Opinionated Fool

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.

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.

To look at the current political situation, you might be inclined to think so. The liberal party is tied in the polls with Stephen Harper’s conservatives in the middle of a recession that some say Canada is on its way out of. Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party is getting ready for an all out dog fight with the liberals and conservatives, using some of the same strategies–namely, attack ads etc on Michael Ignatieff–as were employed by the conservatives for the past 6 months. And there’s some speculation going around that perhaps Ignatieff’s own party may be setting him up to fall flat on his face.

The liberals are still desperately trying to recover from their last leader, a virtually endless supply of stupid, while at the same time trying to shake off the last remaining pieces of an advertising scandal that plagued them during much of their time in power since the early 90’s. Combine that with the fact the currently governing conservative party is dead even with them in the polls, during a time when governments typically face a lot of heat over finances, and you don’t have a very comfortable position if your name is Michael Ignatieff, who would need at least the NDP’s support in order to secure anything resembling a majority were an election called today.

For the NDP’s part, they might support the calling of an election. They might even encourage Michael Ignatieff to do so. But for all intents and purposes, that’s likely about as far as it’ll go. The NDP has made it abundantly clear they’re no fans of either Ignatieff or Harper. But they don’t have enough federal support to make any significant headway on their own. They might have enough in the tank to maybe produce another minority government, either liberal or conservative, but that’s about as far as it goes. Realistic chances of the Block Quebecois being any help are slim to none, unless they could possibly get something out of it–like, say, more seats in Quebec.

There is also still the unknown but very likely support penalty any of the major players will take for calling an election. Particularly if an election’s called before 2010, during a time that most asuredly would not be popular among voters. If in fact Michael Ignatieff does so this fall, as he’s threatened to on more than one occasion over his proposed employment insurance reform, it may be a very short political career for the professor. If it happens during the opposition day granted him by Stephen Harper in September, it may sink his, and the liberals’ ship for the foreseeable future. If they’re not already sinking though, they’re at the very least taking on water. Either way, I would not want to be them right about now.

Update: Nevermind equality. Ignatieff is now officially trailing Harper in the polls. And we still don’t have any idea who he is or what he stands for. Canadians don’t like the “I don’t know” vote.

That’s what he’s saying this week, anyway, as he gets together with Canada’s prime minister and Mexico’s president this week. There’s just one problem. Everyone who’s not in Barack Obama’s employ tends to disagree with him–including Sir Flipsalot Michael Ignatieff himself, who criticised the legislation as it was introduced in Obama’s stimulous package. At the same time, Ignatieff was–and rightly so–criticising prime minister Stephen Harper for not getting on the US president over this sooner.

Now, of course, Obama points out to the reporter writing the article Harper brings it up to him every time they get together–he calls it representing the concerns of his nation. And, he’s right. When Canada’s own liberal party, who many believe to be more to the left than their US counterparts, balks at the measure as it stands right now, you know it has to be a little iffy. But, Obama says it’s nothing serious–said he needed the stimulous bill passed and passed now, so there wasn’t time to debate the issue. And we’re all supposed to just smile and nod, because that must be how it goes.

Barack, I liked your other idea better. Stick to that. You can at least pretend to know what you’re talking about with that–although, you could probably take some lessons on that from north of the border as well. Not that you will, of course, but even an average blogger can have a fantasyland. The only difference is it doesn’t make headlines.

Most especially, Canada does not need a national 360-hour standard for minimum eligibility. The fact that Michael Ignatieff and the liberal party are clinging to that like it’s some kind of life preserver is, well, typical of the Canadian liberal party of late. By that, I mean perhaps one of the most ridiculous sticking points to ever come out of an attempt by a minority government to make something work.

The conservative government has already refused that suggestion, more than once, but for reasons I fail to comprehend, Ignatieff won’t move from it. To his credit, he did say he would be more than willing to negotiate with prime minister Stephen Harper, and that his insistance on 360 hours is just a starting point–now he just has to negotiate, rather than dangle an election Canadians don’t want over his, and their, heads. Can he actually do that?

Rather than throw election threat after election threat in the face of the prime minister, why not, say, help him to actually extend employment insurance to people who aren’t, or who soon won’t be, getting it.

Unemployment insurance in the US is already being tossed about as in need of an extension to cover off the fact jobs are still being lost, and people are running out of money. But north of the border, they stick to the 360-hour minimum for eligibility. And if they don’t get it, they’ll try for a vote of non-confidence and kick this thing into election gear. It’s a rare thing indeed, but Canada’s liberals could stand to learn a thing or two from their US counterparts. And someone should really tell Michael Ignatieff negotiations don’t do a whole lot of working when your people don’t actually negotiate.

Second verse, same as the first. Michael Ignatieff and the liberal party set out to negotiate with the governing conservatives over reforming the employment insurance regulations. Except for one problem. Ignatieff and his lackies won’t budge from their position that a 360-hour national minimum is required for people to be qualified for benefits.

A minimum nationally like that is not just unreasonable, but outright ridiculous. And the minister of human resources, who’s leading the conservative side of the negotiations, said as much. And what’s Ignatieff’s response? It’s not to relax on his minimum qualifications and come up with, say, 400 instead–or even 375. Which, one would think, anyway, should be the standard approach to negotiations. Apparently, not if your name is Michael Ignatieff.

Instead, Michael responds with exactly the same retaliation that prompted the striking of these negotiations in the first place–you either accept my terms, or I’ll call an election. This from the same man who now tells us he has a platform which he’ll reveal to us in the fall–no doubt containing about as much substance as the platform he had in January.

Mikey, I told you before. If you push that red button, you’re probably going to wind up regretting it. Canadians do not want another election. Least of all, I don’t think, do the majority of Canadians with any sort of inteligence at all want an election in which you could possibly be the one running the country. How about this. Stop waffling, play nice with the government, and actually negotiate. Can you do that? I thought so. There’s only one thing far more frightening than a conservative minority–a liberal majority. Please, Michael, don’t make me have to throw my vote away on some nobody just to avoid that happening.

And, just like every other government entity who’s ever been called to account for spending practices on both sides of the border, GM and Chrysler are saying a big fat I don’t wanna to the idea of actually telling the citizens of both countries, who’s tax dollars are keeping them afloat post-recession, exactly where their money’s being spent. For all the positive that can still come out of Barack Obama’s healthcare initiative, if this ends up going where it looks like it’s going now, it could be more than cancelled out real fast. And, of course, Canada’s liberals twisted prime minister Stephen Harper’s arm into bailing the manufacturers out north of the border as well–thanks for that, by the way, Michael Ignatieff. The Canadian Tax Payers Federation’s not entirely too pleased with the auto makers at this stage of the game. I don’t imagine the US equivalent if they have one is jumping for joy either. As a tax payer, I can easily say I’m most definitely not. Say, Mikey, can I have my refund now?

Dear conservative, liberal and NDP members of parliament,

I don’t know the correct way to say it, so I’ll just say it. Canada absolutely does not want a fall election. Least of all, Canada doesn’t want a fall election based on a non-platform–hear that, Michael Ignatieff? The polls are a dead lock between liberals and conservatives. The NDP may or may not actually get anywhere if an election’s called. And those other guys from Quebec are dreaming.

I can hardly say I speak for all Canadians, of course, but for God’s sake, unless you can offer something beyond “what Stephen Harper’s doing is wrong”, don’t hit that red button. You’ll probably end up not liking the result. Oh, and if you happen to be Stephen Harper and you call an election on your own, I won’t be held responsible for the lambasting you take in the polls. Why? … Did you even read this? Canadians don’t want a fall election. If any of the 3 big players in the House of Commons slap that button, I will be more than happy to throw my vote away on someone that doesn’t have a shot in hell–yes, even one of those guys from quebec if there’s one running here. Because, if you refuse to listen when you’re told we so do not want an election, none of the 3 big players in the HoC deserves to come out on top. Least of all someone running on a non-platform–yeah, Mikey, I’m looking at you again. Deal with it.

I believe Canada’s parliament is supposed to sit for a maximum of 5 years before an election absolutely has to be called. Since the last 2 elections, it’s not even been a year. And those two elections occured 8 months apart. Let’s try to make it last a little longer, shall we? It’s good for you. Of course, if you choose not to take that advice, you have been warned.

Sincerely,
the Opinionated Fool

I have to wonder if Michael Ignatieff isn’t in fact a conservative come back to put the final nail in the liberal party’s coffin. In a speech he gave in 2005 at an Irish university, wherein he escentially blamed Canada and its then ruling liberals for what he called a stripping down of their millitary, he criticised 3 liberal prime ministers, including 2 who were in power while he was hiding outside of Canada–Jean Cratien and Paul Martin, for their cutbacks to the millitary and their insistance that they maintain a peacekeeping role.

Ignatieff took it a step farther, though, saying Canada as a whole was perfectly fine with that supposed myth. He added that the ruling liberal party usually preferred to hide behind the peacekeeping label while calling out the US for not doing so–the US was one of the first into both Iraq and Afghanistan, Canada went in to clean it up. Ignatieff went on to say national healthcare, multiculturalism and bilingualism were equally as much a myth as the whole peacekeeper idea, blaming all of that on some believed liberal agenda.

Yet, even with that having been said, Ignatieff still came back to Canada in 2008. Still joined up with the liberal party. Still received the nod for party leadership after their previous leader was rather soundly stepped on by prime minister Stephen Harper. And still wants to lead that liberal party back to power. Or does he? His address in 2005 would tell me no. The fact that Ignatieff still hasn’t come up with any kind of a liberal policy platform or even a rough outline of one also tells me no. I would then be inclined to believe the answer is no. So, the question becomes, exactly what is Michael Ignatieff up to? And what’s Stephen Harper’s cut?

Or if he does, he’s had it translated to him by the liberal spin doctors first. Canada is making a turn-around economy-wise, many are wondering if even the first stimulous was needed, and he’s already on a soapbox about a second. At least 70% of the initial stimulous money hasn’t rolled out the door yet, and that was supposed to have contributed to lowering the unemployment rate. Economists are saying that will be one of the last indicators that Canada’s recovering, and yet the fact it’s not improving is Ignatieff’s reason for demanding the government throw out even more money. I don’t suppose he’s been paying a whole lot of attention to what’s going on south of the border–Obamaconomy, as some are calling Barack Obama’s own stimulous, makes Canada’s look about the size of my student loan. And yet, the US unemployment rate is still expected to kiss 10%. You’d think that would tell you something. But, apparently, not if your name is Michael Ignatieff.

For a change, the Bank of Canada and the country’s conservative government finally agree on something related to the economy. This time, it’s the fact that the economy, at least on the north side of the border, is coming out of the recession. Both sides are saying it won’t happen quickly, and statistics such as unemployment, which is still well above 8% in Canada, will be the last indicator that the recession’s coming to an end.

That’s not good enough for liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, though, who still believes the appropriate solution to the current problem is to lower the minimum hours worked to be eligible for employment insurance to a rather impressive 360 hours, or 45 days. As it stands now, the nimimum hours required depends on your region and the employment rate in that region. Just one problem though, Mike. That doesn’t help Canadians already on unemployment who won’t be for much longer. The liberals invented the current system, and it’s rather horibly broken. The liberals are trying to make it slightly more horibly broken. And all so they can say they’ve helped the economy. Not doing a whole lot to help your position, sir. But I suspect you know this already.

He’s been the leader of the liberal party of Canada for months now and we still don’t have much of an idea what he, or his new version of that party, stands for. Throughout the last months of the 2008-2009 parliament, he seemed to be almost as not conservative as the New Democratic Party, lead by Jack Layton–except rather than force an election over the summer, he agreed to a compromise with prime minister Stephen Harper over employment insurance issues and a review of same. But he’s not quite managed to answer the one question those not already committed to voting liberal want answered–what would *you* do differently if we handed you the country?

Now, as things start to gear up yet again for the return to parliament in September, there are those who find themselves wondering if this almost anything but conservative strategy he has going for him is actually going to work for him. Ignatieff is travelling down a very dangerous road if he plans to maintain this strategy leading up to the reopening of parliament. Canadians are getting tired of minority governments, but at the same time, neither party has managed to secure enough of the voters’ trust to win a majority–and the NDP is pretty well shot out of a federal government run unless they can come up with something that isn’t the exact opposite of whatever the government’s putting forward.

The conservatives are on shakey ground due to the recession, and the fact the more vocal critics are saying they’re understating the severity of the economic downturn–and not heading into the upturn fast enough. The NDP seem all too eager to do the exact opposite of whatever the liberals and conservatives want to do. And the liberals don’t seem all too eager to do a whole lot of anything differently–or if they are, they’ve not put anything forward. Right now, that means advantage conservatives. But only if the economy actually begins to rebound in some sort of tangible, job-creating way. And if that happens before the liberals can manage to get their feat under them, that ship might very well find itself sunk before it even gets out of the harbour. Which might be exactly what the doctor ordered.

That’s what an article in the Welland Tribune is sort of hinting at, outlining how the Ontario premier may be heading in the direction of damaging liberal support in the province. The article highlights the proposed harmonized sales tax (hst), among other recent Mcguinty initiatives, that the article’s author says have contributed to turning Ontario into a “have not” province. If the article does in fact demonstrate the kind of support liberals in Ontario–the largest vote-getting center in Canada, comparable only to Quebec–can expect, Michael Ignatieff may indeed have Dalton McGuinty to thank, and quite probably blame, for it. Not what a man who came back to Canada from the US to accept leadership of the federal liberal party wants to have to deal with. Particularly when that same party is still about neck deep in trying to recover from its own problems from the previous 13 years of government.