Mr. Ignatieff - Are You Listening?

If not, you should BE READING:

They say taxes are too high. We should say there are more important things to tackle right now than reducing taxes for rich people.

They say they'll give everyone some of their money back. We should say paying for tax cuts by running deficits is theft from our children.

They say it's time to sell off and privatize schools, hospitals and public services. We should say there are some important things best done together – like good public education for our kids and good health care no matter how big your wallet is.

They say it’s “time to stop the gravy train.” We should say good idea! Let's stop the gravy train – starting with the insiders, rich tax cheats, speculators, and all the other geniuses who wrecked the world economy and put millions out of work, while pocketing the bailout money.

It's time to fight fire with fire. Come out swinging, and keep swinging. I find it amazing that it was a Liberal government that brought Canada's systemic deficit under control in the 1990s - after two terms of Mulroney's government spending us into debt; and today we have a Conservative government again ... spending us into debt. Meanwhile the Con$ are the ones who call the Liberals the 'tax and spend party' ... is anybody else noticing the irony here?

Extemporaneous Ranting

I was listening to the radio this morning and one of the commentators said something to the effect of "the Liberals are baffled by the lack of traction they are getting in the polls".

The answer to this is simple - now is not the time to play "nice" - with either Layton or Harper. (Ignore Layton for now!) Harper is your adversary - he's not just the incumbent PM, he's the enemy. Whether it's in the House of Commons, or not, call him out on everything.

Catch his ministers lying to Canadians, and call them on it. Loudly and publicly. When Jason Kenney lies use a nice broad brush and tar the entire lot of them with his words.

When Harper stands up and calls spending a Billion Dollars of taxpayer money on a fake lake and "security" for the G8, call him a wastrel ... and repeat it.

When Harper sidelines a good minister like Ablonczy because she did something that offended "the base", call him a bigot. When he continues to promote females based on their looks rather than their brains, call him a misogynist. Do it, and do it often - where the public will hear it.

Every time one of his ministers opens their mouth, ask them if the PMO has approved their words in advance. When a bill comes before the house, broadcast its faults to the public - I don't care if you are going to let it pass for other reasons, but publicize every flaw as an example of a government that just doesn't get it.

It's time to go on the attack - and stay there. It's not about what you would do right now, it has to be about what's wrong with the current government. You're going to hammer a lot of nails - and sometimes your going to bruise your thumb - that's the nature of politics in Canada today - deal with it.

It's A Start ...

I haven't been overly impressed with the lack of our country's opposition parties taking the Harper government to task over this summer. It seems like every time we turn around, the HarperCon$ have been spewing out more and more nonsense that deserves to be taken down - whether it's been about the Chalk River situation, immigration or stranding Canadian citizens aboard.

However, as a regular reader of this space pointed out to me, the Liberals have at least made an effort - which the mainstream media seems to have ignored so far.

Frankly, while Ignatieff has been touring about the Maritimes, out here in Alberta, we've heard precious little. I can only hope for Canada's sake that in other provinces the message is getting more coverage than I'm seeing this week.

Harper and Ignatieff In Calgary

Ugh ... one of the things I hate about Stampede is that every 2 bit politician seems to think that it's the most wonderful opportunity to come around campaigning.

Harper hasn't helped his case any - not with what he said, or the latest round of attack ads.

Frankly, to infer that opposition to "mandatory minimum" sentences has anything to do with support - or lack of it - for certain varieties of criminals is simply cheap politics on Harper's part. Mandatory minimum sentencing does little in the long run except put more people in jail for longer - the US "War on Drugs" has used precisely this tactic only to achieve the highest incarceration rate in the western world.

The Liberal Leader said the ads, which blast the Bloc for voting against a law that would impose minimum sentences in child trafficking cases, further divide the country.

“I'm in politics to defeat the Bloc Quebecois with real arguments rather than slurs and vicious ad hominem personal attacks,” Mr. Ignatieff told a cheering crowd.

The Conservatives have also run attack ads that criticize Mr. Ignatieff for spending much of his adult life outside the country.

Mr. Ignatieff said there's plenty to criticize about the federal Tories without stooping to attacks on anyone's character or patriotism.

I think Ignatieff's right on this one. The politics of character assassination and slurs are something that Mr. Harper has imported from George W. Bush's America, and quite frankly, it's something that Canadians should walk away from. It does none of us any good, and we deserve better from our politicians than what Mr. Harper has delivered.

Mr. Harper also portrayed his government as trying to get tough on crime but being shackled to the actions of “the three parties of the left.”

Think about this for a moment. Harper's been pretty careful to only introduce the least odious aspects of his legislative program while he's governing with a minority, and he's whining about being "shackled" by the opposition? Just what would he be doing if he had a majority? I suspect it would be bad - bad for Canada, bad for Canadians. As far as I can tell, the Reform "base" is still firmly in control of the HarperCon$, and there's nothing about that political movement that is good for Canada as a whole.

Harper has demonstrated a lack of understanding about human rights, the obligations of the government to its citizens - at home and abroad, fiscal management and accountability. How many more chances does this buffoon want?

Ignatieff Puts Harper In Perspective

The first time I heard Michael Ignatieff speak, it was several years ago when he read his book The Rights Revolution on CBC as part of The Massey Lectures on Ideas.

I remember thinking "wow, but this guy's an amazing speaker" at the time. Yes, his style is a bit ornate, but it pulled me in and made me pay attention to what he had to say...and what he had to say was articulate, reasoned and reasonable.

Well, so far his response to the latest round of Conservative character assassination has been spot on.

In his speech, the Liberal Leader hit directly at criticisms of the years he spent in Great Britain and the United States as a writer and academic, and elsewhere as a war reporter, saying that sometimes a person only sees how Canada is an inspiration to the world “from afar.”

“Stephen Harper doesn't understand that. Stephen Harper thinks if you've lived and worked outside the country you're somehow less of a Canadian,” he said to the Laborers International Union of North America.

“Is that the type of Canada you want? To have a government decide who is a good Canadian and a bad Canadian? Who is a true Canadian and who is a false Canadian?

“You know and we know that no matter where we come from, where we live or have lived, we are all of us proud Canadians.”

As for Mr. Harper, he's engaging in his usual pugilistic politics of desperation. I can only hope that outside of Alberta, Canadians are seeing these ads for what they truly is - awful government.

Responding To The HarperCon$

Frankly, I think Ignatieff is dead right when he responds to the latest round of attack ads out of the HarperCon$:

"On a day when we've got record bankruptcies, (when) we've got unemployment skyrocketing, all this government can think of doing is running attack ads on me," he said. "This is the old style of politics. We are in the middle of a serious economic crisis. This government needs to grow up and do its job properly."

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

When You Have Nothing To Contribute ...

engage in character assassination - or at least that seems to be the HarperCon$ typical strategy.

A day after launching attack ads against Michael Ignatieff on the Internet, the Harper Conservatives are bringing out the big guns for a sustained and broad negative campaign against the Liberal Leader — launching six spots to run on national TV.

The Conservatives are stepping up their attacks on Mr. Ignatieff in order to end what they suggest has been a “free ride” for the Liberal Leader in the Canadian media.

... because nothing says "Good Government" like the governing party slagging their opponents, does it?

Oh ... That's Gotta Sting

It's a tough life for Stephen Harper. Not only is he quickly descending to depths of unpopularity not plumbed since Mulroney's era, but Mulroney himself left office with the dubious honor of being Canada's most unpopular Prime Minister.

It seems that someone in Ignatieff's office clued into the idea that Mulroney might be a wedge to divide the Conservatives:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff offered unexpected praise for Brian Mulroney Monday and criticized Stephen Harper for failing to show the veteran Tory due respect – comments calculated to exploit unprecedented public bickering in Conservative government ranks over the former prime minister.

Tory MPs and senators have been quarrelling this past week over how the Harper government is treating Mr. Mulroney as a public inquiry begins probing his dealings with businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

Actually, this is fairly decent tactics. Mulroney is spectre in most voter's minds, and his image is what will scare people - especially in Ontario. The comments also play against the Conservatives in Quebec, where Mulroney is still held in high regard by many.

“A lot of Canadians have a lot of respect for Mr. Mulroney's strengths, and you have to show some respect. It's simple. And I believe that Mr. Harper is lacking respect towards Mr. Mulroney,” Mr. Ignatieff told reporters in Calgary.

It has been no secret that the HarperCon$ have been trying desperately to distance themselves from Mulroney, and in doing so have been dividing their own ranks on parliament hill rapidly. Harper's tactics play well in Alberta - but in Alberta, it's possible to get a bale of hay elected as long it has a Conservative nomination.

Did Ignatieff Cave?

... or is there a more coherent plan afoot?

Yesterday, the government was able to pass its emergency stimulus fund without the accountability provisions that the Liberals had been demanding.

On the surface, it appears as though Ignatieff has caved in here and backed down from what is a perfectly reasonable demand. Certainly one that any reasonable PM would have acceded to as a "political bargain"

If I was to step back for a minute from this and ask myself "why did the Liberals let this one go by?", I come up on a couple of reasons.

The first is purely tactical. Financially, the Liberals are not in great shape yet. Triggering an election when they are in a bad financial state could easily trigger exactly what Harper has been aiming to do for years - wipe them out. Harper has said on many occasions in the past that he wants to eliminate the opposition parties - especially the Liberals, and he's certainly made plays for this in the past.

The second reason is more strategic. If you are looking for a chink in the Conservative armor, it's Harper's hypocrisy on accountability. If the Liberals play this right, the HarperCon$ are apt as not to walk into a trap of their own making. The first pieces of that puzzle fell into place with the Budget amendments which the HarperCon$ agreed to. This is a second piece of that same tactic - demand that the government be accountable in fact, not just claim, to the House of Commons (and therefore the public at large) on another large spending bill. Harper has fought this accountability issue tooth and nail. There's lot's of room in there for casting doubt on Harper's motives during an election ... and all of it comes falling forth from Harper's own mouth.

Whether I'm right in this guess is hard to say ... I hope I am, it would be good for North America to shed the last of the NeoCons from positions of power.

You Know Their Politics Are Bankrupt ...

When the only response is to attack the person. It appears that the Harper Conservatives have sunk below bankruptcy when it comes to having actual debates.

Tories say there will be three themes to their attacks: that Mr. Ignatieff is an out-of-touch elitist; that he flip-flops (they will cite his shifting positions on a carbon tax, on coalition with the other opposition parties, and on Israel's 2006 bombing of Lebanon); and that he's a fair-weather Canadian.

Strikes me that when the only tool you can think of involves attacking the person, not the policy or ideas that they represent you've almost hit the Godwin's Law line. Ad hominem attacks are the language of the bankrupt - the Conservatives have run out of policy, they've run out of script, so they turn to slander and innuendo to make political points.

The "talking points" that they want to raise against Ignatieff do not suggest to me a man who is a poor leader, or that is short of ideas. They suggest that the Conservatives are scared. They don't want to face Ignatieff in a fair forum, so they are returning to the gutter politics that they have played before.

It is disappointing, even if it is predictable.

Ignatieff Differentiating Himself

As a political leader, Ignatieff is starting to sound very interesting. Of particular interest is this article from the Globe and Mail yesterday.

And in contrast to Mr. Harper, the new Liberal Leader, who is well-travelled and well-known in Britain and the United States, even has an advantage when it comes to Mr. Obama, who is visiting Ottawa next week.

"I just pick up the phone to some of my friends in his administration ...," Mr. Ignatieff said on CTV's Question Period earlier this year when discussing how close his ties are with the Obama White House.

Well, Harper used to brag about his connection with Bush II. I'm not sure that this means much in terms of relations with the White House under Obama, really.

Ignatieff's profile on the world stage is almost guaranteed to be better than Harper's. Harper was an unknown on the world stage until 2006, and since then he's done little more than demonstrate that he's a puppet for the neoCons in the Bush Whitehouse.

And while Mr. Ignatieff says he can pick up the phone to call the White House, his senior staffers say that his MPs can pick up the phone to call him. In fact, about 300 Liberal staffers, MPs and senators showed up to partake of Canadian wine and cheese at his office Tuesday night where he thanked them for being the "real guts of the organization."

By far, this is the more important aspect of the distinction between Ignatieff and other political leaders in Canada lately. He's clearly reaching out to the membership of his party and making himself accessible. How much that contact will influence his decisions and direction is hard to say, but from an organizational culture standpoint, it's a very interesting aspect of his leadership, and it will result in a much more cohesive party in the long run.

This is in extreme contrast to the iron-fisted, top-down style that we've seen from Harper. As I have expressed before, Harper's style has distinct limitations that we should not ignore - micromanagement doesn't scale well to large numbers of issues; and there have long been signs of various factions within the Conservatives squirming to make themselves heard. This is not exactly unifying the Conservative party.

Perhaps most telling is the Conservative party's lack of reaction to Ignatieff:

"Canadians are concerned about the economy right now, they don't want to see politicians playing political games at the moment," the Prime Minister's communications director, Kory Teneycke, said, explaining why they haven't done to Mr. Ignatieff what they did to Mr. Dion. "But we're not focused on politics right now. We're not planning to go to a campaign right now."

I'd have to suspect that it also boils down to the fact that Ignatieff has already shown that he will not be bullied about by Mr. Harper's tactics. That simply doesn't give the Con$ the kind of easy target that Dion made.

Ignatieff's much stronger presentation in the House of Commons also flies in the face of the kind of slime throwing that the standard attack ad tactic relies on, and I think people are picking up on that as well. (Not to mention the stunning crash of Rovian style campaigning in the United States has got to have made the Con$ a whole bunch more cautious)

Reform Starts Within

One of my biggest complaints with those who demand electoral reform is that so often they do so from outside the systems the comprise our government.

Our current Prime Minister is a classic example of this. He keeps on rattling about various kinds of 'electoral reform', and yet it's quite clear that he runs the Conservative party with an iron fist. The Conservative caucus in Ottawa is not our representatives to Ottawa, but rather, Stephen Harper's representatives to the party faithful. (Arguably, in Calgary at the very least, Conservative MPs are very careful not to be heard at all - I haven't seen anything consequential out of my MP since 2004 ... and Calgary voters still elect these twits)

Ignatieff is showing us what it means to effect change, but starting out with two moves in the last week that are very interesting. First was his approach to the Newfoundland MPs who were upset by the Harper budget. He sat down with them, listened and then created a compromise position that everybody could live with. I don't think you will ever hear something so pragmatic coming out of the Harper PMO - where the pattern has been to expel dissidents.

Then, we have Ignatieff's approach to advice and leadership:

Every morning at 8:30, he meets a proxy group of about 10 Liberal MPs and gets their input and advice. That's in contrast to the way most opposition leaders have operated; usually, it's been just the leader and a tight unelected clique of advisers who held sway.

The kitchen cabinet members, a veteran group to contrast the leader's newness, include Bob Rae, Ralph Goodale, David McGuinty, Ujjal Dosanjh, Marlene Jennings, Denis Coderre, Albina Guarnieri and Roger Cuzner.

Think about this for a moment. Ignatieff has just surrounded himself with a dozen or so MPs who are more experienced than he is, and he meets with them daily. When was the last time we heard of Harper listening to anyone's advice except his own ego?

Ignatieff has the potential to be the person who actually overhauls the Liberal party for the first time in decades - mostly because he's willing to listen to those around him.

"We've been punching well below our intellectual weight," says Mr. Graves. "We have the most educated public we have ever had but, instead of reaching higher to them, our politicians go the other way." They should understand, he says, that "you don't have to be aw-shucks and lowbrow to relate to average people. Average people are smart. Obama's victory showed that. On the Republican side, Sarah Palin was making George Bush look like a Nobel Prize winner."

Which is precisely what I've been saying about our politicians for a long time. Speak intelligently about things and you'll get a lot more traction. I'm glad to see that Ignatieff is willing to listen, and not willing to put his brain on a shelf for the sake of political ideology.

He may not be charismatic, but he's probably one of the brighter lights to appear on our political stage in the decades since Pierre Trudeau stepped down. (Especially in an era where the PM is elected because he successfully assassinated the character of his rivals)

A Shortsighted Budget

I think I understand why Ignatieff has not spoken up about this issue, but it still needs to be discussed.

One of the subtle aspects of the recent government budget was the quiet cuts to all kinds of advanced research - except perhaps for the latest philosopher's stone - "Carbon Capture".

This is not particularly surprising - the current crop of conservatives is remarkably short sighted. Research is the kind of investment that pays off in five to ten years, not five or six months.

Cutting back on advanced research inhibits Canada's ability to grow in the future. I appreciate that the issues 'here and now' are all about making sure that not too many people do not lose their jobs in the short term.

If the government is going to spend vast sums of money to prop up the economy, and (apparently) they are planning to auction off crown assets to fund some of this, then we have to ask just what kind of investments the government is making. Roads, waterworks and the like are pretty simple, tangible projects with legitimate payoffs; but then projects like the Human Genome Project are vitally important too - there is so much to understand about how the genome works, and the country that continues to invest in this area stands poised to become the next leader in medical technology.

So Harper's Lease on Political Life Has Been Extended

So, Ignatieff decided to let the Con$ have their budget ... sort of.

I won't say I'm thrilled with this - Harper is a destructive PM, and the sooner he's gone the better in my opinion.

However, Ignatieff has done something that Dion never managed to do - position Harper so that he has to compromise.

Ignatieff's comments are interesting and articulate:

In the face of this crisis, we have a government that has mismanaged our public finances for the last two years.

The Conservatives chose reckless spending and irresponsible tax policy over prudence and fiscal discipline. They drove Canada towards a deficit—long before this recession began. And, in so doing, they harmed the federal government's ability to act in the national interest in times of crisis.

For that failure—the failure to plan and act responsibly as a government—we hold them responsible.

This is the first time any of the opposition parties have held the Con$ up to responsibility for their behaviour since taking power. Ignatieff has signalled that he's willing to reach back and slap the conservatives about for their irresponsibility from day one.

Yesterday's budget is a flawed document.

It doesn't go far enough to protect Canadians who have lost—or will lose—their jobs.

It extends EI benefits but fails to extend EI eligibility.

It opens the door for attacks on pay equity for women.

It does not seize on the wealth of opportunities in the green economy.

It breaks their promise to all provinces from only two years ago on equalization.

It attaches strings to infrastructure dollars that may delay projects and delay jobs.

It promises to sell government assets for cash, without saying which assets and for how much.

And it lacks a credible plan for getting us out of the $85-billion hole the government will dig us into over the next five years.

I like this summary of the budget's shortcomings. Ignatieff has called the Con$ervatives out on their failings in this budget, and in doing so has shown Canadians that unlike Dion he is able to articulate the failings of the Con$ clearly, and concisely.

Accountability is something that Stephen Harper has always said is important. I agree with him.

But this budget does not include one word about accountability.

We will require regular reports to Parliament on the budget's implementation and its cost — one in March, one in June and one in December.

Each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians.

We will vigilantly monitor its effects on our economy and on every region of our country.

We will be watching like hawks to make sure the investments Canadians need actually reach them.

To be absolutely clear, this is the opposition doing their jobs - correctly. I must applaud this, because Ignatieff has just put Mr. Harper in a position where he is obliged not only to carry out the actions he has promised, but Ignatieff has guaranteed that there are multiple points of review - any one of which can be used to take down a government that is failing to enact its promises.

Ignatieff has just put Mr. Harper into the position of having to live up to his often promised, never delivered accountability - at a time when Canadians will be paying very, very close attention to their government's behaviours.

Don't Plan on a Spring Election

Somehow, I don't think we'll be seeing a spring election, if this is correct ... nor will we see a coalition taking the reins in Ottawa.

Mr. Ignatieff has said the Liberals would support a “modest” temporary deficit to stimulate the economy, but has refused to specify exactly what “modest” means.

The Prime Minister, who met with Mr. Ignatieff on Monday, appeared to include the Liberals in his definition of an emerging compromise on the budget, which is needed to keep his minority government alive.

Unless, of course, Harper can't resist another "poke in the eye" partisan maneuver when Parliament reconvenes - in which case, I fully expect the opposition to take him down.

[Update: 7:52]:
I suspect that this is more posturing - although it is interesting to note that Ignatieff is not parroting the line that Layton and Duceppe have been using today.

While I suspect the coalition could be revived fairly quickly if need be, I don't think that's where this situation is likely headed.
[/Update]