer, Ignatieff deemed it impolitic to talk policy lest he make himself a target; he succeeded only in making himself invisible. By blatantly playing politics to trigger an election, the Liberals have only alienated voters. Bereft of policy, he has become an even bigger target for critics.
It’s not that Canadians think Ignatieff is without substance. But they see someone putting style ahead of substance, tactics ahead of policy.

It is time for Ignatieff to change the channel: to be himself, and let the Liberal party be itself.

Ignatieff’s biggest blunder was to put policy on the back burner. He delayed a thinkers’ conference that had originally been promised for this fall. Now, it has been postponed until next year, leaving policy-making on hold and depriving the party of fresh ideas. Remarkably, there are still no firm dates for this event.
Recently, Ignatieff has given a series of speeches, notably on foreign policy and the economy. While welcome, they amount to restatements of past policies and general goals, not a bold vision that will resonate with voters and show the Liberals are serious about governing.

With his support eroding, Ignatieff has nothing to lose – and everything to gain – by going back to basics and rebuilding the party’s platform. For there are major opportunities for the party to reinvent itself…

So far, the Liberals are offering peek-a-boo policy-making on the fly, not the adult conversation Canadians deserve. A thinkers’ conference is no panacea, but it is an opportunity for renewal – and a way of showing Canadians the Liberals are serious about policy-making, not merely politicking.”

And in today’s Globe & Mail Simpson offers some trenchant advice:

“Today’s Liberal Party has forgotten, or is afraid to promote, what it used to stand for: a strong central government, an activist state, an engaged and creative foreign policy and, more recently, balanced budgets and debt reduction.
Unless the party reconnects with what once made it compelling for so many, although repellent to others, it doesn’t much matter who the leader is.”

The Cat wholeheartedly supports both pieces of advice.