Ignatieff's rhetoric

[expat voter]

I'd like this thread to discuss, from whatever viewpoint, the rhetoric of rookie party leader Michael Ignatieff.

I'll say up front I'm not a die-hard supporter of any party, but the last thing I want for Canada is a Harper majority. Harper is far more ideological than the *Progressive* Conservative leaders of the past. The heart of his *Conservative* Party is not Tory, it's Reform. So I hope the Liberal leader will crawl yet further out of academia and think about how the words he utters will come into play in politics and the media. (btw, I'm also voting from overseas.)

Two points of Ignatieff's rhetoric have been on my mind, re: 1) the "big red tent" and 2) "no coalition"

First, lose the line about "coming into the big red tent." It is patronizing, takes voters for granted, plays on fear, and is extremely uninspiring. Every time I hear it, it's almost enough to make me vote for someone else, just out of spite. Don't take Canadians as stupid. They're not like the two less-wise piggies fleeing to the one with the brick house that will protect them from the Big Bad Harper. And be humble, the Liberal Party ain't no solid brick house.

Second, (Jeffery Simpson wrote about this also), it's stupid to say "no coalition" when in fact, if Ignatieff does better than expected, he will probably have to forge one. This professor has to learn more about speaking like a politician.

media: "Since you're not realistically on track to win a majority, would you try to form a coalition if the Conservatives don't get a majority either?"

MI: "No one goes into an election wanting to form a coalition." [Period. Full stop. Don't give us a dissertation.]

media: But would you try to gain the support of the NDP and the separatist BQ, in order to seize power as Prime Minister of Canada?

MI: [take a deep breath, calm down] "I'm campaigning to earn the right to form a government, with full respect for the rules of Parliament, that a majority of Canadians support."

[Period. Full stop. Don't give us a dissertation. Question answered. Repeat this simple sentence a thousand times like a recording if you have to, but don't get all flustered or angry and talking about the ins and outs of parliamentary convention. Smile politely, and warmly if you can.]

MI: "Thanks for asking. Next question, please."

[edited to add "with full respect for the rules of Parliament" - in contrast to contempt for the rules]

Edited April 4, 2011 by expat voter

[Bryan]

Harper is far more ideological than the *Progressive* Conservative leaders of the past. The heart of his *Conservative* Party is not Tory, it's Reform.

I want to start by disagreeing with this part of your opening premise.

It is simply untrue. Most Conservative members would strongly disagree, include pretty much any Reformer. Not because they don't want people to think it, but rather because they're disappointed that it isn't, and wish that it was. The most common complaint you hear among the Conservative membership is that Harper is nowhere near right-wing enough. He is commonly referred to as "CINO" (Conservative In Name Only). If people really want to get rid of Harper, you should be careful what you wish for -- because if/when the CPC gets around to replacing Harper, it will be with someone who is SIGNIFICANTLY more right-wing than Harper is.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.....

[expat voter]

If people really want to get rid of Harper, you should be careful what you wish for -- because if/when the CPC gets around to replacing Harper, it will be with someone who is SIGNIFICANTLY more right-wing than Harper is.

If that's true, then it's truly scary, and all the more reason to fight tooth and nail against a CPC majority.

[youshouldknowbetter]

I'd like this thread to discuss, from whatever viewpoint, the rhetoric of rookie party leader Michael Ignatieff.

I'll say up front I'm not a die-hard supporter of any party, but the last thing I want for Canada is a Harper majority. Harper is far more ideological than the *Progressive* Conservative leaders of the past. The heart of his *Conservative* Party is not Tory, it's Reform. So I hope the Liberal leader will crawl yet further out of academia and think about how the words he utters will come into play in politics and the media. (btw, I'm also voting from overseas.)

Two points of Ignatieff's rhetoric have been on my mind, re: 1) the "big red tent" and 2) "no coalition"

First, lose the line about "coming into the big red tent." It is patronizing, takes voters for granted, plays on fear, and is extremely uninspiring. Every time I hear it, it's almost enough to make me vote for someone else, just out of spite. Don't take Canadians as stupid. They're not like the two less-wise piggies fleeing to the one with the brick house that will protect them from the Big Bad Harper. And be humble, the Liberal Party ain't no solid brick house.

Second, (Jeffery Simpson wrote about this also), it's stupid to say "no coalition" when in fact, if Ignatieff does better than expected, he will probably have to forge one. This professor has to learn more about speaking like a politician.

media: "Since you're not realistically on track to win a majority, would you try to form a coalition if the Conservatives don't get a majority either?"

MI: "No one goes into an election wanting to form a coalition." [Period. Full stop. Don't give us a dissertation.]

media: But would you try to gain the support of the NDP and the separatist BQ, in order to seize power as Prime Minister of Canada?

MI: [take a deep breath, calm down] "I'm campaigning to earn the right to form a government, within the rules of Parliament, that a majority of Canadians support."

[Period. Full stop. Don't give us a dissertation. Question answered. Repeat this simple sentence a thousand times like a recording if you have to, but don't get all flustered or angry and talking about the ins and outs of parliamentary convention. Smile politely, and warmly if you can.]

MI: "Thanks for asking. Next question, please."

Actually, the "Big Red Tent" brokerage theory works in Canada quite well. Bill Davis and Brian Mulroney succeeded with the "Big Blue Tent" for the tories in the 1970s and 80s. Why wouldn't Iggy want to employ that given that The soft NDP voters will cost him huge. It's anything but patronizing to the average voter looking to get behind a cause.

I agree 100% on the coalition issue. Faced with another Tory minority, Ignatieff would be crazy not to entertain the idea of bringing down the government given the opportunity. Why he dodged that question is beyond me.

Harper has a reputation as a (small-c) social conservative from his years as a Reformer and the head of the NCC, but his record as PM is anything but. From appointing a Senator on his first day in power to running this massive deficit, identifying the Quebecois as a Nation within a United Canada to blocking two major international mergers of Canadian companies, not to mention the size of his Cabinets rival that of Mulroney's (and he had the biggest majority in history). Perhaps harper is being kept to this by his minority status,but I doubt there will be any huge ideological shifts should he secure that majority.

[GWiz]

I'd like this thread to discuss, from whatever viewpoint, the rhetoric of rookie party leader Michael Ignatieff.

OK...

What do you, and most everybody for that matter, really know about Michael Ignatieff and the CURRENT Liberal party? Even more importantly, are you willing to find out about who Michael Ignatieff really is, where the CURRENT Liberal party stands, and what their policies and objectives in governing Canada are?

ie - Michael’s commitment to Liberal values has defined him throughout his career, from his undergraduate years at the University of Toronto to his graduate work at Oxford and Harvard to his first teaching job at the University of British Columbia and the long career that followed. Michael has been a leading advocate for human rights, democracy, and international law, and has been recognized around the world for his leadership and scholarship.

He’s contributed to the World Economic Forum and served on international commissions that have contemplated the future of NATO, humanitarian law, citizenship and minority rights. -

http://www.liberal.ca/michael_ignatieff/?gclid=COe84e7ngqgCFYjsKgodm3lHsg

Deficit Reduction

We will restore a two-year budgeting framework to increase transparency and make steady, measurable progress in deficit reduction. That progress will be driven by rolling, near-term targets that are firm and achievable.

In addition, Liberals will restore prudent budget planning, starting with this platform. By its second year, our plan frees up $7 billion through better choices. We will put some of that money aside in a $3 billion Prudence Reserve, to manage any unforeseen events without missing our targets. If the reserve isn’t needed, it will go toward the deficit.

These unshakable commitments – rolling deficit reduction targets, a realistic budgeting timeframe, and a tangible commitment to prudence – worked the last time a Liberal government had to clean up a fiscal mess left by Conservatives. -

[Shwa]

I want to start by disagreeing with this part of your opening premise.

It is simply untrue. Most Conservative members would strongly disagree, include pretty much any Reformer. Not because they don't want people to think it, but rather because they're disappointed that it isn't, and wish that it was. The most common complaint you hear among the Conservative membership is that Harper is nowhere near right-wing enough. He is commonly referred to as "CINO" (Conservative In Name Only). If people really want to get rid of Harper, you should be careful what you wish for -- because if/when the CPC gets around to replacing Harper, it will be with someone who is SIGNIFICANTLY more right-wing than Harper is.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.....

That is exactly the point! Canadians are, by and large, in the liberal centre and the only reason for even a CPC minority is that Mr. Harper appeals to that centre. If he is gone and a more right-wingish leader is installed, the CPC will be in perpetual opposition.

Which would explain his reputation of being a hard ass in his party and keeping those Reformers in line. He's done a good job of that for sure.

As for Ignatieff's rhetoric, the more I hear of him, the more I am starting to like him and not just for the alternative. But the biggest complaint I hear from folks I talk with is that he comes off as cold and intellectual. If he warms up in the next few weeks that might make a difference.

[Wild Bill]

Which would explain his reputation of being a hard ass in his party and keeping those Reformers in line. He's done a good job of that for sure.

"Keeping Reformers in line"? That's one view, I suppose.

I would say that what he's really done is restrict choices. Those voters who would prefer a more Reform-style of party have no one to vote for - they vote for Harper by default.

This is EXACTLY the situation that gave rise to the Reform Party in the first place! People don't like to have their choices restricted. It's a baby boomer thing! It's done to us all the time, not just with politics but also commercial product marketing. The difference here is that most of the time the average Joe is unaware of it.

I'll never forget the first time I went with my wife on one of her cross-border shopping trips. I saw flavours of fruit juice and even good old Campbell's soup that I had never seen in my life! The brands were mostly the same but the variety of choices just blew my mind!

Later, I began to resent not finding those choices in my domestic supermarkets. As I gained experience in a distribution business I began to understand that Canadian stores viewed their market as too small to justify all those extra flavours. It was easier and more profitable to buy higher volumes of chicken noodle than smaller volumes of too many different flavours, like "prime rib" beef. One example that sticks in my mind is Welch's white grape juice. I was almost 40 years old and had never seen anything but the usual purple before!

Things changed during the early 90's and the variety situation began to improve on our side of the border but I've never forgotten, or forgiven.

So essentially we have all those millions of voters who formerly voted for Reform gradually getting more and more pissed off for lack of a palatable choice! Way back at the start of things we used to chant at meetings "Liberal, Tory, same old story!" What Harper may not realize is that many of these voters KNOW what he's doing!

It doesn't matter if you yourself are a Reform type of voter. What matters is that we have a huge demographic that is being denied a choice, after having had one for more than a decade. It's just not human nature for these people to decide "Oh well! Harper's making sure that I can never have a Reform type of candidate to vote for ever again! I guess it's for my own good and I will just learn to love being the same type of voter that voted for the PC's and Brian Mulroney, even though I hated Mulroney's style of government with a passion way back then!"

No, you restrict choices you just begin to make your market angry! It may take a while but eventually there is a reaction. Those people who are supporting you for lack of any other choice become hungrier and hungrier for a choice that better suits their fancy. You begin to lose all your brand loyalty, to the point that if a competitor comes along offering YOUR customers a better choice those same customers drop you like hamburger that was left in the hot sun all weekend!

That's exactly what happened to the PCs when Reform first appeared. Reform grew like a weed by stealing not just the PCs voters but all their campaign riding workers and experienced party brass! The PCs ended up with a few of their generals left but they had lost all the sargeants who knew how to make things WORK!

Harper knows the dangers of what he's doing. He's just very confident he can manage the situation! I would agree that he can, for a while.

I just predict that if he DOESN'T address the situation to the satisfaction of those Reformer voters he WILL split the party again!

Edited April 4, 2011 by Wild Bill

[GWiz]

Harper knows the dangers of what he's doing. He's just very confident he can manage the situation! I would agree that he can, for a while.

Are you saying that Harper isn't right wing extremist enough for you?

If so I'm sure your wishes will be fully filled should Harper manage to pull out a majority and show his true Republican Red White and Blue colours...

I just predict that if he DOESN'T address the situation to the satisfaction of those Reformer voters he WILL split the party again!

Bill, honestly, how can you support someone, or a party, that is trying to drag Canada into being nothing more than the 51st state of a country, the USA, that has shown itself to be totally inept at managing an economy and, because of past Liberal policies Canada pretty much escaped the recession, that the Bush administration with it's unfunded wars, corporate bailouts and deregulation caused?

[Moonbox]

I just predict that if he DOESN'T address the situation to the satisfaction of those Reformer voters he WILL split the party again!

Most of Canada does not want a reform-style government. I like their fiscal policies but the Bible Thumping aspect of the party turned me off completely. Old Reformers can lament all they want that has taken its party away from its roots but splitting the party again would simply put Canada back into Liberal majority territory.

As for Harper's replacement being even more right of centre, that's highly unlikely. One of Harper's biggest failing is that he has trouble connecting with women, and that's largely because of how out of touch he is with abortion etc. Harper's replacement will be a palatable man/woman who can court the red liberal tory. The hardline CPC vote can be taken for granted.

[Scotty]

If that's true, then it's truly scary, and all the more reason to fight tooth and nail against a CPC majority.

Because Harper has been so extreme???

[Scotty]

Are you saying that Harper isn't right wing extremist enough for you?

I couldn't say what's in Harper's heart, but he has governed pretty much as a progressive conservative, really no further to the right than Mulroney or Clark were.

If so I'm sure your wishes will be fully filled should Harper manage to pull out a majority and show his true Republican Red White and Blue colours...

What I'd like is for him to make things work efficiently and effectively with the least amount of waste. Is that so much to ask?

[GWiz]

I couldn't say what's in Harper's heart, but he has governed pretty much as a progressive conservative, really no further to the right than Mulroney or Clark were.

MORONey (Harper's mentor) yes (2 peas in a pod), Clark no way (not even close), how you see any simularity between the two is beyond my understanding...

What I'd like is for him to make things work efficiently and effectively with the least amount of waste. Is that so much to ask?

Not at all, that's exactly why I'm voting Liberal, I feel the same way, BUT, if you're hoping for Harper to do that you're completely out of touch with reality...

[eyeball]

"Liberal, Tory, same old story!"

The only difference I see is that the former is largely indifferent whereas the latter is just plain mean.

Both leave me feeling like kicking the shit out of something.

[Pliny]

The only difference I see is that the former is largely indifferent whereas the latter is just plain mean.

Both leave me feeling like kicking the shit out of something.

Sounds like you have something in common with your idea of the latter.

[eyeball]

Sounds like you have something in common with your idea of the latter.

You think it's just me? It looks to me like the whole country is more indifferent and mean-spirited.

[Scotty]

MORONey (Harper's mentor) yes (2 peas in a pod), Clark no way (not even close), how you see any simularity between the two is beyond my understanding...

In what way did Mulroney, for all his flaws, govern as an ideologue from the right?

Not at all, that's exactly why I'm voting Liberal, I feel the same way, BUT, if you're hoping for Harper to do that you're completely out of touch with reality...

Hmm, well, the more I see about the Liberal party's shift to the Left the less I think them likely to govern with anything approaching efficiency.

[Scotty]

You think it's just me? It looks to me like the whole country is more indifferent and mean-spirited.

Being protective of the money you earn in hard times is not being 'mean'. And it's not as though anyone wants to throw orphans out into the cold to starve. What exactly do you consider 'mean' anyway? Not thinking much of a new and horribly expensive social program which is clearly unnecessary?

[Bryan]

Are you saying that Harper isn't right wing extremist enough for you?

I sure am, and so are a lot of the CPC base.

how can you support someone, or a party, that is trying to drag Canada into being nothing more than the 51st state of a country, the USA,

I wouldn't support that, nobody would. Thankfully no one is doing anything even remotely like that.

that has shown itself to be totally inept at managing an economy

The CPC has shown themselves to be among the best fiscal managers in the world, one of the best this country has had, They've proven economists, the opposition, and the PBO wrong time and time again.

[ToadBrother]

The CPC has shown themselves to be among the best fiscal managers in the world, one of the best this country has had, They've proven economists, the opposition, and the PBO wrong time and time again.

They had a sound fiscal framework delivered to them by previous governments. This is the most absurd and false bit of braggitry I've ever seen.

Thank the Mulroney and Chretien governments, they laid the foundations of our current system. Harper's government had nothing to do with it, and in fact was basically forced into a large-scale spending program by the Opposition in 2009.

Edited April 4, 2011 by ToadBrother

[blueblood]

They had a sound fiscal framework delivered to them by previous governments. This is the most absurd and false bit of braggitry I've ever seen.

Thank the Mulroney and Chretien governments, they laid the foundations of our current system. Harper's government had nothing to do with it, and in fact was basically forced into a large-scale spending program by the Opposition in 2009.

That same large scale spending program that resulted in the same deficit that the same opposition is wailing that is out of control.

Sounds like heads I win tails you lose. That really hurts the oppositions credibility and I think that's reflected in the polls

[ToadBrother]

That same large scale spending program that resulted in the same deficit that the same opposition is wailing that is out of control.

Sounds like heads I win tails you lose. That really hurts the oppositions credibility and I think that's reflected in the polls

You don't win, because your initial claim that the Tories created the stability we are enjoying, which is false. The current batch of Tories had nothing to do with it, so claiming they did is an out and out lie.

[Jack Weber]

That same large scale spending program that resulted in the same deficit that the same opposition is wailing that is out of control.

Sounds like heads I win tails you lose. That really hurts the oppositions credibility and I think that's reflected in the polls

Actually,Mr.Harper had a choice in 2008....

Fall on his sword,and let the dastardly coaliton take over...

Instead,he chose a "perogie",and for the sake of political expediency co-opted a budget that dreaded coaliton would have implemented...

[blueblood]

You don't win, because your initial claim that the Tories created the stability we are enjoying, which is false. The current batch of Tories had nothing to do with it, so claiming they did is an out and out lie.

Of course I didn't win, I was referring to the opposition's mentality from 2008 to the present. Its fact that during the 2nd term of mulroney and with martins term as finance minister with manning as his opposition is where the ship got righted.

Edited April 4, 2011 by blueblood

[blueblood]

Actually,Mr.Harper had a choice in 2008....

Fall on his sword,and let the dastardly coaliton take over...

Instead,he chose a "perogie",and for the sake of political expediency co-opted a budget that dreaded coaliton would have implemented...

And it looks like voters gave him a pass and over 40% polling results.

[Bryan]

And it looks like voters gave him a pass and over 40% polling results.

Of course they did. Everyone loves perogies, even Liberals!