Michael Ignatieff

[Newfoundlander]

Chretein left a huge mess. The start of the downfall of the commons and the dirty politics ,he had a hand in it all. He will down as the worst and I mean worst PM this country ever had.

He's one of my favourites!

[PIK]

Isn't Trudeau and Campbell in that running? Turner?

Ya trudeau is there, but cambell and turner were not around long enough to do anything.

[WLDB]

He's right about negative/smear campaigning. Sadly that is out of the bottle now and I doubt we'll see a clean campaign from any party for a long time. Well, at least not from a party that can win.

[Bonam]

Ignatieff was a disaster as a liberal leader. One of the reasons why was because his own personal beliefs and philosophies did not at all agree with the relatively left-wing position the liberal party was trying to stake out for itself during his tenure. His speeches and writings put him far to the right of the liberal party on many issues, farther right even than the conservative party on some. He took the leadership of the liberal party because he was power hungry, not because he agreed with the liberal party's values or direction.

[UofGPolitico]

Ignatieff was a disaster as a liberal leader. One of the reasons why was because his own personal beliefs and philosophies did not at all agree with the relatively left-wing position the liberal party was trying to stake out for itself during his tenure. His speeches and writings put him far to the right of the liberal party on many issues, farther right even than the conservative party on some. He took the leadership of the liberal party because he was power hungry, not because he agreed with the liberal party's values or direction.

That's basically what I always thought too. His views did not match up with the the policies he was running on, therefore came off as less than sincere.

[WWWTT]

He's right about negative/smear campaigning. Sadly that is out of the bottle now and I doubt we'll see a clean campaign from any party for a long time. Well, at least not from a party that can win.

Whether you agree with Ignatieff or not does not change the fact that for the last 20-30yrs in Canada,politics can get very ugly/dirty.And politicians need thick skin and have to be able to take a few shots.

Ignatieff was never capable to change the reality!

Nor was he able to take a few shots!Let alone give any hard political punches!

WWWTT

[Evening Star]

Ignatieff was a disaster as a liberal leader. One of the reasons why was because his own personal beliefs and philosophies did not at all agree with the relatively left-wing position the liberal party was trying to stake out for itself during his tenure. His speeches and writings put him far to the right of the liberal party on many issues, farther right even than the conservative party on some. He took the leadership of the liberal party because he was power hungry, not because he agreed with the liberal party's values or direction.

It was truly incredible. He had made a name for himself as perhaps the most prominent Canadian advocate of Republican foreign policy. Every left-of-centre person I knew dreaded him becoming Liberal leader. In Opposition, he rarely seemed to oppose the Conservatives. Everyone seemed to view him as one of the most conservative Liberal leaders in decades. Then during the campaign, out of nowhere, he started trying to sell what was, essentially, an NDP platform and started claiming that he was a Pearson/Trudeau-style Liberal.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Evening Star

[WLDB]

Whether you agree with Ignatieff or not does not change the fact that for the last 20-30yrs in Canada,politics can get very ugly/dirty.And politicians need thick skin and have to be able to take a few shots.

That explains why so few people of quality go into politics these days.

[August1991]

He's right about negative/smear campaigning. Sadly that is out of the bottle now and I doubt we'll see a clean campaign from any party for a long time. Well, at least not from a party that can win.

If you think that Ignatieff was the first victim of a negative/smear campaign, you have a very short memory. The Liberals and the Toronto media did a sharp number on Stockwell Day. Joe Clark was initially treated as a lightweight, and Mulroney as a Gucci-wearing American wannabe.

Canadian politics in the 19th century were far more negative than today. Laurier was called a Papist, beholden to a foreign potentate.

I agree however that more people vote in this 21st century and people nowadays have many more other pre-occupations. It is harder for politicians to get their message through. At the same time, politicians have better technology to understand potential voters. All of this is to say that wedge issues may be more refined (or arbitrary) nowadays than in the past.

----

As to Ignatieff, he was a flake and IMHO, like Pierre Curzi, he should not have got involved in the political game. It is one thing to discuss issues around a dinner table (or on an Internet forum), it is quite another to stand for office.

That explains why so few people of quality go into politics these days.

Do you seriously believe that politicians in the past were "better quality"? Gimme a break.

Politicians in democracies are what they are.

Edited March 18, 2012 by August1991

[WWWTT]

That explains why so few people of quality go into politics these days.

I believe that this comment is very based on perspective.

WWWTT

[WLDB]

If you think that Ignatieff was the first victim of a negative/smear campaign, you have a very short memory. The Liberals and the Toronto media did a sharp number on Stockwell Day. Joe Clark was initially treated as a lightweight, and Mulroney as a Gucci-wearing American wannabe.

Canadian politics in the 19th century were far more negative than today. Laurier was called a Papist, beholden to a foreign potentate.

I agree however that more people vote in this 21st century and people nowadays have many more other pre-occupations. It is harder for politicians to get their message through. At the same time, politicians have better technology to understand potential voters. All of this is to say that wedge issues may be more refined (or arbitrary) nowadays than in the past.

----

As to Ignatieff, he was a flake and IMHO, like Pierre Curzi, he should not have got involved in the political game. It is one thing to discuss issues around a dinner table (or on an Internet forum), it is quite another to stand for office.

Do you seriously believe that politicians in the past were "better quality"? Gimme a break.

Politicians in democracies are what they are.

I dont think Ignatieff was along. Im well aware of the past attack campaigns used by various parties. Im simply agreeing with him on the fact that it is now a huge issue. Attack adds dont seem to change votes, they just keep people at home. If you're going to attack a politician, base it on facts and attack their policy ideas.

And no, I dont think politicians in the past had any better quality per-se. But Im sure many dont run because of the negative attention politicians attract. Between that and what it does to family life and professional life for that matter after one leaves office its not a very attractive job unless you make it a career.