Click here to visit the mobile version of winnipegfreepress.com

Winnipeg Free Press > Latest News > We can't count Ignatieff out yet

Latest News

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

We can't count Ignatieff out yet

Liberal leader sits low in polls, but so did Harper

By: Hill Talk / Mia Rabson

21/12/2009 1:00 AM | Comments: 26

OTTAWA -- Michael Ignatieff was named by Forbes last week as someone to watch for in 2010.

The magazine said that if an election is held next year, the Liberal leader could become the Canadian prime minister "with the biggest international profile since Pierre Trudeau."

The honour was met by a lot of eye rolls around Parliament Hill.

The Liberals have been in a free-fall for much of the fall, and overall support is only marginally better than it was during the 2008 election. You know, that election in which their support was the worst it has been since 1867.

One recent Angus Reid poll had only one in six Canadians approving of Ignatieff. While that was up slightly from the previous month, it's still only about half the number who approve of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Last December, Ignatieff was touted as the saviour who would lead the Liberals back to victory. This December he spent fighting off rumours of a coup against his leadership and suggestions he will pull the plug himself and run back to Harvard with his tail between his legs.

For the moment, he seems resolved to stick it out. A good thing, as history has shown being down does not mean being out.

Even Stephen Harper could tell him that, if the two ever exchanged more than barbs.

In January 2003, 10 months after Harper was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance, the party's poll numbers had plunged.

An EKOS poll showed 10.5 per cent of Canadians supported the Alliance, compared to 52.1 per cent for the Liberals. It was down from the 25.5 per cent the Alliance received in the 2000 federal election. Even combined with the Progressive Conservatives' 13.8 per cent -- this was before the two parties merged -- the right-wing options in Canada were outstripped more than two to one by the Liberals in popular support. Comparatively, Ignatieff is doing pretty well.

And within 18 months, Harper had merged the two parties, won election as the new leader and turned more than a decade of Liberal majority rule into a minority.

Ignatieff certainly has a steep hill to climb, but as Harper showed, nothing is impossible.

"ö "ö "ö

In October, Manitoba Justice Minister Dave Chomiak was lambasted by a Liberal senator for his appearance at a Senate committee.

Joan Fraser asked for Chomiak and Alberta Justice Minister Alison Redford to be admonished, even held in contempt of Parliament, for saying they had to leave before the hearing was finished to catch a plane.

It was true, but they went to a pre-planned press conference before they left for the airport, something they didn't mention to the committee and that, Fraser, alleged, was misleading and disrespected Parliament.

At the press conference, federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson accused the Senate of delaying passage of a bill eliminating the use of two-for-one credit for convicted criminals for time served in jail before their trial. Chomiak and Redford were at the committee hearing pleading with senators to pass the bill unamended.

Contempt of Parliament is a rare but serious allegation, used when someone prevents Parliament from doing its work. It could carry a jail term, though most often those held in contempt are simply asked to apologize.

I felt Fraser's charge was an example of just how tense the situation is in the Senate these days. The Conservative government has repeatedly accused unelected Liberal senators of thwarting the will of the people by not simply passing legislation from the elected House, no questions asked.

Liberal senators are weary of being on the one hand accused of not working hard enough, and on the other of being told not to do their work and simply push through government bills without review. Having two provincial justice ministers getting into the act was more than Fraser and other senators were willing to tolerate.

Nevertheless, Chomiak was spared any time in Senate jail. Speaker Noel Kinsella ruled Fraser's point of privilege had no merit. He said the two ministers were there voluntarily, had been told they would testify for an hour, and had scheduled their day accordingly, Kinsella said.

"Once this premise is accepted, the subsequent events do not appear unreasonable," he said in his ruling.

"ö "ö "ö

Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn't usually known as someone with a sense of humour. But last week he gave a glimpse of his softer side, hosting a Christmas party for the media at 24 Sussex Drive. The fire was roaring, the eggnog was flowing, and Harper stood and made small talk with the members of the national press gallery, whom he normally prefers to ridicule and debase.

Harper talked about his recent trips to India and China, including a stop at the Great Wall. He said it was hard to conceive a project that took so long to complete that those who started building it were long dead by the time it was finished.

I suggested that wouldn't be a project to qualify for economic stimulus and he said no, it wasn't exactly shovel-ready. Then he mentioned that his staff had advised him not to use that term in question period one day to describe what came out of a certain NDP leader's mouth.

It may not have been a prime ministerial thing to say, but it would have generated a lot of laughs. If Harper showed this softer, Beatles-singing, jokester side more often, it would go a long way to melting the ice that seems to be as common as suits and ties on his person.

mia.rabson@freepress.mb.ca

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition December 21, 2009 A8

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article is currently rated an average of 5 out of 5 (1 votes).

    • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

26 Commentscomment icon

Wow, even more logical fallacies from Scooter.

At no point did I say that Harper called the election to avoid that one piece of legislation. I said that his actions stopped it from going through, and if he wanted it to go through, all he would have to do was to reintroduce it. But thanks for misrepresenting my argument. I would call it a straw man fallacy, but to qualify, you actually have to counter argue the point.

I do have one suggestion if you want to actually argue a point, try citing evidence. You seem to have a hard time doing that. Notice how on my post, I offered actual examples and citation to back up my claims?

As I did in my previous post, I have to ask you to provide some semblance of evidence to support your claims. You seem only to be able to make vague conclusions without any premises to back them up.

You said, "I'll just let what I know from past events, stand." Bad grammar by the way. What do you know from past events? Can you name these past events? Please just provide some semblance that there is some thought process behind the accusations.

When did Ignatieff say that he supported criminals over law-abiding citizens? Can you name even one time?

I will point out that, as I have stated before, I do not even like Ignatieff. Although I can understand your misconception. My posts are not intended to show preference for one party over another. They are merely intended to try to bring intelligent conversation and logical debate to the topic.

avatar

@Mhirnatsu .....while you continue to waive your "I Heart Iggy" banner, I'll just let what I know from past events, stand.

-And yes, you MUST mean that Harper called the election so he could avoid dealing with that one issue huh (do you understand sarcasm)? Sheesh.

Yep, with the Liberal dominated Senate-even the Libs cried FOUL just a few months ago when the Senate thrashed them over this one. All had finally come on board huh? Too little, too late or maybe not at all??? Watered-down sacrifice does not mean you're cooperating or you're sympathetic to opinions, desires or views of others who really do matter. And prior to that Senate fiasco, sure, Iggy et al never implied anything as to their sympathetic views towards the little criminals over the rights of the common law-abiding man. Uh huh

I tend to use "burst your bubble" as opposed to "crashing back to reality" as the reality here is really that Ignatieff has flip-flopped on just about anything and he tends to come off far worse than Harper ever will. Guess that's the example of the lesser of two evils seeing as how many a citizen will often declare "all politicians are the same or crooked..."

The jaunt across Canada could now be regarded as his 2009-2010 Farewell Tour.

Harper may be dull but his eyes stay focused while Ignatieff's dart everywhere so he doesn't have to look directly into yours. It's what worries most Canadians today, WHAT they'd have for us IF they ever reach anything again but Official Opposition.

"Every single time they've tried, those from the other circuses always threw that 1 out the door and Canadians know where those parties stand on the catch-and-release huggy-kissy rehabilitate platform."

Hmmm... Every single time? Like right before the last election, where they were in the process of passing some very important legislation about the YCJA, which had sufficient support from the Liberals to make it all the way through, and just as it gets going, what happens? That's right, Harper calls an uncalled for election, killing the legislation.

Has he reintroduced the legislation, knowing full well that the legislation has the support of the Liberals? No, of course not. Then people like you might have to change your story.

Then of course, there's the results of voting for bills C-42 and C-52 from this most recent sitting of the house. Both were crime legislation. Now... who do you suppose stood up and voted FOR the legislation? That's right, both the Conservatives and the Liberals. (Okay fine, C-42 had the ENTIRE house's support, not just the two parties.)

Funny, the facts seem to dispute your stories... Sorry to bring you crashing back to reality.

Additonally, where do you get the impression that the Liberal party is on the verge of dumping him? Do you actually have any facts to back up any of your conclusions, or is this all just wishful thinking?

"We can't count Ignatieff out yet"

Sure we can. I did it months ago.

I love how people feel the need to perpetuate lies that have been proven to be lies.

Harry, I do agree that Iggy has contradicted himself in the past. Or rather, has adjusted his position when it was shown to be wrong. That's one of the things I don't like about him too. He speaks to quickly, setting himself up for having to correct his position.

However, he was properly selected by the party. They did have a leadership race, and he did win the leadership race. In the voting stage of the leadership race, he did run unopposed, but it is not odd that that would happen.

His first opponent dropped out because he was outmatched and would have suffered defeat in a vote.

His second opponent dropped out because he felt that a vote would be divisive for the party. He put the party's well being ahead of his own. Maybe Rae could have won, maybe he couldn't. But it is better to work for the betterment of the whole than to pursue your own selfish ideals.

avatar

@kingofsumthing, it's okay, some people really like the Liberals but you have to wonder if they've followed this party for more than a few months what with all the garbage that has gone on during the last/past decade

Yes every party has their skeletons in the closet. The Liberals' are still dangling & shaking & they're scary! Often enough we heard them warn "Harper's got an agenda, Harper's got an agenda!!" Scary stuff He IS and IF this is part of his "agenda", well shame on him huh?

Smilin' Jack & THE Dion before Iggy, Old whats-his-name in Q-Bec, everyone wants the "MINORITY" govt. to pass out the bucks and some are dumb enough to later cry, "holy cr*p, now we gots those big debts on the backs of the next 10 generations, oh dear." @Mhirnatsu, do YOU see sarcasm here? Where's my prize?

In fact though, this is reality, Harper can't win when some think Iggy won't send us down that burning path with a gallon of gas to douse the flames, meanwhile hitting us with so many tax increases along the way so they can brag that they're doing Canadians a favor?

I have no beef with Ignatieff for his roots or choice of country past or present, he's probably a decent educator too, heck, might even know how to skate or play the piano but people mock Harper about sweaters? Iggy is so stiff you'd think he gets spray starched when he gets up, IF we're throwing those stones here now.... He scares me but when I look at Harper I can see his computer just spinning those numbers the Libs torched

avatar

@Mhirnatsu

-sorry, no humour in this rebuttal but it's so simple even you will understand this right now. Did you just show a little interest in politics and may have missed the fact Harper's "MINORITY" has been trying in many ways to get the job done? Every single time they've tried, those from the other circuses always threw that 1 out the door and Canadians know where those parties stand on the catch-and-release huggy-kissy rehabilitate platform. Timing will NOT matter, voters' memories or the reminders from Mr. Harper will! Of course during one of those debates we'll definitely be watching.

Liberals are irrelevant here so it's either NDP again or by the most faintest of chances IF the Cons get some better options here, they'd do better than the Libs. Where you been if you don't know that each province still rates in so many ways? Harper has shown interest in MB, Iggy will visit, nod his head a few times and off he'll go. BYE.

Sorry to bring you crashing back to reality Mhirnatsu but Iggy "always listens" just doesn't do anything with that. He's on the verge of that party dumping him anyway but to do so would put a missile in that coffin as opposed to another Dion nail in his.

-Yep, the "Scholar" doesn't have a hidden agenda either... Maybe Mr. Harper is just too polite or concerned with the state these clowns left Canada in and when people bash him over his sweaters or piano playing or playing hockey-whatever, he's more focused on doing his job to help CA-NA-DI-ANS!

I find that with Michael Ignatieff, there is such a huge credibility gap, because on almost every topic that he has spoken over the last six months, he has ended up contradicting himself, and so as soon as he speaks, there is an immediate impression to sense that "I don't believe a word this guys says anymore," because that impression of phoniness has been so deeply entrenched.

That is a huge barrier to penetrate and to break through in the public psyche and consciousness and awareness. He might be a wonderful academic, but in the world of politics, you have to connect on a peronal and believable level. A theoretical or philosophical position only connects with a tiny per centage of people, but not those who live in the practical world of real life for the common person.

In hindsight, it was a huge mistake to make Iggy leader without an election, and now this undermines his legitimacy even more.

He was put in hastily with the thinking that there would be an election in a few months, so they could not afford to wait for a proper election for the Liberal leadership, but all this has done is to give the PM an easy target, and has dug the Liberals into a deep hole, enabling the Prime Minister to govern as if he has a de facto majority.


After reading Scooter's two posts, I think we should collectively give him a nice present. After all, he has given us all the wonderful gift of humour. I think to reward his thoughtless gift, we should give a fringe party a majority.(lol)

After all the times that the conservative supporters have criticized the opposition leader for not listening to the will of the people, he goes on this rant criticizing the opposition leader for endeavouring to listen to the will of the people.

This goes far to support the theory that no matter what a politician says, followers of the opposing parties will not appreciate it. Even if the news were something along the lines of "Jack Layton negotiates world peace."

I do love his nonsense about how the Liberals fare in provincial elections translating to federal elections. Based on that illogic, the CPC might as well abandon Manitoba based on how long the NDP have held power provincially.

I would like to offer the following advice.

"Harper's gaining momentum, the crime issue at the last minute will put him over the top next time."

Remember, timing is everything. Delaying the crime issue until the last moment could cost Harper some valuable ground. Especially if he seeks that elusive majority. Groundbreaking legislation is only groundbreaking if yours gets out first.

"As for your comment about living in different provinces, get alife. All of the provinces are in one country You can't compare the two."

Ok, fine. My friend currently resides in Japan, he has lived there for the last 4 years, except for the occasional visit to family and friends. Up until this past summer, it looked like he would be staying in Japan. Japan was his country. Next spring, he will graduate, and he will come back in Canada, and Canada will once again be his country. It is analogous.

Although I do like how when you have no reasonable argument, you fall back on the "get a life" defense. Way to attack the person, and not the argument. (re: Ad Homminem)

"As far as selling us out to the Americans, that is my opinion"

Yes, and a much more educated opinion would be that Harper will sell us out to the US. (Neither of those opinions are ones I subscribe to.) He has shown much more inclination to favor the American ideology than Iggnatief has.

"Must be a Liberal supporter."

Why thank you. It makes me happy that you hold me in such high esteem. Alas, no, I am not a supporter of either party, they have both earned my contempt.

View all Comments

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Our Communities

Poll

Do you prefer tap or bottled water?

View Results

View Related Story