07.08.2010 08:06 AM

…and this is after the G20 fiasco

Seeing this, some Grits might be moved to recommend making some big changes, but they’d fall on deaf ears, I suspect. What would you suggest be done to fix this?

Liberal support down significantly: poll
CBC News
Last Updated: Thursday, July 8, 2010 | 5:08 AM ET

Support for the federal Liberal party has sunk to its lowest level in more than a year with the Conservatives taking a 10-point lead over their political rivals, a new EKOS opinion poll suggests.

The poll, released exclusively to CBC, suggests that 34.4 per cent of respondents would vote for the Tories if an election were held today, compared with 23.9 per cent for the Liberals.

In recent weeks, the Liberals had narrowed the Tory lead to three to four percentage points. But over the past week, the Liberals have taken a nearly seven-point drop in support.

According to the poll, the Conservative Party is leading in every region except for Quebec and in Atlantic Canada, where they are tied with the Liberals, who are losing ground in some key areas and not leading in any region.

119 Comments

  1. bigcitylib says:

    I suggest not panicking. Nose to the grindstone. That kind of stuff. A pre-election coalition is not feasible, nor is (really) dumping Ignatieff. And I can’t see dumping him after a single election either, because lets face it who better is in waiting?

  2. Pat Heron says:

    The explanation for the Conservative bump: the Queen. How many times did we see Harper with the Queen? Maybe 10! We may not be monarchists, but we love that woman.

  3. Wannabeapiper says:

    Is Ignatieff MIA or KIA? It’s horrific to think support for harper increases after the domestic battleground we had at the G20. Anyway, when I am King, there will be changes.

  4. I don’t know… a summer bus tour?

    But seriously, I think this is a pro-law and order reaction if it’s accurate.

    • Warren says:

      Perhaps. But wouldn’t that see the Cons going UP, and not us DOWN?

      • Blair Shumlich says:

        Perhaps Dalton had a point with that silent majority thing after all. Maybe the majority of people anticipated what would happen at the protests on some level and instead judged Harper on his performance. He won the bank tax issue, austerity beat stimulus, and was the leader who committed the most to maternal health. I don’t think he did amazingly well, but he definitely performed better than I anticipated–ignoring that nothing he did was binding. Could that have given him a bounce perhaps?

        • Blair Shumlich says:

          Toss in the Queen and Canada Day as well. People feel better about their country during these situations.

      • Scott Tribe says:

        I’ve heard suggestions that anger at the HST is spilling over from the provincial BC and Ontario govt’s into the federal Liberal numbers – merely because those 2 provincial governments are “Liberal”.

        Not sure yet if I think its correct, but its plausible.

        • Cath says:

          Scott – this is what I’m hearing also in my region of Ontario re: HST a spillover. Warren asks what needs to be done. New leader asap elected via the grass-root members. Chalk Iggy up as a blip for the party and move on. Refresh, redefine and reacquaint the public with the party, the leader and what it stands for.

          Loyal supporters and potential supporters can’t support what (and who) they can’t understand or identify with.

        • Namesake says:

          Comforting, maybe, but not borne out by the data.

          That misplaced blame for the HST might be resp. for part of the drop in ON, but the opposite was the case in BC: Liberal voter intention went _up_ nearly 10% from 17.1% support in Week 1 (June 22-29) to 26.9 (+9.5) in Week 2 (June 30-July 6).

          the breakdowns & data tables (such as they are) are at:

          http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/07/ekos-of-the-week-its-baaa-aaack.html

      • James Bow says:

        As you say, Warren, the fact that the Liberals are down is significant, but the Conservatives are also well below their 2008 take.

        It’s a pox on all your houses reaction, clearly. I really wanted to see what the NDP and Green numbers on this poll.

        Agreed: it’s nose to the grindstone, time. And time to focus on policy. The Conservatives have done nothing to consolidate their lead. The Liberals (and any other opposition party) has to build themselves up as an alternative.

  5. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    Michael has his work cut out for him. We can’t do it for him. His prospects will live or die, in the final analysis, on how he performs. Michael will either turn this around himself and become prime minister or he will flop spectacularly — there is no middle ground here.

    The platform will help solidify his position but again we have to let Michael be Michael. If it’s done RIGHT, it will be a winning formula!

    • You keep talking using future tense. “will live or die”, “will either”, “will flop”, “will help”, “will be”.

      Is the Liberal leader and party ready for an election tomorrow? Or one called at the end of summer for October sometime?

      My point? There’s very little future left in the distance between now and the next possible election. There certainly is very little time for a magical transformation of the Leader and party fortunes. It’s been a year and a half with Iggy at the helm. What you see is what you get and what you’ll have on e-day.

      The EKOS polls over the past two years show a trend, a trend which shows signs of strengthening. Liberals support breaking down below the Dion era support level is not a development that should be dismissed with hopeful thoughts of the future.

      Over the prior two years the only two times of sustained strengthening of Liberal support were a) when Iggy had his honeymoon and b) over prorogation of the House. Neither period of strength lasted for more than a few months before the dominant trend — down — reasserted itself.

      You can continue to plod along, which is essentially admitting that there is no rescue plan and that Liberal support will continue to tank. At some point you’ll have to be very concerned about mass defections from the party, not that it would take many to upset the balance of power in the House.

      Or instead of sitting on hands, full steam ahead on the current but doomed course, you can take the other fork in the road and do something *which can be done* between now and October, reach for the brass ring, and try to form a coalition of some sort – electoral, policy, whatever – between the Liberals and anyone save the Bloc.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        Michael,

        Are you sure that we Liberals can hold our center support if we go the coalition route prior to the next election? Or will this inevitably lead to defections to the Conservatives which will prompt this Prime Minister to pull his own plug as Liberal bleeding of moderates accelerates.

        That is my nightmare scenario. I’d rather they pull the plug pronto before we hand them the knife (a coalition) with which they can cut our throats…

    • PS: Think a fall election is an impossibility? Think again:

      Tories threaten fall election
      Move comes after Senate refuses to pass budget bill as is
      (CBC)

      Senator Doug Finley, the Tory campaign director, said a fall election is a distinct possibility if senators refuse to pass the bill as is.

      “Absolutely,” Finley said in an interview moments after opposition members on the Senate finance committee voted to erase four controversial measures from the budget bill.

      “I can’t think of anything more important than what’s in that budget bill.”

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        Michael,

        Finley is full of it. We aren’t the only ones who happen to be dropping. This Prime Minister is hardly that much of a risk taker. It goes contrary to Conservative logic: they want, at a minimum, to increase their number of seats and preferably, pull off a majority win (other than in their dreams). That’s not in the cards for them. Finley is blowing smoke.

  6. luke says:

    rather than saying/concluding the liberal party might have something wrong with it… based on their record and recent events, the fact that the CPC continue to enjoy this level of support indicates that there is something wrong with 34.4 percent of Canadians.

  7. Jan says:

    I assume Frsnk Graves is out of the Conservative penalty box.

    • Ted says:

      Until the polls turn and then he’s a biased Liberal sycophant once again. Whatever feeds the myth of The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy.

  8. bc says:

    2. The Liberal Party of Canada will win the election, because we?ve got the most impressive leader: he?s super-smart, he?s accomplished, he?s decent, he has an extraordinary ability to bring people together. We?ve also got the best team: we?ve got a Rae, a LeBlanc, a Trudeau, a Dryden, a Garneau, a Hall-Finlay, a Dhalla?I could go on. (I will, too.)

    —–

    Warren, care to review this “reason the liberals will win”?

    It’s become increasingly clear that Ignatieff is not the most impressive leader. Heck, he’s barely a leader at all. His caucus has been in near mutiny mode for the past year, he takes long periods without making the news, his QP time rarely results in a homerun…I could go on.

    Ignatieff is the problem. But so is Rae, LeBlanc, Trudeau, ect.

    • The Liberal Party must recognize that it’s going to be out of government for as long as it takes for the Liberal Party to get it’s act together. No number of summer bus tours and BBQ’s is going to convey a compelling reason for the average voter to support the party. If the Liberal’s are going to survive as a party – yes, that’s right – SURVIVE – it must undertake a process of organizational renewal and build a new party from the ground up. This will take years to do – hence my suggestion that Liberals stop worrying about the next election or even the one after that. This needs to be done in a transparent fashion in a way that includes the average Canadian and it must engage people’s minds – engage they’re minds you’ll engage their pocket books. For too long the Liberals have looked to a messiah who could save them – Ignatieff was supposed to be that messiah and he’s clearly a dud. Renew the party, bring in new blood and new ideas. Start from scratch. Anything less and Liberals will continue to spin their wheels. Forget about joining with the NDP. Reinvent the party. Redefine liberalism for new generations of Canadians. Redefine what it means to be a Liberal and what it means to be a Canadian.

      See where I’m going with this? Michael Ignatieff will never become PM. Nor will Bob Rae or even Trudeau for that matter. Time to start from scratch of wither away by means of death from a thousand cuts.

  9. Michael Behiels says:

    The new poll does not surprise me one bit! The Liberal Party of Canada is paying a very heavy price for the lack of credible, dynamic leadership and credible and meaningful policies, all of which are largely due to the ongoing civil war within the Liberal party and caucus.

    These are very trying times for all Canadians and their respective political parties because demographic, social, cultural, gender, religious, political, and economic forces are in the process of changing Canadian society. All the political parties have to adapt and adjust to an evolving context or face elimination. Some of the parties, provincial and federal will survive the challenge and some will not.

    There will be many, many more dark days, months and perhaps years ahead for the Canadian Liberal Party and for Canadian Liberals. Indeed, the once dominant Canadian Liberal Party may just become obsolete if its MPs and members fail to overcome a conjuncture of internal and external crises that the Party and caucus are now facing.

    And PM Harper and his Conservatives raised their public profile with plenty of media coverage surrounding the G-8, the G-20 (much of it good for Harper’s core constituency that favours much tougher law and order measures), and the visit of Queen Elizabeth II. Harper behaved himself, said very little that was controversial, and learned a great deal on how to conduct himself in the area of foreign relations.

    Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff is making valiant but largely fruitless efforts to reach out to the rank and file of the Liberal Party. Alas, Ignaieff is really is not a retail politician and is unlikely to become one anytime soon.

    And Frances Russell, a life long Pearson,Trudeau and Chr

  10. Joseph says:

    Look, most of the dip was in last week’s polling, which was Canada Day weekend. Who answers polls on Canada Day weekend? The Iggyberals were only 4 points back the week before.

    Nevertheless, this can’t be good for morale, especially on the eve of Iggy’s Getting-in-touch-with-the-commoners Summer Bus Tour 2010 ™, to which Kinsella apparently has not been invited.

    The Liberals will not dump their leader now. The coalition talk is also dead but will be featured in Harper’s ads.

    Just grind it out. Elections matter. Canadians haven’t had a chance to see an Iggy v Harper bout. Given that 65%+ of Canadians refuse to vote for Harper, the chances for the Liberals can’t be that bad.

  11. Michael Behiels says:

    CORRECTED VERSION
    The new poll does not surprise me one bit! The Liberal Party of Canada is paying a very heavy price for the lack of credible, dynamic leadership and credible and meaningful policies, all of which are largely due to the ongoing civil war within the Liberal party and caucus.

    These are very trying times for all Canadians and their respective political parties because demographic, social, cultural, gender, religious, political, and economic forces are in the process of changing Canadian society. All the political parties have to adapt and adjust to an evolving context or face elimination. Some of the parties, provincial and federal, will survive the challenge and some will not.

    There will be many, many more dark days, months and perhaps years ahead for the Canadian Liberal Party and for Canadian Liberals. Indeed, the once dominant Canadian Liberal Party may just become obsolete if its MPs and members fail to overcome a conjuncture of internal and external crises that the Party and caucus are now facing.

    And PM Harper and his Conservatives raised their public profile with plenty of media coverage surrounding the G-8, the G-20 (much of it good for Harper?s core constituency that favours much tougher law and order measures), and the visit of Queen Elizabeth II. Harper behaved himself, said very little that was controversial, and learned a great deal on how to conduct himself in the area of foreign relations.

    Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff is making valiant but largely fruitless efforts to reach out to the rank and file of the Liberal Party. Alas, Ignaieff really is not a retail politician and is unlikely to become one anytime soon.

    And Frances Russell, a life long Pearson,Trudeau and Chr

  12. plcamp says:

    Not surprised.

    The critique of G8/20 spending came off looking like ‘fake altruism’ by the opposition, and Harper did get most of what he was looking for in the G8/20 results. Harper’s a great speaker, on G8/20, on apology to Air India victims, and with the Queen visiting. Why wouldn’t polls show the uplift for the Cons?

    Liberals need to stop contradicting and start opposing. There is a big difference. Behavior as it is simply looks like desperate straw-grabbing and lacking of vision/integrity. That’s Ignatieff’s problem, and I can’t see why anyone would expect it to change.

  13. Skasky306 says:

    Solution to the party’s problems:
    Return of Jean Chretien, he’s far more charismatic than Iggy is, so if you want Liberal fortunes to return, bring back the only compotent leader the party has had since 2003.

  14. Mr. Ignatieff is working hard towards an election and he will lead the Liberal Party so it is suggested Liberals be positive. There is no question that Ignatieff can express Policies better than any other Leader. He can answer the questions when asked and hopefully the media will listen and report fairly. The Debates will be telling in the final analysis and personally I want Ignatieff in my corner.

  15. Hillary says:

    I agree with a lot of what Michael Behiels has just stated. I would like to add a few of my own thoughts to his very detailed reasoning.

    As a liberal supporter, the years since the last Martin government have, for me, been an exercise in losing patience. It has felt, at least from the perspective of the “rank and file”, that we are constantly told to wait because something BIG is coming! Well, it doesn’t seem as though that something big has ever come along.

    Reactions from Ignatieff and the other high profile MPs feel slow and delayed, as though the process of deciding what should be the stance of the Liberal Party takes so long that the issue has already passed us by. No one cares what the Liberals think about issue X once it is no longer in the headlines. It has created this image of the Liberal Party as being unable to take a firm stance on any issue, in case there are voters out there who would disagree with a firm stance. Well, perhaps, the people who once voted reliably for the Liberal Party miss the time when the leader could stand in front of a microphone and give an off-the-cuff response and just stand by it. It is impossible to please all of the voters all of the time, but the Party seems to be in a reactive, sleepwalking state where their responses just don’t please anyone.

    What would I do to fix this? I agree with the first poster, don’t panic. I know that sports metaphors in politics are really cliche, but: stop playing defence. It might be time to take a few chances, and just put Ignatieff and the other MPs out there, all the time.

    • Cath says:

      Well written Hillary. The only problem is that you can’t play offense if you haven’t got your first string team playing from the same play book or without a strong captain(leader) and good coaches. One of the better coaches owns this blog…their loss. (no charge WK) In one of his books Warren uses the hockey analogy too I believe. He writes that a leader should be able to pass and use the boards to his/her advantage. It doesn’t seem that Mr. Ignatieff knows quite how to stick handle his way to using those boards….something that long-time politicians learn on their way up through the house leagues and into the big leagues. When Michael Ignatieff shoots the puck to deflect off the boards it usually ends up hitting a spectator in the chops.

  16. Michael Behiels says:

    Full Version
    The new poll does not surprise me one bit! The Liberal Party of Canada is paying a very heavy price for the lack of credible, dynamic leadership and credible and meaningful policies, all of which are largely due to the ongoing civil war within the Liberal party and caucus.

    These are very trying times for all Canadians and their respective political parties because demographic, social, cultural, gender, religious, political, and economic forces are in the process of changing Canadian society. All the political parties have to adapt and adjust to an evolving context or face elimination. Some of the parties, provincial and federal will survive the challenge and some will not.

    There will be many, many more dark days, months and perhaps years ahead for the Canadian Liberal Party and for Canadian Liberals. Indeed, the once dominant Canadian Liberal Party may just become obsolete if its MPs and members fail to overcome a conjuncture of internal and external crises that the Party and caucus are now facing.

    And PM Harper and his Conservatives raised their public profile with plenty of media coverage surrounding the G-8, the G-20 (much of it good for Harper’s core constituency that favours much tougher law and order measures), and the visit of Queen Elizabeth II. Harper behaved himself, said very little that was controversial, and learned a great deal on how to conduct himself in the area of foreign relations.

    Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff is making valiant but largely fruitless efforts to reach out to the rank and file of the Liberal Party. Alas, Ignaieff is really is not a retail politician and is unlikely to become one anytime soon.

    And Frances Russell, a life long Pearson,Trudeau and Chr

  17. Patagonia says:

    Uhm, a platform?

    On the leadership issue, I’d like to know if anyone has the data on what is happening in ridings sans Liberal seat:

    (1) how many Liberal riding associations have a candidate that intends to run in the next election and, within those, how do these names line up on the “serious contender” v. “take a bullet” list (by serious contender, I don’t mean likelihood of winning if the election were today – I mean, a known and respected name in that community that is willing to put it forward alongside that of the Liberal Party)
    (2) how many members does the riding association have
    (3) how much money has the riding association been able to raise under this leader

    For those who like to point out that Chretien’s numbers in the polls when he was in opposition (I recall you’ve done this yourself WK), I’d say an analysis on the above questions would provide more telling comparators to work with. We don’t elect Presidents in this county. Advisors to this leader would be well served to go back and review Canadian Politics 101 and find the missing piece(s). Perhaps then we can better answer the question you have posed.

    In the meantime, with all the broohaha (and rightly so) about changes to the census, you’d think Liberals would actually know something about data collection and how to use it. Wrong. I can buy a lot of excuses about the status of the Party today but they have had plenty of time to fix this particular problem and they haven’t. The Cons were way ahead to begin with on data and the Libs can’s seem to get out of the gate.

    • Warren says:

      Not sure fighting changes to the census form is something I’d make a major campaign plank, but what do I know, etc.

      • Patagonia says:

        The focus of my comment was in regards to collection and use of data by the Party. Have you seen the Cons software program? Voter by voter, they use extensive market research methodologies to determine how that person said they would have voted in the last election (I wonder where the marked voter list in my Liberal riding is stored?), if they are a member of the party, if they have ever donated to the party, taken a sign, actually voted, attended fundraisers, rallies, events, and what issues they most closely identify with. And as far as demographic information is concerned, the Cons probably have more about that voter than the census (hmmm).

        In the riding that I live, within the last 10 years, the Liberal Party went from 3900 members to 30. That’s right. THIRTY. There are plenty of reasons for that but centrally the Party has not only not asked why but more importantly they either haven’t noticed and/or don’t care. I can’t remember the last time someone referred to themselves as a Liberal Party “organizer”. Time to take the temperature of those on the ground. But what do I know, etc.

        I was not proposing campaign plank on census issue in and of itself, but since you mention it, if we were to have something like say a clear position of values, it would fit somewhere in the larger picture of what distinguishes Libs from HarperCons: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/833169–travers-census-change-latest-move-in-pm-s-dumbing-down-of-canada

        • Christian says:

          Patagonia. I think you hit it fairly close to the mark here and I think you’re right that no one in the Party seems to be asking why riding memberships are dropping. I think its a symptom of the current thinking by the senior Party brass that its all about identifying specific issues and the Leader. Like an earlier poster said we don’t elect presidents in this country yet that seems to be the focus of those running the pParty. As such the grassroots are being ignored (with the exception of some token gestures like enFamile) and thats costing the Party big time. The other problem is the focus on chasing headlines and trying to capitalize on single issues. A lot of time seems to be wasted by the party as it trys to decide on which issues or headlines it should pursue and which it should not. The problem here is that the Party does this in the context of wanting to please everyone and the end result is that it ends up missing the boat (the issue passes) and pleasing no one. More importantly it causes the Party to miss the forest for the trees (I actually think Warren’s answer above illustrates this problem nicely). The census issues for example is not something that you can run on as a specific election plank BUT as the Star’s article points out its part of a larger issue . And its these larger issues taht the Party needs to be running on. Use the single issues to build a narrative of why the Harper gov’t is wrong and I think there may be a positive response. Tie in a narrative of why the Liberals would be better (not single disjointed campaign planks ) and the Party will do even better.

          • David says:

            I couldn’t have said it better myself. I don’t see the Liberals as a viable option right now because I don’t see a damned thing in the media about what they might do if they were in power, nor do I see them doing anything that requires balls. I don’t see them sticking up for my interests — Bill C-32 is an affront, the G20 affair is a scandal, the maternal health thing vis a vis abortion is a travesty, etc, but I don’t hear anything from the Liberals. Hell, for all I know, they’d pass a similar bill, run the G20 the same way, and — possibly — impose the same restrictions on funding for maternal health. GIVE ME AN OPTION — because right now, I don’t see one.

  18. Winston Higgs says:

    *?channels Raoul Duke?*

    Fight, goddamn it! Put down the burger flipper and pick up a chainsaw! Attack their scotch-marinated underbellies with all the fury and gusto of a junkyard dog that?s been force-fed granola for three years.

    Have Conrad Black implicated as [libel alert – ed.] and have his ?rehabilitation? amputated before he gets his wormed tongue back north of the 49th. Show through a convoluted flow chart that he was getting his marching orders from Kory Teneycke. Ho! There goes Fox North!

    Release those ?long-lost? pictures of Harper clubbing seals off the Magdalene Islands to put himself through Angry School. If you can?t find them, Jaffer?s got extra copies and he will sell them cheap (remember, he will soon have an extra mouth to feed).

    The Leader cannot be distracted. Send Bob Rae on a ?fact-finding? mission to deepest, darkest Calgary West. Make sure to cover him in steak sauce first. He won?t be found for years, if it all. Nothing personal, just business ? being a Bay Street caporegime for many years, he?ll understand that.

    Joe Canuck is looking for a good dust-up. Time to start the other guy?s lawnmower and start chucking knuckles. Remember to remove your visor first ? that shows class!

    As for you, stop watching those West Wing re-runs and wondering what went wrong, unless of course you are watching them to remind yourself that Stockard Channing is still hot! Start watching ?The Pacific?. Lots of ideas there, starting with the long-lost art of using a flamethrower.

    Okay, your welcome.

    • Warren says:

      Okay, that was classic. You should have a column somewhere.

      Watch the libel, though. Connie is more litigious than me!

    • The Leader cannot be distracted. Send Bob Rae on a ?fact-finding? mission to deepest, darkest Calgary West.

      Might be sage advice, but you need to remind Iggy that the objective is to deal out his opponents, not himself. This week dear (dead?) leader Ignatieff sent himself to China!

      Yeah, maybe that earns him a few nods from Chinese-Canadians, but it’s doubtful that pics of Iggy speaking with the chief of the Politburo of China (the politburo would be kind of a dream gig for Harper) is going to do much for him here back a home.

      Whenever I see pics like these I imagine what is running through the foreign leader’s head…

      Why am I meeting with this guy? He has no power! His party is doomed! He is of no use to us! Send the underling who arranged this meeting to a work prison, now! And bring me more #$&@! tea so I can stay awake.

      But hey, at least Ujjal and Scotty also got a nice trip out of the junket.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Winston Higgs,

      I hope you’ll be having a reality coffee session in the OLO real soon. Sit next to Donolo, please. Perhaps it will refocus them so they can stop dancing on the Stornoway lawn and instead contemplate matters of a substantial nature — like winning…

  19. Philippe says:

    People don’t love Harper, but they don’t hate him either. That?s the opposition?s problem. The basic question is, are you giving Canadians any reason to break the status quo? Fact is, they perceive a steady ship, and when the ship is steady, why jump?

    That said, if Canadians knew some of the happenings on the policy side of things, there would be A LOT more jumping. Fundamentally, the Harper Cons are not ideologically aligned with the population- the problem the Libs aren’t effectively exposing them. Don’t be scared to expose the Cons’ politically motivated crime bills- show Canadians how dearly the chest-beating “put everyone in jail longer” has cost governments down south. Call them out on fear mongering. Good policy is good politics- but good policy has to be clearly explained (before it’s demonized by the neo-cons). Stop basing opposition on what you think Canadians want to hear- start basing it on what’s right (& throw in a little passion)… Canadians will get it.

    In terms of Ignatieff (in speaking with everyday non-politicos) the problem seems clear to me… he seems afraid to go off-script therefore comes across as uninspiring. He has to start speaking from the heart (a la Chr

  20. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Jean Chr

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Warren,

      Damned Accents Bug. Anywho: Jean Chretien spent the better part of three years toiling after becoming Opposition Leader. Only two people know that better than you W (himself and the Mrs.) and when the election finally rolled around – BINGO!

      Makes me think of patience, but especially of discipline.

      • Don Carruthers says:

        Chretien was a great and talented politician, no question. But, to be fair, he also had the unprecedented luxury of running against a divided right 3 times in a row. It was pretty easy to look good under those circumstances.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Don Carruthers,

          Yours is certainly a valid point. Mine is that Rome wasn’t built in a day! Bring on the fall slugfest, or not. I like clarity and either way, I expect to get plenty as soon as the dust settles. And believe me it will, probably not to everyone’s satisfaction.

  21. Catherine says:

    I would suggest that the LPC, thoughtfully and consistently, meet the voter where they live.

    They deserve it.

    And the constant gnashing of teeth, with every poll result, is wasted time and energy.

  22. Wascally Wabbit says:

    Warren – I’d suggest that the cumulative effect of ducking and running on the C-9 vote – and their whimpering acceptance of the crumbs that Harper offered them on the Afghan Detainee file became the final straw.
    People looking at this version of the Liberal front line – both leader and caucus – must be wondering – where did the old principles and determination go?
    Frankly, I think “On the Buses” will be about as lacking in substance / entertainment as the old BBC TV series.

  23. Sean says:

    24+17=41

    …sigh…

  24. Paul R. Martin says:

    With the Liberals now below 25%, I rather doubt that the Leader of the Opposition will want to call an election this year on the grounds that Mr. Harper’s time is up. I understand that the Liberal bus tour begins next week. During the tour, Ignatieff seems to be intending to concentrate on voters who are against the long gun registry. and were opposed to the senseless violence of some G20 “protesters”. The bus tour looks like an exercise in futility to me. If the Liberals could afford to rent an airplane, they would be better off sending Ignatieff to the same ridings that Jason Kenny has been visiting.

    • allegra fortissima says:

      “While the Conservatives are throwing away taxpayers’ dollars on an epic scale, we’ll be on the road on the cheap – connecting with Canadians where they live in towns and cities across this country. The Liberal team will be holding town halls, participating in key community events, listening, learning and sharing our positive vision of Canada.” (Michael Ignatieff)

      Tentative dates:

      July 10: Alberta
      Week of July 11: Ontario
      Week of July 18: Saskatchewan
      Week of July 18: Quebec
      Week of July 25: Ontario
      Week of August 1: New Brunswick – Prince Edward Island
      Week of August 1: Newfoundland and Labrador
      Week of August 8: Nunavut, Northwest Territories
      Weeks of August 8 and 15: Manitoba – Ontario
      Week of August 15: Yukon
      Weeks of August 15 and 22: British Columbia
      Week of August 22: Quebec
      Week of August 20: Nova Scotia

      • Paul R. Martin says:

        Do the “key” community events you mention include rally’s in favour of the HST and the brand new surprise Ontario “ECO TAX”?

        • allegra fortissima says:

          I personally wonder if there will be any anti-HST and anti-Eco-Tax rallies! Or will the “silent masses” keep silent?

          • Paul R. Martin says:

            I realize that these are Provincial taxes, but they do reinforce the belief in BC and Ontario that the Liberal Party is a tax and spend party. Consumers certainly know who is responsible for higher sales taxes. Is it a coincidence that the polls turned negative when Provincial Liberals raised taxes? The Conservatives may have spent money on G20, however thay have also cut sales taxes.
            I also find it interesting that the pollster agrees with comments I made months ago on this site, that the Liberal Party is on the wrong side of Canadian Nationalism. I have seen no evidence that the Liberals have a positive vision for Canada. As far as the bus tour is concerned, the stated objectives are probably self deluded wishful thinking. The concept of a bus tour also reminds me of (a) past Liberal problems with airplanes and (b) the weak fund raising efforts by the Liberals. Can’t they afford an airplane?

  25. Blair S says:

    Apparently the Conservative think that this poll is incorrect.

  26. Catherine says:

    I am very happy not to be a ‘Liberal insider’ these days with reading the negativity in these comments.

    I do recognize what change I want to see in the nation. The focus is on the guy there now.

    Don’t have time to panic as there is much work to accomplish.

    And dissing the leader has become a bad habit for too many.

  27. Robert K. says:

    Its Summertime. Does anyone, even those inside the party, really care about poll numbers right now?

  28. JH says:

    WK
    as an independant (sort of) can I say I think most commentators are missing the point. I don’t believe the issue is Mr. Ignatieff. It might be in part his seeming inability to control a caucus that appears to run out and do what it wants regardless of the leader’s wishes. So some top down discipline might be in order. More importantly I think the polls really reflect the population’s fatigue wth the 3 ring circus-scandal-dominated actions of the Liberals in the house. A gee – just – us – folks tour is fine, but I really think some vision and policy brought to the debates in the House of Commons would go a long way with the average voter. Probably could have expressed this better but you get the point I’m sure

    • Catherine says:

      You expressed yourself very well.

      • Wascally Wabbit says:

        Let’s leave the responsibility for that at the feet of the folks that deserve it – [redacted] sleaze merchants who sold Paul Martin on the concept of widening widening the tent – to the point that it has more progressive conservatives in it than Harper had under his!
        And now what are we left with – a bunch of right of centre folks supporting Michael Ignatieff – whose natural leaning is towads that side of the tent – and they all wonder why the rest of the party – nation doesn’t understand them!

  29. Pat says:

    Warren,
    The Liberals need to come out swinging and swinging hard. Enough of the ‘mister nice-guy’ routines. Of course, the Conservatives will start with their routine Ad-Scam etc. but now the Liberals MUST point out how the costs of things such as the G8/G20 have totally gone beyond anything the Liberals ever screwed up. And they need to point out the amount of money that has been repaid.
    Liberals need to point out how much money has been lost to government coffers with the loss of the 2 points on the GST and how provinces with the largest populations have been forced to implement HST to make up the differences. They need to bring the message to the average Joe and relate it to his pocket book. So many of the great unwashed masses simply don’t understand or want to understand money matters. They take what they’ve been told by the Conservatives as gospel truth. Look how they fell for the child care benefit?
    As for why are the Liberal numbers dropping? I can relate it to my own personal experience in my riding. No body calls, no body bothers to email, no body bothers to send anything at all. I don’t even know who the candidate is for my area. I used to…it was Ailleen Carroll who was wonderful about keeping people up to date on issues and other things. Now?….who knows…it’s like they don’t care.

    Cheers,

    Pat

    • While I agree (and so do most economists) that lowering the GST was boneheaded (lowering income taxes would have been better), it was popular. Good luck trying to argue against that — that was tried, and failed.

      Likewise you probably don’t want to be saying things like “look how much money has been lost to government coffers” because the public have by and large been trained to respond “that’s our money!” and to appreciate tax cuts of all sorts.

      Secondly, you’ve got a problem with your facts. Cuts to the GST in no way affected transfer payments to the provinces, so you can’t make the claim that GST cuts forced provinces to implement HST.

      What the GST cut did was a) further an ideologically driven agenda that centralized control of the country is bad, pushing control (means power means money) out to the provinces is good, and b) allows provinces to recognize revenue from an increasingly services not product or manufacturing driven economy. Taxing the consumption of services on a more consistent basis than was done in the pre-HST days is, in my view, actually a good thing to do.

      • Don Carruthers says:

        This relates in turn to the issue of coherence and consistency in the LPC’s basic narrative. Is Pat arguing that the LPC should go out on the hustings next election pledging to tack those two points back on to the GST? If not, then that’s water under the bridge, and might as well be treated as such.

        Like it or not, stuff like the GST cut, the child care payment and the home reno tax credit have proven to be popular policies and good retail politics. Chretien understood stuff like this. A lot of the current LPC leadership and supporters don’t seem to. The LPC and its supporters would be much better off if they spent at least as much time thinking up policies of their own that might be attractive to voters as they do complaining about CPC policies which have proven to be attractive to voters.

        • Agreed. I can’t honestly recall one Liberal policy off the top of my head that had the resonance of the GST cuts or Home Reno Tax Credit, or to pick a recently mentioned topic, the Flavoured Cigarette Ban.

          Granted, Martin/Dion/Ignatieff were and are not in a position to actually deliver on any promises over the past half decade (yes it has been that long) so it is harder to remember anything positive they may have lobbed over the policy fence. Harder for me, a policy wonkish political junky. Ask my good wife what decent policies the have offered and I’d get an “are you joking” stare. Maybe a laugh too.

          Trouble is I’d get the same stare and laugh if I asked her to name her favourite Jack Layton inspired policy or stand over the past year. Or the Greens.

          Like it or not, *good* policy isn’t going to save anyone’s bacon, not on its own anyway. A new Red Book isn’t going to help at this point.

          Now… populist policies… those stand a chance of being remembered.

          • Don Carruthers says:

            Exactly. And the 1993 Red Book had a few of those. The irony being, two of the most popular ones were never even implemented: kill the GST and kill FTA/NAFTA. It didn’t matter — it got the LPC elected. The other really popular one was kill the EH-101 helicopter contract. And that was like the Cons’ GST cut — stupid policy (it cost Canada net multi-millions in penalites, etc.), but great politics. Again, Chretien knew how to play the game to win.

  30. Don Carruthers says:

    Reading through all these comments, they seem reflective to me of the fact that the LPC is really suffering from that existential crisis about whether to be identifiably left-of-centre, or more of a big-tent centrist party.

    Another thing that’s struck me lately is that the current LPC leadership and leader don’t have a great intuitive grasp of what animates, and matters to, your average, apolitical, Joe/Jane Schmoe Canadian voter. And that is a big difference from Chretien — JC had an intuitive feel for Main Street Canada.

  31. Andrew says:

    As long as Ignatieff keeps saying statements like the ones mentioned in the National Post. http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Speaking+false+praise+power/3239212/story.html, the Liberals will continue to wander the political purgatory.

    • allegra fortissima says:

      @ the author of the article:

      Mister, as you probably know, Michael Ignatieff is on an official visit to China as the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

      I very much regret that your readers do not have access to his entire speech and being provided only with a few quotes, which one might as well describe as “hand-picked raisins”.

      I assume that you are familiar with the term “International Diplomacy”, practised by politicians and diplomatic corps worldwide. Michael Ignatieff basically encouraged Chinese students to look into Canada’s justice system, civil service reform and corporate social responsibility without embarrassing his hosts.

      By complimenting China on its achievements he showed employment of tact, in order to gain strategic advantage and to find mutually acceptable solutions in a non-confrontational manner. Of course Michael ignatieff can make more confrontational statements about China at home, but he cannot do so as China’s guest!

      All this might sound a bit strange to “Joe Average” but this is the way affairs are handled in diplomatic circles, on the “diplomatic parquet” and by politicians visiting a foreign country.

      A “Hill Billy Lecture with rolled up sleeves” in China would have been a real embarrassment for Canada!

  32. Iris Mclean says:

    I got roundly chewed out on this forum a few weeks ago for suggesting that the LPC should take a time-out, quite the in-fighting (grow up) and come back as the respected party it once was. Maybe after the Cons get their majority, which could very well happen this fall, The LPC will get to work on that. Canada, as well as millions of liberals, have been seriously let down by the LPC.

    • Namesake says:

      Huh? Roundly chewed out? When someone simply responded, “Wow, what would we be without your sweeping generalizations.” http://warrenkinsella.com/2010/06/not-unrelated/#comment-4471

      That’s pretty thin-skinned for someone telling the party to grow up.

      And how does this rather unhelpful scolding jibe with your own (um, in-fighting, critical) digs on various other threads here about how disgusted you are w. the Libs for being in a de facto coalition w. the Cons these past 4 years? Isn’t that because they’ve been trying to do what you’re telling them to now: lay low & rebuild before trying to fight another election they’d lose? And why is everyone else supposed to take a time-out from criticizing the Lib tactics or leadership except you?

  33. TPQ says:

    I just met Bob Rae accidently at the entrance to a hotel and we had a good chat about the polls. he thinks the bump is, if real, temporary due to Harper hanging on to the queen’s skirts for all he was worth. In reality the party does not fee these current polls are accurate based on regional inaccuracies.

    • H says:

      The conservatives did not bump, the LPC dropped. This poll is not about Harper but more reflective of what the LPC is or is not doing.

  34. Riley says:

    “All that matters is the election” — I think Warren, wrote that, once. And I think that is largely true. Nobody is really paying attention to these polls except that they do make the news and so week after week of reporting people eventually get an impression forming in their minds, that is inaccurate but damaging — “The conservatives are the “most popular party”. Of course it is not supported by most people (by far) but that is not how it’s reported. And at the end of the day, it’s how these polls are reported that matters. The public doesn’t drill down into the poll numbers, all they hear is “The conservatives are 10 points ahead of those hapless Liberals” and they make the assumption that, those cons are “winners”, without remembering that conservative support is down significantly since the last election. We hear almost nothing about the Greens. They have been at or above 10% in the polls for a year. They siphon off support from all parties but significant amounts from the Liberals. Why do you think that is? Is is because they are progressive and innovative without being socialist? Is it because people under 50 see the world in relation to different frames of reference? In marketing if you want to introduce a new product, you don’t go head to head with the leaders, you introduce a new category where you can be first. When someone wanted to compete against Crest and Colgate they didn’t introduce a new brand of light coloured flouride toothpaste that fights cavaties, they introduced Close-up the first toothpaste that was a mouthwash-like gell and sold it based on the “new” benefit of fresh breath, rather than no holes in your teeth. The Greens set up a new category — environmental sustainability and have hung an appealing platform on this category, including all kinds of innovative approaches to everything from economic policy to foreign policy to health policy. Read their platform — it reads smart. It reads current. It reads like the next generation of political leaders wrote it — a generation that simply couldn’t care less about anyone involved with the other parties. They’re like Mac owners — they think different (in fact, I would guess that Green voters literally are overwhelmingly Mac owners, but I could be wrong.) The Liberal party needs to come up with a new category — and that category should be freedom. The name says it all and the conservative government has done everything in its power to demonstrate that it hates freedom — it likes to tell you how to think, where you can stand on the streets of Toronto, it tells you what you can and cannot see of government information, it doesn’t let its own MPs speak, it doesn’t want canadians to know anything about our own country so it destroys the census — they grumpy old white guys who want to push us around and it’s time to push back with a platform that plays up freedoms in some way.

  35. Derek Pearce says:

    I just can’t see merging the NDP and LPC as a winner. Too many centre-right Libs will peel off to the Conservatives and too many lefty NDPers will peel off to whatever new-New Left party that would inevitably form.

    • Don Carruthers says:

      I was thinking about this problem last night, and specifically about why it is that the Liberals, especially under Trudeau, were able to be as identifiably left-leaning as they were back then, and be as electorally successful as they were. And I think a big answer to that may be Quebec. The LPC had a lock on Quebec in Trudeau’s day, and Quebec has historically been one of Canada’s most left-leaning provinces politically, especially in terms of statist policies like child care and government involvement in the economy. But with the advent of the Bloc, and the reuniting of the right, I have doubts that a left-leaning LPC could be that successful, when what you now have to do to win a federal election is win English Canada, now that a huge chunk of Quebec has been taken out of the equation. I think that a lot of English Canada is more small-c conservative than a lot of the left wing of the LPC is willing to admit.

  36. jenjen says:

    The tories want an election right now. Look at the election rhetoric right now between the senate and the gov’t. They want to go to the polls now because they know economic conditions will deteriorate by the fall.

  37. plcamp says:

    I vote Con but actually would like to see a viable alternative. I do not think many Canadians will respond well to yet more ‘Harper’s evil ideology’ critiques, and instead the Libs need to create their next differentiated redbook. Your party looks to this voter to be fractious, directionaless and too eager to jump onto character attack and contradiction instead of considered alternative policy. Voters are tired of the pervasive, manipulative tactics used (by all parties) and innuendo-based personal attacks. Substance of policy and constructive attitude to get things done will matter, the party who demonstrates that genuinely will get the benefits.

    • Namesake says:

      Uh-huh. Well, thanks for being at least partially honest, but I’m sure you’ll understand if I say we should be extremely wary of any Trojan Horse advice from Con-men. If your Party believed that for a second, they wouldn’t have run all the Puffin & Not-A-Leader & Just Visiting ads & con-bot slurs for the past 5 years, now, would they, and they wouldn’t be chomping at the bit to see who might be the new leader or the leader of a new party so they could commence chopping them off at the knees, as well. And if these character attacks, incl. hidden agenda attacks, didn’t work, then all the fed. elections this century would’ve turned out differently, wouldn’t they.

      As for wanting the Libs to show their hand by furnishing you Cons with a full new policy book in time for your better funded Oppo research team to cost it out brand it as completely Utopian & unaffordable (which’ll likely be true, given the way you guys have raided & drained the Treasury), well, at this stage, I’d have to say: Go Fish.

      If you want to hear bits & pieces about what Iggy says he’ll do, you’ll just have to pay the BBQ fee like everyone else & go hear him for yourself. But the full election platform shouldn’t be rolled out until the election, when you’ll have to scramble to try to torpedo it in real time. To paraphrase (& improve upon) one of your former leaders, a pre-election is no time to be talking about policy.

      • Andrew says:

        Would be nice if the Liberals actually gave the voting public something to think about rather than constantly propping up the current Conservative government.

        More over, I would like a list of all the “hell in a hand basket” policies that Harper is doing to drag the country down.

        I am pretty happy right now. Got a raise, my organization is hiring staff, opening up another office location. My wife was given the additional staff she has been asking for since 2008.

        PS. I also haven’t seen stormtroopers marching in the streets of Canada. Unless you count the people at the Star Wars convention.

      • plcamp says:

        Look, Character attacks are no exclusive realm of the Conservatives, as far as I can see, Martin’s last campaign platform included nothing but character attacks and secret agendas. You need to stop whining about this, no-one in the world of politics anywhere has come under longer, more sustained character attack than Stephen Harper, and it is your party which takes the lead on that. You complain about bird poop – but your own party tried to conduce folks to write cartoon captions about Harper. There is zero differentiation on behavior, so stop trying to pretend there is. The altruism is simply not believable.

        I don’t necessarily blame any particlular party for such behavior, as the media supports it with all the gusto they can muster. Sensationalism attracts viewers. But it is exactly this behavior that I think Canadians want to see gone. The difference with today’s Conservative party is that they use these tactics to a degree only you Liberals used to use them. A dose of your own so to speak, I am not at all surprised you dislike it. But don’t try to tell me the Liberal Party is not every inch as guilty.

        So Ffine, keep you policies secret if you think that tactic is a good move (and assuming you actually have some – right now lots of folks doubt that). I suggest that without it, there is no alternative to Harper, and that’s what you will feel when the next election is called.

        • Namesake says:

          Talk to the hand…. ’til you’re blue in the face. (Ohm you already are.)

          I didn’t complain, or say the Libs were any better on this… I just said it’d be bad advise to take advise from Con-Men.

          • Namesake says:

            Sorry, a spelling brain-fart; that’s:

            It’d be bad advice to take advice from Con-Men.

  38. H Holmes says:

    The liberals oppose the police.
    This sounds like pretty much the worst headline yet.
    Which is what I got out of the coverage from the G20.

    When people see pictures of burning cop cars, it is kind of hard to have any sympathy for any protester.

    Its time for these special interest groups to figure out siding with criminals limits your voice and in general makes people favor the police no matter how heavy handed they get.

    Allowing the black bloc to operate and to coordinate with them was horrible and it only helped the conservatives justify the huge amount of spending.

    For all you republicans, the monarchy will be hear as long as the grass grows and the rivers flows.
    Seeing that if the crown disappeared then most of the treaties would also have be reviewed.
    It is another issue we should avoid at all costs.

    Anyway its not all bad news. Ignatieff is going on a bus tour with almost no advertising.
    I guess that must mean we are saving up for an election.

    Ignatieff should have put out a news release commending the police. He should have also encouraged the special interests harbouring the black bloc to turn them over.
    Another missed opportunity to show that we are moderate arty that supports peaceful protest, but understands the rule of law.

    • dead libs society says:

      HHolmes,

      “When people see pictures of burning cop cars, it is kind of hard to have any sympathy for any protester.”

      Cop cars left with no equipment or radios, windows down, with the hope that the black block would burn them. All in the justification game. Read the news, learn something, be critical of what you are told you mainstream hack.

      No interference at all with the rampaging criminals. None. The police should be ashamed of how they comported themselves and a full and independent inquiry should be called.

      Overtime cheques for neocon voters is what the whole security fiasco amounts to.

      “Ignatieff should have put out a news release commending the police.”

      Ignatieff should grow a pair and discuss the erosion of civil rights in this country. I’ve just reviewed the cons upcoming smear campaign to discredit Iggy … and by Iggies own words they will do him in, it looks like. Put a fork in him, he’s finished even before he gets to contest an election. He’ll spend the rest of this summer explaining out of context quotations. They have a mountain of ammo, and he’s going on the road?

      • Don Carruthers says:

        “Overtime cheques for neocon voters is what the whole security fiasco amounts to.”

        What, so all copes are Tory voters? Have you got, like, any evidence or polling data to support that assertion?

        • Don Carruthers says:

          Sorry, meant to say “cops”, not “copes”.

        • dead libs society says:

          “so all copes are Tory voters?”

          All the cops who volunteer for an opportunity to earn some bonus cash to dress up like storm troopers, bash some dissenting skull, are – yes indeed – neocon voters, or having just cashed their ill gotten gains, are given over to the generousness of the “law and order” regime. Given that voting is a private issue, data must succumb to observation and that, my fellow Canadian, has been documented by thousands of lenses on the streets.

          The evidence has been collected, it’s not going away any time soon.

      • Andrew says:

        The empty cop cars as bait and the agent provocateurs is all conspiracy theorist kool-aid.

        If you show an event to six different people, from six different angles, you will get six different stores. Each story is a valid interpretation of the event. Everyone will have bias…left, right, center.

        Calling people hacks is not necessary.

    • Namesake says:

      If it’s any consolation, the Official Liberal line has _not_ been to criticize the police. (It’s just the rogue’s gallery here & on a few other renegade Lib blogs that have.)

      In fact, even now, the latest (& almost only) statement has been an apologetic-sounding shifting of blame that they were put in “a nearly impossible security situation” (by Harper’s decision to hold in in TO.):
      http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/18479_liberals-call-for-minister-toews-to-come-before-committee-to-explain-g20-fiasco

      That’s a cop-out (or rather, -in), if you ask me.

  39. Wassup says:

    Warren:

    This article sums up the mess that is Police & Firefighter salaries in Ontario. When taxpayers revolt, and they will, your man Dalton, whom I actually kind of like, will wear this big time:

    http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20823&start=0

    “Three years after they’re sworn in on the force, in some cases with little more than the minimum high school diploma and 12 weeks’ training, London police officers get a base salary that tops $80,000.

    That wouldn’t surprise other police and firefighters in Ontario, whose salaries are closely tethered by unions that demand it and police boards that often give in.

    But south of the border, jaws drop.

    In U.S. cities where there are more murders in a month than London has in a year, police are surprised when told how much police are paid here and how that has changed so quickly over time.

    “It’s really a death spiral,” said Dewey Bartlett Jr., mayor of Tulsa, Okla., where senior officers max out at $62,783 US.”

    • Andrew says:

      Police Academies are very competitive to get into. Before enrolling in Police Academies, all cadets have 2 – 3 years of college (Police Foundations) in Ontario.

      The median home price in Tulsa, Okla. is $132,000 and a median foreclosure price of $80,000.

      The median home price in Toronto, Ont was $345,000 in June 2009.

  40. Namesake says:

    No, the headline would be that the Liberals stand up for individual rights and oppose the abuse of power. Those who object to that are part of the problem.

  41. To Michael Behiels,

    Warren’s fantastic comment board doesn’t like accents. I tried it once with a u-umlaut. E-accent aigus do not work either.

    Let me accentuate this point: do not accent your words or else your sentences will be cut of at the accent point!

  42. BeRead says:

    The solution lies in doing what an Opposition party should be doing and that is to OPPOSE. Vigorously. Attack, Attack, Attack. Quit being genteel and Mr. Rogers with the fuzzy cardigan. Throw down the gloves and punch.

    The Liberals got it and did it with the well-named Rat Pack. Harper did the same in Opposition. And in government.

    Some in the Liberal party especially at the grass roots get it and are hammering away. The Libs in White Rock, B.C. have followed up on Cons MP Russ Hiebert (Hey Big Spender) shooting himself in the foot over expenses by inviting Dr. Carolyn Bennett to speak there and in doing so positioned this as an attack on the Harper regime?s healthcare policies. Just check out the headlines in the local paper:

    http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/peacearchnews/news/98072964.html

    It doesn?t matter what the Cons MP said in reaction, which when you read it underscored the Liberals? point. The point is that the Liberals got their blows in first, reflected by the headline.

    There are enough hot issues this summer for a coordinated slam-the-CCRAP into the can in a lead up to a there-is-a-reason-why-the-benches-are-more-than two-sword-lengths- apart/why-we-have-a-mace-in-the chamber fall session.

    Here are just two:

    * Bill C-42 that surrenders the sovereign rights of Canadians flying within Canada or to another country to the paranoid, homophobic and ineffectual (judging from repeated intelligence failures including 9-11 that this writer witnessed while working/living in NYC) Department of Homeland Security if those flights cross U.S. airspace.

    Canadians are justifiably, from this former U.S. resident?s perspective, suspicious of American authorities, the ones who brought you Gitmo, 12 years of Bushes and possibly Sarah Palin in 2012. If this isn?t a flag waving issue I don?t know what is

    * The bungling of the Do Not Call List (DNCL) which has opened the door to telefraudsters harassing seniors and other foolish enough to put their names on it; these dirtbags have made this as Prof. Geist pointed out a ?do call? list.

    Joe Volpe gets it and he?s come out swinging on C-42. Dan McTeague and Senator Downe have drawn attention to DNCL.

    Now its time to connect on these and other issues that hit Canadians and follow up with coordinated assaults. Only in this fashion will the Liberal party re-connect with Canadians.

  43. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    BeRead,

    Excellent. Amen. And thank you!

  44. John Buck says:

    The Liberals need to throw down the guantlet and trigger an election. Let the chips fall where they may. The Cons won’t get a majority, so the worst thing that could happen is that you get the same result. But then they would have the chance to reassess their leader, and Jack Leyton would be gone, perhaps Gilles Duceppe too. Maybe even Harper would go too if he only gets another minority.
    Reshuffle the deck. An election would do that.

Leave a Reply

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


*