Who is this Michael Ignatieff guy?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I see Ignatieff's grandfather was Count Pavel Ignatiev, the Russian Minister of Education to Tsar Nicholas II....
and his great-grandfather was Count Nikolay Ignatyev, the Russian Minister of the Interior under Tsar Alexander III.

Seems fitting that he should be crowned Liberal Party Leader by the Liberal party elite, without a proper election.

Why do I get the impression that he could have the best credentials in the world and you would still find a reason to condemn him?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by skins

When you pronounce "Ignatieff", is it 4 syllables or 3?

3.5

Same way that "Calgary" is pronounced with 2.5 syllables.

[corporatejay]

is it IG-NA-TEE-EFF

or is it

IG-NAY-CH-EFF.

Either way he might be able to swing some Red Torys (like moi). I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Why do I get the impression that he could have the best credentials in the world and you would still find a reason to condemn him?

Not condemning him. He appears to be a very capable politician.
Just condemning the way he became, without due process of a leadership vote by all the Liberal party members, the new Liberal leader. Its almost like a coronation.

I feel that its somewhat fitting, given his family pedigree.

[Cheese]

Extremely intelligent guy who will maqke things extraordinarily tough on Harper. Many on the Liberal side wanted him as leader before the last snaffu with Dion getting in via split vote. Im not sure he has the charisma..but then he is only going upagainst Harper who isnt blessed with any charisma himself. Liberals did right.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Extremely intelligent guy who will maqke things extraordinarily tough on Harper. Many on the Liberal side wanted him as leader before the last snaffu with Dion getting in via split vote. Im not sure he has the charisma..but then he is only going upagainst Harper who isnt blessed with any charisma himself. Liberals did right.

He also appears to be the most right wing Liberal party leader in decades.
I wonder how this will translate into votes?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Not condemning him. He appears to be a very capable politician.
Just condemning the way he became, without due process of a leadership vote by all the Liberal party members, the new Liberal leader. Its almost like a coronation.

I feel that its somewhat ironic, given his family pedigree.

I'm actually not sure he is a capable politician, and I'm not a fan of ex-patriots returning to Canada when they have a chance at power.

But that said he is a better option than anyone else I've seen mentioned, and I want smart people in Ottawa.

But I will judge him on how he does, not who his grandparents or great grandparents were. It seems kind of petty to spin that against him.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm actually not sure he is a capable politician, and I'm not a fan of ex-patriots returning to Canada when they have a chance at power.

But that said he is a better option than anyone else I've seen mentioned, and I want smart people in Ottawa.

But I will judge him on how he does, not who his grandparents or great grandparents were. It seems kind of petty to spin that against him.

I agree. Who his parents, grandparents, etc., were doesn't make a bit of difference in the rough and tumble political arena.

However, my point is that he comes from a privileged, elite family where the vote of the common man was not a factor with regards to gaining power in political circles. Now it happens again with his unopposed coronation, as a result of the circumvention of the leadership election rules, as Liberal leader.
Deja vu?

[Slava]

^ Its funny how the CPC supporters are going to say that this is undemocratic.

A) The Liberals didn't shut down the parliament in the face of a confidence vote they were sure to lose!

B) The party with the most to gain by a pro-longed (and largely unnecessary) leadership contest is the CPC.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I agree. Who his parents, grandparents, etc., were doesn't make a bit of difference in the rough and tumble political arena.

However, my point is that he comes from a privileged, elite family where the vote of the common man was not a factor with regards to gaining power in political circles. Now it happens again with his unopposed coronation, as a result of the circumvention of the leadership election rules, as Liberal leader.
Deja vu?

A position his ancestors were born into, versus a political appointment of an elected official. I can see the relationship, but I think it points out your bias more than any repeat of history.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Its funny how the CPC supporters are going to say that this is undemocratic.

A) The Liberals didn't shut down the parliament in the face of a confidence vote they were sure to lose!

B) The party with the most to gain by a pro-longed (and largely unnecessary) leadership contest is the CPC.

A) The Liberals, after having been soundly defeated two elections in a row, attempted to usurp power by way of Socialist/Separatist backroom deals - rather than on the votes of the Canadian people.

B) The Liberals, again with plans of taking a run at the Prime Minister's office in January, have fast-tracked their appointed savior without a standard leadership race, or even just an arbitrary vote from their card-carrying membership.


You know... rocks and glass houses and all that jazz.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

A) The Liberals, after having been soundly defeated two elections in a row, attempted to usurp power by way of Socialist/Separatist backroom deals - rather than on the votes of the Canadian people.

B) The Liberals, again with plans of taking a run at the Prime Minister's office in January, have fast-tracked their appointed savior without a standard leadership race, or even just an arbitrary vote from their card-carrying membership.


You know... rocks and glass houses and all that jazz.

Good enough. At least you admit that neither one of them is acting democratically, so we don't need to have that discussion!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Slava

Good enough. At least you admit that neither one of them is acting democratically, so we don't need to have that discussion!

Haha yes. Indeed we don't.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Its funny how the CPC supporters are going to say that this is undemocratic.

In one big way it is more non-democratic then what the conservatives did. The running of Ignatieff into the leadership role goes against the original charter of the Liberal Party that mandates that all party members get a vote in deciding their leader through the convention process. In this case the leadership is being decided by the relative few elites in the party which are the senators and MPs. It would not surprise me if they lose members over this.

Originally Posted by Slava

^ A) The Liberals didn't shut down the parliament in the face of a confidence vote they were sure to lose!

Just like the coalition could be considered legal and democratic though oderous through the consistitution. The use of the Prorogue is legal and democratic and somewhat oderous through the constitution. However while one which is the coalition is considered to be undemocratic because it represents a change in elected government through non voting means. The Prorogue doesn't really effect democracy and is a more procedural issue.

Originally Posted by Slava

^ B) The party with the most to gain by a pro-longed (and largely unnecessary) leadership contest is the CPC.

Sure, however its not like the Liberals can really afford to effectively run an election campaign tommorrow, and the GG has shown that she is more then likely willing to follow the PM's advice and send the matter to the polls if the government falls at budget, the Liberals have put themselves into a relatively bad position with their own members by doing an end run to bully Ignatieff into power, and working with the NDP and Bloc to try to do an end round the voters to take power.

Right now election wise, or voter wise, the Liberals are probably not in a favorable position.

[Slava]

^ Well CC we'll have to agree to disagree on some of these points here. The other challengers dropped out of the race on their own accord, so why delay the obvious result? It is far better for the Liberals to have a leader in place at this time. He could still be challenged, and there is no reason why someone else couldn't run against him in May. (Still got your membership Cap'n?!!)

The Liberals might not be able to afford an election tomorrow, but at least with Ignatieff in as the leader they have something to build around. I like the prospects of raising money and running a campaign with him there better than I would've with Dion in the seat.

[octothorp]

So assuming Ignatieff goes beyond 'interim' status, he'll be the first leader of one of the two major political parties to hold a seat in Ontario since Pearson (Turner held a seat in Ottawa in the 1970s, but not while he was party leader, . And unless I'm missing someone, he'd be the first leader of one of those two parties to hold a seat in Toronto since Alexander MacKenzie. That's kinda surprising; that our largest city hasn't produced a major party leader for almost 130 years.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Well CC we'll have to agree to disagree on some of these points here. The other challengers dropped out of the race on their own accord, so why delay the obvious result? It is far better for the Liberals to have a leader in place at this time. He could still be challenged, and there is no reason why someone else couldn't run against him in May. (Still got your membership Cap'n?!!)

Honestly I put in a membership cancelation when they announced the coaltion with a pretty strongly worded but polite letter telling them not to contact me for funds or send me their news letters and communications. It was the only way that I could effectively communicate my disgust with them. I then took my membership information and mailed it to the party.

I don't really believe that the folks that stepped aside to allow Ignatieff to take the leaders position are completely thrilled by it. However it does sound to me like the MP's and Senators that pushed it through probably forced the issue.

Originally Posted by Slava

^ The Liberals might not be able to afford an election tomorrow, but at least with Ignatieff in as the leader they have something to build around. I like the prospects of raising money and running a campaign with him there better than I would've with Dion in the seat.

It will be interesting to see if there is a change in fundraising results under Ignatieff. Like I mentioned my gut tells me that there is a whole rank and file of the party that is not to pleased with their voices not being heard. I think that right now, any Rae supporter has got to be irate about the developments.

My question now is, how patient are the Liberal's going to be with Ignatieff. If they do end up going to election in Feb, and the numbers that are showing play out and Ignatieff gets similar or worse results then Dion in a federal election, will they move to replace him.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by octothorp

So assuming Ignatieff goes beyond 'interim' status, he'll be the first leader of one of the two major political parties to hold a seat in Ontario since Pearson (Turner held a seat in Ottawa in the 1970s, but not while he was party leader, . And unless I'm missing someone, he'd be the first leader of one of those two parties to hold a seat in Toronto since Alexander MacKenzie. That's kinda surprising; that our largest city hasn't produced a major party leader for almost 130 years.

Toronto not winning the big one surprises you? No wonder the Leafs continue to sell out. They probably haven't noticed either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In one big way it is more non-democratic then what the conservatives did. The running of Ignatieff into the leadership role goes against the original charter of the Liberal Party that mandates that all party members get a vote in deciding their leader through the convention process. In this case the leadership is being decided by the relative few elites in the party which are the senators and MPs. It would not surprise me if they lose members over this.

Not at all against the charter. He was merely appointed interim leader. He'll still be up for election in May, and any other party member can run against him at that time, should they so choose. But the party decided that rather than elect a lame-duck interim leader as is often the case, the current circumstances required that they choose an interim leader who could lead the party in case of an election.

It certainly is unusual for an interim leader be someone who intends to run the party long-term, but there is a historical precedent for it: Hugh Guthrie was appointed (not elected) interim leader of the Conservatives in 1926, and remained interim leader for a full year before a leadership convention was held where he put up his name to be the full leader of the party.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Not at all against the charter. He was merely appointed interim leader. He'll still be up for election in May, and any other party member can run against him at that time, should they so choose. But the party decided that rather than elect a lame-duck interim leader as is often the case, the current circumstances required that they choose an interim leader who could lead the party in case of an election.

It certainly is unusual for an interim leader be someone who intends to run the party long-term, but there is a historical precedent for it: Hugh Guthrie was appointed (not elected) interim leader of the Conservatives in 1926, and remained interim leader for a full year before a leadership convention was held where he put up his name to be the full leader of the party.

You probably have me here. However I do know that some of the Rae Liberals have been talking about the election of Ignatieff as being contrary to the party's charter in terms of leadership selection.