Comments on: The Commons: Michael Ignatieff and the herd

By: Sarah Thomson

Sarah Thomson — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:01:59 +0000

Jean Proulx I total agree with your comment of having less MPs that are ” trained seals.” They are there to represent the people, yes they are par tof a praty but if representation dissappears then the infdividuals that make up this society dissappear.

There are some aspects of government that shouldn’t fall pray to business strategy and representation must come before discipline.

Iggy is showing true leadership. Right now the discipline Harper commands is needed, but there will be times when representation is an absolute necessity.

By: Caper

Caper — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:31:58 +0000

To add
“D” The liberals really did not like the total budget , so this was an oppertunity to show that too.

By: Caper

Caper — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:21:29 +0000

I believe that Me Ignatieff has made a sensibile decision in that his party did not fully agree with the budget. This was an oppertunity to do two things.First , to show somw disapproval.. second, to support the effort of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the Liberal Party of Canada. I see this as a great move. The NL MPs were given the right to vote as they did. This was not a revolt.

By: Without A Net (Jean Proulx)

Without A Net (Jean Proulx) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:15:07 +0000

I have no problem with what Ignatieff did for a couple of reasons:

(a) The Liberals elected in NL got a big boost from Williams’ ABC campaign the last election. In effect the Liberals owed him one.

(b) Newfoundlanders feel very strongly about the equalization issue. In effect the MPs were simply being responsive to their constituents which is something that MPs are supposed to do

(c) Greater parliamentary democracy and less of MPs-as-trained-seals is something that all Canadians should welcome. Yes, you have to balance that out with the need for discipline, but its a BALANCE not a case of always deferring to the prerogatives of the Leader.

All in all I thought Ignatieff handled the whole thing well. I think the criticism says more about his critics than about him.

By: LIVY ONT

LIVY ONT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:15:27 +0000

Well done! I would like a recap everyday.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:49:48 +0000

sure are a lot of ponds out that neck of the woods!

By: Francien Verhoeven

Francien Verhoeven — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:34:49 +0000

I think it’s rather refreshing to see some standards attached to questioning leadership. Ignatieff will get used to the drill. Harper has done his share of push-ups.

By: Francien Verhoeven

Francien Verhoeven — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:29:38 +0000

How many times (when in power, no less) did the LIberal Party promise to bring in an expanded daycare righ across this country? How many times? Anyone with their memory in tact, cause Dryden’s memory is too far fetched.

By: Francien Verhoeven

Francien Verhoeven — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:23:36 +0000

Yeah, let’s bring Kinsella into this tangled web we weave! Makes for interesting meals…….

By: Francien Verhoeven

Francien Verhoeven — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:18:49 +0000

You are correct, hollinm. Our political system is all about a balance between that ‘delegate’ factor and the ‘representative’ factor. The delegate factor goes into the party (coming from individual and regional voices), so that the party can come up collectively with a vision for the country, which vision is than brought forward by means of the ‘representative’ factor. MP’s perform both roles. In and out.

When the party votes on a motion of confidence, such as it was, the party members are not there to speak their minds to protect their particular regions, but are there to vote in accordance with the party’s vision of the country. Mr.Ignatieff does not have a good grip on the difference betweeen ‘delegate’ and ‘representative’.

But then again, when leaders are appointed and not having to go through a party election process, a lot of what the ‘delegates’ want to express, is left out of the equation, therefore the balance was pulled out of whack much earlier, mainly because of the lack of a leadership election.

But in that case, Mr.Ignatieff takes on an interesting view as well. He seemed to have been of the opinion that the ‘circumstances’ had lead the party to appointing a leader rather than electing one, but Mr.Ignatieff conveniently forgets to mention, that the circumstances were largely as a result of LIberal in house actions.

By: Chris S.

Chris S. — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:58:44 +0000

How many “first tests of leadership” are we up to now with Ignatieff? 5? 6?

By: Andrew E

Andrew E — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:46:57 +0000

I’m not sure if I’m warming to Ignatieff, or if Harper is turning me off. Either way, I’m going to suggest that in the first public test of his leadership, Ignatieff might have found a stronger response than to dither.

By: Ryan Rigby

Ryan Rigby — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:46:31 +0000

About the recent jabs at Ignatieff; I don’t understand why flexibility can’t be seen as an act of leadership. To be a leader takes more than to simply say “do what I tell you or else…”. Frankly, I respect that he allowed the Newfoundland and Labrador MPs to vote for their constituents. It allowed them to act in their best interest, while the remainder of the Liberal Party, still having the numbers to secure passage of the budget, could act in the country’s best interest (I know, that’s debatable too). Really, it seems like skilled leadership to me.

Flanagan is right, Harper never would have allowed that, which is precisely why he has never and will never earn a majority government, because people respect the appearance of flexibility in their leaders.

By: J@ck M!tchell

J@ck M!tchell — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:14:54 +0000

You’re right, it makes a lot more sense the eighth time you read it.

By: Jenn

Jenn — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:59:55 +0000

I agree all parts of this country should be treated fairly.

But did you include in your fairness ledger the lion’s transfer payments for fifty years?

By: Sandi

Sandi — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:49:08 +0000

Hmmm….just thinking – if Ignatieff had “whipped” his caucus on this – I bet the media, Harper, Flanigan and especially Layton would attack him on that.

By: hollinm

hollinm — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:55:19 +0000

Iggy needs to do something with Mark Holland and his type that have infested the Liberal caucus. Holland cannot ask a question on policy. His job is to malign the government and particularly the PM. However, people do not fall for this b.s. and simply ignore what he is saying. Maybe Holland has potential but somebody should take him out behind the woodshed and pound some sense into him.
Focus on policy. The same with Dryden and his fixation on childcare. The public has rejected this socialist policy and no matter how times the Libs talk about it a real childcare program is too expensive and is not what the vast majority of Canadians are interested in. Talk about being a one dimensional policitican that Ken Dryden has turned out to be.

By: John D

John D — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:46:47 +0000

Remember when people like Harper, Poilievre, and Flanagan were all about free votes? When they thought the Liberals should be ashamed of all that unanimous voting? Good times!

By: hollinm

hollinm — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:44:46 +0000

Obviously you don’t understand our political system in Canada. We elect MPs who are members of a particular political party. They are not independents. Allowing MPs to vote in any manner on any issue will result in chaos for that party. Voters are not monolithic. Very seldom is there a consensus on any particular issue. Hence no political party gets 50%+ in any election.
The job of any political leader is to assess a particular issue, decide what’s in the best interest of the country and of course the party. That means making decisions that are not always popular with some of his MPs. However, they need to show discipline so that they can convince the public they are an alternative to the government.
So Iggy has failed his first real test of being a political leader and it is going to haunt him in spades as time goes by.

By: J@ck M!tchell

J@ck M!tchell — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:37:10 +0000

You forgot the part where the Mouse comes back to gnaw on the Lion’s pudenda while he’s sleeping.

By: J@ck M!tchell

J@ck M!tchell — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:24:48 +0000

It’s a bit hard to mug someone with a butterknife.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:27:47 +0000

Take a mental snapshot of Iggy asking questions in a quiet, thoughtful manner. Compare it to the spectacle of Dion attempting to place against his natural mien and do the outraged politician act. It looks to me like someone has been reading Paul Wells’ rules of politics: Act as though you are already in the position to which you aspire. If you want to be PM, act like one.

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:04:58 +0000

Clarence (“The herd has been left to make due with Bob Rae” – I think you meant “make do with Bob Rae”.
Perhaps not. After all this is the Canadian media and Rae is a Liberal; it is quite likely in their normal exchange of favours it is time to collect what is “due” in exchange for the services rendered. A Freudian slip rather than a spelling error?

By: Loraine Lamontagne

Loraine Lamontagne — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:54:34 +0000

Now turn the clock back to the Martin days – when Harper and his Conservatives were having a fit because the governement whipped its MINISTERS to vote on a government-sponsored legislation (if anyone knows of a parliamentary democracy where such cabinet solidarity is not a practice, please let me know). The vote on same sex marriage legislation was deemed to have been antidemocratic enough that it warranted an electoral promise and the holding of a free votes on a motion.

That a government votes as one is a fundamental of all parliamentary systems, as far as I know. That a government whips its caucus on a confidence matter is customary. But as far as I know, the budget vote is not a confidence motion on the opposition. Members should be allowed to vote freely. What I don’t understand is that some are whipped (I read Quebec LPC MPs were whipped) while the MPs from Nfld were not.

By: Chris S.

Chris S. — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 06:50:31 +0000

Leave it to the Tom Flanagans and Pierre Poilievres to be our moral compass in determining what leadership is.

By: darcymeyers

darcymeyers — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 06:27:37 +0000

I think herd mentality better describes the Ignatieff love-in during his honeymoon period…which is wearing off now that decisions have to be made.

By: Alpha

Alpha — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:36:47 +0000

That’s very well put. It is a hopeless slum — and what’s disturbing is that the media is beginning to sound like American media — either/or. I think the G&M has gone right downhill by hiring Flanagan to write for them; I’ve always thought in the past that the G&M was so detached and analytical, but then I haven’t read it for quite a while. Just beginning to again – and I certainly wouldn’t subscribe to it based on what I’ve been reading.

Politics is getting nastier in Canada, and dumber.

I liked this article – puts a few things in perspective.

By: dan in van

dan in van — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:14:50 +0000

I agree, well written Aaron. Unlike the Globe piece, you’ve inserted the appropriate spoonful of caustic cynicism along with clever dash of sarcasm that will confound us partisans of either leaning.
Funny how quickly the yokels have swivelled, almost bald-faced, to scold the newbie Liberal leader. Going from one story that essentially said ‘Ignatieff got it right’ to calling him out as a limp leader of laggards seems too much a sport; not when the so-called leader across the way has spat, crapped and generally puked on all of his own principles, constituents, and the members of the media who deem it their duty to cover such folly.
Flanagan and cohorts are playing with the media like a two-year-old with a new tonka truck. Can’t wait to see how Kinsella counters.

By: sbt

sbt — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:33:53 +0000

“The early reviews are in and Michael Ignatieff is a disaster. A blight upon our democracy. A threat, no less, to the very notion of this nation we hold dear.”

Who said he’s a blight upon our democracy? His critics are saying he’s a disaster as the leader of a national party because he can’t keep his caucus under control. Asking thoughtful questions of the government is good but we need to know that this guy can make tough decisions that are in the national interest that may ruffle the feathers of his own caucus or supporters. Presumably Ignatieff wants to actually run this country someday rather than merely ask thoughtful questions.

By: bocanut

bocanut — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:13:54 +0000

“The herd has been left to make due with Bob Rae” – I think you meant “make do with Bob Rae”.

I think you meant “make doo-doo with Bob Rae”.

By: kc

kc — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:04:22 +0000

They’re jealous cus nobody lets them have a column of their own.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:02:31 +0000

Doubleagent – I fully agree. Its refreshing to see some give and take. I somehow can’t accept the notion that Canadians are realists who only respect Harper’s bunker-organization, and look down on Iggie for giving the protest vote. I look forward to the future if this is the type of interesting plays we’re going to see from Iggie.

By: BCer in Toronto

BCer in Toronto — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:58:33 +0000

As a rule, I find doing the opposite of whatever the Globe and Mail editorial board wants me to do serves me very well.

By: GarybBiesinger

GarybBiesinger — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:07:39 +0000

Iggy who?

By: kc

kc — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:05:18 +0000

Great post Aaron. I particularly liked the Rae sunning himself like a teen-age girl in front of the cameras. Duceppes crack about lack of leadership was priceless, delivered without a trace of irony or shame, i’m sure.

By: Brent Fullard

Brent Fullard — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:52:33 +0000

Question for Aaron:

Just where do you place yourself in this herd? Front and center, or scooping up the rear?

By: doubleagent

doubleagent — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:31:59 +0000

You know, I am gradually warming to Iggy. I don’t like his mid-Atlantic accent, the bony finger, the patrician pedigree, but I am reading the Russian Album, his memoir on family history, and it is searching and unguarded in a degree I didn’t think possible. Which is a long way from Newfoundland and equalization, I’ll agree, but it is possible that this man is more emotionally generous and intellectually flexible than we are used to, certainly in the hopeless slum that is competitive politics..

By: Jarrid

Jarrid — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:20:55 +0000

Theirs being a constituency of one: Danny Williams.

By: Bonnie N

Bonnie N — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:18:43 +0000

Heaven forbid

M.P. s actually get to vote for their constituency – shame on Michael.

All hail the Harper regime!

By: Clarence Seunarine

Clarence Seunarine — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:54:18 +0000

“The herd has been left to make due with Bob Rae” – I think you meant “make do with Bob Rae”.

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:46:49 +0000

It’s not that the G&M disses Ignatieff. It’s just that they really hate Danny.