• I spent a lot of yesterday talking to Liberal friends. Most of them were quite fine, thank you very much – and a surprising number were upbeat, because they said that the long-overdue revamping of the Liberal Party of Canada can now begin in earnest, with new blood, new ideas, new approaches. Personally, I feel the same: unless the Lord takes me home, I want to be part of the rebuilding process, and take a shot at running again. I’m an Alberta Liberal: I don’t freak out when my party gets hammered, you know?  Anyway, columns like this and this are premature/off the mark, to say the least. Lots of obituaries were written when the Conservative Party was reduced to two seats in November 1993, and they ended up doing not badly in 2006 and beyond.
• Cognitive dissonance is right. Maher, per always, nails it here. Let’s perform my little test again: do you know the name of the president of the Conservative Party of Canada? Recall anything he/she has ever said? Exactly. Party presidents should raise money, and leave the talking to the elected people. This party president in particular. (And, by the by: why doesn’t he do what his leader did, yesterday? Liberals are asking that, too.)
• Speaking of resignations: Ignatieff did the honourable thing, yesterday; he didn’t mince words, he took responsibility, and he quit.  As noted, Apps should, too, for his role in this fiasco.  And, if the voters hadn’t resolved the question first, quite a few of us would be today demanding changes for Ignatieff’s Chief of Staff (who was ultimately responsible for the maladroit strategy that got us here); his so-called “Chief Operating Officer” (who was supposed to ensure we had election/organizational readiness, and didn’t); his policy director (who put together the platform that nobody, Liberals included, found either compelling or saleable); and his unilingual and comms-inexperienced Director of Communications (who should have never, ever been made Director of Communications).  I wish all of them the best of luck, however, in their future political endeavours.
• Alternation? Chris’ column today is worth a read, as always, but the provincial Grits I know – unlike their cousins – are very, very (very) ready for the October 2011 election. What’s more, there is a simple political reality that is always at play in Canadian politics, one the Ontario Progressive Conservatives need to heed: Ontarians don’t like one party running the whole show. Thus, Chretien begat Harris, Mulroney begat Peterson, and so on and so on. Here’s the elevator conversation, one you’ll be hearing lots of times in Ontario in coming months: “The Cons run the GTA, and the country. Do you want the same party running Ontario, too?”
• Case in point: Health care, again the number one issue in Ontario and the nation. Harper talked about the coming health care battle in his election night speech, and with reporters afterwards. Ballot-type question: “Who do you want protecting health care at the bargaining table with Harper? McGuinty? Or Timmy Hudak, who shut down nearly 30 hospitals, fired thousands of nurses, and last month cancelled his policy convention – where his health care plan was supposed to be revealed – to accommodate his federal boss?”
• Lopinski’s Observations: My Ontario Liberal war room colleague Bob Lopinski came up with a brilliant assessment of the post-election coverage, yesterday. Like him, I found that (a) no pundit or pollster really saw it coming and (b) they’re all sort-of making it up as they go along. Thus, Bob’s take, which you can clip and save:

“I do really wish there was more science in political science.  

This is what I have gleaned from the early analysis:

1. Voters are moving left, unless they are moving right.
2. Incumbency is bad, unless you were re-elected.
3. Voters want change AND even more of the same.
4. On-the-ground organization and sophisticated micro-targeting work, unless you are a bar-maid canvassing in Las Vegas.
5. The separatists are preparing to ramp up their campaigns, and as a first step have left the Canadian House of Commons.”

UPDATE: And Gardner, on the same subject, here.

Comments (58)

Michael Ignatieff has to go.

There is no other option. He ran a good campaign, he did better on the hustings than anyone expected, he impressed Liberals from coast to coast.

But Canadians weren’t impressed, at any point. From the start, they were unenthusiastic about the former Harvard professor. Liberal lefties thought he was too right wing; Liberal veterans thought he wasn’t ever a politician.

And Canadians didn’t like him.

The multimillion-dollar Conservative attack-ad campaigns didn’t help matters, of course. Those ads were designed to define the new Liberal leader before he could define himself, and they worked. (If there is any comfort for dispirited Libs this morning, it is that the main beneficiary of those attack ads wasn’t the Conservative leader who approved them — it was the NDP leader.)

So, are any Liberals in shock this morning? Not all of us.

Despite what you may read elsewhere, take it from this chastened Grit: The reality of the Liberal Party’s humiliating defeat didn’t actually become known last night, after the polls closed.

Among many Liberals, it was known the party was heading for a crushing loss for about three weeks. In the past week, however, the bad news got even worse. It came into sharp focus when I got a call from a senior member of Ignatieff’s team of advisors.

“We’ve got a lot of rebuilding to do, but I don’t think it will involve Ignatieff,” this Grit said. “The leader is going to lose his seat.”

And he did. Politics is a cruel business, and Ignatieff knew that when he sought the top job. So that’s that.

But Ignatieff’s departure alone won’t solve the Liberal Party’s many problems. It is unfair to blame Ignatieff for everything that went wrong. The Liberal caucus needs new blood. In many cases, Grit MPs have represented their ridings (well) for decades. But we need new blood. We need new ideas, new passions, new people.

We need to get much better at raising money — after all, it was a Liberal government that ushered in the changes to the way federal political fundraising was done. And that’s not all: The Liberal Party itself needs to become a true federation, and not just a loose coalition of regional fiefdoms.

Better election readiness. Better policy-making. Better unity. And — most of all — a better understanding of all of modern Canada, and not just the urban enclaves where the party still has some strength. All of those things are needed if the Liberal Party of Canada is ever again to be relevant to Canadians.

As I watched Michael Ignatieff from the Sun News TV studio Monday night, I felt sad for him. He isn’t a bad guy. He isn’t what those Conservative ads said he was. In the brief period I worked for him, I thought he was a smart man, one with lots of ideas, and a drive to serve his country.

But none of that came across on TV. And Canadians, as I say, never felt comfortable with him.

I wish him luck in whatever he does next. Liberals, too, I wish luck. We have a big, big job ahead of us.

I’m confident we’re going to get that job done.

 

Comments (306)

I just got asked on-air about Ignatieff’s future.

I said he was diplomatic and gracious in his speech, and that he knows that the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore have now settled the question. I said I expect he will leave in the next few days. He doesn’t have much choice, now.

I said he ran a great campaign, and he did better than anyone expected.

But it’s time for a change in the Liberal Party – from top to bottom.

Oh, and we’ll be back.

Comments (104)

…and I don’t see how the Cons can’t get a majority.

Comments (93)

• What do voters think? I think polls and focus groups are interesting, but I generally prefer my political gut over my political head.  I regard my six-pack-like gut on days like today, and say: “What are voters thinking, gut?”
• My gut grumbled. “They’re pretty busy, so they don’t have much time to think about politics as much as idiots like you do,” said my gut.  “So their analysis tends to be pretty to-the-point.  Here’s what a lot of them think.”
• Number one: “They’re pissed off there was another election.  It made them grumpy,” said gut.  “They’re taking it out on two guys, mostly, which is Iggy and Steve.  Some of them think Iggy was taking a risk to push for an election, too, when he’d been behind the Cons for a couple years.”
• Number two:“They like Jack, but they don’t like the other two so much,” my gut remarked.  “They saw Iggy and Steve as similar: kind of aloof and stand-offish, and more right wing than them. Steve and Iggy saw it as a zero-sum game, whatever that is.  They tried to shake loose votes from each other. But those votes that shook loose, alright, and they bounced right over to Jack.  People like Jack.”
• Number three:“The country is still pretty progressive,” gut observed.  “Sixty-five per cent of them hate, er, Steve’s guts, too.  Iggy should have been more progressive, they felt. So they went to the only guy they thought was more progressive, which was Jack.”
• Number four: “Attack ads work,” said gut.  “But they work best in a two-way race.  In a three-way race, they don’t work so well, do they?”
• Number five: “Folks are in a firing mood,” concluded my gut. “Today, they want to fire a few politicians.  Tonight, they’re going to get their wish.”

Comments (92)

Comments (27)

“Chretien-era Liberal insider and Toronto political consultant Warren Kinsella (whose mockery of then-Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day in the 2000 federal election was partly credited for a Liberal victory) will reportedly return to run the Liberal War Room in the next election.”

Comments (8)

And from Julian Assange’s desk, no less.  B.B., you’ve arrived!  You’re now known world-wide as a duplicitous turncoat!

Comments (9)

…is going to have a thing or two to say about this.

Comments (80)

 
• It’s the last day! I’m supposed to be up at the cabin with my Mom, my youngest, and two dogs…and I have nothing left to say.  Sort of.
• Here’s my Sun column from today, in which I attempt to explain what happened.  Let me know what you think – and have a great day, whether a campaigner or not.  Oh – and don’t forget to vote!

 

They back Jack.

Jack’s got the knack.  The others? They yak, but they lack.

There you go: some really (really) bad poetry, designed to neatly sum up Election 2011.  There’ll be lots of much-smarter political analysis, this weekend, but I’m sticking to my pithy rhyming couplets.

Whether he captures the keys to 24 Sussex or not, the NDP’s Jack Layton is the winner of this campaign, hands down.  Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff have lost. Why, you ask?

There are lots of reasons: Harper ran a lousy, uninspiring campaign.  Ignatieff pushed for an election when he should have pulled.  Both men are seen as conservative and conservative-lite, and the country is apparently fed up with policies that are nasty, brutish and short-sighted.

But the main reason why Jack Layton will make history tomorrow night?  The best explanation for why he is going to be leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition – or maybe even Her Prime Minister?

Because Jack is the most likeable leader, that’s why. He’s a HOAG.

I’ve written about my “Hell Of A Guy” theory in these pages before. As the political cliché goes, you can picture yourself at a tailgate party with Jack, swigging Buds, telling lies about the ones that got away. Steve-o and Iggy, you just can’t. Standing behind a podium in an early-morning university class, giving you a lousy mark because you spelled “Milton Friedman” wrong in an essay, sure. But HOAGs? Nope.

I’ve worked with Iggy, and can attest to the fact that – in person – he is a thoughtful, easy-going, impressive guy.  But that quality doesn’t come across on TV. On the big flat-screen, the Liberal leader doesn’t emote HOAGism. It’s not fair, it’s not accurate, but it’s a fact.

Harper, meanwhile, has elevated thuggishness to official state policy. He doesn’t try to avoid being mean-spirited: he positively revels in it.  He embraces it. And Harper’s mistake – and his team’s mistake – has been equating being a hard-hearted S.O.B. with “decisiveness.”

It isn’t. Being a hard-hearted S.O.B. isn’t decisive, Team Tory. Mostly, its just evidence that you’re a hard-hearted S.O.B. More precisely, an angry guy who doesn’t like the country, let alone the people who live in it.

Now, I know what you’re going to say before you say it: how in the name of all that is holy can anyone vote for Wacko Jacko?

His policies, you’ll say, are nuttier than squirrel poop.  He wants to reopen the Constitution!  His promises cost $70 billion, and he claims he can balance the budget! He wants to have tea with the Taliban!

All true.  Also true: Canadians haven’t read Jack Layton’s policy manual, and nor do they intend to.  For different reasons, Messrs. Harper and Ignatieff wanted this election to be a referendum on “leadership” – and they got what they wanted.  In their hubris, however, they never imagined Canadians would vote for the third leadership option, nutty policies be damned.

But Layton’s team, you’ll say: they’re not serious!  He’s got candidates vacationing in Vegas – while the campaign is underway! He’s got candidates who have never run a three-house paper route before, let alone a country!  He’s got no organizational strength on the ground!

Also all true.  But ask Toronto’s Rob Ford or Calgary’s Naheed Nenshi, they’ll tell you: Canadians don’t want polished professional politicians, these days.  They like populists.  They like HOAGs.  They like regular folks.

I’m a Jean Chretien Liberal, and a Bill Clinton Democrat.  Both those men were successful because they never forgot that there are a lot more votes on Main Street than on Bay Street (or Wall Street).  They were winners because they never forgot where they came from, or who made them what they are.

And that’s why Canadians back Jack.

And that’s why, for the others, it may be time to pack.

Comments (127)