Nobody Likes Michael Ignatieff » The Globe and Mail

Ignatieff: (n) a failure; esp. a failed politician

Nobody Likes Ignatieff — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:05:21 +0000

Hopefully by now everyone knows the disasterous by-election results. The Liberal party is without a doubt even less popular now than under Stephane Dion. It turns out that when Ignatieff visits a riding, he actually decreases the Liberal votes. Three out of four ridings, the Liberal vote was worse than under Dion in 2008. Ignatieff has let the Conservatives become the default federalist vote in Quebec. What a long fall from grace.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:43 AM

Altered landscape in Quebec

Daniel Leblanc

1. The surprise. Yesterday’s four by-elections gave us the Rivière-du-Loup shocker, while confirming the Liberal slumber.

By beating the Bloc Québécois in eastern Quebec, the Conservatives got the result they had hoped to achieve in the last general election. Had victory come a year ago in Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Stephen Harper might have gotten an overall majority, as the riding was exactly the type of place where he was planning on making gains in Quebec. Instead, the Conservatives got bogged down in a debate on culture cuts and stagnated in the province, allowing the Bloc to hold on.

While a by-election is just that, the upset suggests Quebec will be the scene of interesting races in the next general election, and that even the safest Bloc seat can be in play. For Gilles Duceppe, the result provides the biggest challenge since he briefly quit as Bloc Leader to run for the leadership of the Parti Québécois in 2007.

Yesterday’s Conservative victory is made even more significant because the party was deemed to be toast in Quebec last winter, after Mr. Harper’s near-death experience in Parliament and the short-lived plans for a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc. At the time, a number of long-time Tory supporters said that “something snapped” in Quebec and that the party was hopeless as long as Mr. Harper was at the helm. Things have changed.

The Conservatives benefited from running a former mayor in the riding, while the Bloc, which had held the riding for 16 years, once again relied on a former riding assistant. In times of crisis, the Conservative message on the economy obviously resonated, and the Bloc needs to rethink its strategy. Rivière-du-Loup brings back memories of the by-election in Roberval two years ago, when the Conservatives managed to takeover a Bloc stronghold by running former mayor Denis Lebel. He held on to the seat in the general election, and he is now a minister and regularly doles out cheques all over the province.

The three other by-elections all worked out according to plans, with the NDP winning in New Westminster—Coquitlam in British Columbian, the Conservatives taking Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley in Nova Scotia, and the Bloc holding on to Hochelaga.

Contrary to what the results suggest, the Liberals did run candidates in all four ridings. It’s just that they finished a distant third in all of them. While victories were not expected, it’s obviously not the type of defeat that a “government-in-waiting” and an Official Opposition can take lightly. At least the new chief of staff Peter Donolo knows exactly where things stand as he attempts to relaunch Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s political career.

2. The numbers. Overall, voters in the four ridings cast a total of 94,630 ballots, which went like this:

Bloc Québécois – 19,709

Conservative – 33,856

Green Party – 2,896

Liberal Party – 13,985

NDP – 23,180

Other – 1,004

The value of the mathematical exercise is debatable, but with 14.7-per cent of the vote, the Liberals collected almost 10,000 fewer votes than the NDP (24.5-per cent), and more than 20,000 fewer votes than the Conservative Party (35.8-per cent). It’s not all bad news for the Liberals: The Green Party also ran candidates in all four ridings, and got only 3 per cent of the votes.

3. The spin. I don’t know why, but the NDP and Conservative spinners were the first to respond to my request for their take on the by-elections. Maybe it has something to do with meeting or exceeding expectations. So here are their takes, with the Bloc and Liberal spins to come:

Brad Lavigne, NDP national director: “Jack Layton has increased his support in every region tonight. In B.C., the NDP has increased its hold over the Conservatives with its greatest level of support ever in the lower mainland. New Democrats are now the alternative to the Bloc in Montreal and to the Tories in rural Nova Scotia. The initial seeds of an electoral breakthrough for the NDP have been planted tonight. “

Fred DeLorey, Conservative spokesman: “Governments rarely win by-elections, so we are pleased we were able to win seats in Nova Scotia and Quebec. Placing this strong in the other ridings bodes well for our future. The Harper government has provided a steady hand on the economy, we are continuing to implement our Economic Action Plan and it’s clear that Canadians approve of the job we’re doing.

“I understand the Liberals are trying to spin their poor results – but the truth is these are by-elections during a global economic downturn, this is when the Official Opposition is supposed to do well. What kind of Official Opposition party hoping to win government does not do well in by-elections in the midst of a global economic downturn? The answer: one that’s in trouble.

“I think it’s very significant that they finished out of contention in all of these four by-elections after Michael Ignatieff personally visited and campaigned in all of them.

“Everyone was saying the Nova Scotia seat was a three-way race, the Liberals won this seat before, and they finished third tonight. Same story in British Columbia, they’ve won parts of this riding not long ago, out of contention tonight. In the Montreal riding of Hochelaga they were always coming in second with a decent percentage of the vote – yet tonight they finish behind the NDP at third.”

Ignatieff’s caucus doesn’t like him

Nobody Likes Ignatieff — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:29:29 +0000

When Jane Taber begins to ennumerate the ways in which Michael Ignatieff is failing the Liberal party, you know something is wrong. Taber seems to like nothing more than poking the Conservatives with sharp sticks, but Ignatieff these days Ignatieff is too juicy a target to pass up. Despite his pleas, members of his caucus still voted in favour of killing the long-gun registry, and other members of the party are out of control.

Friday, November 6, 2009 7:09 PM

Follow the leader? Not these Liberals

Jane Taber

Michael Ignatieff needs to get a grip – on his caucus, on his party and on his staff. Too many of his Liberals are going rogue.

Eight of his MPs voted with the Tories this week to kill the long-gun registry. The Chrétien Liberals created the registry, spilling political blood to frame it into law. Privately, in the closed-door caucus meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Ignatieff urged his MPs to stand together and vote against the government. His pleas fell on deaf ears. However, Mr. Ignatieff reminded reporters that he was allowing his MPs to vote freely, and that it was a private member’s bill, not government legislation.

This week, too, Liberal president Alf Apps sent a note to colleagues and party supporters comparing the H1N1 vaccine crisis to the Bush government’s handling of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. More than a few Liberals were upset with the Apps hyperbole.

Then, Mr. Ignatieff’s hand-picked national party director, Rocco Rossi, was on Twitter, joking about swine flu and party patronage, saying “pork before swine.” A veteran Tory strategist called the Rossi joke “offensive.” Mr. Ignatieff didn’t offer any comment on the Apps/Rossi controversies.

It doesn’t end there: Ignatieff senior staffer Mark Sakamoto appeared on national television as an “ordinary citizen” complaining about the supply of the H1N1 vaccine. His cover was blown; the incident was embarrassing.

Mr. Sakamoto denied he was a plant. As parents of a newborn, he and his wife are on the priority list for the vaccine, and were waiting in line at a clinic when the interviewer approached. However, some believe the Ignatieff adviser should have known better.

Clearly, this behaviour is unnerving the Grits, with one Liberal describing the unwinding of the Ignatieff Liberals as being of “biblical proportions.”

Perhaps a slight exaggeration. But it is still instructive as it is happening when no one is in charge.

Mr. Ignatieff’s new chief of staff is Peter Donolo. His ETA on the Hill is Nov. 17. Mr. Donolo’s predecessor, Ian Davey, a close friend and adviser to Mr. Ignatieff, is on a beach in Florida with his girlfriend, Jill Fairbrother, the very capable director of communications to Mr. Ignatieff.

The two are mulling over their future. It is not clear whether they will return, and if they do, in what capacity.

Amid all this uncertainty is an undercurrent of restiveness in the caucus about Mr. Davey’s treatment. His imminent departure was leaked to the media before he even had a chance to speak to Mr. Ignatieff, and while Ms. Fairbrother was still denying it. Some MPs wonder where is the loyalty of the leader, who has been silent about the situation.

This rogue behaviour, meanwhile, is providing great fodder for the government, which is accusing the Ignatieff Liberals of being so base as to exploit the flu pandemic.

“It is very sad and unfortunate that the Ignatieff Liberals are desperately attempting to politicize the H1N1 preparedness efforts of the federal and provincial governments,” the PMO said in its “Alert” response to the Sakamoto television appearance. And in Question Period this week, Tory cabinet ministers repeated that same “politicization” refrain.

Have the Liberals lost their way?

EKOS national pollster Frank Graves says not yet. But they need to walk a fine line. Handled properly, the flu issue gives the Liberals an opportunity to show their stuff by keeping the government’s feet to the fire. He cautions them not to “wheel out the heavy artillery” until they are sure the government has grossly mishandled the situation. So far that does not appear to be the case.

“To do that at this stage you may end up looking basically disingenuous,” he said.

Mr. Graves has some sympathy for the Grits. “They are having a bad time in the polls, and they see a lob ball coming in and they just take a wild swing at it. … You kind of feel a little sorry for them.”

He believes that with Mr. Donolo’s experience, Mr. Ignatieff can rein in the Liberal outliers:

“Certainly a guy like Peter will be able to sort through what’s a real opportunity and a real exposed flank versus what’s just a story of the day.”

We’ll see in a couple of weeks.

Ignatieff can’t make up his mind on HST

Nobody Likes Ignatieff — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:17:42 +0000

Never mind the fact that Ignatieff can’t be pinned down on whether or not he supports the Conservative government. In Sudbury he planned on categorically voting against the Conservatives at every turn. In Quebec he wants to vote strategically, except on confidence matters. Seems that while he’s attacking the government on the “Harper Sales Tax” he has also told Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario that he’ll support ONTARIO’s Harmonized Sales Tax legislation.

Let’s take a moment to get this straight. Ignatieff is condemning Harper for a sales tax harmonization which is being put into place by Liberal Dalton McGuinty of Ontario. Liberal Ignatieff has told Liberal Dalton that he would support the Liberal initiative, which means Liberal Ignatieff would be putting Liberal HST through the Liberal federal legislature in order to support his Liberal Ontario Premier’s Liberal plan. But Harper is bad…

Early HST legislation would put Ignatieff on the spot

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s first minority government was one of the longest in Canadian history (the average tenure is about 18 months). And Mr. Harper could have continued to govern for who knows how long had he respected his fixed-election-date law.

Why the longevity? Although Mr. Harper ended up with fewer seats in 2006 than Paul Martin had won in 2004, the Conservatives needed the support of only one opposition party to survive. As long as one of the opposition leaders was not eager for an election, the Prime Minister could maintain confidence in what the Brits refer to as a “hung Parliament.”

In the 2008 election, Mr. Harper won more seats and still needed the support of only one party to stay in office. Yet, had he not persuaded Governor-General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue the House, his government would probably have been defeated by Christmas.

Why the difference? For some reason, the opposition leaders got it into their heads that Her Excellency was obliged to hand power to them if they defeated the government. When it dawned on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff that Ms. Jean could accede to the Prime Minister’s request and call an election, that was the end of that.

For a while, at least.

A month ago, less than a year after the last election, the Liberals announced that they were withdrawing confidence in the Conservatives. And, for a few weeks, it appeared that Mr. Harper’s time was indeed up, as Mr. Ignatieff put it. Until, that is, NDP Leader Jack Layton took a look at the polls and found virtue in supporting the government.

And, with the release of three polls in the past fortnight showing that the Conservatives may be headed to a majority, it now appears that the government is secure until next year’s budget – though perhaps not much longer.

For the past week, the NDP has been positioning itself to thwart the implementation of a harmonized sales tax in B.C. and Ontario. While the Conservatives have met Mr. Layton’s new tax-cutting persona with some derision (likening him, for example, to Colonel Sanders protecting chickens), the Prime Minister should not underestimate the anger of British Columbians, in particular, at the prospect of paying tax on previously exempt items. Nor should they underestimate the potential spill-over of this anger into federal politics, which could easily tempt the NDP to withdraw confidence in the Conservatives.

In this context, Mr. Harper would be wise not to wait until the spring budget to bring in his legislation. The Conservatives are in a strong position today, the opposition parties are in a weak position – and all this could change in a few months.

Were the NDP to oppose the tax-harmonization legislation – either now or in the spring – the Conservatives could make a pitch for the support of the Bloc Québécois. Its MPs have been seeking $2.6-billion in compensation for Quebec’s agreement in 1991 to merge its sales tax with the federal goods and services tax.

But Bloc support would leave the Conservatives open to the charge in the next election campaign that they imposed a hugely unpopular tax on British Columbians and Ontarians with the assistance of a party dedicated to promoting the interests of Quebec.

Which leaves the Conservatives one good alternative to pass legislation that B.C. and Ontario will need to prepare their next budgets.

At their recent party meeting in Quebec, Liberal MPs were openly disagreeing whether they would systematically be voting against the Conservatives or whether they would vote case by case. A day later, according to Le Devoir, Mr. Ignatieff settled the dispute by indicating that his caucus would vote case by case, except for confidence matters, on which they would systematically vote to defeat the government. And legislation to implement the harmonized sales tax would be a confidence matter.

Recently, after a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between their offices, we learned that Mr. Ignatieff has promised Premier Dalton McGuinty that federal Liberals will respect Ontario’s HST agreement with Ottawa. If the Conservatives bring in their tax-harmonization legislation in the coming weeks, the Liberal Leader will have a difficult decision to make. The fear of a majority Conservative government, were he to defeat Mr. Harper, should concentrate his mind wonderfully.

Marlene Jennings? She doesn’t like Ignatieff…

Nobody Likes Ignatieff — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:09:39 +0000

Looks like another of Ignatieff’s MPs is opposing his ludicrous ideas. While Michael Ignatieff seems to think that two bills aiming to achieve entirely opposite goals can coexist in harmony, MP Marlene Jennings is speaking out against his stupidity.

Thursday, October 8, 2009 09:18 AM

Great time to kick your base

Robert Silver

From Don McPherson today, a column focused on a new private members bill from Thomas Mulcair that would “amend the Canada Labour Code to apply business ‘francization’ rules in the provincial Bill 101 to companies operating in Quebec under federal jurisdiction.” Mulcair makes a tortured argument on why his bill is different from two extremely similar Bloc efforts but is ultimately uncompelling in that regard.

McPherson then drops a bit of a bomb – at least to me – from Michael Ignatieff’s speech on Sunday to Quebec Liberals:

“That choice [whether to support Mulcair's private members bill applying 101 to federally regulated business in Quebec] might be especially difficult for the party of Pierre Trudeau and the Official Languages Act.

At the Liberals’ Quebec convention on the weekend, party leader Michael Ignatieff called for the promotion of French and said that ‘Bill 101 and the Official Languages Act are not in opposition, they are complementary.’

And the Liberal critic on official languages, Pablo Rodriguez, said the party might support Mulcair’s bill.

But yesterday, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings told me she would speak against Mulcair’s bill in the party caucus before a vote in the Commons on the principle of the bill.”

If any commenter can explain to me how Bill 101 and the Official Languages Act – two pieces of legislation attempting to achieve exactly opposite goals – are “not in opposition, they are complementary”, wins a signed Silver-Powers sweatshirt. Bonus points if you can explain to me why the Liberals are now taking official positions on private members bills.