10.03.2013 08:07 AM

Backroom hacks on Iggy

Two things about this.

One, I didn’t hear from the author of the piece. I’ve been in New York, but I always check my email and whatnot. So I don’t understand how I couldn’t be reached.

Two, there’s a very good reason why Mr. Reid will never comment publicly on Yours Truly. See number four.

Anyway, I stand by my criticism. The Count was disloyal to those who were loyal to him. In my books, that’s as bad as it gets.


  1. kre8tv says:

    “The Count” LOL

  2. LarryL says:

    Warren…. Iggy saw himself as a Russian overlord of the LPC who followed Stalin’s practice of sacking and terminating his top officer corp to squelch any brewing revolt, and he did it on a regular basis like just before Hitler invaded Russia! Not good!

    That’s my take on Iggy’s purge, so what’s the reason he decapitated his warroom and replaced them with yes-men/women?

    • VC says:

      That’s an interesting question; I’m surprised you can’t find your answer from the practices of Stalin or Hitler. Perhaps a more thorough reading of, say, Mao’s politics or the leadership of Idi Amin might lead you to your answer. And don’t stop there: brush up on some of the more recent, such as Kim Il Sung and Robert Mugabe, and feel free to compare the policies of those dictators to other LPC leaders. In fact, make a game of it: what deranged, mass genocidal dictator most resembles Stephane Dion? Or ask yourself, who does Pol Pot remind me of more: Lester B. Pearson or Louis St. Laurent?

      • LarryL says:

        Has Ignatieff been drummed out of the Liberal party yet?

        Surely after his book exposé of the workings of the incompetent Liberal party leading him to an ignominious defeat he should be refused membership. He certainly won’t be around to mingle with all the other Liberal ex-leaders because they won’t invite him. His kiss-and-tell book most certainly is not a welcome insight into ongoing Liberal party internecine differences.

        Looks like the work of the Martinites and now their tentacles clasp Justin Trudeau. Gonna be interesting when party unity and loyalty are tested, again.

        As for the ‘Stalin’ reference, I was only expanding on Ignatieff’s statement when interviewed on BBC that he followed his father’s Russian heritage and eschewed his mother’s Scottish-Canadian heritage. Iggy saw himself as a noble Russian intellect.

      • Elizabeth says:

        I thought that he kind of abandoned Ruby Dhalla. No support whatsoever – my first warning flag. Whatever happened to her?

    • Tim Philby says:

      Re: Игнатьев, Liberals, Reds and New York City

      “As a result of the Bolshevik Revolution, Pavel Ignatieff and his family fled to the West – Ignatieff was the only top minister of the Tsar to escape execution by the Bolsheviks. In 1925, the family emigrated to Canada and settled permanently three years later in Upper Melbourne in Quebec” (Wiki).

      One might not like Ignatieff personally, or support his ideological or tactical positions but to compare him to “Stalin” is indicative of the total historical ignorance of the chattering classes.

      Conversely, when prominent Liberals wax poetic about self-professed Marxist-Leninist and Soviet backed Fidel Castro, fellow travelers can’t get enough of that rank propaganda:

      “I grew up knowing that Fidel Castro had a special place among my family’s friends… He lives to learn and to put his knowledge in the service of the revolution. For Fidel, revolution is really a work of reason. In his view, revolution, when rigorously adopted, cannot fail to lead humanity towards ever greater justice, towards an ever more perfect social order…He is something of a superman…Combined with a Herculean physique and extraordinary personal courage, this monumental intellect makes Fidel the giant that he is….Cubans remain very proud of Castro, even those who don’t share his vision. They know that, among the world’s many peoples, they have the most audacious and brilliant of leaders. They respect his intellectual machismo and rigour…”

      Celebrity Russell Brand – self-confessed heroin, sex, and alcohol addict, arrested twelve times – who recently described Vancouver’s drug injection facility as the “crown jewel” of Vancouver and declared, during his comedy routine at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre, that “Communism is just sharing, isn’t it?” and pointing to Che Guevara, described the huge image as “fierce, noble… what a leader should look like.” For the historically illiterate among us (sadly, about 99% of the population), this is the Che Guevara who wanted the Kennedys assassinated and New York City incinerated: “If the (nuclear) missiles had remained we would have used them against the very heart of America including New York. We must never establish peaceful coexistence. In this struggle to the death between two systems we must gain the ultimate victory. We must walk the path of liberation even if it costs millions of atomic victims.” Brand went on to attack Prime Minister Harper (a right of free speech and expression not available in in the Marxist paradises of Cuba or North Korea or China) ranting, “We wouldn’t let him be in charge of pencils!” – the relentless drive to marginalize, ostracize those considered unworthy of the narco-socialist cause.

  3. Cynical says:

    The man might not be a good politician, he might be misguided, and certainly was not a good leader. He does not deserve ridicule, IMHO. Criticism yes.
    Makes interesting reading though.

  4. Lance says:

    And yet, when he led the Liberals the discourse was somewhat different from the liberal constituency these days.

  5. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    I’ve moved on. People ‘s opinions will remain entrenched…

    Concentrating the mind on bigger fish to fry come 2015 would seem to be logical.

    • james curran says:

      Ya know. Some of us thought Iggy had “moved on”. But, no, he needed some post parting shot parting shots.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        Haven’t read the book. Anyone who has served as leader has to accept both praise and criticism. That comes up front with having been in the job. Doesn’t matter who starts it. What counts is that each leader, or former leader, is as likely to
        give as good as he or she gets.

        Now, as to whether Michael should have started it, if indeed he did, I would say that I would opt in this instance for discretion as being the better part of valour.

  6. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    I would add this: it’s easy for me to run my mouth on this. Talk is cheap but in my case I haven’t put in the mileage or gained the expertise to judge how Team I was performing when it was summarily replaced by Team II. Ditto as to how Team II performed.

    Let those who have earned the privilege write the party history. Our host is among those entitled to make that judgment call.

  7. Elizabeth says:

    I think that writing the book and going on an interview tour is just a bit vindictive. It could have waited. My thought was for chrissake get out of here and shut up – Justin Trudeau has enough to cope with without a totally inept leader coming along and giving his opinion on his chances and how he’ll deal with Harper.
    Clearly there were people at the top treated badly by Ignatieff and his executive — The “I have nothing to do with Warren Kinsella” was probably one of the most foolish things he’s ever said. Shabby treatment of anyone who has worked for the “firm” is never, ever good policy. It’s just stupid. I don’t agree with everything that Warren says or does, but he is often awfully correct, and as such deserved to be treated with more respect. You can’t do that.

    Volunteers sometimes/often? get crap treatment and nobody ever hears about it, they just quit. There is a fair bit of the dreaded “elitism” in the Liberal party, which I noticed the first time I volunteered. It seems to be every man for himself, and also there are cliques. Needs to be seen to if they want to keep volunteers. From the bottom up, have policies in place about subtle bullying, sexism, sexual harassment, how to communicate, how to delegate – because it cannot all depend on the leader, and his or her inner circle.

    I wonder how much of this behaviour was Ignatieff, and how much was Ignatieff being controlled by the LPC executive? Not excusing him, since he should know better no matter who is telling him what to do – but I’d be interested to find out what went on behind the scenes. I guess I’ll have to read the book. Maybe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *