Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

And how's that coming along?

by Paul Wells on Monday, July 13, 2009 1:33pm - 107 Comments

Sometime this summer or fall, Ignatieff said he also intends to hold a “thinkers’ conference” that will address some of the “big long-term questions” facing the country over the next 25 years, going well beyond the more immediate scope of the campaign platform.

— The Canadian Press, eight weeks ago

Tags: long-term questions, Michael Ignatieff, short-term memory

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

To be fair, it's hard to know just what the scope of the campaign platform is yet, what with it not existing and all.

http://intensedebate.com/people/ottawasteph ottawasteph

As I recall, the CPC was the last party to release its election platform and the only party to do so AFTER the televised debate.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

An incumbent party with an incumbent leader can get away with that. A brand new leader (without even a convention to float some ideas) of a party that hasn't held power for several years can't hold his cards to his chest in the same manner. And this assumes he has cards at all, which I'm growing less convinced of by the day.

Mickey

What he really needs is a "doers" conference. Thinking is sometimes overrated.

http://intensedebate.com/people/penlan penlan

Agree with you Mickey. Enough talk – we need action.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Input? Why, it's right there at Yonge and Edward.

[youtube AbkbU32X5dI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbkbU32X5dI youtube]
http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

Thinking is hard, you guys!

Canuckistanian

especially when your "thinking" comes across as: "Let's All Fly Up In Space Together and Smoke Dope." (That was the vibe, anyway)."

read on, you will *NOT* be disappointed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/cormac-i…

so funny

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

You know, I'd read that before, but it's just as good the second time. I even went back and read his original rant, which is equally delicious.

Canuckistanian

i think this was my fourth time reading it; the laughs were just as loud as the first time. will look for his rant.

Alex

Hopefully he holds his "thinkers' conference" at Thinkers' Lodge, in Pugwash, NS.

http://www.amherstdaily.com/index.cfm?sid=152317&…

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

As a necessary part of any conference, Thinking or otherwise , there are two golf courses
in the area. One very expensive … http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/ar…

And one very good.

Anon

Thinking isn't either hard or easy. It's unnecessary. What with the Google and the Twitter and the whatnot.
Riley Hennessey

Does anybody know if there have been initial meetings of Team EI, aka the panel to look into Employment Insurance?

Calgary Junkie

I haven't heard anything.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

"There must be yet for a long time a residuum of rowdyism and stupidity in every nation, and political and ecclesiastical gentlemen of reactionary tendencies are showing that they know how to manipulate them for their own ends."

http://tinyurl.com/kta5op

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

One shilling? Seems overpriced, even for 1878. Still, it's good to be reminded that some political observations are timeless.
http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

Nice find.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It would have been nice if Iggy could have provided some scope on the "big long-term questions” that will be addressed by this hypothetical future conference. The man is terminally vague.

Orson Bean

I think many of us assumed that Iggy was being vague by design, i.e., that's what his advisors (e.g., Ian Davey) were telling him to do. The theory being that Iggy was a fresh new face, and that a combination of public fatigue with Harper and the awful economy would result in Iggy assuming a comfy lead in the polls — without actually having to take a clear stand on anything. The thing is, that strategy doesn't seem to be working, Warren Kinsella's bold predictions of ain inevitable knockout Liberal victory notwithstanding. That latest Strategic Counsel poll may have given Iggy's braintrust a bit of a wakeup call in that regard.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

As Churchill might have said: "He's a vague man with much to be vague about".
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

As Churchill might have said: "He's a vague man, with much to be vague about".

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

"The man is terminally vague."

That's about the best description I've heard of him yet.

To be fair, though, I hear half the caucus was late submitting their preliminary essays for grading and consideration (and Brison cribbed most of his from the Wiki entry on Laurier, so he's got a complete redo).

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

The winning essay will be stripped of all useful semantic content and converted into Iggy's next stump speech.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

The winning essay will be stripped of any useful semantic content and converted into Iggy's next stump speech.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

The winning essay will be stripped of any useful semantic content, and converted into Iggy's next stump speech.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Maybe this first thinkers conference is to conjure up the questions. The NEXT conference will produce the three or four answers to each of these questions. Stand by…

Stephen

It seems unlikely that someone who can't organize a conference or draft a platform for the sake of "message discipline" (!) in 8 weeks will be able to turn Canada into a "knowledge society" in 8 years.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I wonder if there are still Canadians out there who find Iggy "inspirational". It's tough to be inspired by a blank cypher.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I wonder if there are still Canadians out there who find Iggy "inspirational". It's hard to be inspired by a blank cypher.

Orson Bean

One word you can use to sum up the federal Liberal Party's fundamental problem or dilemma these days: differentiation. It's become extremely difficult, in the current circumstances, for the Liberals to be able to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives, especially on the key issues that really matter to voters (e.g., bread and butter stuff like overall management of the economy). The spending/debt/deficit issue is a prime example of that. If the Liberals criticize the Tories for not spending enough, then they can't really turn around easily and criticize the Tories for the deficit.

It reminds me a bit of what happened in the 1990s, when the Liberals stole the fiscal responsibility issue away from the Tories & especially Reform. Once the Liberals were pushing deficit-cutting under Martin's finance dept, what compelling reason was there for people to vote Tory/Reform?

I swear that if you put a microphone in front of a bunch of average, apolitical Canadians — the regular schmoes in the lineup at Tim Horton's — and asked those people what a Liberal govt would do differently, you would generally get a bunch of blank stares and shrugs.

PolJunkie

Differentiation? it would indeed be a problem given that Iggy is just as hawkish as Harper. I basically gave up on the man when I heard him sing the praises of Mordor… I mean… the Oilsands.

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

TAR SANDS! (Trust me, you do not want RayK to catch you using that sort of pro-oily euphemism round these parts. Bitter etymological debate will totally ensue. I've seen it happen before, and he will mess with you until you are done, my friend.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I think the fact that scientists, engineers, and geologists all use the more accurate term "oilsands" is proof enough that "tarsands" is hopelessly outdated and passé. Sorry, Ray K!

http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

Oh I don't know Orson. As long as the Liberals aren't lead by that asshat Harper I see an important difference between the two parties.

Orson Bean

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting: Iggy Good, Harper Bad.

Well, for a campaign platform, it may seem a bit sparse, but good luck with it.

I take it, then, that you view policy formulation and detailed platforms as unneccessary, given the obvious choice between good and evil that faces us?

http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

What I would say is that the levels of disgust with Harper are reaching such a critical mass now that focusing on him – and how he conducts politics – may be sufficient for the Liberals to win an election. I think I would just run a continous loop of last week's performance at the G8. Myabe through in a few timely reminders of past hits like going on Fox televison to describe Canada as a third-rate European welfare state, or thretaening to sue anyone who claimed he was connected to the Cadman bribe offers, before deciding umm…yeah…maybe better settle out of court on that one. Damn audio tapes.

And for Quebec I run ads of his "separatists and socialists" venom from back in January. Maybe a reminder of his thoughts on the importance of culture and artists.

And then just close thing things off with shots of him…*shudder*…smiling. That should do the trick.

An attractive platform would certainly not hurt though.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

What I would say is that the levels of disgust with Harper are reaching such a critical mass now that focusing on him – and how he conducts politics – may be sufficient for the Liberals to win an election. I think I would just run a continous loop of last week's performance at the G8. Maybe throw in a few timely reminders of past hits like going on Fox televison to describe Canada as a third-rate European welfare state, or threatening to sue anyone who claimed he was connected to the Cadman bribe offers, before deciding umm…yeah…maybe better settle out of court on that one. Damn audio tapes.

And for Quebec I run ads of his "separatists and socialists" venom from back in January. Maybe a reminder of his thoughts on the importance of culture and artists.

Hell you can even run some special Alberta ads about income trusts!

And then just close thing things off with shots of him…*shudder*…smiling. That should do the trick.

An attractive platform would certainly not hurt though.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

What I would say is that the levels of disgust with Harper are reaching such a critical mass now that focusing on him – and how he conducts politics – may be sufficient for the Liberals to win an election. I think I would just run a continous loop of last week's performance at the G8. Maybe throw in a few timely reminders of past hits like going on Fox televison to describe Canada as a third-rate European welfare state, or threatening to sue anyone who claimed he was connected to the Cadman bribe offers, before deciding umm…yeah…maybe better settle out of court on that one. Damn audio tapes.

As for Quebec, I would run ads of his "separatists and socialists" venom from back in January. Maybe a reminder of his thoughts on the importance of culture and artists.

Hell you can even run some special Alberta ads about income trusts!

And then just close thing things off with shots of him…*shudder*…smiling. That should do the trick.

An attractive platform would certainly not hurt though.

orval

Harper has it figured out – what Canadians want is Liberal Government without the corruption. Harper is doing exactly what Ignatieff would be doing if the roles were reversed. And even if their next ads say: "The Liberal Party of Canada: Corruption Free Since 2006" why would people want to replace the Harper "Liberals" with the Ignatieff "Liberals"?

Much was/is made of Adscam's role in the downfall of Paul Martin (who BTW was a far far more formidable opponent for Harper than Ignatieff will ever be) but I thought the killer ad for the Conservatives was the Dingwall "I'm entitled to my entitlements" ad, not the Adscam ads. It captured Harper's whole point about the "culture of entitlement" which Adscam fed into, Liberals = arrogance + corruption. That theme still persists.

What the Liberals need a a good Conservative corruption story. They thought they had one on Mulroney-Schrieber but, despite Anrew Coyne's best efforts, it fizzled. Harper is not corrupt. That is the Liberals' greatest weakness. But Harper is not corrupt and is showing no sign that he is or will be unethical.

PolJunkie

"Harper is not corrupt. That is the Liberals' greatest weakness. But Harper is not corrupt and is showing no sign that he is or will be unethical. "

Oh really? And is that why he settled the Cadman Affair out of court with a confidentiality agreement attached?

Orson Bean

I agree that if the worst of the allegations regarding the Cadman affair were true, including the most unfavourable spin on those allegations, then that makes Harper look bad ethically. But I think politically the problem with Cadman — as opposed to Adscam — is that the Cadman affair occurred when Harper was not in power.

Rightly or wrongly, I think what was (and continues to be) much more politically toxic about Adscam is that it involved the misuse of taxpayers' money by a political party while in power. Viscerally, taxpayers and voters can understand why that's bad, it's offensive to them as taxpayers (i.e., you are stealing my money). Cadman, on the other hand, can be seen as simply another example (albeit a particularly egregious one) of the rather distasteful stuff that goes on while partisan politicians pee on one another.
orval

Nobody wants to speak ill of the dead. The most obvious explanation for this "affair" was that MP Cadman lied to his family about what he was offered (i.e., help with election funding if he was nominated as Conservative candidate in Surrey North if the Martin Government fell). The mistake the Liberals made was they over-reached when they accused the PM of criminality. The PM wanted the Liberals to stop talking about Cadman which called into question the late Mr Cadman's reputation. The quid pro quo was to drop the lawsuit against the Liberal party.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Well, orval, that's certainly the most charitable explanation… for the living.

http://www.calgarygrit.ca Calgary Grit

Holding a new Kingston Conference like this was also pretty much the ONLY promise Iggy made during the leadership race, before it got cancelled.
Calgary Junkie

It looks like it's "Back to the Future" for Iggy–a replay of Pearson's Kingson conference of 1960.

I dunno, I just can't see any of this "big thinking over eons" stuff resonating with voters. Get the platform out there, so we all have something meaty to chew on.

And I wanna see the Cons attack ad response–"Michael Ignatieff's PROMISES on everything", maybe ?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Wascally_Wabbit Wascally_Wabbit

100 days – was the commitment Mr. Wells – I believe!
There are now some Liberals – such as this writer – being called loose cannons – for criticizing from within the party.
From this viewpoint – Mr. Ignatieff remains an enigma neatly rolled into a conumdrum…
When he dissembles himself from the virtual into reality – we will no doubt see what we shall see…trouble is…there may be no-one interested in reading by then.
Policy development – to my mind – is to determine how to get to where you envision you should be – at some point at the future.
By stating even that – in a more coherent manner – Mr. Ignatieff would at least define himself.
He would provide the public with a vision that Canadians can decide on – whether they want to bet on it.
Development of the policy platform needs a little more finesse – what you have in the government pot very much determines what you have to pay for what you want to do…so how fast you plan to roll out those policies – and which will be your priorities.
He could do the former now – and fine tune the latter – as it becomes obvious that the writ is about to be dropped.

herringchoker

100 days? I thought it "Sixty days of decision!"

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Oh, looky, looky – Wells, again, has sort of indirectly started up and anti-Iggy campaign.

What a surprise.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

If reminding everyone what Iggy was saying in public only eight weeks ago constitutes "an anti-Iggy campaign," then I am seriously not your problem, Sandi. But then, you never have been particularly gifted in the arts of introspection.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

No, what constitutes a campaign is that you never seem to write a positive word about the man. Now I will concede that you rarely write a positive word about anyone, with the notable exceptions of Jean Chrétien, Stephen Harper (sometimes), Stéphane Dion (ummm for a while at least), and various obscure jazz muscians, but still…

One gets the definite impression that you are out to get the guy for some reason.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Sheesh.

Here we have an empty suit who wants to become Canada's next Head of Government. Despite his unprecedented lack of political experience or even Canadian experience, our would-be Prime Minister has failed to formulate any coherent policies. He seems unable to even articulate a vision for this country, beyond empty platitudes. His one attempt at seriousness, the announcement 8 weeks ago of a "big thinker's conference", appears to have already been forgotten.

And you're whining that Wells is "out to get the guy for some reason"? The big mystery is why more journalists haven't called attention to Iggy's baffling lack of substance.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

I'm not articulate – I'm not a writer……but boy oh boy – it's become a daily thing so one does get suspicious.
Calgary Junkie

"… you never seem to write a positive word about the man"

As Radwanski, I think it was, put it, Iggy is repeating the same Liberal platitudes that he was using in January. It all gets pretty boring, pretty fast, and opens him up to ridicule.

But Iggy can help himself by changing the channel that Wells and others are tuned in to. For example, come out with some specific policy stuff, shake up his shadow cabinet, call for a merger on the left … DO something INTERESTING.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

So Ignatieff should release his platform ahead of time (when the Cons can spend unlimited amounts of money distorting and attacking it "tax on everything"-style) because Wells and Radwanski are bored? Ermmm…maybe not.
Calgary Junkie

He should release SOME policy stuff early. Because Iggy is going to get hammered on his "empty suitedness" otherwise. And the way things are going, the narrative evolving about the "real" Iggy, is not very flattering. Does he want to wait until the criticism reaches the level of ridicule that Stockwell Day experienced ? And don't kid yourself, that could happen. Some of the media is already laughing at him over his EI-360 bungling. I'm obviously partisan, but I'm sincere when I recommend that Iggy DO SOMETHING to change the channel.

He's going to have to explain and defend his policies eventually, so get some practice doing it now. Fretting about how the Cons will respond just shows a lack of confidence, even fear,which is not a good thing to project.
André

I think that JPro has a point. The politically acute may be famished for meat but it takes a whole lot more of nothing to start a vacuum int the average Canadian voter's mind. They have a lot more and bigger concerns than what MP said whatnot at whenwhere.

This is not a criticism of their reporting performance but you would be surprise at how much people don't care about what the likes of Paul Wells have to say or think. That group far outweigh our intelligent lot.

Right now people are just confused about what Ignatieff is saying and that's a good thing because as long as people don't associate him with anything good or bad then he'll remain an option. Just wait until the time is right, until the Conservatives fumble on their frayed laces, until an election has become impassable; that is when Ignatieff will have to become more than a figurehead. IF he does make a move, THEN you can start judging for substance.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

Besides which, we all know that about two seconds after Ignatieff does release his platform the discussion will switch from the merits of whatever policy he proposes to how it affects the horse race, how the Cons wil react, what polls show about how Canadians view the platform, etc.

http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

I think it is more accurate to say that Mr. Wells is very perceptive at seeing the chinks and weaknesses in the armor and the spin and has the audacity to point that out, as opposed to standard and simplistic oppostion talking points most journalists raise. Which is sorta kinda what you would hope a good competent journalist would be doing, isn't it?

If I was advising Michael Ignatieff, there are few journalists I would pay attention to. Mr. Wells would be one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

Mmmm, I agree that Wells is very good at seeing the "weaknesses in the armor". The only problem is that he's been in the trenches so long, and gotten so cynical, that it's the only thing he sees.

Anon

Actually what Wells does is just simply imply that Iggy has done something worth rolling your eyes over. That's what all the kewl kids do, don't ya know.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Sheesh.

Here we have an empty suit who wants to become Canada's next Head of Government. Despite his unprecedented lack of political experience, or even Canadian experience, our would-be Prime Minister has failed to formulate any coherent policies. He even seems unable to articulate some sort of vision for this country, beyond empty platitudes. His one attempt at seriousness, the announcement 8 weeks ago of a "big thinker's conference", appears to have already been forgotten.

And you're whining that Wells is "out to get the guy for some reason"? The big mystery is why more journalists haven't called attention to Iggy's baffling lack of substance.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

I think that what PW is saying is that , so far at least , there's nothing there to "get".

And it's true. He's wasted his honeymoon.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

The Liberals have opted to support Net Neutrality – arguably one of the most important "unknown" issues out there that will affect how we access information in the future. Of course, standard media pays little attention to this issue, Macleans included. Is anyone from Macleans even aware of the CRTC hearings that have been going on since last week?

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

O/T – but I looked up Paul Wells (to see if you had any kind of degree in psycho-analysis) and found out you have a very common name – BUT the names are all famous in different areas.

One Paul Wells (real estate broker )in the US is known as the forclosure king and another one is a drummer in a rock band:

Spiraling is a New Jersey-based pop-rock quartet. The band was formed out of a previous incarnation called "You Were Spiraling" by keyboardist/vocalist Tom Brislin.

Silly stuff I know, but I thought it interesting considering your interest in music.

Anon Liberal

It's been "rescheduled" for January 2010. The thinking was that it was turning iinto a money pit, and the Liberals likely to attend (Laurier Club members and the like) have already been hit up for funds too many times this year.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Seriously? Wow. If true, that seems rather pathetic, don't you think?

Anon Liberal

It'll only be pathetic if the platform ends up being crappy. Liberals discussed policy extensively using the En Famille site in the lead up to the Biennial Convention in Vancouver this year. The Tom Axworthy report is only a few years old. Anyone with internet access and a library card can find unlimited amounts of interesting policy analysis and recommendations from experts inside Canada and out.

Good ideas are not what is lacking. You can even find some in certain Macleans blogs. What is lacking is the courage and wisdom to know which ideas to champion. As always, this will largely come down to the Leader and his clsest circle of advisors, The Thinker's Conference wouldn't have changed much in that regard. I Think it may have been a useful exercise, but it likely would have been mostly symbolic.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Thanks for the information.

herringchoker

Very interesting! So does that mean there won't be an election until 2011 now that all the LIberal worthies will be spending their $1100 limit (for 2010) attending Kingston II?

Anon Liberal

Only if there will actually be a Kingston II. My quotation marks around "rescheduled" were to indicate both a direct quotation, and a certain amount of skeptcism that it will ever occur.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Oh shush. You guys are just starting up an anti-Iggy campaign.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

Maybe Iggy meant to say he would be attending, not holding, a thinkers' conference when he learned that he would be allowed to speak at last week's Isaiah Berlin Lecture series?
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Perhaps the thought of an election soon, fundraising – all kinds of things could have changed it. A think tank isn't a voting agenda item.

I know, I know – he hasn't given policy – well, of course not. Nor did Harper until the campaign was underway in 2005/06 – different set of standards I guess.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I'll say. Here's what I wrote about Harper in 2005.

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.p…

john g

To be fair, Chretien stealing the parts of the Alliance's platform that he liked in 2000 and Harper's very successful policy rollout strategy in the 2006 election campaign probably means the days of opposition parties rolling out their platforms before an election call are over.

But even so, you still got the general idea of what Harper stood for (at least, what you knew he would stand for at the time) before his platform came out. Lower taxes, accountability, etc. With Ignatieff, I really have no clue where he stands on any single issue other than a 360 hour EI standard. Not even a general, vague idea. After 6 months as leader, that's worrisome.

André

What is up with people starting sentences with "to be fair". I don't mean to target you specifically but I've read a couple comments in this blog alone that had "to be fair" in it and to me it just seems like inappropriate evenhandedness and reads like some hot fatty air.

I just had to put that out there.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Turn of phrase, nothing more. In my case it's often a humourous device. I might abuse it, but to be fair (tee hee..) there's only so many phrases you can draw on for a quick blog post.

Now tell me, what the heck is" hot fatty air"? :)
André

Hot air with fatty content; closely related to flatulence.

If I would take the term seriously it would sound to me as a some sort of surrender tactic to appeal to an opposite idea without changing your stance. If I'd be serious about my conservative ideology I'd say stick to your guns and let the best idea get the most support without the two-timing.

But this is an online blog and I am not that serious. :D

http://intensedebate.com/people/SirJohn_Eh SirJohn_Eh

Notice the poster Ferrethouse' posting at the bottom of your link:

When an election is called the "opposition" becomes the "alternative". That is when they say how they would govern. Until then they will "oppose" because that is what "oppositions" do. Quit trying to deflect Liberal incompetance.

Besides the last sentence on deflecting incompetence (I believe the CPC caucus is far more incompetent than a Lib caucus would be :P ), I think this is a really valuable point on at least the strategy in this day and age. We should remember this before prematurely judging Ignatieff as our PM.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

like going on Fox televison to describe Canada as a third-rate European welfare state

This didn't actually happen, you realize. And good luck with that negative, policy-free campaign you envision. I somehow doubt that Canadians will hand Iggy the keys if he can't provide compelling reasons to vote for him beyond: "I'm not Harper".
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

like going on Fox televison to describe Canada as a third-rate European welfare state

This didn't actually happen, you realize. And good luck with that negative, policy-free campaign you envision. I somehow doubt that Canadians will hand Iggy the keys if he can't provide compelling reasons to vote for him beyond "I'm not Harper".

http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

I stand corrected. He didn't go on Fox televison to say it. He said it to a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a "right-wing U.S. think tank": http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe…

He went on Fox television to complain about Canada not joining in the Invasion of Iraq. Which is fine. That'll work too.

As for Canadians not handing Ignatieff the keys if he can't provide compelling reasons to vote for him beyond "I'm not Harper", I would say that's PLENTY compelling and getting more and more compelling the longer Harper stays in office. I know the Con plan is to drive up Igantieff's negatives (only way you can win another minority) but you seem not be noticing that Stevie's negatives are going through the roof at the same time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

He went on Fox television to complain about Canada not joining in the Invasion of Iraq. Which is fine. That'll work too.

It's too bad that Iggy, during those years when he called himself an American, was a much bigger booster for the Iraq war than Harper. And there are lots of videos, articles, and essays that clearly demonstrate this inconvenient fact.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

Not as unfortunate as the fact that Ignatieff has subsequently, and to his credit, explained that he made a mistake in judgment for supporting the invasion, (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine/05iraq… while Mr. Accountability always avoids providing a straight answer as to whether he was wrong, and Jean Chrétien right, on the same issue.

Not to mention the fact that Harper was an elected official at the time he badmouthed the Canadian govt to an American audience, and not just an academic.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Iraq war a mistake, Harper admits
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe…

It's true that when Iggy supported the Iraq war, he wasn't speaking an elected official. Instead, he was speaking as an American, which might be slightly more damning.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Iraq war a mistake, Harper admits
” target=”_blank”>http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe…

It's true that when Iggy supported the Iraq war, he wasn't speaking as an elected official. Instead, he was speaking as an American, which might be slightly more damning.
Orson Bean

In any event, I wonder how many crucial swing voters in the next Canadian federal election will be basing their voting decision on what anybody's position was regarding the invasion of Iraq?

Bueller?

Bueller?
http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

Ah, good find. So he finally did "grudgingly admit" he was wrong, and "immediately changed the subject" when asked to elaborate. Well, baby steps I suppose.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SirJohn_Eh SirJohn_Eh

Well I've mentioned before that its definitely the wise thing to do for Ignatieff to bide his time on policy announcements (unfortunately), less fodder for the Harper misinformation machine to skew 24/7. If Iggy released policy now he would spend every day battling against the spin of CPC – and a bleeding of poll numbers. If he has good policy and releases it during the start of a campaign he minimises the damage of CPC warchest spin ads. Also, conditions on the ground (economically) are as vague as Ignatieffs flowery speaking style – why not take advantage of waiting for better sight lines. Further, Iggy is in opposition right now (I know it seems like Harper is still) and isnt campaigning on a platform right now, he can afford to mull every thing over and find the middle (centre) ground. Everyday Canadians arent yet judging him as potential PM as closely as MacLeans columnist who watch politics for a living are – they will get there in campaign time.

Jenn

I agree. Especially when we all know tax hikes or service cuts will have to be made to get out of deficit. Any realistic policy would have to factor those things in, unless you have an out-of-the-way golden meteor to shower us with. So why not wait for the Prime Minister–he whose job it is–to take the first steps out on the policy plank?

But I fear both party leaders will refuse to build a platform that includes the needed medicine to cure us, when the time comes. And we, the Canadian people, will get to play "but they LIED" after the election, for whichever leader wins it. And it will be our own fault, for of course we, the Canadian people, will never vote for someone who says he's going to increase taxes or cut services.

To Sophie and her friends, I'm truly sorry.

André

Are you going to say that the 2008 CPC campaign didn't focus on Dion's track record? As far as I remember the clearest message the CPC had to say about their platform was that it wasn't (insert doomsday metaphor) like DIon's plans. That tactic got the Conservatives their second win.

If the Canadian public is really as fed up with being pushed around by Harper then reminding them of what being governed by Harper is likely to produce similar results for which ever party is willing to take the high road..

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

And of course, let's not forget at which stage of the game that the CPC released their own platform. They waited until the very last second. I can't help but chuckle when CPC supporters argue that Iggy has not taken a stance, when Stevie has done the same thing. But most important of all, let's keep in mind that the CPC pretty much changed their stripes, and became masters of deficit, thus pretty much adopting the stance of their opposition. Smart survival move – they would have been toast had they stuck to their guns with what they were saying both pre and during the last election!

It all comes back to the Coke vs Pepsi scenario. Is there really a difference? Both taste like malted battery acid!!!

scf

I always thought conferences are where you go to exchange ideas after you've done you're thinking. You don't start your thinking when you get there. I tend to think a lot of the time. And I think the thinker's conference is a dumb idea, sort of like that ridiculous "idea city" think that Toronto runs.
Canuckistanian

maybe he's looking for a bunch of bus drivers ;-)

"As a former denizen of Harvard, I've had to learn that a sense of reality doesn't always flourish in elite institutions. It is the street virtue par excellence. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what's what than Nobel Prize winners. . . .(Ignatieff)"

"2. Don't bus drivers ever get tired of the "Regular schmoes are smarter than us academics/politicians/journalists" gag? Raise your hand if you think Ignatieff appointed any bus drivers to the Kennedy School faculty. I mean, if Ignatieff really thinks bus drivers are shrewder than academics, why didn't he quit Harvard and go drive a bus? After all, even if he turned out to be the worst bus driver ever, and ran over pedestrians every five seconds, he probably wouldn't kill as many people as his Iraq war did! (Joke.)" (Rees)

read on if you enjoy hilarity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/cormac-i…
http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

And big deal that Ignatieff described himself as American. He had been living there for a number of years, and probably thought he would continue to do so for many more. Don't you know any expatriates? Don't you realize that people can have multiple identities, multiple loyalties, at the same time? It's especially easy for Canadians to "slip into" the identity of an American since we speak the same language, with more or less the same accent, grow up watching the same tv shows and movies, etc. Haven't you ever seen Canadian actors or professional athletes who go to the U.S. and, after a few years, start referring to themselves as Americans? I've noticed people like Jim Carey and Michael J. Fox do this numerous times. Does that subtract from their Canadianess? Only to people who possess a petty, insecure, jealous form of nationalism. If you love anyone else, than that means you don't really love me.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

Trying to "fit in" is something that human beings do. Haven't you ever had the experience of traveling abroad and then noticing, after a surprisingly short time, you start using local expressions and appropriating the local accent?

What's important is that he's a Canadian citizen, and that he chose to come back here. Not that, at one point in his life, he may also have thought of himself as an American.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

JPro, I suspect that you would have a much less charitable view if it was a non-Liberal party leader who had lived outside of Canada for most of his adult life, supported the Iraq war, and publicly identified himself as an American.

"Just trying to fit in". Ever get the sense that he's "just trying to fit in" as a Canadian politician?

http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

That may be true. I'm an LPC supporter and have my biases just like anyone else does. That doesn't invalidate the point I was trying to make however.