Thursday 21 January 2010

Iggy and Me

OK. I admit it. Michael Ignatieff and I have a troubled relationship. (We are related by marriage, but I don't think he knows that.) I have tried to be nice and even supportive.

But today, after promising he never ever no-how no-way do that again, he did it again.

In a totally typical and predictable Liberal way, he and his handlers have opportunistically tried to hi-jack another grassroots group -- Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.

After his open letter to CAPP evincing support and bum-kisses, his on-line town hall today, supposedly to address CAPPers' issues, was a TOTAL FUCKING JOKE.

I give you the bits that have anything REMOTELY to do with CAPP's issues.
[Comment From Wendy Perry Wendy Perry : ]
Mr. Ignatieff,will you be attending one of the CAPP rallies?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:00 Wendy Perry

Michael Ignatieff:
Thank you Wendy for your question. Yes, I will talk at the Ottawa rally on Saturday.
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:00 Michael Ignatieff

[Comment From Ian Perkins Ian Perkins : ]
Mr. Igantieff can you explain why Canadians are upset with the prorougation of Parliament?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:00 Ian Perkins

Michael Ignatieff:
Ian, Canadians want their MPs back at work and they want their Prime Minister to be accountable to Parliament.
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:01 Michael Ignatieff

[Comment From Jeff Jedras Jeff Jedras : ]
I'd like to ask about democratic reform. Many Canadians feel the current First Past the Post system doesn't fairly value or reflect their votes. Do you believe we should consider a new voting system, and what do you think that system should look like?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:01 Jeff Jedras

Michael Ignatieff:
Im prepared to look at reform of our voting system provided that reform doesnt fragment the country and weaken the ability of national parties to hold the country together.
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:02 Michael Ignatieff

Michael Ignatieff:
Whats important is getting more Canadians to turn out at elections. Our participation rate is now below 60 percent. We need to get more people involved.

Mario Lagüe (moderator):
3:02 [Brad Bossack] -
Greetings, as a member of CAPP (Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament), I wish[...] to speak of changing the currant democratic structure to providing and endorsing more participation within the process decision making. As you have seen, there are many Canadians who are feeling very disenfranchised, and are rallying to be heard in a new way. What are your feelings and idea's on democratic renewal in this country?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:09 Mario Lagüe (moderator)

Michael Ignatieff:
Politicians need to get out on the road and answer tough questions face to face with voters. there:s a hunger for direct participation and involvement. Thats what I discovered on my tour of colleges and universitiesand I want to keep on going with town halls in every Canadian community I can get to.

Comment From Alan Goodhall Alan Goodhall : ]
Thank you for this forum Mr. Ignatieff. Yesterday Mr. Layton stated to the media that the NDP would propose legislation to limit the power of a prime minister to prorogue the house. Do you feel legislation is required or is this more a question of ethics of the party in power and best left to the public to decide through the ballot box?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:39 Alan Goodhall

Michael Ignatieff:
Provided a Prime Minister respects Parliament and its authority, legislation isnt needed. Mr. Harper used prorogation to duck a confidence vote and to evade tough questions in the House. That;s wrong. Ive already pledged not to use prorogation that way. The problem is not the power itself, so much as its abuse.
Mr. Harper has abused his power.

Comment From Glynn Pearson Glynn Pearson : ]
I am very concerned about your response about prorogation. Harper was elected on promises of accountability and transparency after a debacle with the Liberals of the day (including a long prorogation). I don't know you and I don't want you to feel disparaged but it has been demonstrated that we cannot trust the person in power to act with the public's best interests in mind. Would a new Liberal government consider committing to legislation to ensure the responsible use of prorogation?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:55 Glynn Pearson

Michael Ignatieff:
As a great writer once said, rules are for people with no character. Meaning, that you need to legislate when you cant trust the people who hold power. My view is that we dont need to legislate limits on prorogation. We just need to return to the basic understanding that used to limit prerogative power, namely that you dont use it to duck tough questions in parliament and you dont use it to duck a confidence vote. harper used it this way and it was wrong, and Canadians are telling him dont ever do that again.

Faff, faff, and more faff. (Go to the link for some really gagsome slo-pitches about his favourite part of the job, for example.)

Insulting, the whole damn exercise. We, the grassrooty CAPPers, got all moisty-panty, thinking, 'Wow, party leader takes note of discontent, wants to address us.'

Ha. Iggy and his handlers bethought themselves: 'Hoho, a ready-made huge audience. We'll deign to talk to them -- showing off our super-duper webby skills -- and they'll all join Iggy's Facebook page.'

In short, it was a better handled version of the attempted co-option of the feminist 'Left Wing Fringe' movement.

I sent in a question, which, needless to say, did not make the cut. It was:
Mr. Ignatieff [moi being polite], would you work with the NDP and the Bloc to form a coalition that would represent the majority of Canadians and work cooperatively on the pressing problems of the day?

So. Sorta-cousin-in-law Iggy, FUCK YOU.


deBeauxOs said...

Oh dear. You just turned on the Librul bat[shit crazies] signal.

Any minute now, Christian will come pounding, bounding and hounding up to our blog.

Chrystal Ocean said...

Yup, pretty much said the same thing over at my place. 'To hell with you', 'fuck you', same diff. I just keep wishing and hoping and thinking and praying (well, forget last) and STILL no leader worthy of the name steps up.

D said...

I'm caught between a leader who actively dismisses the electorate (Harper) and a leader who actively patronizes (Ignatieff) the undecideds and Canadian youth. Honestly, I prefer the latter and while I'd love to wait around for our Obama (not that I believe Obama's vision would be any more embraced in Canada than it is in the US right now) the real reality is that Canadians have a choice of two parties that will form the next government. I choose the devil who pretends to care.

Ignatieff is trying the Obama thing: mobilizing the e-Politico. You've got to give him some credit, he's at least spent the last two weeks going out and engaging Canadians publically - which is more than I can say for Layton who needed to ponder what the New Democrat's official position on prorogation shoudl be while his MPs went to bat "unofficially" for a return to parliament on national television night after night after night.

The Liberals have a stronger pool of MPs for cabinet and that's my primary reason for hoping an Ignatieff government forms in 2010.

Anonymous said...

You can't seriously believe that any leader with an actual chance of becoming PM would expound constitutional changes so that the PM can't prorogue parliament on a web forum. I think he's right, that Harper will do want he wants, right up to the edge of any rules, no matter what they are. I mean, its like Harper would pull up a chair and start shovelling back the shrimp at a buffet table if there is no rule saying dont do that, while no one else would think of such a thing. Who would have thought to go to a lawyer in the States and say, just how much can you torture someone before its torture? There's a real mean-spiritedness/vindictiveness at play in the canadian right that warrents cutting the leader of the official opposition some slack for the time being.

As far as Prop Rep, I'm not all that convinced that Canadians are ready for that either -- look at BC. I think that they gave it a pretty fair shot, and for the time being, they'll have to leave it on a slow simmer and keep trying again at another time. I think it certainly bears seriously looking at, but promising to fight for it? Not a smart thing to do.

I would think that someone who has over and over again championed the right to choice and the rights of women will see that if we don't get behind this guy, whether he's mister perfect or mister 75%, that we will soon see a real possibility of the cons picking up more US style tricks and cutting funding/ tying funding to curb access to abortion, continue to dig its feet in all the way to the supreme court on EVERY safe injection site, and just wait a year when they start claiming that they need to keep spending in check. A continued goodbye to support systems for everything but the White Christian Nuclear Family with a Mother At Home.

Sure, he took some softballs. But really, what are the CAPPers issues? That they just woke up after a four year nap and realized that Canada is taking it up the ass? That started with the scientist who lost his lab priveledges for not referring to the recently electly government as The New Government of Canada. I mean, I'll be out there with a sign on Saturday, and I'm a member on Facebook, but the prorogation is the straw that broke the camel's back, not the root problem, and promising to fix the straw just doesn't help. The big issue is that Harper and the Cons don't want government to work. They don't believe in it. Mr. Longstaff hit the nail on the head the other day with his blog that essentially said you can't be conservative and democratic.

In-fighting on the left will keep Harper in, and seriously, there isn't goint to be a leadership race before the next elections, so its better to offer suggestions, as we have seen you do, than to start slagging Ignatieff as he continues (again, he's been all over Canada this past week and you can't find it on the news anywhere) talking to Canadians.

CK said...

I missed the town hall. I'm afraid the Quebec government and its' agencies ban facebook (as well as other social networking groups) on their employees' computers.

Sadly, I don't think a coalition is in the works. Unless Jack changed his mind recently, I had read and heard he was going to play let's make a deal with Stevie? He also criticised the Liberals for returning to work come Jan. 25, in spite of the fact they must have surely read letters from their constituents telling them to go back to work. If that is true, Jack is not providing any comfort here.

Anyone who follows my blog knows I'm not a fan of Iggy and I never believed he was suitable to lead the Liberals. But, unfortunately, given Jack leaning more toward wheeling and dealing with Stevie, Iggy's all we got.

Stevie is surely to send us all a poison pill come March when he releases the new budget. Watch for it to be similar to that economic statement he gave November 27, 2008; the statement that led to the coalition gov't. I venture to guess that it would be a carbon copy.

Stevie is more than likely going to engineer an election call for April. Not going to vote will favor Stevie and his quest for his majority (toatalitarian regime; probably a la Pinochet).

Voting for the NDP will get no one anywhere; they will never govern.

So what are we left with? Because letting Stevie get a majority is an option that is frightening.

Best scenario I've always said was a merger of the left and center left, but that isn't headed that way now.

At least, unlike Stevie, Iggy isn't part of that evangelical christian far right sub culture.

@UnionSt said...

Love this post.
Did you see what Alfred Apps did on the CAPP wall?

Anonymous said...

Iggy said - "rules are for people with no character. Meaning, that you need to legislate when you cant trust the people who hold power."

He's so fucking clueless, doesn't he get WE DON'T TRUST ANY BODY IN OTTAWA THAT HOLDS POWER!

Isn't that a no-brainer, I swear the guy is an Imbecile when it comes to politics and the people. He lives in a bubble, another planet, is he on complacent drugs? Say hello to another Harper minority, without alternatives, it is the only outcome. *shaking head*

Anonymous said...

How do I de-friend? I only re-activated to see kids travel pics from Thailand and this online chat with Iggy. HELP, I'm a techno-goof.

fern hill said...

I can't get behind Mr. Torture Light/Invade Iraq.

Sorry. Just can't.

As a lifelong Dipper, I have to say that Jack is a huge disappointment.

I live in Trinity-Spadinda. I can vote with a totally clear conscience for Olivia. Good person.
She should be party leader.

If I were elsewhere, I'd be voting strategically.

fern hill said...

Union St: That's what frosts my flakes. The opportunism of the fuckers.

Other people: Iggy is a disaster. Undemocratically enlisted. Libs can't get rid of him.

Jack is a disaster. Democratically elected.

Harper is a horror.

What to do?

Coalition of the least horrible.

D said...

"Coalition of the least horrible."

Well said.

Beijing York said...

fern, you must have known that "Iggy" works like a dog whistle with me. Cannot stand the man. Jack bugs the crap out of me and I was never keen on his leading the Dippers but Iggy is an entitled, pompous, over-rated piece of shit. His backroom shenanigans and front-of-the-camera sabotage of Dion is a testament to his situational ethics (e.g., torture and Iraq).

The lesser evil of all political leaders on the Hill is Duceppe imv. I wish they would give up the ghost on separation and expand the party to represent Francophone communities across the country in addition to Quebec. Now that might actually change things up a bit. I'd consider moving to St Boniface just for that kind of voting option :-)

Anonymous said...

Wow! I love you guys! So brutally honest!! No veneer of social niceties here!!! Such vigorous language! So uncanajian! And yes, for the record, they are all of them power-hungry jackals who will jump on any opportunistic train to get ahead. Sorry, did I just mix a metaphor?

Post a Comment