Winnipeg Free Press > Opinion > The View from the West > Ignatieff's shift right angers Grits

The View from the West

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Ignatieff's shift right angers Grits

By: Frances Russell

10/06/2009 1:00 AM | Comments: 10

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is shifting his party to the right. He's killed the centre-left coalition. He's defended the tar sands. Now, he's supporting the Conservatives' law and order legislation.

He's taking a big risk.

When Liberals "tack right" ideologically, or have a leader whose image is right-of-centre, like John Turner and Paul Martin, they lose elections.

A solid 30 to 35 per cent of Canadians always vote for the party of the right, now the Conservatives. The main political game is the 65 to 70 per cent of Canadians on the centre and left. When the Liberals pursue the conservative vote, not only do they fail to make inroads, they lose a big chunk of their base, and their potential base, to the three left-wing parties.

It was the Liberals' legendary "Rainmaker," Keith Davey, who formulated their famous "tack left" strategy, turning it into one winning campaign after another throughout the Pearson and Trudeau eras. Jean Chrétien's left-wing populism helped him cruise to three consecutive majorities. Turner and Martin couldn't tap into that. Their image was too "business Liberal." Poor English doomed leftish Stéphane Dion.

Ignatieff occasionally talks the progressive talk, but he has yet to walk it. He's also repeating Dion's biggest mistake, crying wolf. He keeps threatening to bring down the government and then backs away, to rising ridicule.

Rank and file Liberals are getting restive and angry. A published report Monday hinted at a grassroots Liberal revolt over the caucus decision to support the Conservatives' legislation imposing mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. Bill C-15 sets a mandatory six-month jail term for anyone growing just one marijuana plant for sale purposes. The Liberals are also expected to support abolishing the faint hope clause. It means individuals convicted of murder will serve their entire 25-year sentence and then be released, no strings attached, onto the general population.

Toronto lawyer James Morton, deputy chair of the Liberals' council of riding presidents, blogged that voting for C-15 is "a terrible idea." Former Niagara Falls riding president Jim Curran called it "one of the dumbest things I've seen the Liberal Party of Canada support in decades."

Added another anonymous Liberal: "I think the party will lose support over this."

Blogged another: "True courage is standing up against a failed policy that is detrimental to Canadians even though you know you will be painted as 'soft on crime.'"

Many Canadians will be surprised to learn that the Rainmaker's son, Ian Davey, is Ignatieff's principal secretary.

Paul Adams, director of strategic communications for Ottawa pollster Ekos Research, thinks he knows why even Ian Davey is prepared to abandon his father's political maxim.

The Liberals are convinced they lost the last election because they lost the "business Liberals" to the Conservatives, Adams says. And, in the new, post-Davey rulebook, losing a Liberal to a Conservative vote is akin to losing two votes: one because you've lost; the other, because you've given it to your chief opponent.

The Liberals believe they can't become truly competitive unless they first recapture business Liberals. "Then they feel they can present a strategic alternative to (the Conservatives) that will galvanize support on the so-called left," Adams continues. "But at the end (of the last election) the Liberals lost in every conceivable direction, Conservatives, Greens, NDP and the sidelines."

Ekos' April poll gave the Liberals a 6.5 per cent lead over the Conservatives -- 36.7 per cent to 30.2 per cent. But its June sample of 11,000 Canadians for the CBC showed the two parties tied: 33.5 per cent Liberal and 32.3 per cent Conservative.

Adams attributes the shift to upper income retired business Liberals. "They are more driven by the Toronto Stock Exchange than unemployment numbers." The TSX was booming during most of the polling period.

News of the $50-billion deficit hit just at the poll's close. Ekos' daily tracking since shows "those people suddenly stampeded back to the Liberals, so they are a very volatile group," Adams said. "If the Liberals think they're going to get to their 37 or 38 (per cent) with those folks, well, good luck to them."

The Rainmaker would agree. It's not just a tall order. It's practically impossible.

Frances Russell is a Winnipeg author and political columnist.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition June 10, 2009 A11

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article is currently rated an average of 2 out of 5 (2 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.

10 Commentscomment icon

Thanks,Ms Russell, I knew there was something I liked about Iggy.

Iggy's 'tack right' can only help the NDP. Maybe what we'll end up with is a Liberal / NDP arena with Harper and his cronies as the right-wing fringe group that it truly is.

PeggerinaVan, editorials and comments are all about opinions.

Why do nationalist socialists think their opinions are facts, and that opinions that differ from their are publicaly reprehensible?

Good news though, as with Tony Blair, Ignatieff is one of you.

His "empire lite", his extensive writing on the idea that other "democracies" should subjugate themselves to direction from the USA over direction from their own voters, and his extensive excuse making for torture put him to the right of the Democratic Party in the USA.

While the Democratic Party is to the left of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party is to the right of our Conservative Party.

So if Ignatieff comes to power, expect a Canadian version of Labour PM Tony Blair: Someone who will say what it takes to get elected, and who, once elected, passes an unprecedented number of criminal laws and laws restricting the freedoms of citizens; implementing widespread surveillance of all residents of the country, including monitoring of everyone's internet communications; and anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs, like putting someone on parole without a criminal trial).

My concern is that, as with Tony Blair, Ignatieff won't campaign on this, but once in he's in, Neo-Liberal that he is, he'll just implement them.

W.E. an editorial is about opinion. And reader comments are comments. (You want alleged facts, consult an encyclopedia, or the news section.)

What you say is not a hard fact either. In fact, what you say is pretty much an ad hominem attack (name calling).

Let us face it, the political bias is obvious.

"A solid 30 to 35 per cent of Canadians always vote for the party of the right, now the Conservatives. The main political game is the 65 to 70 per cent of Canadians on the centre and left."

Or as conservatives say:

"A solid 25 to 30 per cent of Canadians always vote for the party of left, now the NDP. The main political game is the 70 to 75 per cent of Canadians on the centre and right."

Or as moderates say:

"A solid 35 to 40 per cent of Canadians always vote for the party of the center, a solid 25 to 30 per cent of Canadians always vote for the party of the left, a solid 30 to 35 per cent of Canadians always vote for the party of that seems most centrist."

The main political game is to take the middle and as much of the right and left moderates as you can.

"If they had been united as they are today, Chretien would be just another minor footnote in Canadian political history; like Martin and Turner."

yes, and stockwell day would have replaced preston manning as prime minister right after the flying spaghetti monster ordained that all pigs will henceforth fly. i love wild speculation and assertions unsupported by fact. for that, a tip of the hat is due to our good friend "ottawa".

In response to 'ottawa' : You are expressing an opinion. An extremely narrow, biased opinion. Why do conservative / Reform toadies constantly feel that whatever they spew forth is a 'fact'?

THE GREATER EVIL

Canadian commentators keep pretending and being 'polite.'

What they avoid saying is that this possible PM is an avid advocate of torture and wars on Islamic countries including Iraq. He was a gung-ho Bush booster.

Ignatieff's Riding boosters actually locked the doors of their office early to prevent a last minute contender from entering his nomination papers.

Recall: Ignatieff is a foreigner to Canada [34 years] whose last gig was at the Pentagon friendly Carr Center for 'human rights.'

Ignatieff has a torture epiphany only after Bush became a pariah and Canadians objected to his 'Lesser Evil' advocasy of torture [of Muslims, of course.]

Both Harper and Ignatieff want an integration of Canada into the SPP by Treaties and by Regulations. Both want a NATO that is the US's "Foreign Legion" and Empire enforcer. The US likes the extremist Harper bu has groomed Ignatieff who often referred to himself as a good American.

Even faced off against a rabid Harper, Ignatieff is, in my opinion, a "Greater Evil."

Why won't even the courageous Ms Russel deal with these factual issues since Canadians should be more informed of their choices?

Why not a comparison of the backgrounds and the POV's of all the party leaders?

Your whole premise is flawed....'Jean Chrétien's left-wing populism helped him cruise to three consecutive majorities' is not even close to the truth. Chretien won because the right-of-centre vote was split betweem the PC's and the Reform/Alliance parties. If they had been united as they are today, Chretien would be just another minor footnote in Canadian political history; like Martin and Turner.
Please get your facts straight!

Your analysis is certainly worth considering.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to make conclusions without knowing what (e.g. internal polls and the like) Ignatieff and the Liberals are basing their strategy decisions on. It is also possible that that’s just ‘Iggy’. But then it is not a question of drifting to the right of center but from pragmatic to ideological – something that I personally feel contributed to the Dion’s downfall. Certainly they would not make that mistake again.

Lloyd MacIlquham

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Poll

Would you pay more to supersize your garbage bin?

View Results