A liberal Liberal leader

Once upon a time, we had a really good prime minister, named Jean Chretien.

Then CTV and Global and the rest forced him out, getting the more conservative Paul Martin elected, and Canadians voted him out.

Then there was the mistake that was Stephane Dion, and then CTV and Global and the rest got another compliant conservative, Michael Ignatieff, elected Liberal leader.

Canadians are rejecting him too. We don't want a conservative Liberal leader; it's bad enough having a conservative Conservative leader. We want a Liberal leader who will protect social programs, ensure public health care, say the right things on the environment and foreign aid, and govern prudently.

In other words, everything Ignatieff hasn't been thus far.

We worried about Ignatieff being out of the country for so long not because we think he became less of a Canadian but because in that environment he has completely lost sight of was liberalism is for a Canadian. He has failed to see, for example, the things that made Chretien so popular - we knew he would play ball with business and conservatives, but that he was a street fighter and a scrappy populist who wouldn't let us down. And he never did.

Ignatieff sounds like he wants to bring our social programs into alignment with the U.S. Seriously. Not. Good.

Unless Ignatieff launches some kind of campaign to convince people he's a LIBERAL, not a Conservative plant, he's toast. Seriously.

And we'll end up with a Tory majority because the Liberal vote stayed home and the Tories - sensing blood - made the most of a 49 percent electoral turnout.

Ignatieff can't become Obama - maybe Gerard Kennedy can, if given the chance - but he can reinvent himself. He'll have to spend some money, and get out of Ottawa, and hit Main Street. Now. Not in December, not in April, now.

It's the last chance for the Liberals - they might not survive over this winter.


  1. Under the Chretien liberals, social programs were cut as well transfers to provinces (only Mulroney could dream of doing that but under libs this did in 1995/97).
    Libs were elected to get rid of the GST, and they did not.
    Libs campaigned on reabrogating NAFTA, and as soon as they were elected they signed on the dotted line.
    As for the environment, besides signing Kyoto, well I take you to a newspaper today:
    But Liberals promised in the 1993 election to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20% below 1988 levels by 2005, far tougher than Kyoto's standard of an average 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

    Despite this pledge, when Liberals lost power in 2006 after 12 years in government, 10 with a majority, Canada was 30% behind its Kyoto target. Therefore, why should Canadians believe anything Liberals say about the environment, renewable energy, global warming or Kyoto? See http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/10/15/11405606-sun.html
    So all around either liberal/tory it is the same old, same old - Iggy is just more upfront in his neoliberal right-wing ways.
    Libs old trick is always to campaign on the left and rule on the right - why get fooled again and again and again. There is an alternative!

  2. Though I think Gerard Kennedy is a great leader and campaigned for him, Michael Ignatieff is the Leader of the Liberal Party and contrary to polls and others opinions I think he is a good Leader.

    Yes he is more right than others, but regardless of whose name is at the top, it's still our party. That's what makes liberalism the greatest ideology.

    I will never let others pursuade me based on irrational assertions. The media can be biased against any Liberal Leader. It's my job, it's liberals' jobs to rise above base soundbytes, and present reason.

    Michael Ignatieff is worldy. When did that become a bad thing? He's smart, one of, if not the smartest politician on the hill, again, when did that become a negative? Canadians can't be allowed to be brought down by the dumbing down of our media outlets.

    It's our job to make sure that doesn't happan. Sure it's not going to be easy, but presenting intellectual argument hardly ever is.

  3. I'm with Jan, Chretien slashed transfer payments, which hung the provinces out to dry - forcing most to slash funding to health, education, infrastructure, etc. You're rewriting history.

    The Liberals are more Neo-Liberal than progressive.

  4. The Librals had to slash as you say they did in the ninties.....
    to get rid of 43 billion in deficit. It was later put back. What is Harper going to do?


Post a Comment

Your comments will be moderated. Sorry, but it's not a nice world out there.

Popular Posts