Redford flip flops again. Desperation on committee pay issue boils over.

Premier Redford has flip flopped again on the committee pay issue as she announced today that PC MLAs on the infamous no-meet committee MUST pay back all the money they were paid.

A sad history of Redford's so called "real life leadership" on the issue:

Story breaks March 8th and Redford claims she that she was unaware of the situation: "I did not know," she said  “This, to me, is a ridiculous situation. It isn’t the way Albertans want politicians to be paid."  "It is not right"


March 9th: The truth comes out and she gets caught in a lie when we learn that she sat on that very same committee from Oct 09 until Feb 2010.

March 11th: Avoiding any leadership, Redford says that it is up to each individual member of her caucus to give back money they were paid for being on a committee that failed to meet for 39 months. “It’s a personal decision,”  She will NOT make anyone pay the money back.


March 12th: The first big flip flop as Redford changes her mind and announces that it is no longer is a personal decision and  that pay for committee work has been suspended for Tory members.

Also worth noting is that Redford called opposition MLAs giving the money back a "stunt"   "I find it terribly interesting that a number of people in this house, who today have come up with a convenient stunt to try and polarize an issue, are people who were fully aware of what they were receiving for payment and did nothing about it until today, we will do exactly what I've committed to doing, which is to have an independent commission make a recommendation to not only how government members are paid, but all members in the legislature.


March 20th: Under pressure PC MLAs ( but not all of them) announce that they will be giving back pay from no-meet committee, but only 6 months worth, the time which Redford was Premier. On which Redford said "I can't revisit the past,"


March 26th: Writ dropped and election called. PC use smear poll to find out why they are losing voters by the thousands.

March 27th: Redford goes all revisionist history and says that: "And I say again, I was the first person to identify (the committee) as an issue, and as soon as I became leader I took steps to correct it."  This in spite of her not knowing a thing about the committee back on the 9th.

March 29th: Redford flip flops on her flip flop and orders her MLA's to return the money. Forgetting that there are PC MLAs from that committee who will not ever pay back a single penny. (Snelgrove and Prins anyone?) and that she really does not have the authority to make these changes.  Its a Hail Mary but I believe the public won't buy it and will see it for the desperate political stunt that it is. 

March 30th: Dissension in the ranks. Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills MLA Richard Marz is not too happy with the way the Premier has handled this and questions why she should pay back some of the 30% (34% actually) that Redford voted to give herself in 2008.

Which brings up the question: If Redford's cabinet gets $3,500/month in lieu of committee pay, why shouldn't they return some of it?




Previously:

PC MLA Genia Leskiw on the no-meet committee:




Previous posts on the no-meet committee can be found here and here.

Under pressure, Premier Redford orchestrates her own "stunt" on committee pay.

The Wildrose gets results!

In a total reversal of her previous position it was announced earlier today that that Premier Record would be forcing the PC MLAs who sat on the infamous no-meet committee, that Redford herself sat on but didn't even know, to pay back the money they were paid for being on the committee that has not met since November 17, 2008. But only for the last 6 months, which happens to be the same amount of time that Redford has been the PC leader; I guess taking 'money for nothing and the cheques for free' wasn't a problem before October.

While not the first flip flop on this issue for Redford this one is going to be much harder to spin due to her previous attempts at damage control, which have apparently failed badly.

When asked on March 11 if she was going to make her MLAs refund the money she stated that she would not and that "It's a personal decision." if they wanted to refund the money.


And in the Alberta Legislature she had these, now empty, words:  "I find it terribly interesting that a number of people in this house, who today have come up with a convenient stunt to try and polarize an issue, are people who were fully aware of what they were receiving for payment and did nothing about it until today, we will do exactly what I've committed to doing, which is to have an independent commission make a recommendation to not only how government members are paid, but all members in the legislature."


Wow. A total flip flop from the Premier who has said on many occasions that she is honest and stands by her word. Those internal polls must not be going exactly the way that Stephen Carter said they would.


Related: I wonder what PC MLA Karen Kleiss has to say now?

Previously from Kleiss:













Don Braid on the refund fiasco here.

Alison Redford "Real life Leadership" or not...

It is painted on the side of the PC Campaign bus in big letters along side a picture of Alison Redford and reads "Real life Leadership". It is the campaign slogan with which the PCAA are going to run on in the upcoming Alberta provincial election.

But what does it mean, and more importantly has Alison Redford's leadership decisions lived up to her lofty sounding slogan so far?  The first answer to the first part is a bit difficult. The answer to the second part though is not. Not even close.

Like most campaign slogans 'real life leadership' sounds meaningful but it's just vague enough that applying any solid definition to it is nearly impossible. It has the buzzword 'leadership' in it which sounds good to the ear and it has 'real life' in it as well, which is also sounds good because that is where we all happen to be at the moment, but it also becomes meaningless fluff for that same reason as there is no other alternative to 'real life'. Zombies and the afterlife excluded.  I guess it is better than the laughable 'change from within' that I still see added to twitter hashtags now and again but it in the end it remains just as meaningless. But lets leave out the fluff for a minute and concentrate more on the slogan buzz word, the one that is supposed to make us feel comfortable when ever we hear it, leadership.


Alison Redford has been our premier now for exactly 6 months / 5 days and has had to make many decisions in that role and her role for 4 yrs previous as a cabinet minister under Ed Stelmach. But so far I have not seen much in the way of what I would consider to be real leadership from Redford on many issues and on others her record clearly shows the opposite, a distinct lack of leadership.

During the Stelmach period it is clear that she was just another nodding head at the cabinet table, agreeing with everything her boss proposed, be it royalty reviews, power lines, property rights, as well as the mess that was made in healthcare. I won't dwell on this period as Redford was not the one who made the final call but now that she has decided to revisit many of these Stelmach decisions it is clear that she did not agree or had some doubts with them, and it is worth noting that she showed little leadership by not speaking out at the time while in her role at the cabinet table.

Redford's leadership record also has not been stellar during her short time in the big office as premier, and on some rather important issues a troubling trend has emerged as she seems to want to pass off the difficult decisions that she is expected to make onto others. Be it her decision to hold a limited inquiry into healthcare, that was promised would deeper into the systems problems rather than just limiting focus specifically on queue jumping, or MLA pay where she promised to accept the judges recommendations (including if a pay raise is recommended) rather than just making the call herself. There seems to be a pattern of passing the buck and now it seems Redford is going to be doing the same on committee pay.

I think that most people are aware about the situation with the 'standing committee on privileges and elections' which has not met since 2008 and where 21 government and opposition MLAs have been paid $1,000 a month to attend non existent meetings. It is a joke and it has upset a lot of Albertans who are tired of politicians at the trough forcing Redford to speak out on it in an effort at damage control.

Redford: “This, to me, is a ridiculous situation. It isn’t the way Albertans want politicians to be paid." she said; "It is not right" Adding that she was unaware of the situation with the standing committee on privileges and elections, "I did not know," she said Thursday, calling it "disappointing".

Sounded like she was going to step up doesn't it? Caught unaware of what was going on she came out and expressed her displeasure at the situation, but there is one small problem with that.

Redford herself was on that committee and collected that $1000/month for not doing anything at all.

Yes, the same committee that she claimed she had not known about on Thursday, was in fact a committee the Alison Redford was sitting on from Oct. 28, 2009 until February 2010!

Unbelievable is one word for it and I can think of a few other choice words as well, but I will tell you what does not come to mind after hearing Redford talk about this, and that is "leadership".  Sorry Alison but we expect our premier to be able to make not only the tough decisions but also the no-brainers as with this committee and we don't elect people to punt to others when the responsibility is their own and they have the ability and opportunity to do the correct thing now.
 

That is not leadership. Real life or otherwise.



                                                              ------------------------

Some other questionable Redford leadership: Loading up her cabinet with failed PC leadership contenders, questionable appointments to party positions and to the Alberta Asia Trade office, to name a few.

Photo: AMBER BRACKEN/EDMONTON SUN/QMI AGENCY

Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position(s) on asbestos

Michael Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position on asbestos while happily attending a big bucks Liberal fundraiser hosted by a businessman leading the charge to reopen one of Canada’s last-remaining asbestos mines. (ironic no?)

"I think that Canada cannot export a product that is dangerous and cannot be handled safely,” Ignatieff said in Montreal. I’ve said that for a long time.”

Well he did say something like that in the past but on one occasion when questioned on that statement that he had made just days earlier, Ignatieff said something else completely.

"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."

Causing Kathleen Ruff, senior adviser on human rights for the Ottawa-based think-tank Rideau Institute, to comment on Ignatieff's denial: "I knew he would be under pressure to retract what he said but that's an out-and-out lie"


Confused? Don't worry, you are not alone. Even Liberal candidates don't know Ignatieff's position.

Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”


and who can really blame them for not knowing Ignatieff's position, it is always hard to hit a moving target.
 

Congratulations Michael Ignatieff, You are now Number 1!

I believe in giving credit where credit due, and Michael Ignatieff deserves full credit and a hearty congratulations for finally reaching #1.

Number one at what you ask; read on...

Michael Ignatieff has now reached the top spot on the list of  Members of Parliament absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons and is clearly #1 at skipping out on his job of representing the people who elected him to be their voice in Ottawa in order to do other (and I assume more important to him) things. In essence proving that he is in it for himself.
 
Ignatieff's voting record:

In the 40th Parliament, 3rd session (March 2010 - Present) out of the 125 recorded divisions, Michael Ignatieff was recorded as absent a total 96 times which works out to him missing votes 76% of the time.

                                            76%

While you may be personally shocked by the 76% figure, missing votes in Parliament is really nothing new for Ignatieff.

In the second session of the 40th Parliament (Jan 2009-Dec 2009) Ignatieff was recorded as absent on 76 separate recorded divisions. When taken together with his 3rd session record (above) it brings the total to a whopping 172 times that Ignatieff has been absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons since his election undemocratic appointment as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in Dec 2008.

That is a lot of absences by anyone's standard but what makes it even harder to understand is that it is Ignatieff and the Liberal party who scream the loudest  in front the media about getting back to work, working hard for Canadians, padlocking parliament, and spinning to the people that the Liberals are working hard at being a realistic alternative in the next election. They like to talk a good game but the record of Ignatieff and the Liberals proves otherwise. ( Note the total number of Liberals in the top 50 of that list. 72% are Liberals while just 6% are Conservatives. Bonus: for added fun scroll down the list to the bottom and note which party clearly has the best voting record.)
 

So stand proud Michael. The top spot is now yours and you continue to be a shining example of how hard the Liberal Party of Canada works for themselves on behalf of the people of Canada. Today is your day Michael; enjoy it.





Preemptive counter spin: You may hear that one of the reasons that Ignatieff missed so many votes was because he does not vote on private members bills, but don't believe it because that is nothing but a flat out lie.

Ignatieff working on his quest to be Number 1!

Michael Ignatieff wants to be #1 and he is 'working' hard to gain the title.

No, I am not talking about the PM's job, although I am sure he wants that as well, but rather Mr. Ignatieff seems to be trying hard to be #1 on the list of MP's who are absent from work and miss votes in Parliament.

Ignatieff is currently sitting in second place behind Bloc MP Jean-Yves Roy ( who is expected to retire in October 2010). With Roy's retirement upcoming and judging by his record since Parliament returned just last week, Mr.Ignatieff has already missed 4 out of the 6 recorded votes, Micheal Ignatieff is a sure bet to reach the number one spot very soon.

Good luck on reaching your goal Mr. Ignatieff, we will be watching your progress closely as you set out to become the #1 dead beat in the House of Commons all while at the same time telling us how hard you and your party are working for Canadians.



Here are some details on a couple of the votes that Ignatieff has been absent for since the House resumed sitting:

C 308 to amend the Employment Insurance Act.  (Yes, it is true. Ignatieff was absent for a vote on changing EI, the very thing that only 1 year ago he had threatened to force an election over!)

C 440 Gerard Kennedy's latest attempt to allow war resisters, who knowingly volunteered to enter the US military, to stay in Canada.   (Way to support your own MP's Iggy, but to be fair I don't think Iffy likes Kennedy very much. Hey, it is not like Ignatieff is not being consistent on the subject. Wait a minute...)


Update: Ignatieff wonders why the Liberals are not doing better in the polls (This guy shows us time and time again that he has no clue but yet expects Canadians to support him and his CONSTANTLY changing positions. What arrogance.

Why did Bob Rae and the 18 other Liberal MPs miss oral questions yesterday?

Bob Rae was noticeably absent from oral questions in Parliament yesterday and he wasn't alone; 18 other Liberal MPs were also too busy doing something else rather than showing up to do their jobs even though Michael Ignatieff's office ordered everyone to be there.

In total 19 out of 75 Liberal MPs, almost 25% of the entire Liberal caucus, were absent yesterday, which must really tick Ignatieff off considering all of the time he invested this summer telling Canadians just how hard he and his party were going to work for them when they returned to work this fall. Another leadership fail, but there is something else revealed here which could be much much worse for his Iffyness.

If he can't get his own caucus to bother to show up on the first day back to work this fall, even though he instructed them to be there, what is going to happen when it comes time for that same Liberal caucus to show up to the whipped vote on the long gun registry?

Remember that Ignatieff has at least 8 MPs in that caucus who had previously voted to represent their constituents wishes against the long gun registry and who now are being directed to change their vote under orders from Ignatieff. If 1 or 2 decide not to show up rather than go against the whip, the long gun registry just may die. Considering the amount of taunting and name calling that the LPC and their minions have been directing towards Jack Layton and the NDP these past few weeks on this issue, if it turns out that Ignatieff and his party are the ones that cause the demise of the LG registry, it would be absolutely devastating to his leadership; in fact I think it would all be over for him as leader of the LPC within a few short months.

You are not on the bus anymore Mr. Ignatieff.

Ignatieff's leadership skills: Loyalty.

Is it any wonder why Liberal candidates seem to be running away from the LPC lately?

Take a look at what Ignatieff said to former Liberal MP Hec Clouthier:

“I met Mr. Ignatieff and he said to me: ‘Hector, I would like you to consider running for me because you’re the only one who can win the seat back for us.’ ...

This all sounds nice but there is one small problem: current Liberal candidate Christine Tabbert.

I may be wrong but is asking Clouthier if he wants to run in for the Liberals in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and telling him that he is the "only one who can win the seat back" for the Liberals really the best way to show loyalty for Christine Tabbert or respect to the people of the EDA that nominated her? If Michael Ignatieff is the straight shooter who calls him as he sees them, as the Liberal spin machine would have us believe, does he really believe that Tabbert does not have a chance against current MP Cheryl Gallant, and more importantly has he told Tabbert his thoughts? Way to show your support there Michael!


Clouthier to his credit did not accept the offer, not because there was already a nominated candidate, but rather because Ignatieff would not allow him to properly represent the views of his constituents.

I said I will consider running, but ‘I am going to vote the wishes of my constituents’,” Clouthier recalled.

“He said: ‘I am the leader. If I whip the caucus you have to follow in line.’ I said: ‘No, I’ve been there, done that.’ I toed the party line and lost in 2000. I refuse to do that again.”

Listening to constituents is something Clouthier knows only too well due to his election loss 10 years ago when he toed the party line on the gun registry against the wishes of his constituents and lost to Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant. Something that 8 other Liberal MP's should seriously think about before they vote on the gun registry in September.

Ignatieff's ever shifting position on MP audits.

Ignatieff's ever shifting position on MP audits:

1. A bad idea: “I understand what Canadians are saying. They want accountability and transparency, but I don’t think they want us to be going through our receipts for this meal and that meal” (May 19, 2010)

2. A good idea: “What I mean is, it’s important Canadians know the money we spent is honestly accounted for, and that’s the kind of solution that we need to look for.” (May 19, 2010)

3. A bad idea: ”There is accountability that is in itself a waste of public money. Do you understand what I am saying?”

4. A good idea:” is “entirely in favour” of Fraser making sure the financial controls are “good and right and serving Canadians.” (May 26, 2010)

5. A bad idea: Iggy asks Liberal MPs not to post their expenses online. (May 26, 2010)

What it will be tomorrow? Who knows.


With leadership like this, is it any wonder the Liberals are lost?

Michael Ignatieff preached transparency to the cameras outside of caucus Wednesday but inside he was warning MPs not to be acting as freelancers or mavericks by posting their expenses online.

“Everybody is very confused about what is going on,” a well-connected Liberal MP says.

Liberal MPs – those who have been pushing for more transparency and have posted their expenses online – are being given the cold shoulder by some of the Liberal caucus senior players, according to an MP. Independent thinkers, it seems, will not be tolerated.

“Michael doesn’t want anybody else to put up their budgets,” says the source, who noted the hypocrisy in the fact that Liberals want to be able to manage taxpayers’ money as a government but “don’t want to disclose” the taxpayers’ money they are managing now.

“It’s amazing that we are fighting this,” says the MP.

How dare rookie Liberal MP Michelle Simson post her expenses online. She is going to pay for that one.

Today's EKOS numbers continue to reveal an ugly truth for the Liberals.

They really are lost.

Conservatives: 33.9
Liberals: 25.7
NDP: 16.4
Green: 11.9
Bloc Quebecois: 9.4 (37.4 in Quebec)
Other: 2.7

Harris-Decima

CPC 36

LPC 27

NDP 16

GRN 11

BQ 8

Related: Thomas Walkom (not a friend of the CPC) acknowledges how the Liberals are failing as an opposition under Ignatieff.

1 year ago....Ignatieff threatens an election (again)

One year ago Michael Ignatieff was all about EI. So much so that it looked to everyone that we were going to be headed to a summer election and with quotes from Ignatieff like the following, it is easy to see why.

"I'm trying to protect these unemployed workers across the country who badly need help and if the government will work with me, we can get it done," Ignatieff said. "If they won't, we'll have to have an election."

and "And I'm telling you straight and I'm telling you clear: I cannot continue to make Parliament work unless we get substantive EI reform before this Parliament rises in June." "But I can't back down on an issue as fundamental as EI. This affects hundreds of thousands of Canadians."

It sure looked like Iffy was serious but as it turned out he wasn't and Ignatieff got lucky when the PM tossed him a bone and gave him an out by agreeing to hold talks on EI over the summer; which once over, he quickly forgot all about EI.


Some quotes on how bad Ignatieff messed up with his threats.


Gilles Duceppe on Iffy: "He just choked. He looked in the mirror this morning and saw Stéphane Dion.”

Chantel Hébert: "If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck, and in this case it looks like a dead duck." and "I know that he is not Stephane Dion, but even Stephane Dion with all of his language challenges I don't think could have muffed a message that much".

Pickles or Onions.

One year ago, the beginning of the end for Ignatieff.

Elizabeth May's Campaign Manager Quits, and other green troubles

A must read blog entry on the current troubles within the Green Party of Canada under Elizabeth May's leadership.

Excerpts:

'John Fryer just quit as Elizabeth May`s campaign manager in SGI. I won`t bother going into the endless list of people who have been briefly associated on a professional basis with Elizabeth May and the current leadership of the Party who have quit, been fired, or just shunted aside.....'

'So there we were, and here we are. A National Party with full slate of directors, leader, deputy-leader, and communications staffers on the payroll, but NO FIELD ORGANISERS!'

'So to summarise, the current leadership has been exposed as hopelessly incompetent with our finances and Party management. They ramped up hiring and spending, then were forced to 180 and fire everybody. The response to the unfolding woes has been to re-focus the Party from encouraging and supporting local organising at the grassroots level, to making electing Elizabeth May the sole priority of the Party. '


And you thought Ignatieff had problems.

What kind of "Rural Canada Matters" strategy.....

What kind of "Rural Canada Matters" strategy keeps in place the much hated gun registry and keeps in place the Canadian Wheat Board which does not allow western (and only western) farmers to sell their own grain?

Answer: The Liberals Rural Canada Matters Strategy.


What does the Liberals RCM strategy actually do?

It plans to put 80 Million dollars towards an advertising campaign to promote farmers markets and locally produced food

Hooray, another Liberal ad campaign; just what Liberal bagmen rural Canada needs!

Michael Ignatieff is so far removed from rural Canada that he should require a visa before visiting a farm. Don't believe me? Well then explain just how the following measures, also part of the RCM, relate to rural Canada.

• A $40-million program to help 250,000 low-income children get better access to healthy food.
  
• New health-labelling criteria for food and tougher standards on trans-fats.
• Investing $50 million to ensure foreign imports meet local standards and to improve food inspections, and implementing a review of federal food inspection agencies to ensure safe food for Canadian consumers.

None of this has anything at all to do with rural Canada and looking at the spending I would guess that 95% of the money allocated will be spent in urban, and not rural, Canada.

Take your RCM plan and your divisive Graves Doctrine and go back to Harvard already Iffy; rural Canada does not need you.

That is a good question Mr. Ignatieff

Michael Ignatieff asked a good question yesterday.

“Well, who's the third party? I mean they've simply got to come clean here with Canadians,” Ignatieff told reporters outside the House of Commons.

When dealing with 'third parties' one can never be too careful; so what would you do Michael if you were Prime Minister?

Say you had an MP, lets use Wayne Easter as an example, who happened to receive allegations from a third party against another MP that some would consider serious enough that they would warrant a call for that MPs resignation.

So what would you do Michael? Would you demand that your MP come clean with Canadians and identify the third party making those allegations, as you currently are of the PM, or would you just ignore it and hope nobody noticed?


BTW Michael, we noticed.

The Elusive Liberal Platform

Where is the Liberal election platform?

It was supposed to be all ready to go in June 2009.

It was supposed to have been ready when Ignatieff uttered his famous "Mr. Harper, your time is up." back in September 2009.

So here we are in late March 2010 and what does Michael Ignatieff have to say about that elusive Liberal election platform now:

"The conference will be a key step in the development of the Liberal Party's platform for the next general election."

????

Is Ignatieff saying that the Liberal platform is not ready after having already told Canadians on 2 separate occasions (at least) that it was ready to go?

WTG on building that trust between the voter and the 'political class' Michael, but do tell us, why should anyone believe you this time?

Just more convenient hollow words from the Iffy Alternative.



FOUND: The Liberal Platform !

The Iffy Alternative.

Michael Ignatieff : “They’ve (Canadians) [Interesting that Ignatieff uses 'they've' instead of 'we've' * here.] had three or four elections and they’ve told me as clear as can be: ‘Listen up, Ignatieff, we don’t want an election, we want an alternative’ -- and that’s what I’m doing,”

Here is just the latest example of 'what he is doing'.

Ignatieff and the Liberal Party did not bother to introduce one single amendment to a budget that Ignatieff himself described as being full of "freezes, cuts and gimmicks," and that "the throne speech and the budget let Canadians down. They expected vision and got gimmicks. They deserved ambition and got drift,".

Imagine that; a budget that Liberals have declared as being bad for the country will not only pass because Ignatieff is not going to allow some of his caucus to do their jobs and vote, but will pass as is written because the Liberals could not even be bothered to table any amendments to improve it. Not that I am surprised considering Michael Ignatieff pretty much summed up his leadership philosophy when he said the following "I am the leader of the opposition. I have no position to clarify.", but Canadians deserve better.

(Update: the budget did pass thanks to the 29 chosen)




That is quite the alternative you are showing us Mr. Ignatieff. Under your leadership we have seen a Liberal Party who would rather play political games and smear than do anything helpful or constructive, and worse yet are too damn scared to even back up for their own words and rhetoric with action. Mr. Ignatieff you may by definition be called an 'alternative', but by the actions of yourself and your party you have shown Canadians that you are only in it for yourself and are truly one very Iffy alternative.







A selection of related blog tags on the strategy of our Liberal opposition.
Campaign of fear. Faux Scandal, Games.

-----------------

I will continue to update this post as new material becomes available on why Ignatieff and the Liberals are a very Iffy Alternative.

Epic Fail: Ignatieff shows us that he is not even capable of running his own party.

You may have missed this yesterday

A couple of things that you may have missed yesterday thanks to the ever vigilant and balanced Canadian MSM.

McGuinty prorogues the Ontario legislature. Heard about it? No; why not? Wasn't the outrage over the "anti-democratic" practice of prorogation recently the subject that the media couldn't stop talking about? When the PM prorogued it was on TV for days on end, it was the subject of hundreds of columns in the papers across the country, and there were few if any political blogs that didn't weigh in on the topic. But when McGuinty does it we get almost nothing for coverage other than a couple of stories and some of those deal more with a bizarre press tradition than the subject of prorogation, which we were recently told by that very same media, outraged Canadians so much. Why the double standard? Kady? Anyone?

Does anyone but me find it odd that legislative press galleries have actually developed their own traditions revolving around prorogation? It is almost as if proroguing was a common occurrence or something, but that couldn't be because that same press was saying something entirely different just a few weeks ago. Weird.




And speaking of outrage, or rather a lack of it, where was the MSM on the recent revelation that an outbreak of Liberal flu is imminent and that they are going to be playing games with the vote on the budget?

Yesterday Ignatieff came out and said that the Liberals were going to vote against the budget, but there would not be enough Liberals to show up to vote against it to force an election.

Wow. Just freakin' wow. Why is the MSM in this country just regurgitating Liberal press releases and taking democracy lessons from Ignatieff, a man who has NEVER won any nomination/leadership contest in his life, or the Liberal Party who ignored the wishes of its own members and party constitution by letting a handful of unelected people appoint Ignatieff?

Think about it for a minute. There are only 2 possible ways that the scenario Ignatieff expressed can occur. The first is to ask for volunteers from among the ranks of Liberal MP's for those who want to avoid doing their job (remember prorogation and how important it was to be on the Hill working) and to not represent those that elected them by being absent from the vote, or Ignatieff chooses which MP's are going to be allowed to be there to represent the people who elected them to do their jobs. Either way it is not an example of how democracy should work and considering all of the outrage over prorogation from the Liberals since before Christmas and which continues to this day as shown yesterday when in oral questions the first question that Ignatieff asked was on prorogation, how the hell are the Liberals getting such a free ride from the media on the hypocrisy of the whole thing?


I should not get my hopes up too high because even if the media did ask Ignatieff about the particulars of how he is going to accomplish his plans for the budget vote (or on anything else for that matter) he would use his standby answer and say that he 'does not answer hypotheticals' in one breath and then claim that he is offering the Canadian public a real alternative in another. An alternative that does not answer any specific questions or offer up any policy I guess, but the media would buy it and give him yet another pass. I might as well hope that the MSM call out Jack Layton for his complaints about tax breaks for banks and corporations, the very same tax cuts that he signed off on and agreed to implement when he was negotiating to be part of the coalition. Sadly though I doubt that either one will happen.


Update: another Liberal talking point bites the dust.
"Flaherty’s travel arrangements became news last weekend when CTV broke the story that he had flown to London on a government jet rather than going commercial at a cost of $800.

As it turned out, one reason Flaherty used a government plane was so he could be up in time to do an interview with, uh, CTV, which initially reported he had commandeered a Challenger at a cost of $9,000, much more than the Cessna Citation he actually flew on at a cost of $3,100. Oh, and because he was doing 11 radio and five TV interviews in the morning, three staffers were along. So their equivalent commercial costs of $2,400 meant Flaherty was actually saving $100."

Michael Ignatieff: "Prorogation is way above my pay grade"

Aside from the fact that Ignatieff stole the line from Obama, whose popularity has dropped like a stone, what else has changed between the time that he made that statement back in June 2009 and this past Monday that now makes him think he is a constitutional expert?

Michael Ignatieff: " I can't give you the answer that you want, which is to do away with prorogation, because it is way above my pay grade and requires constitutional lawyers and other fancy people"

Watch the video.

IMHO nothing has changed other than he smells an opportunity. An opportunity to get rid of the one thing that stood in way of the coalitions grab for power, prorogation, handcuffing every future PM of this great land in the process. Absolutely amazing! Here we have a guy who wants to permanently change the rules on system that has worked for 142 years and yet he does not even have the courage to face the voters in the polls before trying to do so.


How damn desperate, partisan and self-serving must you be to try and limit a power today that may be needed by a PM in a future where prorogation may be the only method that could be used to avert a potential nation destroying crisis. Talk about being short sighted.


Thankfully our constitution and rules of governance will not allow Ignatieff and his coalition buddies to change anything that really matters.



Spector on why Ignatieff's lame and dangerous proposals will not fly:


Benoit Pelletier, a constitutional expert and former Quebec minister of intergovernmental relations, argues that “amending the rules of the House or passing legislation would not be enough to force the Governor-General to ignore the wishes of a prime minister calling for a prorogation.

"It’s legitimate to try [to limit a prime minister’s power], but the possibility of blocking a prorogation is not obvious,” said the law professor at the University of Ottawa.

Mr. Pelletier said that prorogation is an element of the country’s political system and has a tacit constitutional recognition.

“I think the Governor-General would obey the prime minister,”

A view echoed, in a report by CP that Bloc whip Michel Guimond says “the Bloc supports in principle efforts to impose constraints on the prime minister’s power to prorogue. But he said the party has been advised by legal experts that a constitutional amendment, approved by the provinces, is the only way to go about it….

He doubted there’s much appetite for reopening the constitutional can of worms.

“In principle, we are not against the solutions proposed by the two other parties but we know that we must be realistic,” Guimond said in an interview.

Even the Bloc know the reality on this, but unlike Ignatieff, most Bloc MP's have been in Canada long enough to know how our system works.

Another failed Liberal Photo op.

On Monday January 25th, 2010 Michael Ignatieff stood at a podium in front of the friendly Parliamentary Press Gallery, pointed behind him, and said "That chamber may shut and locked by Stephen Harper, but we know what Canadians want us to do today."


Yes Iggy, Canadians do want you to do something. At least make the attempt to look like you have a clue as to what you are talking about before asking for our votes.

The doors are wide open!

Updated with video:

And just in case you may think that this was just a one off from Ignatieff, may I remind you that this is not the first time we have seen such a gaffe from the deep thinker and touted "intellectual".

Do you remember this?

That's right. Ignatieff stood at another podium in front of the cameras, pointed behind him, and said "Look at the field behind me, it is not getting done," at a field that there was no plans to develop for 7 years! He also again tells us what Canadians expect of him: "This is us doing our job and this is what Canadians expect us to do." and again he fails miserably at that job.


Sorry Liberals, but Ignatieff is not up to the job and to be honest I am not even sure that he is even interested anymore.

Which has it been? Responsible Government or Responsible opposition?

Since the 2008 election has Canada had a more responsible government or a more responsible opposition?

You can vote on the side bar and feel free to leave your comments below.

This may very well be the real ballot question the next time we go to the polls so choose wisely.

------------

I will not vote in my own poll but if I was going to I think the choice would be an easy one to make. When you compare and the performance of the Harper Government over that of the Ignatieff led official opposition it is a slam dunk. The Government has been much more responsible and wins hands down.

Be it on various policy, the military, trade relations, response to crisis such as the earthquake in Haiti or even our recent financial turmoil, this government has provided to Canadians a responsible government capable of compromise while the official opposition has offered up nothing other than lots of yelling to the cameras and smear.

You may not agree with everything this government has done, but most should agree that they have ran an effective government.

Being the opposition means contributing just as much as it means opposing and so far the official opposition Liberals have been a complete failure on half of that equation and their leader somehow is proud enough about this to even brag about how his Liberals have offered up nothing constructive.

Ignatieff's quote at the end of this video says it all on his leadership.

"I am the leader of the opposition. I have no position to clarify."







Here is a little something the grits should really think about. Mr. Ignatieff first has to prove that he is even capable of running the opposition in a responsible manner before he will ever be chosen by the people of Canada to be our PM, and unless that happens the Liberals are only buying time until the next leadership convention.


h/t Canadian Sense , Nobody likes Ignatieff.

Where is Ignatieff?

Where is Michael Ignatieff? I have not seen a press interview with him for awhile and he was absent from oral questions all of last week where the subject of discussion has been mostly about something that he is very familiar with; torture.


Odd that a guy who said this:



and this:





and wrote stuff like this:

"…torture is not served by collapsing the distinction between coercive interrogation and torture. Both may be repugnant, but repugnance does not make them into the same thing."

"…necessity may require the commission of bad acts…"

"An outright ban on torture and coercive interrogation leave a conscientious security officer with little choice but to disobey the ban."

"…it must be the case that other acts of torture occur because interrogators believe, in good faith, that torture is the only way to extract information in a timely fashion…"

"The argument that torture and coercion do not work is contradicted by the dire frequency with which both practices occur."

And, finally, the epitaph:

"I am willing to get my hands dirty."

"I am willing to get my hands dirty." That much, it seems, is true."

would be absent the very same week where the subject of his expertise comes up. What are the odds of that.



BTW: Ignatieff is also an expert in war crimes ("I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that. That's clear.") too, or at least he was ("As I said earlier this week, whether war crimes were or were not committed on the attack on Qana is for international bodies to determine,") before being called on his words.

(To all of those that claim that Ignatieff was sorry for his war crime comments I hope you note that what he said above was not an apology from Ignatieff. Not even close.)

More'Apologizing' from Ignatieff: "I do believe that in this conflict, war crimes were visited on Israeli citizens and were visited on Lebanese civilians," he said. "Whether war crimes were committed in the attack on Qana is for international bodies to determine. That doesn't change the fact that Qana was a terrible tragedy."