Angry in the Great White North

The benefit of not accepting the accepted wisdom

2009-11-10T15:07:50-05:00

The accepted wisdom said that the Conservatives could never pull out a win in Bloc-dominated Quebec, and yet in yesterday's by-elections, the Tories took a Bloc-held riding.

[Again, no posts for days and days. A severe cold has been racing through my household, keeping me off work and blogging both. It seems to be on the wane, and the by-elections seem as good a spot as any to pick things up again.]

I have no credibility is discussing Quebec politics. Everyone, it seems, says it is different from politics elsewhere in the country. If you don't live there, you just don't get it. Fine. I'll accept that at face value.

So why did the Conservatives contest two Bloc-held ridings, and come away with one of them in what is being called a game changer? Lots of reasons, so obvious to people like me, and some perhaps only understood by someone who understands these unique Quebec dynamics. But that it is significant is clear:

The Conservative government put the Bloc Quebecois on notice Monday night with its byelection win in a Bloc stronghold, proving that its fortunes in Quebec are stronger than pundits predicted, experts say.

Conservative candidate Bernard Genereux won in Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup by more than 1,400 votes over Bloc candidate Nancy Gagnon, grabbing a riding that's been held by the BQ since 1993.

The win "is a game-changer off the island of Montreal," L. Ian Macdonald, editor of Policy Options magazine, told CTV.ca in a telephone interview. "This is a Bloc bastion that has fallen to the Conservatives not by a few votes but by 1,500, five points."

Nowhere in the preceding quote are the Liberals mentioned, because even as the game is changed, the Liberals are still not playing.

But that runs counter to what we've told. The Conservatives were dead in Quebec. Arts and culture. H1N1. The gun registry. And, of course, Stephen Harper himself. Meanwhile the Liberals are resurgent, because unlike elsewhere in Canada where Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff is seen as too cerebral and short of practical leadership, in Quebec, the philosopher king appeals to their political sensibilities.

Of course, Michael Ignatieff took a heavy blow with the Denis Coderre mess, but really, was that enough to re-energize the Conservative vote? In any case, in the run-up to the vote, Ignatieff had dutifully begun firing all those people that Denis Coderre didn't like.

Now to be fair, the Liberals were never expected to win in either Quebec by-election. Of course, neither were the Conservatives. But while the Liberals went through the motions, the Conservatives ran a star candidate, Bernard Genereux, in Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, and executed a campaign designed to win.

The Conservatives rejected the accepted wisdom. And now, along with the win in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley in Nova Scotia, the Tories have two extra seats in parliament. More importantly, the Tories have an additional Quebec MP, and a high profile one at that, who will be spending the time from now until the next election building on Tory strength in Quebec.

The concern for the Tories used to be how many of their Quebec seats they would lose in a general election. Now it is the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois who are worried, wondering how many additional seats the Tories might be able to pick up.

I guess Michael Ignatieff is going to working with Peter Donolo on a whole new set of reasons of why Canadians, who clearly are aching for a Liberal government, will have to wait for an election. Hah.

There is no law that says you have to accept the accepted wisdom.

Green is so passe: The Greens received only three percent of votes cast in all four by-elections. And Michael Ignatieff last month declared that the environment will play a central role in the Liberal Party platform in the next election. So maybe yet again Michael Ignatieff is utterly misreading the electorate.

First job for Peter Donolo: Getting Mark Holland to shut up

2009-11-03T13:23:55-05:00

Liberal MP Mark Holland is the poster boy for what ails the Liberal Party when it comes to communications, a top priority for incoming chief of staff for Michael Ignatieff, Peter Donolo.

Ironically, Mark Holland exhibits this problem while praising Peter Donolo. Really, Peter Donolo ought to find a quiet corner for Holland where Holland can sit quietly and watch the grownups work.

Off Topic...

H1N1 Poll: Do you think the government mishandled the swine flue vaccination process?

Just over two weeks ago, Liberal Party Michael Ignatieff announced a "thinker's conference" to be held in January:

The federal Liberals will hold their much-postponed "thinkers' conference" in Montreal in mid-January, leader Michael Ignatieff says.

Replying to reporters' questions in Vancouver on Tuesday, Ignatieff said the Liberals would convene a policy-renewal gathering in Montreal from Jan. 14 to 16.

That announcement further seals the impression that Liberals, taking a hit in the public-opinion polls, are now gearing for an election next spring instead of this fall, and that Ignatieff is taking advantage of the wait to renew the party at the ideas level.

So are we clear? The party is being renewed at the ideas level.

Eye-dee-ahhs.

And yet, Liberal MP Mark Holland utterly contradicts this in a statement he made two weeks after the conference had been announced:

Liberal MPs praised their leader's new chief of staff Wednesday as a communications guru who will help spread the party's message clearly.

Grits say Peter Donolo, who begins work Thursday as the top aide in Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's office, brings the communications skills Liberals desperately need.

"Our problem isn't ideas," said Liberal MP Mark Holland. "We have to do a better job of branding and marketing our message."

So, which is it? The idea thing discussed by Michael Ignatieff? Or the communications thing as declared by Mark Holland?

Hey, why doesn't someone read that quote back to Mark Holland ("Our problem isn't ideas") and then ask him to comment on the thinker's conference coming up in January?

The thinker's conference had been announced two weeks ago, so Mark Holland knew that by saying "Our problem isn't ideas", he is essentially saying the conference is a waste of time.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Peter Donolo might be advised to make an example of Mark Holland. Holland has failed to stay on message and has undermined Michael Ignatieff. Maybe it's well past time for the other members of the Liberal caucus to see what will happen to those who further hurt the beaten and battered Liberal Party with their ill-informed (or willfully damaging) public statements.

Jean Chretien and his gifts to Canadian conservatism

2009-11-03T11:54:19-05:00

Former prime minister Jean Chretien might very well be the best thing that ever happened to Canadian conservatism.

When it comes to the ongoing resurgence of Canadian conservatism, one has to give a big hand to former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien.

When you start to enumerate the ways in which he laid the groundwork for the ongoing success of the Conservative Party, it almost takes your breath away.

Jean Chretien was the right man at the right time. A thuggish man by nature, his success had less to do with his charisma, and more to do with the split on Canada's right. A man who ought not to have been prime minister for more than a term instead won three majorities -- by default. And to think people praise him for that. It's congratulating someone for tripping. Still, that stroke of dumb luck gave us the following:

Donation limits. Put into place after he announced he was giving up politics, the limits on donations was designed to benefit the Reform Party and punish his own Liberals. Why? Just to screw Paul Martin. And every single Liberal leader since then has had to struggle with the donation limits, even as the Conservative Party continued to vacuum up money.
Liberal corruption in spades. The best example, of course, was Adscam, in which the Liberal Party was caught red-handed dishing out taxpayers' money to friendly ad firms only to have a portion of that money returned to the party in the form of donations. Jean Chretien was never accused of wrong-doing, but the Sponsorship Program was his creation. The full story of Adscam has yet to be told. His immediate successor, Paul Martin, paid the price for it.
The crapulence of Kyoto. Canadians are well aware that Jean Chretien's knowledge of global warming is, well, nil. Looking only to his own reputation, the target to which he committed Canada was based entirely on being one percentage point better than the Americans. Of course, he then ignored the accord completely. Stephane Dion was the Liberal leader who paid the largest price for this piece of Chretien idiocy when he tried to fool people into thinking that Jean Chretien's party could somehow be truly environmental.

This is a small sample, but it highlights just how Chretien's legacy has affected each of his successors, allowing the Conservatives to incrementally improve their standing.

Is Michael Ignatieff cheated of his share of Jean Chretien's legacy? Not at all.

For Michael Ignatieff we have the long gun registry. An absurd idea on the face of it, the registry would compel owners of hunting rifles to register their firearms. Supporters say the police use that information to know what to expect when entering a suspect's home. What a piece of crap. Every police officer assumes a suspect is armed to the teeth until proven otherwise. Even the auditor general didn't buy that line. The real purpose of the registry is to...well...actually it's hard to pin down what it's for. I suppose it's a vote winner in some places, but then people who are so enamoured by the the gun registry that it would actually affect their votes are hardly likely to vote Conservative on any other issue anyway.

Basically, the registry was a gift to Liberal supporters of the sort who like the notion of massive government intrusion into private lives. But what started as a gift is now a liability. Why? Because no one likes to have their gifts taken away. And it will be taken away, because, gift or not, it's a piece of garbage.

The incompetence of Chretien's government resulted in the long gun registry being a utter failure. Promised to be a break-even operation, it became a sinkhole for cash, with $2 billion spent on a broken database.

No one pretends that the long gun registry is something to be proud of.

The Conservatives are on the verge of eliminating this absurdity once and for all:

According to my own informal survey of rural opposition MPs, it looks like Candice Hoeppner's bill to abolish the long gun registry is well on its way to becoming law.

The vote on second reading is scheduled for Wednesday, Nov. 4.

And because C-391 is a private member's bill, it'll be a free vote. That means MPs are freed from the usual requirement of voting along party lines.

[A] number of Liberal and NDP MPs from rural ridings say they're in favour of ending the registration of all shotguns and hunting rifles, as well as destroying the records of roughly seven million people who had previously registered their non-restricted weapons.

Among those supporting Hoeppner's bill are New Democrats Nathan Cullen, Dennis Bevington, Charlie Angus, Niki Ashton, and Carol Hughes, and Liberals Larry Bagnell, Wayne Easter and Anthony Rota.

By the time January rolls around, the Senate will have tipped to the Conservatives, and this bill could well receive royal assent.

Gun-control advocates (or is it just "control advocates", guns just being the the convenient bogeyman?) like Wendy Cukier warn that the Conservatives could pay a price at the polls. Well, this private bill would have been squashed by the Conservatives if that were true. I'm guessing that the party has polling data that shows the pickups in rural Canada far outweigh the losses in areas that are already Liberal strongholds.

But what about those ridings in between? Here is where the gift from Jean Chretien enters into the picture. The Conservatives are just doing what the Conservatives have always promised to do. People who supported that promise will be pleased and will have one more reason to vote Conservative, and those who like the registry so much that it is a vote breaker already abandoned the Conservatives because of that promise. A net shift to the positive for the Conservatives.

The mushy middle, however, aren't excited about the registry itself. They are watching Stephen Harper and the Conservatives fulfilling a promise, and Michael Ignatieff losing control over his party.

That will shift some votes too, or cement existing voting intentions, all in favour of the Conservatives.

But Michael Ignatieff will also pay a price in those Liberal strongholds, even if the Conservatives won't win any votes there. Michael Ignatieff will be blamed for abandoning the long gun registry, especially if, weak in the polls as he is, he makes no effort to take a stand on the issue.

If the registry is dismantled, it won't be coming back -- not after the cost overruns the first time around. Michael Ignatieff will be tagged as the Liberal leader so weak that he could not prevent a minority Conservative government from dismantling Jean Chretien's long gun registry.

And it gets worse. If and when the bill gets passed by the Senate, it will remind everyone that it was Michael Ignatieff who abandoned the coalition, and who then couldn't figure out how to organize a election to defeat a government fighting a recession, setting the stage for Stephen Harper to turn the Senate from Liberal to Conservative.

How many thousands of Liberals will simply refuse to donate to the party, and will decide to stay on home whenever the next election happens because they see Michael Ignatieff as yet another failure?

Like Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff would be labeled a failure because of one of Jean Chretien's ideas.

So thank you, Jean Chretien. Another one of your stupid ideas has turned into shot under the waterline for the Liberal Party. I've heard people say it would take a decade or more to undo Liberal influence in Canada, to erase the notion that the Liberal Party is Canada's "natural government party". It's been six years since Jean Chretien quit, and his legacy has been a significant in fueling that transformation for all six of those years.

Thank you, Jean Chretien. Conservatives could not have done it without you.

Liberal Party: We can do better press releases...not!

2009-10-28T14:58:38-05:00

The Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has made a promise: "We can do better."

For a start, let's try managing our H1N1 flu press releases a little bit more carefully, shall we?

From the Liberal Party, a most important declaration regarding the H1N1 flu, as issued to this country's media:

From: Liberal Media / Medias liberaux <media@liberal.ca>
Reply-To: Liberal Media / Medias liberaux <media@liberal.ca>

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:36:10 -0400
To: *****

Conversation: NEWS RELEASE: H1N1 - COMMUNIQUE: H1N1

Subject: NEWS RELEASE: H1N1 - COMMUNIQUE: H1N1

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. <http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=b71b47a81da6e7d67dc2f2074&id=4d4c6ee1b9&e=00d536b180>

Si ce courriel ne s'affiche pas bien, consultez-le avec votre navigateur. <http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=b71b47a81da6e7d67dc2f2074&id=4d4c6ee1b9&e=00d536b180>

[LE FRANCAIS SUIT L'ANGLAIS] <#LE_FRAN_AIS_SUIT_L_ANGLAIS>

Press Release Title

For Immediate Release
Month Day, 2009
OTTAWA - Sample copy. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Morbi commodo, ipsum sed pharetra gravida, orci magna rhoncus neque, id pulvinar odio lorem non turpis. Nullam sit amet enim. Suspendisse id velit vitae ligula volutpat condimentum. Aliquam erat volutpat. Sed quis velit. Nulla facilisi. Nulla libero. Vivamus pharetra posuere sapien. Nam consectetuer. Sed aliquam, nunc eget euismod ullamcorper, lectus nunc ullamcorper orci, fermentum bibendum enim nibh eget ipsum. Donec porttitor ligula eu dolor. Maecenas vitae nulla consequat libero cursus venenatis. Nam magna enim, accumsan eu, blandit sed, blandit a, eros.

-30-

Contact:
Office of MP Name, 613-

Pour diffusion immediate
Le 4 septembre 2009
Press Release Title
OTTAWA - Sample copy. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Morbi commodo, ipsum sed pharetra gravida, orci magna rhoncus neque, id pulvinar odio lorem non turpis. Nullam sit amet enim. Suspendisse id velit vitae ligula volutpat condimentum. Aliquam erat volutpat. Sed quis velit. Nulla facilisi. Nulla libero. Vivamus pharetra posuere sapien. Nam consectetuer. Sed aliquam, nunc eget euismod ullamcorper, lectus nunc ullamcorper orci, fermentum bibendum enim nibh eget ipsum. Donec porttitor ligula eu dolor. Maecenas vitae nulla consequat libero cursus venenatis. Nam magna enim, accumsan eu, blandit sed, blandit a, eros.

-30-

Renseignements :
Bureau de , depute, 613-

System administered by LPC / Systeme admistre par le PLC

Liberal Party of Canada
81 Metcalfe Street, Suite 400
Ottawa, ON K1P 6M8

Is your email not displaying correctly? Then follow the link to see this official version:

If any other party had done it, it would just be an honest mistake. But when the Liberals do it, with all the miserable communications problems they've been having, well, it just adds to the laughter.

We can do better. Sure they can. It's hard to imagine them doing any worse.

Michael Ignatieff fires his Chief of Staff [Apology Added]

2009-10-28T11:33:58-05:00

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff, having led this party to the mid-20s in the polls, has fired his Chief of Staff, Ian Davey.

This leads to uncomfortable question of just how is it that Ian Davey can be blamed for Liberal misfortune.

Update: An apology appears at the end of this post.

Michael Ignatieff's plummet in the polls has been happening for some time, arguably as far back as June, but it was his performance on September 1 that really kicked the chair out from under the Liberal Party:

The country could be plunged into yet another election campaign in as little as two weeks after Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff warned Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "Your time is up."

Ignatieff delivered a fiery, campaign-style speech to his caucus, announcing that the Liberal party will no longer support the Tories in crucial confidence votes in the House of Commons.

"After four years of drift, four years of denial, four years of division and four years of discord, Mr. Harper, your time is up," Ignatieff told cheering MPs and senators in Sudbury.

It was all downhill from there.

So now we have the inevitable slaughter:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has a new chief of staff - Peter Donolo, esteemed as the communications expert behind former prime minister Jean Chretien's ascent and long reign in power.

The announcement was made late Tuesday night amid a flurry of leaks that caught even the departing chief of staff, Ian Davey, by surprise.

I'm going to put aside the laughable way by which everyone knew of what was happening except Ian Davey. By now, Michael Ignatieff's incompetence is no longer newsworthy. It's news when he doesn't mess something up.

Instead, I am going to go back to September 1. Michael Ignatieff declared that he would lead the Liberals in defeating the minority Conservative government. In the weeks that follow, the Liberals crater in the polls. As a consequence, Michael Ignatieff fires his Chief of Staff.

So...his Chief of Staff is responsible for what has happened, right?

Well, this could be true, in one of two ways:

Michael Ignatieff came up with the "your time is up" idea, and Ian Davey failed to dissuade Ignatieff from taking this course and suffering the consequences. For not succeeding at protecting Michael Ignatieff from himself, and for not protecting the Liberal Party from Michael Ignatieff, Ian Davey must go.
Ian Davey came up with the "your time is up" idea, and sold it to Michael Ignatieff, who bought it hook, line, and sinker, being the political neophyte that he is. For having so easily manipulated Ignatieff, Ian Davey must go.

Neither version makes Michael Ignatieff look good. Really, though, I think the first version is closest to the truth. Ian Davey might be ill-suited to the job, but he is essentially blameless. On the other hand, Michael Ignatieff can hardly be seen to take responsibility and fire himself. Michael Ignatieff comes up with a terrible idea, ignoring the advice of people around him. That idea costs the Liberals dearly in he polls. Facing pressure from within, Michael Ignatieff blames his staff for his own incompetence, and placates his critics by replacing that staff and putting an old Liberal stalwart in charge. These critics see that Jean Chretien is back, at least by proxy, and so breath a sigh of relief, hoping against hope that Michael Ignatieff will be rendered a harmless figurehead by Peter Donolo and the Chretien power-brokers behind him.

Ian Davey (and whoever follows him out the door) will carry the blame that ought to be assigned to Michael Ignatieff.

It's Michael Ignatieff's incompetence, but it's Ian Davey who loses his job.

You know what they say: It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools.

I apologize for giving Michael Ignatieff too much credit: Call me an optimist, but I really hoped Michael Ignatieff's mistakes were his own. Apparently I was wrong:

Critics said Mr. Ignatieff's staff pushed him to declare that he would attempt to defeat the government as soon as possible, a move that backfired with an election-weary public.

So Ian Davey might be carrying more of the blame than I had expected. As a puppet, then, it is unfair to allocate more than a small amount of the blame to the Liberal leader.

For that, I apologize.

Dislodging the Conservatives? The Liberals have only one real option

2009-10-26T12:01:19-05:00

The Conservatives seem to have settled into the 40% range for support, while the Liberals continue to drop, now showing 25% in the latest poll.

Canadians are not listening to the Liberals at this point, and that is very bad news for Michael Ignatieff. Now the Liberals face the daunting task of dislodging the Conservatives, not just trying to catch up with them. The volatility in the electorate seems to be fading.

So how do you dislodge a dug in opponent? By doing something very dramatic.

I just don't think the Liberals have the guts to do what I propose.

So I've been away for quite some time again. Delivering training to a customer, multiple sessions a day. And frankly, the news seemed silly again. Logos on cheques? Money not distributed exactly in 1/308 portions to each riding in the country?

Is anyone listening to this stuff? I wasn't. According to the latest poll, neither were most Canadians:

A new poll shows support for the federal Liberal party has weakened so much that, were an election to be held today, Michael Ignatieff would lead his party to a worse showing than his predecessor, Stephane Dion, did last October.

"The Liberals, these days, just have no traction at all," said Darrell Bricker, CEO of polling firm Ipsos Reid, which provided its latest results exclusively to Canwest News Service and Global National.

Ipsos Reid did a telephone survey of 1,003 Canadians from Oct. 20 to Oct. 22, a period last week when Liberals were hammering the Conservatives in the House of Commons on accusations that ridings held by Tory MPs were getting more economic stimulus funds than non-Tory ridings. The week also saw Harper concede that it was wrong for two of his MPs to put a Conservative party logo on ceremonial cheques used as props for riding funding announcements.

And the total damage? Zero.

Maybe some hard-hitting advertisements would help. They'd be expensive, but what about all that money that is allegedly flowing into Liberal coffers?

Maybe the money is there. Maybe it's not. But you would think the Liberals would seriously consider paying good money to hit the airwaves with these scandalous revelations.

Except that maybe Canadians aren't worked up about logos as long as the money is being spent effectively.

And maybe the money is being spent a lot more effectively than the Liberals are letting on.

For me, the Liberal whining went in one ear and out the other. I really couldn't summon enough interest to dismiss the ridiculous statements by Liberals and their apologists. Canadians at large don't seem to care either.

Which leaves the Liberals in a terrible position.

It is no longer a case of overtaking the Conservatives in the polls.

The Conservatives have to be dislodged.

In other words, with this latest poll, taken against the backdrop of what Liberals thought was a tough week for the Conservatives, the Conservatives seem to have settled at the 40% mark, while the Liberals continue to wilt.

A good week for Michael Ignatieff won't do much at this point. The Liberals have to realize this. Something has to happen to change the underlying facts on the ground. A ground shift would shake things up, and open up possibilities for the Liberals.

They have tried what they laughingly called a scandal, and have gotten nowhere. Indeed, they have seen their numbers suffer more.

A real scandal could do the trick, but that would require the Liberals to play a waiting game, hoping for something to happen. At 25% or lower, how much support would bleed away from the Liberals as they waited? Would they even be in a position to take advantage of a scandal that might never come?

No, the Liberals have to take the initiative. They have to do something so jarring and so unexpected that Canadians would notice. Something so stunning that Canadians would get excited, regardless of their political persuasion. That might dislodge the Conservatives, and make it possible for the Liberals to make up lost ground.

Honestly, at this point, I see only two possibilities.

One would be to announce plans to merge with the NDP. But that would require the NDP to play along. There are too many variables that the Liberals could not control in that scenario.

The other would be to force out Michael Ignatieff as leader. The polling results would mute the howls from the shrinking ranks of Ignatieff supporters, and a real leadership race would bring positive attention (eventually) to the Liberal Party.

Dump Ignatieff and turn the event into a huge attention draw for the Liberals. There's my advice to the Liberal Party. Take it or leave it. But you know I'm right.

Garth Turner leaves politics as a failure

2009-10-14T13:32:15-05:00

Former Liberal MP Garth Turner has abandoned his quest for a seat in the next election.

And in classic Garth Turner fashion, he blames everyone around him.

In doing so, he cements his legacy, not as a politician who merely lost, but as one who failed.

On CTV's Power Play, Tom Clark confronts Garth Turner on the question of why there was no nomination meeting. Garth Turner has just finished making his claim that the reason there was no nomination meeting was that the Liberals did not want outspoken straight-talker Garth Turner in the party. Tom Clark quotes DCFLA Membership Chair Janet Rosenstock who has claimed that the only reason a nomination meeting had not been held was that the riding was short nine new members, and that Garth Turner had failed to sign up these members.

Garth Turner calls Janet Rosenstock a liar, then he makes this statement:

"What's she's saying to you now is news to me."

Really? He had no idea? I spoke to people in the riding association, and here is what they say to be true.

The first meeting at which the question of signing up new members as a prerequisite for triggering a nomination meeting occurred on June 18. The issue of the memberships was referenced in the minutes. He was at the meeting, and at every subsequent meeting, and at each one the questions of memberships was brought up.

The last meeting happened on September 18 (Jeff May said it was September 17). Garth Turner was there along with his supporters within the riding association, Lynda Kee, John Kee, Paul Flynn, Bill Snell and Neil Orford. Again, the issue was raised.

The next meeting is October 15 (tomorrow) but it is not clear is Garth Turner plans to attend. I'd expect the issue of memberships to be raised yet again. You have to realize that the longer the riding association is forced to wait, the more difficult the problem becomes, since memberships expire, and even more members have to be signed up to account for the attrition.

If it is true that Garth Turner knew since June of his obligation to sign up members, and in four months failed to reach the goal, then the problem has gotten progressively worse for the next nominee.

Janet Rosenstock was interviewed by CTV, and responded in detail regarding Garth Turner's allegation that he did know about the need to sign up nominees (or that he was short of the number required -- Garth Turner is not clear on just what exactly was "news" to him):

But Janet Rosenstock, the chair of the Dufferin-Caledon Federal Liberal Association, has a different story, saying Turner only needed nine more members to sign off on his candidacy for a nomination meeting to be called.

Turner called Rosenstock's version "incorrect" but did not go into details.

In an email to CTV.ca, Rosenstock responded to Turner's statement and said Turner was told a nomination meeting could be held as soon as the riding reached the required membership level.

"I am not misinformed. Mr. Turner simply does not listen. He was first informed of the necessary number (of members needed) on June 18th," she said.

Additionally, Dufferin-Caledon Federal Liberal Association president Jeff May told CTV News in an email that Turner was informed on Sept. 17 that he just needed a few more members for a nomination meeting to be called.

"Neither he nor his team brought any new members to the Association between that statement and his 'resignation,'" May wrote.

Garth Turner "simply does not listen". Ouch. I doubt Garth Turner enjoys being contemptuously dismissed like that.

You know, if Garth Turner had simply returned to private life after the 2008 election, he would have gone out as a politician who had lost.

That's ok. Most politicians go out that way. You try your best and you lose. It happens to everyone eventually.

Now, Garth Turner will return to private life, yet again, but this time as a politician who failed.

Talking to Michael Ignatieff? In his bitter final blog posting, Garth Turner claims that "today I informed the leader of my resignation." Tom Clark asked Garth Turner if he spoken to Michael Ignatieff. Garth Turner paused and said he had corresponded with him.

Ah, so he emailed Michael Ignatieff. Gee, I could do that. Michael Ignatieff's email address is right on here, on his MP's page.

So Garth Turner and Michael Ignatieff exchanged emails? Is Garth Turner sure about that? I mean, Michael Ignatieff has people on staff whose job it is to respond to trivial emails. Michael Ignatieff might be interested in a confirmed candidate resigning, but a nominee dropping out of the race to be a candidate? I just don't see that as being on Michael Ignatieff's radar.

Uncomfortable next meeting: For those members of the riding association who invested so much personal capital in recruiting Garth Turner, only to have him quit, and to take potshots at Michael Ignatieff as he left, there is likely to be some uncomfortable stares from around the table at tomorrow's riding association meeting. It's one thing to bring in a candidate who loses, and another thing to bring in one who fails. But to bring in one who hurts the party even as he fails? Oh, yes. Many uncomfortable stares...if not worse.

What doesn't Garth Turner understand? From the Liberal blog Muskoka Liblog, this intriguing post: "Garth Turner doesn't understand how nomination meetings work". But the post has been deleted. Too bad. I would like to know what a Liberal has to say about this.

Exclusive: Statement from DCFLA Membership Chair on Garth Turner

2009-10-13T09:22:52-05:00

Exclusive to Angry in the Great White North, Dufferin-Caledon Federal Liberal Association Membership Chair Janet Rosenstock reveals details concerning Garth Turner's aborted attempt to become the Liberal Party candidate for the riding.

Exclusive to Angry in the Great White North, a statement from Dufferin-Caledon Federal Liberal Association (DCFLA) Membership Chair Janet Rosenstock on Garth Turner:

Janet Rosenstock, Membership Chair of the Dufferin-Caledon FLA said, "I am not sure Mr. Turner's reasons for leaving are indeed his reasons for leaving. Another candidate for nomination had come forward and was in process. Perhaps Mr. Turner did not want to face a fight for the nomination. As far as Mr. Turner's feeling that the Leadership would not grant him a nomination meeting is concerned, there are rules that must be followed. Every FLA must have a certain level of membership before a nomination meeting can be granted. The Membership level is lowered during what is called, 'Electoral Urgency.' Our 'Electoral Urgency' number is roughly 175. We needed about 12 more members. Mr. Turner and his supporters were told repeatedly that a nomination meeting could and would be held when the required level of membership was reached. Two and one half months later, Mr. Turner and his supporters had failed to sign up a sufficient number of members."

So there you have it. According to Janet Rosenstock, Garth Turner failed to sign up sufficient numbers of members to hold a nomination meeting. As Membership Chair, this is Janet Rosenstock's concern.

Garth Turner chooses to report the refusal to schedule a nomination meeting as a signal that he's too brutally honest for Michael Ignatieff's Liberal Party, and trumpets that loudly on his blog. But this statement suggests that in reality, Garth Turner failed to complete the simple task of signing up members.

Is signing up members a hard thing to do? It wouldn't seem to be the case. A whisper from inside Dufferin-Caledon is that the rumoured new candidate for the riding nomination signed up nearly twenty new members in a day.

So what about this business of Garth Turner's views not being welcome by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff?

It might be true. It might also have nothing to do with Garth Turner's aborted attempt to become the candidate. True or not, it makes Garth Turner sound like a martyr instead of a failure.

Donations: Off topic, but I'd appreciate donations to help me fight the Blair Wilson lawsuit. For anyone who was having trouble with the donation button, the code has been corrected. Thanks again.

How to we interpret all this? In two-and-a-half months, Garth Turner failed to reach the threshold of new memberships required to hold a nomination meeting. If he had, he would have been acclaimed. Instead, a new candidate has appeared, and with the help of people in the riding clearly uncomfortable with the possibility of Garth Tuner representing their riding, the new candidate quickly made up lost ground. Realizing that he could lose a widely watched nomination fight, and facing active resistance from within the riding, Garth Turner chooses to abandon his bid altogether. For Garth Turner, quitting is better than losing. But in the process of quitting, Garth Turner injects the notion that he was too brutally honest for Michael Ignatieff's Liberal Party.

Recharging the legal batteries

2009-10-12T21:55:09-05:00

It's been a year since failed MP Blair Wilson filed his lawsuit. I looked for donations when the suit was started. One year later, I'd like to ask for your generosity again.

In the year since failed Liberal-cum-Green MP Blair Wilson filed his lawsuit, we've made progress, and yet the process is ongoing. So at the one-year anniversary, I'd like to ask my readers who are concerned with questions of freedom of the press to hit my donation button and give what you can. With your help at the start of this, I've been able to carry the load through the intervening months, but I don't feel bad coming back and asking for more help, especially since many of you might be surprised that this is still an issue a year after it started.

Thanks for your help!

For anyone who was having trouble with this button, the code has been corrected. Thanks again.

Garth Turner is turfed as Dufferin-Caledon candidate [Update: The real reason]

2009-10-12T19:52:07-05:00

Some time back, I wrote about what I discovered to be serious divisions in the Dufferin-Caledon Liberal Party riding association about having Garth Turner stand as the candidate.

A key aspect of that division was the refusal by the federal Liberal Party (Ontario) to give the go-ahead for a nomination meeting, and the suggestion that the meeting would be held off as long as Garth Turner was the only nominee.

It seems like the anti-Garth-Turner faction has succeeded, and Garth Turner has quit his campaign to be the nominee.

Latest Update: The real reason for quitting the race? Because it was about to become a race.

From Garth Turner's blog on the termination of Garth Turner's campaign to become the Liberal Party candidate for the riding of Dufferin-Caledon:

After being recruited to run for MP in the Ontario riding of Dufferin-Caledon, and having my candidacy approved by the Liberal Party last July, today I informed the leader of my resignation.

In Dufferin-Caledon I have been the only nominee for MP candidate since August. I'm interpreting the leader's failure to allow a nomination meeting as a signal my views are unwelcome.

I have skipped over the middle bits. He goes on for several paragraphs about his views on this or that. He does take an implicit swipe at Michael Ignatieff:

In my financial books and writings I've warned of the need for families to invest wisely, use debt carefully and live within their means in an uncertain world. Rather than tell voters interest rates and taxes won't rise nor spending fall, leaders should guide us all into realistic choices. Sadly, that doesn't win elections.

"Leaders". Plural. Not just Stephen Harper then.

Garth Turner is interpreting the refusal of the Liberal Party to allow a nomination to proceed as evidence that his views are unwelcome. I can assure you that a Garth Turner candidacy was not seen as a positive thing by many in the riding association:

At least 6 or 7 members of the executive are vocally against Garth Turner being the candidate for the riding. I prefer to keep the names to myself for the time being.

Of the executive membership who are both active in riding association meetings and who have expressed opinions, we're looking at a 50-50 split when it comes to having Garth Turner walk into the riding unopposed and take the job as Liberal Party candidate.

In the power struggle that has ensued, it appears that Garth Turner did not come out on top. I expect a press release shortly from the riding association with their take on what has happened. If so, I will update this post.

Still, to lose an uncontested nomination? That a faction within the riding association with rather have no nominee in place than have Garth Turner? That's got to sting.

Ah well, that's politics for you. I guess it's the difference between notoriety and popularity.

Donate if you can: I'm looking to recharge the legal batteries after a year-long lawsuit filed by failed MP Blair Wilson continues... For anyone who was having trouble with the donation button, the code has been corrected. Thanks again.

There's two hours of my life I won't be getting back: I suppose my research a couple of weeks back on Garth Turner's use of digital imagery is all moot now.

Attacks Michael Ignatieff: I can't actually explain this. It is the strangest thing I've ever seen. Even stranger than when Stephane Dion claimed he was being selected by the Canadian electorate to be leader of the official opposition when the Liberals suffered that historic loss in 2008. Garth Turner has added an entire post above the post I quote above. In this new post, he lashes out at Michael Ignatieff:

Some months ago I was encouraged to return to federal politics. I succumbed. Big mistake.

Yesterday I corrected that, and am returning my Liberal decoder ring. In fact, it's fair to say my experiences in politics over the past four years have reminded me why 97% of Canadians do not belong to a party.

To date, no party or leader has treated you honestly to an explanation of what a $56 billion deficit or $600 billion debt mean for your family or your finances. Suggesting there'll be no tax hikes, spending cuts or mortgage increases is akin to Stephen Harper telling us one year ago Canada was immune to recession and our budget would stay balanced. It's crap. But apparently crap that people like hearing.

Such talk has surely not endeared me to the new Liberal leader. Can't say I'm surprised. But neither can I stay.

So Garth Turner has laid the blame for his rejection squarely at the feet of Michael Ignatieff, and alleges that Michael Ignatieff is being dishonest with Canadians.

To alleges dishonesty is serious business. It means Michael Ignatieff is deliberately lying, and is not simply mistaken. That's the harshest criticism imaginable to be aimed at Michael Ignatieff from within the Liberal Party (inasmuch as Garth Turner is still in the party -- his membership might be under review right now).

If Garth Turner commands any loyalty beyond the dozen or so rabid fans who sycophantically comment on his blog, then the Liberals have just lost a bunch more votes.

But why the new post? What triggered this direct attack on Michael Ignatieff? Did he think he was being too oblique before?

The real reason? Garth Turner tells us that the reason he quit is that his views weren't welcome:

I'm interpreting the leader's failure to allow a nomination meeting as a signal my views are unwelcome.

So Garth Turner is just too radically honest for Michael Ignatieff's Liberal Party? Not a bad story...makes Garth Turner look all principled.

How about an entirely different reason? I get word from inside the riding association that a second candidate had been lined up. All the signatures had be collected, and the green light committee was working through the application. The Liberal Party was deliberately holding up the nomination meeting in order to allow this alternate candidate to get into the race.

In other words, there were forces, within the riding association, and in the Liberal Party, who were moving Heaven and Earth to make sure Garth Turner did not just waltz into the job as candidate.

And so...Garth Turner quits.

The real reason: Exclusive to Angry in the Great White North, the DCFLA makes a statement as to why Garth Turner never got his nomination meeting. And it was not because he's too brutally honest for politics.

Garth Turner and respecting intellectual property

2009-10-12T19:42:14-05:00

Garth Turner pioneered digital democracy, or at least that's what he says. In any case, you would think someone so into the digital world would be more careful about the use of digital imagery without permissions.

Garth Turner has a new website up at garthturner.com. It is his official campaign website, authorized by his official agent, and under the rules governing nomination websites as enforced by Elections Canada.

The website was supporting his so-far uncontested run for the nomination as Liberal Party candidate for the riding of Dufferin-Caledon.

Was? Oh yes, more on that in my next post. But for now, let's look at how Garth Turner populated his site with pictures. And the nuisance I have made of myself.

Not that it matters now...but like I said, more on that in my next post.

Let me take you on a tour of two pages of that website. Here's the donations page:

Garth Turner and Rick Mercer, under the banner "Please donate".

Looks like Rick Mercer is endorsing Garth Turner, eh?

So I got in touch with Rick on September 22. I asked him about the endorsement. Endorsement? What endorsement?

Oh, for shame, Garth Turner. Making it look like Rick Mercer, a recognizable CBC on-air personality, is endorsing your campaign and urging donations.

On September 23, the page changed:

I guess Rick got in touch with Garth Turner about the unauthorized use of his image on a page of such a sensitive political and financial nature. And so the photograph was replaced with this one.

Briefly.

Apparently Garth Turner decided his donations page still needed star power. The very next day, on September 24, the page changed again.

That's Mark Critch, another CBC on-air personality. Did Mark Critch give his permission to have this picture used? I'm not certain, but it would frankly surprise me if he did. Unfortunately, I was unable to get in touch with Mark Critch. So I guess we won't know for certain.

Here's his volunteers page:

That's a photograph of Barack Obama. But I happened to know specifically which photograph it is. It is an AP photograph, taken by Greg Wahl-Stephens. It appears, with attribution, in this issue of the New York Summer Guide.

How did I figure that out? Oh, please. I know what I'm doing here.

Did Garth Turner pay AP a fee for the photograph? I had my suspicions, given the lack of attribution or credit beneath the photograph. According to Dawn Cohen, legal counsel at AP, Garth Turner did not get permission, but AP is still checking. If the checks come up empty, then Garth Turner will likely receive a cease-and-desist letter. He may already have it.

That was tacky. Using an image of Barack Obama on a page about political volunteers, like Garth Turner is Barack Obama of the North. But the ironic part is the message on the page about what these volunteers could do:

Do research for us on the web.

Like I do.

So will this put a crimp in the Garth Turner campaign?

No.

For the simple reason that his campaign has been terminated by the Liberal Party.

Good polls? Yay! Bad poll? What poll?

2009-10-12T09:20:12-05:00

I try not to discuss polls simply because it's too easy to fixate on favourable polls and then get caught ignoring bad polls. Personally, I would find that embarrassing.

April 16:

THAT EKOS POLL

Thursday, April 16, 2009, 05:24 PM

It's just out, and here's some of what it says:

Conservatives losing ground to Liberals: EKOS poll

Governing party's support dropping in Ontario, Quebec, survey suggests

Fortunes have shifted substantially for Stephen Harper's Conservatives since December, with Michael Ignatieff's Liberals enjoying an upsurge, says a new poll from EKOS released exclusively to CBC News.

What does it mean? It means keep doing what you're doing. It means tactics change, but strategies never do. It means keep working even harder. It means taking your opponent seriously, and never ever assuming they are going to screw up. Always assume they aren't going to make a mistake, but that you are going to make plenty.

Stephen Harper is a worthy opponent, Team Grit. And he ain't beat yet.

That said, I've read that Ekos poll about three times, now! Whoo-hoo!

October 12:

Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella, a campaign veteran who has been volunteering in Mr. Ignatieff's team, told The Hill Times last week that he's not worried about the polls, and an election campaign will be his party's opportunity to turn the ship around.

"What turns things around? The campaign. Campaigns matter. When the writ drops, we will get equivalency in media coverage. And Canadians will see we have a smart, impressive, honest leader. And they'll see we have the best team-and we'll be the only serious party with a serious platform. Until then, the phony war will continue, and no one south of the Queensway will pay any attention to the phoniness."

So let me get this straight.

In April, with the polls showing Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals surging, the take-away was that the polls were telling the Liberals to continue steady as she goes, to "keep doing what you're doing".

In October, with the polls showing Michael Ignatieff in freefall, both in terms of party support as well as every indicator regarding Ignatieff's leadership abilities, the take-away was...the same?

When the polls showed good Liberal numbers under the current plan, the poll was interpreted as confirmation that the current plan was a good one.

But when the poll suggests that the current plan is failing, and failing miserably, then the poll means nothing, and the Liberals should stick to the current plan.

Good poll? Cheer the poll as confirmation of "the plan". Bad poll? Don't worry about polls.

It suggests a certain infatuation with the plan, and a blind spot for polls that implicitly criticize the plan, but only those polls.

On the other hand, Warren Kinsella is an unpaid volunteer, and as we all know, you get what you pay for.

But does Bob Rae support and follow Michael Ignatieff?

2009-10-11T11:37:19-05:00

Is Bob Rae undermining the leadership of Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff. Well, he never actually says he isn't.

Today Bob Rae attempted to address rumours regarding his role in the Liberal-dominated Senate delaying and amending a crime bill that Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff supported, something that is causing Michael Ignatieff no end of embarrassment:

Liberal MP Bob Rae is denying that he orchestrated a move by a group of Liberal senators to amend a crime bill in an effort to undermine Michael Ignatieff's leadership.

Some of the senators who proposed the amendments voted for Rae during his leadership bid, which led to speculation that Rae urged them to stall the bill.

Rae told CTV's Question Period on Sunday that allegations he supported the senators' amendments were "nonsensical."

So is Bob Rae undermining the leadership of Michael Ignatieff?

"Michael and I have a very good relationship. We talk regularly, we talk on the phone all the time, we're sitting next to each other in the House of Commons. We've known each other forty years and we know what we have to do."

Yes, well, I could get most of that from Wikipedia. What Bob Rae forgets to explicitly mention is that:

Bob Rae supports the leadership of Michael Ignatieff and that he will continue to do so
Bob Rae follows the lead of Michael Ignatieff and that he will continue to do so

Maybe I'm quibbling, but really, Bob Rae needs to be clear on this.

Happy Thanksgiving to the members of the Liberal Party

2009-10-09T15:13:48-05:00

A Thanksgiving message for members of the Liberal Party. They might not feel like they have much to be thankful for right now. And they don't.

So it's not a pleasant message. But it's one they need to hear if they want still be Liberals when next Thanksgiving comes around.

This post is addressed to Liberals.

Remember Stephane Dion's plaintive cry of how difficult it was to set priorities? It was a pathetic response to none other than Michael Ignatieff, who in a leadership debate in 2006 demolished Stephane Dion's environmental record.

Your delegates went on to select Stephane Dion anyway. And he went all environmental on you, presumably to set priorities right, and promptly lost an election in the worst drubbing the Liberals have been subjected to in living memory.

Did you learn from that? Did you say to yourself, amid the cheering of Conservatives after the 2008 election results, "Boy, next time I'm going to have the chance to select my party's leader, and I am going for someone strong, someone with backbone, someone who can take the heat!"

Of course, you didn't get the chance. Stephane Dion utterly imploded after the 40th parliament sat, and was ejected from the role of leader. Instead of going to you, the membership of the Liberal Party, with the new one-member-one-vote system to select a new leader, they told you there was no time, that an election was imminent, or the coalition would take over, so the decision had to be taken immediately.

So Michael Ignatieff was made interim leader while simultaneously being the leading contender. Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae promptly withdrew from the race, seeing the pointlessness of it all.

So you were cheated of your chance to see Michael Ignatieff again in action. To see for yourself if he had the stuff of leadership, and to cast your vote accordingly. Instead, a faux convention with one leadership contender was held, and Michael Ignatieff became leader.

Today, the leader you never picked, the leader who was selected by the power brokers of the party who think they know best, is reduced to pleading with Canadians to tell him what he has to do for them to like him:

In reaction, the Liberal leader, recently dubbed by Globe and Mail columnist Rick Salutin as "Narcissief," became unusually humble: "If there are things I need to do better, I am certainly going to be ready to try, because I want to listen to Canadians and improve my performance any way I can."

It is difficult to imagine that anyone in a leadership position could seem so pathetic short of facing a career-ending scandal. All Michael Ignatieff has in front of him are two months of miserable polls and already he's pleading. Pleading!

Yes, he's even worse than Stephane Dion.

Do you think you would have spotted this in Ignatieff? Do you think the delegates in 2006 spotted that when they rejected Ignatieff in favour of Dion? Do you think that in a leadership fight, Dominic LeBlanc or Bob Rae would have seriously tested Ignatieff's mettle and found it lacking?

The way it seems lacking today?

Do you think the Liberal Party story of the last nine months would have been dramatically different if you had been asked to help write it? That was the opportunity that they promised for you. They broke that promise.

If the Liberal Party is in trouble today, it's not because of Beatles songs and economic good news. It's because the Liberal Party did not want to listen to its membership. It listened to delegates in 2006, the ones who rejected Michael Ignatieff, and did not like what it heard. Those that run the Liberal Party thought they knew better. Instead of replacing the delegate system with something more democratic, they replaced it with something less, to make certain the choice they had made years earlier would finally be forced on the party as a whole.

The result has been worse, not better.

Tell your party that you demand a real choice next time, and a real voice with which to make that choice.

Tell them that you want the opportunity to make that choice to come sooner rather than later. Tell them that you are owed the chance to make the choice that they denied to you.

Do it soon, or be tossed into the ashbin of history.

It's up to you. I'm not inclined to help you in any way whatsoever.

Happy Thanksgiving.

A Liberal comes to the same conclusion. Time for the grassroots to take back the party from the power brokers who broke the contract -- no democratic convention in return for a leader who could win.

Michael Ignatieff sings: Where are his handlers?!

2009-10-09T12:54:43-05:00

OK, I don't know why I feel compelled to help, but here is some advice for Michael Ignatieff, not that it matters now.

After Stephen Harper's tour de force performance at the NAC Gala, you must not ever sing. Ever! It will be seen as sad and pathetic.

So what does Michael Ignatieff do? He sings!

Hey, because it is such an amazing performance, take a few minutes to watch the full length video of Stephen Harper's performance at the NAC Gala last week:

The one thing Michael Ignatieff could not afford to do is try to mimic this performance. In any way. At all.

So what does Michael Ignatieff do? He sings. Badly:

Oh, that is painful to listen to. The cheap attempt at a political point at the end fell as flat as his attempt to hit a note.

I bet he was goaded into it by a reporter's question, but so what? He should just stand his ground and say that Stephen Harper's performance is of no interest to him as it pertains to the job as Leader of the Opposition. It was fun to watch, and that's all that he's going to say.

Sure the reporters would be disappointed, but then it would put some cold water on this hot story, at least when he was around.

And the Liberals desperately needed for this story to die away.

But instead Michael Ignatieff gets drawn into it, and worse, makes Stephen Harper's great performance look even better!

Singing. Off key with no music. In a room full of skeptical reporters looking for a reason to make you look bad. And with bloggers only too happy to help!

Is the Rosedale Gang just that clueless?

H/T: Plattytalk