Opinionated Fool

Everyone and their dog knows it’s not going to be easy digging Canada out of this recession–you know, the one every country with any kind of interest in the global economy has had to deal with. Why Michael Ignatieff believes he needs to have a sit down conversation with Canadian voters about just what painful cuts will have to be made in order to pull it off is beyond me. But, he’s decided he does. Guess he figures Canada’s grown up enough now that a conversation of that magnitude would be more than appropriate. In listening to his explanation, I get the impression he’s still trying to play the role of the parent trying to explain that we can’t aford that trip to Disney World.

The National Post points out two reasons why Ignatieff might have a tiny little problem with having this ultra serious adult conversation. Firstly, he’s never really been able to actually deliver on any kind of serious conversation re: economic policy, or… well… anything else to this point. Most of his adult conversations have been focused on what the government’s not doing, or not doing right–leaving us to wonder, and rightly so, exactly who it is we’re dealing with here. Secondly, and probably more importantly, Canadians have absolutely no trust left for a liberal government. Particularly given the episodes of the last liberal government are still fresh in the minds of many voters. That may be the biggest mountain for Ignatieff to try climbing. And, he’ll have to do it while trying to keep his own party from promptly imploding behind him.

There is also the matter of exactly how it is he would get Canada’s budget back on an even tilt, and which programs he’d cut to do so–something we still don’t have a clue about when it comes to sir Ignatieff. But, given the liberals of old, Canadians probably already have their expectations. When you talk about the possibility of a liberal government, most people’s instinctive reaction will be to brace themselves for slashes to either health care or education spending in times when budgets need to be balanced. Add to that an almost certainty of some variation of tax increase–although, look for Ignatieff to argue Stephen Harper’s already done that with employment insurance premiums, and you have a not good environment for Ignatieff to sit down and talk money. Now, that having been said, it’d be nice to actually see a platform from the liberal leader. I like reading things that aren’t criticisms of Canada’s current government. And then mocking them where applicable.

At an event last weekend, prime minister Stephen Harper took part in a rendition of a beatles song with a little help from Yo-Yo Ma at Ottawa’s national arts center. While most people thought the performance was at least halfway decent, that didn’t stop some folks from criticising everything from his very presence at the event to the fact he didn’t sing the song in french. Okay, I get that Canada has two official languages. And, I get that one of them is french. But–and, correct me if I’m wrong–it’s an english song. One which–and, also, correct me if I’m wrong–doesn’t exactly translate all that well in french. But apparently, because Canada’s a bilingual country, he should have tried. Well, for the life of me, I can’t find anything that says someone else gave it a go. I suppose the arts critic with the inequality complex would have preferred he make it up as he goes along? Folks, let’s just take it for what it is and be done with it–it’s a PR stunt designed to show support for his wife. Little more than that. Don’t give it any more credit than it deserves–he’s already got a majority government in sight.

Anyone who’s been following the Suaad Hagi Mohamud story over the summer has probably heard some pretty out there claims from both sides as to just how much wrong doing was involved in her problem. The national post points out, though, a few things that go a little bit beyond whatever it was she did or didn’t answer. Most noteably, she was 7 CM–roughly 3 inches–shorter in person than was listed on her passport information. On top of that, according to both Canadian and Kenyan authorities, the Suaad that showed up at the airport to leave Kenya on return to Canada did not, in fact, look like the Suaad that was shown in her passport photo. Which, naturally, raised a few eyebrows. So out come the questions that any resident of Toronto would be expected to know–hell, I don’t live in Toronto and I could have answered in her place. Nevermind the personal information that anyone with nothing to hide would have had absolutely no problem answering, and answering correctly–where she worked, when she got married, when her son was born. Add to that the height difference, and Houston, we have a problem.

Now, the real Suaad is back in Canada after DNA testing confirmed she was who she said she was, and she’s promptly suing the government of Canada. For what? There were concerns that she wasn’t who she said she was. Concerns that, on the face of what they were looking at at the time, were justified. Suaad, or whoever was saying she was Suaad, spent 8 days in a Kenyan jail while they tried to figure it out. She, who is believed to actually be Suaad’s younger sister, was then released from jail. About 3 months later, the real Suaad consented to have her DNA tested. She was then issued emergency travel documentation and allowed to return to Canada.

Unsurprisingly, 3 liberal MP’s, including foreign afairs critic Bob Rae, are demanding the government simply roll over and pay out the 2 million dollars she’s saying they owe her. There reasoning? it’s common sense, and Stephen Harper should have stepped in.

So, what Bob Ray and company are saying, is if someone appears to have shrunk by 3 inches and if, in the opinion of Canadian customs authorities the person holding the passport is not, in fact, the person who owns the passport, they should just wave them on through? Or does this just get thrown in with the liberal law that by default, the conservatives are just wrong? Since officials aphiliated with both countries were more than a little suspicious of her, and since even before the questions there was enough doubt as to who exactly she was–otherwise the Kenyan authorities would have never bothered alerting Canadian customs, I have a hard time seeing how any one particular government or government employee can catch hell for this. It’s not like there was a government conspiracy to keep ms. Mohamud in Kenya indefinitely. But then, what would her magesty’s loyal opposition have to oppose?

If the poll numbers don’t end up a contributing factor to the good ship Liberal breaking up and sinking, its captain just might. In the span of a day, he’s created more divisions within his own party than prime minister Stephen Harper has been accused of creating in all of Canada during his 4 years in office. Well, really, it would be more accurate to say in the span of a week–it really started with his flap over Denis Coderre. It just ended up cranking into high gear on Wednesday.

A one-two punch that probably should have been aimed at the conservatives landed squarely on the noses of several members of Ignatieff’s own party, with first a private members’ bill that would shorten the residency period required for seniors to claim partial payments from old age security from 10 years to 3 being publicly opposed by seniors critic Judy Sgro on behalf of Ignatieff, and then while getting his feet under him after that, having his majority of the senate kick them away again by weakening criminal legislation that had passed, with the support of Michael Ignatieff as is, through the house of commons. In the face of all this, it’s difficult to see how Ignatieff can still profess to be uniting his party.

Add to that, there’s a growing murmer among party loyalists that suggest perhaps Ignatieff should reconsider his newly adopted “oppose the government no matter what” position. If it’s a dog eat dog world in Ottawa, the various liberal factions are getting a head start. And they wonder why it is they’re down below 30% in the polls. Well, while bob Rae and his supporters ready another volley for the Ignatieff camp, and while Ignatieff’s supporters keep looking for the answer to that question–hey, guys, try googling “liberal comedy act”–Ignatieff will continue the never ending search for that elusive party unity. I just hope for his sake the good ship liberal can actually stay afloat long enough. I do see a crack or 3 in her, though.

I probably shouldn’t slag so much on Canada’s liberal party–I mean, they did manage somehow to stay in power for 13 years during pretty much all of the 90’s and the first half of this decade. But when messaging from that side of the fence gets that blatantly… well, self-destructive, or maybe just suicidal, it’s really hard to see how anything else can be said. Down by 13 points in the polls, and still holding onto a fantasy, Ignatieff and the liberals still have themselves convinced they’re in the best position to govern. Neverminding that we still have absolutely no idea on policies from that wing of Canada’s parliament, still have no idea what really sets Ignatieff apart from Stephen Harper–well, other than the fact they sit on opposite sides of the house and one of them is always screaming for an election, and oh yeah, there’s whisperings of possible defections in the ranks. It’s entirely possible I’m just on something really good I don’t remember taking, but it looks entirely like Canada’s government is going in the exact opposite direction that Ignatieff and the liberals think it is–or should be. On second thought, maybe I’m not the one who’s been into the happy drugs.

And, as I’ve said before, it’s not a Denis Coderre problem. It’s not even a Quebec problem, as rightly pointed out by the Globe and Mail. It’s a Michael Ignatieff problem. The man quite simply doesn’t have it. He comes off, to me at least, as very awkward, even bordering on uncomfortable. Which, considering we’re now 10 months into his rule as party leader, is… well… not good.

On top of the fact we still have absolutely no idea what this man’s about, this oppose everything mentality that he’s apparently got going for him may or may not actually be in question. It should be questioned, considering the only thing it’s gotten the liberals to this point is 13 points behind the conservatives. The National Post suggests that, even if Ignatieff himself isn’t contemplating no longer taking over the NDP’s role as the party of not conservative, certain persons inside his party might be.

The Globe puts out yet another valid point on the side of why that is, suggesting–and rightly so–that the reason for such a wide gap between the two parties is retaliation for his failed attempts to bring down Stephen Harper’s government. It wasn’t any secret that was his intent–one didn’t have to pay much attention to the headlines to see that. And the move’s popularity is reflected in where the liberals now sit in relation to everyone else. Not that the liberals need any more proof that Canadian voters quite simply do not want to have to vote for a second time in a year, but just in case they did, this should satisfy that need. If Ignatieff hated having to threaten another election, as he said he did, he has to be hating it now with the party he’s opposing–or maybe not–on prinsiple on the verge of majority territory. Personally, the opinionated fool looks for the NDP and liberals to shore up support for the conservatives in coming months, leaving the Blocke Quebecois the only party to provide any opposition–and, with that, the only party with something to lose who’s at risk of actually losing it.

They must be, considering the UN has crowned Canada’s policies on immigration as a shining example for the rest of the world. A shining example of what happens when you have a very generous system in place, and several thousand people very willing to abuse, misuse or otherwise screw up that generous system.

3. (1) The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are

(a) to permit Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration;

(b) to enrich and strengthen the social and cultural fabric of Canadian society, while respecting the federal, bilingual and multicultural character of Canada;

(b.1) to support and assist the development of minority official languages communities in Canada;

(c) to support the development of a strong and prosperous Canadian economy, in which the benefits of immigration are shared across all regions of Canada;

(d) to see that families are reunited in Canada;

(e) to promote the successful integration of permanent residents into Canada, while recognizing that integration involves mutual obligations for new immigrants and Canadian society;

(f) to support, by means of consistent standards and prompt processing, the attainment of immigration goals established by the Government of Canada in consultation with the provinces;

(g) to facilitate the entry of visitors, students and temporary workers for purposes such as trade, commerce, tourism, international understanding and cultural, educational and scientific activities;

(h) to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society;

(i) to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks; and

(j) to work in cooperation with the provinces to secure better recognition of the foreign credentials of permanent residents and their more rapid integration into society.

Roughly translated: the Canadian government will just assume when folks come to the country to live they will also adapt to fit in with Canada’s culture, rather than expecting Canada’s culture to adapt to fit in with them and theirs. A noble idea, in theory. But in practice? Not so much. Canada’s refugee system, at the very least–if not the immigration system as a whole, is very badly broken, to the tune of several thousand bogus claims of refugee status being submitted and requiring the introduction of visas from the biggest offenders–Mexico and the Czech Republic, who are supposed to be allies and therefore ineligible for refugee claims.

People love trying to get into Canada. Particularly from places like Mexico etc. And, while Canada would be more than happy to have them, the opinionated fool fails to see why it is Canada should support them. The current unemployment rate is nearly 9%. Yet, there are programs in place to get people from other countries here, educate them if necessary, and find them work. Or, and this is a more frequent occurance, send the jobs off to other countries. Meanwhile, citicens of Canada and people who’ve been here for years on already existing permanent visas are having a hell of a time finding work–hence the current unemployment rate. Of course, those that don’t come here to work just end up collecting social services checks–welfare, etc–instead of actually contributing to the betterment of the country–which is, on paper at least, the original intent of Canada’s immigration regulations.

At least Canada’s still getting global recognission for something–much to the dismay of Michael Ignatieff, who probably still maintains the country’s image globally is shot. In this inistance, though? Personally, I wish Ignatieff was right.

If you did, and you went straight to Michael Ignatieff about it, you probably didn’t get a chance to. Instead, you got to talk to him about his plans for a high-speed train from Montreal to Windsor. Apparently, that’s his new tactic when dealing with questions he doesn’t want to answer–let’s deflect the topic to something entirely different, and probably even less interesting to Canadians as a whole than an internal spat. Good call in taking attention away from Coderre, Michael. Now, can we put that attention on something relevant? Like, say, what you’d do differently than Canada’s current government with regards the recession Canada’s already coming out of? That’d be great.

Not even a week after saying what we already know–that being Michael Ignatieff has way too much of a Toronto centric party on his hands, Denis Coderre comes out with the most telling line of all. In the span of a few days, he went from not having confidence in Ignatieff’s leadership to the liberals are a great party. Almost makes you wonder what he was told when the cameras weren’t turned on. Since he’s decided to behave and toe that squiggly little thing they’re now calling the party line again, he gets to keep his membership card. Hey, maybe if he kisses the right boots he’ll get his old critic roll back. Until the next time he and the king have at it, anyway.

And once again, it’s all Jack Layton’s fault. Ignatieff must really be thrilled with him now. Layton has already stated he would prop the conservatives up again to pass legislation that would include the home renovation tax, among other things. He’ll continue to decide to prop up the conservatives until his poll numbers stop royally sucking. Then, he’ll be brave enough to help Michael Ignatieff get exactly what he doesn’t want–an election with a 10 point spread between himself and Stephen Harper. Layton’s not made it a secret there’s a time limit on his support for the conservatives. Meaning, it doesn’t matter what legislation gets pushed forward at this point. If the NDP decides time’s up, time’s up. He could hammer through EI reform at that point, or he could hammer through senate reform. It won’t end up making a whole lot of difference–once the NDP decide they liked being the party of not conservative more, it’s game over for this minority. We now await the return of the attack ads–that is, assuming they took a vacation to begin with.

I would have figured he’d get the hint, what with him being behind a ways in the polls, that maybe his style of opposing just isn’t cutting it with Canadian voters, but apparently not. Once again he launches into a tirade on just how bad Stephen Harper’s minority government’s doing with managing the finances of the country, managing Canada’s image globally, and everything else under the sun–and yet, we still don’t see any real alternative. Still no sign of what a liberal government would do differently. Still no sign whatsoever of what a liberal government wouldn’t do. Just lots and lots of no confidence. And it really all comes down to pretty much the same thing. The liberals have nothing.

Oh, they can talk it up as though they have plenty–they’ve been doing that for a few months. But Ignatieff was given a golden opportunity to explain what it is he would do were he sitting where Stephen Harper is right now. Instead, he fell back on his old habbits. Failing grade on this, didn’t get that done, lost controll of that other thing. We’re not seeing anything new here. And he’s still trying to trigger an election? I get the distinct feeling, and it’s a sad thing to say–much like his employment insurance gripes, Ignatieff just doesn’t get it. Or, if he does, he’s choosing instead to ignore it. Which actually might turn out to be slightly worse. Worse than standing in the house of commons without a real alternative form of government? You be the judge.

This time, she’s making a political whoopla out of, of all things, Canada’s olympic logo, which she says bares too striking a resemblence to the conservative logo. Because, you know, one can’t have a maple leaf and the letter c in a logo without it looking remotely conservativeesque. Ignoring, just for 30 seconds, that the Royal Canadian Air Force once used a similar logo, and Canadian airline company CanJet used a similar branding as well. Is miss Fry now convinced they were all allies of the conservative party? Well, on the bright side, we now know why they had to fly a leader in from the US–if this is the talent pool they have to draw on, they’re hurting more than they’re willing to admit. Call me a conservative loyalist, but with folks like this serving as the elected liberal reps for Canadian citizens, I can’t imagine the conservatives having to try very hard to actually stay in power. Just… try very hard not to screw up and therefore lose power.

In today’s edition of flip flop weekly, we look at sir Michael’s addressing of the Denis Coderre situation. Specificly, the slapping a gag on his party and insisting the only one allowed to speak on it is the king himself. Meanwhile, were this 2006 and were his name Stephen Harper, it would result in a hell of a criticism from all sides. But, it’s long been accepted by the vocal minority that anything Harper does is evil, and anything Ignatieff does is A okay. Even if he happens to do the exact same thing as Harper. Oh, don’t worry–there’s a vocal minority that goes the other way, too. I think, though, if Ignatieff wants to differenciate himself from everyone else in that mess they call parliament, he should probably start doing things a little differently than everyone else. Something he’s as of yet not actually managed to do.

Yesterday, I made mention to the fact there are some in the media hinting at the fact the conservatives may be trying to design their own toppling with the advent of the harmonized sales tax in Ontario and BC. From the same paper that brought us that speculation comes a perfectly good reason why it is that tactic isn’t about to work. Or, if it does, it likely won’t happen quickly. Of note, right now it’s the provincial liberals in both Ontario and BC that are catching flack for the tax change.

Harper engineered the arangement in such a way that the provincial premiers were the ones to announce the tax. He engineered it in such a way that the implementation of the proposed tax change, which is scheduled to take effect in July of 2010, would be left up to the provinces in question. And, and this is what might hand a heart attack to any purely liberal riding in Ontario or BC, it’s a tactic not any different than what the federal liberals did in atlantic Canada in 1997–a tax change that, to my knowledge at least, none of their governments since have tried to repeal.

While there’s no denying legislation of this variety would be damaging, it still remains fuzzy, at least to the Globe and Mail, as to exactly who it would be damaging to. Let’s try to recap it.

• The HST was announced just after Ontario’s budget last January. Criticism started almost immediately after information was released regarding exactly how popular a move that would be.
• NDP leader Jack Layton championed the cause federally, slamming Harper for daring to proceed with the measure.
• “Hey, the provinces said yes to it. Back off.” Latest defense from the conservatives’ Jim Flaherty, who promptly sidestepped the HST issue.
• Federal liberal leader Michael Ignatieff shoots himself in the foot, saying if an election is called and he wins, he won’t axe the tax. Oops.

And through it all, the federal conservatives just keep going up in the polls, while federal and provincial liberals keep going down. Coincidence? If you’re the Globe and Mail and you’re writing the article linked in the first paragraph, yes–most asuredly a coincidence. But if you’ve been watching how things have been playing out, you have to question just where that speculation comes from. Contrary to what most liberal party loyalists would have us believe, Stephen Harper isn’t a blithering idiot with no idea what he do. Neither, I would argue, is Michael Ignatieff–except we haven’t seen that side of him yet. Harper, though, and with Ignatieff’s unwitting help, has just managed to handcuff the liberals. By setting it up so that the liberal party in Ontario and BC takes the fall for it, with Ontario being one of the two provinces Harper needs to make a dramatic improvement in if he expects to gain a majority, he all but guarantees anyone not fond of the HST doesn’t vote liberal in the next election, whenever that might happen to be. As it stands now he’s called 4 bielections in order to fill vacant seats in the house of commons–this can’t be good for the liberals either. Best case, Harper walks away from all this with a majority. Worst case, another minority government, likely conservative. In either case, any seats lost in the coming election will more than likely wind up going to the NDP if anyone at all. And the NDP could certainly use them.

Harper is definitely engineering someone’s defeat. Whether his or Ignatieff’s it’s really hard to say at this point. But, if he ends up taking it on the nose, look for him to drag Ignatieff down with him. And Ignatieff would have walked himself right into it.

This time, though, Canada gets the blame for the high drug prices in the US. Republican senator Bob Corker accuses Canada of intentionally setting prices for drugs lower than those in the US. Because, you know, Canada has a say in what the drug companies charge to do business in the US.

The U.S. is the world leader in medical innovations and technological breakthroughs, Republican Sen. Bob Corker charged, yet Canada gets all the financial
benefit by selling drugs and medical devices at prices irresistible to Americans.

Yeah, let’s run with that. It’s all Canada’s fault previous US governments, and health insurance providers, are in bed with the drug companies to collectively screw folks out of getting what they need. That sounds good. He frames the US Canada relationship, at least in that industry, as parasitic in nature–and even goes so far as to say it’s the same with France and other countries.

“One of the things that has troubled me greatly about our system is the fact that we pay more for pharmaceuticals and devices than other countries, and
yet it’s not really our country so much that’s the problem, it’s the parasitic relationship that Canada and France and other countries have towards us,”
the Tennessee lawmaker told Carolyn Bennett.

Way to take responsibility for your own situation, senator. All the innovation happens in the US and Canada mooches off it for nothing. Okay, that works. We’ll ignore all the evidence that says otherwise just to suit your reality, Bob. Because folks on both sides of the border are just that polite. You can let anti-government propoganda get in the way of actual facts any old time, sir. The rest of us who possess common sense don’t mind. Really.

That’s the going round of late, with the speculation being the much hated harmonized sales tax coming into effect in Ontario and British Columbia may be the conservatives’ attempt to engineer their own defeat in order to take a slap shot at an election. It’s an interesting possibility, though it’s not exactly clear how that would help the conservatives considering they’re half the reason we’re talking about it–provincial liberals are, of course, the other half.

It’s interesting to note, though, that the liberals are circling overhead like vultures, waiting to pounce on the HST proposal in an attempt to flatten the conservatives in a possible election, at least in Ontario and BC. There’s just one problem. The conservatives’ poison pill, if it actually goes through before the next election–not likely unless the liberals or NDP do the flip flop dance again, would not be axed by the liberals should they come out on top. Which begs the question. Just who is this poison pill for?

Ignatieff will no doubt criticise Harper for its introduction–he’s already called it the Harper sales tax. And he will probably continue to do so in an election campaign. But if it’s known he’d keep it in place were he made prime minister, I have a real hard time seeing how it makes the liberal campaign on that issue any degree of effective. Best case, it becomes a non-starter for both the liberals and conservatives come election time. Worst case? The NDP, who have opposed it from the get go–and just about everything else on principle, fire at both parties on the issue and gain ground on both of them. On the up side, if you’re the type to look for up sides, if Harper goes, look for him to try and take Ignatieff down with him. If the liberals decide to make it a campaign issue, that’s very likely going to happen.

What makes him a terrorist this week? Nothing other than a refusal to acknowledge the supposed evil that is climate change. As such, there is an admittedly microscopic movement in order to have him removed from the PMO on the grounds of high treason and terrorism.

The primary source of information for the letter addressed to Canada’s governor general in the linked article is this NASA report, that still focuses almost entirely on the fact the earth is actually entering a warming cycle of possibly disastrous proportions, and not, in fact, cooling off a little. And uses that report in an attempt to make a political issue of a virtual non-starter.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that the NASA report is accurate. Let’s also assume it actually managed to provoke some kind of action on this apparent threat to national security. The only answer we have from Canada’s politicians is the threat of a carbon tax, which yes, Stephen Harper isn’t entirely all that interested in listening to. And, which Michael Ignatieff both does and doesn’t want. Not that raising Canadians’ taxes to compensate for it will do a whole lot to stop or slow down something that’s been going on since long before we started producing greenhouse gases.

The letter to Canada’s governor general doesn’t give any real direction as to what Canadians or their government could or should do differently, either–it doesn’t even touch the idea of a carbon tax. It only stresses the fact that she should, if she cares about Canada at all, remove Stephen Harper from office and charge him with high treason. Folks, I have to point it out. Even the people who thought George Bush was behind the events of 9/11 didn’t try that. The letter’s author gets an A for effort. And an F for making the average Canadian take him seriously. Good try, though. It was at least a semi-interesting read if nothing else.

Both the liberal and conservative parties can be accused of at least secretly wanting an election, even if publicly one of them continues to insist they don’t. It would be highly naive to think otherwise. Harper’s goal is to end up in majority territory, and Ignatieff’s goal is to end up with Harper’s job. Or at the very least, give a very good impression of someone who’s trying to. But neither side, according to the Globe and Mail, has anything really all that concrete to shoot for their respective objectives with.

Ignatieff is stuck in “we can do better mode”, which is getting him all of nowhere in the polls. Stephen Harper, on the other hand? Well, he’s been accused, albeit not by the Globe, of talking like a conservative and spending like a liberal–not good in the eyes of folks who’ve voted exclusively conservative. The Globe goes into a whole paragraph or two on Harper’s addressing of Quebecers, and Ignatieff’s lack of any real sticking point of his own. But it’s a lot simpler than that–if the article’s author would have just looked at the last 6 months or so in a little more detail.

In a lot of ways, as much as they know about Stephen Harper, Canadians still don’t have any idea what they’d be getting with a Stephen Harper majority. Quite the contrary, actually. They do, though, know what they’d be getting with a liberal majority–which is escentially what they’ve been getting throughout almost all of the previous session of parliament. Harper wanted to keep the national debt lower than it is, his arm was twisted by the opposition to throw money at a global recession. He says he wants to reform the senate, but with the liberals, NDP and Blocke Quebecois controlling the majority of seats in the house and the liberals with a majority in the senate, any attempt to push that bill through now would be dead on arival. He wants to scrap the gun registry–just one example of liberal overspending in and of itself, same result in a minority government.

Simply put, Canadians don’t trust the Stephen Harper they’re looking at. And, enter the cold ear of common sense, if they don’t trust him they aren’t about to blindly hand him a majority. What might keep him in minority territory, though, is Canadians’ equal distrust of Michael Ignatieff.

Again, the Globe and Mail misses the mark a little on the liberals’ crowned king. Oh, sure, the “we can do better” adds are actually doing nothing. And, while that means they’re not really hurting Ignatieff, they’re not really helping him either. What’s hurting him, though, and hurting him badly, is what he’s saying in the media. Which tends to change on a daily basis. He mocked the liberals publicly, then turned around and wanted to lead them to an electoral victory. He flopped on employment insurance most recently, as well as being both for and against just about everything that happens to be a political hot button. Oh yeah, and there’s still the small little detail of Canadians not really knowing him to begin with. But we’ll ignore that for his benefit.

If politics was a sport, we would be in the throws of sudden death overtime between two very closely guarded teams. In other words, I’d have probably fled the stadium by now out of boredom. Neither side’s taking risks, neither side’s really putting forth what they would do if Canadians would only grant them the mandate to do so. The difference? One side’s giving us something. As for the other? They’re giving us we can do better. Well, at least they’re right about that. Problem is, they’re not.

One of the major things Obama’s been criticised for of late is being a little too soft on Iran. It would seem that’s now starting to change. Obama’s had enough, and has now issued a warning that Iran either cooperate or end up in a world of UN hurt–something that sounds just fine to Stephen Harper. Harper’s always held the position that Iran should be taken out back and soundly beaten for its nuclear efforts–more so after it was learned they had a second plant no one knew about. Of course, it was also that revelation that caused Obama to have the slight change of heart he ended up having. At least one university smart liberal’s starting to come around to Harper’s way of thinking on something. Now, if only it benefitted Canada–or, better yet, happened to the university smart liberal currently residing in Canada. Ah well, small steps. At least we know it’s possible.

As if his luck since becoming the liberal party leader, if not before then, hasn’t gotten to sucking already, Michael Ignatieff might just have himself one more problem to deal with. No, it’s not named Denis Coderre–although that might come back to bite him as well. It’s name’s not Jack Layton, as much as Layton and Harper both wish it were. Michael Ignatieff’s major problem right now is Michael Ignatieff. He just doesn’t have it.

His very flip-floppy nature is very slowly beating the tar out of his chances at the polls. And I’m not even talking the Canadian polls at this point–he’s losing the faith of his own party. The sticking to this idea that he can single-handedly bend the government to his will isn’t helping him a whole lot. In fact, that’s what got him to the point he’s at now–and what almost brought Canadians over the edge and into autumn election territory. The liberal faithful doesn’t see a victory in their immediate future should an election be called, but Ignatieff still wants to flirt with one. Even despite a growing divide. He got lucky this last time, with Jack and Gilles propping up the conservatives so he doesn’t have to. That won’t last long–as soon as a bill gets introduced that doesn’t benefit Quebec, whether it benefits the rest of Canada or not, the Blocke Quebecois under Gilles is gone. As soon as Harper talks tax cuts, spending cuts, or any other kind of cut–and, even, a few kinds of increases more than likely–Jack and the NDP are gone. And if the liberals haven’t improved any on their standing in the polls by then, Ignatieff could very well be gone.

To be sure, it’s a very dangerous game of chicken Michael’s playing with the rest of parliament. He’s not been hit yet, but he keeps it up, it’ll happen. And, surprise surprise, Canadians still don’t want an election.

Aside from the fact she’s apparently managed to actually finish her book, entitled “Going Rogue: An American Life”, that is. The book, which according to one online magazine is supposed to be a display of her foreign policy qualifications among other things, is said to weigh in at 400 pages. I can’t imagine what she could possibly find to say–particularly in the department of things we would actually want to read–that could possibly take up 400 pages, but there you have it. The book’s not due to come out until November 17th, and already it’s renewed the calls of many of her supporters for a 2012 presidential run. God help the USA in that case. On the bright side, though, it does give me something more to mock. And I did say I might be tempted to get my hands on a copy.

And right smack in the middle, with not a whole lot of support beyond his own loyalists–which, at last check, were dropping like flies after a non-confidence motion that came before he even read the latest economic report card–is Michael Ignatieff. The conservatives have been pounding him from the right since January, and everyone could tell it was getting to him. And now, with the recent switcheroo pulled off by Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party, it puts them in a position to pound the liberals and Ignatieff from the left. A position they, with very little hesitation whatsoever, are taking full advantage of.

The press release from the NDP office hits on areas that have been weaknesses for Ignatieff since day one. In particular, his flip-flopping on just about everything, his tough talk when it comes to the governing conservatives, and the fact he generally seems as though he genuinely has no idea what he actually wants to accomplish. He dangled the threat of an election over Stephen Harper’s head in June on employment insurance. And, when the deal was struck to have each party send 3 into negotiations to work out a plan for EI reform, there was some faint hope for this newly minted intelectual turned liberal leader. Then August came. And went. And through it all, he never budged from his original demand.

september showed up, Ignatieff had absolutely nothing to show for it, and it was all the government’s fault. He went no confidence right from the start, forcing the NDP and Blocke Quebecois to quickly back the conservatives on employment insurance reforms–the same reforms that were rejected by all three parties just a few months ago–in order to prevent an election none of the three would benefit from. He made his intentions known even before parliament got down to business, which was way before Harper’s economic statement–something the NDP was criticised for back in January by both reporters and readers alike. The same liberal party also voted no to a ways and means motion only 3 days before Harper’s economic statement.

The flop reappeared again not very long after that, though. When the motion passed, Ignatieff went on the record saying his party will work to fast track the temporary measures in the bill. “We don’t want to give the NDP an alibi to continue to support Harper’s government,” was his excuse.

Sadly, all the twisting and turning he’s doing on just about everything isn’t making it any easier for him to avoid what’s coming his way, thanks largely to the newly begun attack from the NDP. If Ignatieff decides an election would be a bad idea after all, it wouldn’t be entirely all too surprising. Both because he’d probably not come out of it with more than he has now, and because he’ll probably flip flop on that in a couple months as well. This National Post article has a partial list of the various flip flops he made during the last session of parliament. And I’m sure there’ll be plenty more to come.

Not that anyone should be surprised by that, really. He did decide, long before prime minister Stephen Harper released his economic update–which he caught flack for releasing in New Brunswick instead of Ottawa, that he already failed. Which, roughly translated, means a vote of non-confidence on Thursday. That doesn’t add up to a very solid landing for the liberal party of Canada, soon to be the liberal party of Toronto if the polls keep sliding in the direction they’ve been.

Canada’s economy is on an upswing, partially represented by a drop in unemployment insurance recipients. And, while the government can’t take a whole lot of credit for the recovery regardless to which party’s in power–sorry, Stephen, it just doesn’t work that way–Joe Public doesn’t really care. The government threw money at the problem, and now the problem is fixing itself. To the average voter who doesn’t take the time to actually read the political articles and their accompanying spin–hey, sometimes you can find a degree of amusement in the spin–the government fixed a broken economy. That will only translate to more votes for Canada’s conservative party. Of course, the lack of any real alternative from the opposition isn’t hurting either.

On top of all that, since the end of the liberals’ 13-year rule over Canada, the party’s become increasingly fractured, with first Paul “A Little Bit of Everything” Martin, then Stephane “I Know Nothing” Dion, and now recently appointed king Michael “We Can Do Better” Ignatieff each carving their own little divide within the party itself. In Ignatieff’s case, the most recent result of his divisiveness is the resignation and withdrawal of support from his now former Quebec lieutenant, Denis Coderre. All over a disagreement between the two as to who they think should be the next liberal candidate for one particular Quebec riding–I think Ignatieff might have won that one, though. The candidate in question was originally appointed–no, not voted for–by Coderre, only to be overruled and have a different candidate appointed by the king himself. And now, maybe possibly, we might be seeing the beginnings of an open nomination process for that particular riding–gee, what a concept!

A few well-placed missiles from either the conservatives, or their newest supporters Jack Layton and the NDP, and the good ship Liberal may just find itself in a nose dive into very uncharted territory for them. Now, granted, I haven’t been alive long enough to really remember the last conservative majority Canada held, but I’ve been around through plenty of liberal party majority. Plenty of good has come out of those 13 years–albeit dampened significantly by buz phrases like sponsorship scandal, but that’s politics for you. And, plenty of good has come out of nearly 4 years of conservative minority–well, when we could get the other 3 opposition parties to knock it off with the pissing contest. The problem is, plenty of not so good has come out of 4 years of minority government, too–remember, Mike, that $55 billion in debt you’re criticising is largely due to the same stimulous package you’ve been criticising. You know, the one you insisted Canada needed?

He’ll play the non-confidence card, and if Jack and Gilles have any sense of self-preservation they’ll continue to prop up the Harper government. If they don’t, Ignatieff might just find out the hard way just how much confidence the voters have in his style of government–which, really, is either really really vague or really really confusing. Neither is deserving of a passing grade. Michael Ignatieff gave Stephen Harper’s government a failing grade before he even heard the economic update. The opinionated fool gives mister Ignatieff a failing grade before he even shifts into election mode. Sorry sir, but I simply cannot support your government.

Well, not entirely true. Plenty of things have happened–they just all equate to exactly the same thing as we had at the end of August. Specificly, not a whole hell of a lot. Stephen Harper’s still holding on to the threads of a government that works very hard at hardly working, Jack and Gilles are, well, saving their own bacon, and Ignatieff? Well, we still have no idea what he’s about.

It’s that part of the political problem that the Globe and Mail’s Rex Murphy tries to excuse on the part of the liberal party. Iggy has all the brains and academic background to run this country sky high into the black, according to the article. There’s just one problem. For a university smart man, he’s an idiot. His attention’s put squarely on what the government’s doing wrong, or not doing at all, giving absolutely no attention whatsoever to what he’d do differently–no, Mike, “wait and see” is not putting your attention on what you’d do differently.

Correctly pointed out in the National Post on Sunday, there aren’t any real leadership qualities that come with this new prime minister in waiting. But we did get a new slogan. That has to be worth something, no? Not to the voters, who still both don’t want an election and, really, don’t really know or much like Ignatieff–I’m excluding the liberal loyalists here, who’d vote for a chipmonk during a leadership convension if they thought it might have a shot at knocking the conservatives out cold. And, of course, if they still believed in voting for their leaders.

We did get one good, clean, solid promise from sir Iggy, though. Seems if he were in power, he’d cut expenses in an attempt at balancing Canada’s budget. While at the same time funding new government programs. This simultaneous reduction and increase of government funding will have a miraculous effect on the $50 billion debt that is apparently all the conservatives’ fault. When asked how he’d do so, he provided an answer that will surely draw voters to his party in droves. Looking right at the reporter, he folded his hands in that usual academic way that’s supposed to make those of us who didn’t teach at a university fall absolutely in love with him and said, in his best reasuring voice, “Wait and see.”.

If you happen to be a subscriber to the liberal party of Canada’s way of thinking, they are. The release goes on to point out that every sale over 300 million dollars is subject to an automatic review. Okay, I get that. They might even be right when they say so. But, the article makes it out like Ericsson, who purchased Nortel for over a billion US, is just going to take the company and go screaming off to Sweden or somewhere with it. Which it very well might–and should be entitled to do. Nortel was, after all, a global company with offices in both the US and Canada among other countries. That shouldn’t change simply because their headquarters may or may not move.

The liberals’ big thing though, and this is what makes me scratch my head a little, is that so much of Canadians’ tax dollars have gone into funding research projects undertaken by Nortel. Tax dollars earmarked for Nortel by the liberals while they were in power, of course. Something that, whether it happens to be true or not, the opinionated fool really has to wonder just what a good idea that is. Government should not be funding a private corporation–least of all using money that could have been much better spent, maybe, preparing Canada for a possible recession. It sucks when a corporation goes under and takes your well wasted tax dollars with it, doesn’t it Michael?

A similar story happened in 1995, when national iconic coffee chain Tim Horton’s sold its assets to Wendy’s, and engaged in a partnership with them that saw its corporate headquarters move south of the border, while stores north of the border ended up partnering with their Wendy’s counterparts–go for a sandwitch for lunch, then move on up to the next counter for a doughnut for dessert. And the liberals saw nothing wrong with it. Guess they weren’t funneling enough tax money into the company for them to complain about. But, in spite of the fact they moved their headquarters south of the border–and, for the record, they recently announced they’ll be bringing it back north–the company never left Canada. Canadians could still go and get their hands on their coffee and doughnut fix before work. In fact, the company even tried to expand into the US–and is, from what I hear, having a degree of luck. So what’s the problem?

It comes down to the almighty dollar. The liberals pumped a ton of them into Nortel, and Nortel promptly imploded. So now, they’re concerned. And rather than let things play out, they want Stephen Harper’s conservative government to step in and start knocking around the private industry. I’ve said it before, although that was pre-website, but I’ll say it again. Government should never get its hands into the private corporation pie. Once it does that, it effectively rules out any sort of competition. Of course, there are some things you just shouldn’t hand over without question to private corporations–healthcare for the entire country, anyone? But, when you bail out the auto makers, when you bail out technology research giants, when you bail out a television network almost no one who wants to watch something decent on TV actually watches, you remove a lot from the competitive nature of private business. And, you escentially remove the real choice your country has when it comes to who it deals with. And then you still have problems not unlike what we’re seeing here.