Polkaroo is not the only imaginary thing on TVO

People who live outside Ontario will have missed the panel on TVOntario tonight on “The Future of the NDP” which is too bad, because it was some of the more contrived programming ever offered by the basic cable superchannel (and that includes the Today's Special when Jeff's magic hat gets lost at the drycleaners).

Let’s run through:

On one hand there were the detractors: Buzz "Basil" Hargrove (best remembered for musing about running for the Liberal Party in 2008) and self-described radical Judy Rebick. These two firmly of the timeless opinion that New Democrats will only succeed when they sound less like your neighbour and more like hectoring 1970s anti-market crusaders -- Brother Hargrove intoning at one point that calling Employment Insurance “Employment Insurance” was tantamount to giving in to the man (the irony having clearly been lost on the Champion of the Working Class (TM) that it was his old pal and CAW jacket honoureee Paul Martin who changed the name from Unemployment Insurance back in 1995.)

Also on the panel was Globe and Mail columnist Adam Radwanski, who could most charitably be called, oh, cynical about the NDP and Jack Layton.

In the middle of this maelstrom of the imagination was NDP MP Niki Ashton who did a fine job at checking the sur-reality of having her party's obituary read to her by the detractors and occasionally by host Steve Paikin while the party, quite heathily, lives and breathes.

The only thing that appeared to be missing from the program was a ticker giving moment by moment updates about Michael Ignatieff’s feelings about puppies and his childhood crushes.

Come on. We get it. The Liberal Party membership had a new leader forced upon them and are therefore up in the polls from their historic low. Does it necessarily follow that the New Democrats are doomed, let alone even affected by this? No, but that's not stopping TVO from assembling a panel to suggest it.

Funny how the only people saying the New Democrats are down and (almost) out are the same people who say your favourite sports team sucks … non-supporters.

Ignatieff knows less than a 9th grader

So this is interesting for two reasons:

1) Ignatieff now says the Liberal-NDP coalition would have "divided" people. Really? A historic accord agreed to by a majority of parliamentarians, representing a majority of voting Canadians and that would have brought political rivals together into an alternative government would have been more "divisive" than Stephen Harper's government?

Well, that's worth remembering.

As are these things Ignatieff used to say about the coalition he now derides:

“I think the thing that the Canadian people…have to understand is that the coalition agreement does not jeopardize the national unity of our country. No Liberal, certainly not me with would ever sign into any agreement that jeopardized the national unity of the country, that compromises the national authority of the government or sets in place unequal treatment of provinces." – Michael Ignatieff, "Mike Duffy Live", 5 December 2008

“I support the [Coalition] accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality that our party has always believed in.” – Michael Ignatieff

In fact, Ignatieff was so opposed to the coalition accord he now considers more divisive than Stephen Harper, that he was only willing to sign a petition to the Governor General in favour of it:

2) Upon reflection, Ignatieff has also concluded - along with Stephen Harper and the Conservative letter-to-the-editor writing base - that "There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me.”

No surprise really that a man who has lived outside Canada for 30-odd years thinks we are the Republic of Canada too.

Free advice to Professor Ignatieff: on one of your book tours, consider picking up a copy of the high school reader "How Canadians Govern Themselves" where in the first chapter you will learn:

"If a Cabinet is defeated in the House of Commons on a motion of censure or want of confidence, the Cabinet must either resign (the Governor General will then ask the Leader of the Opposition to form a new Cabinet) or ask for a dissolution of Parliament and a fresh election."

“She superimposed her face on another body image”

Given, um, recent revelations, Team Ignatieff may want to borrow from Ruby Dhalla’s very own expertly crafted “Photoshop” talking points to explain away this now unhelpful photo from the weekend …

Subscribe to the Liberal Party and get a free clock radio & pen set

For a moment a jolt of electricity seemed to be in the air in the otherwise dull-as-dishwater convention coverage on Saturday. CPAC reporters took a break from their usual stalling for time or chatting-up delegates about by-law amendments and swollowed hard at the prospect of getting to report actual NEWS!

Across the land, Elevator Network viewers and retirement home rec room occupants were agape that the Liberal Party was about to announce a new … wait for it … logo!

But in all seriousness, a political party’s logo is an important part of its overall branding. It needs to be recognizable as well as say something about the party.

So isn’t it a bit odd that their new logo …

Appears to be an un-italicized throw-back to their old 1992-era logo?


And what about that new leaf device? What does it say about the new Ignatieff Liberals? Who knows? Perhaps it’s a reminder to renew their subscription to Macleans’.

How far will Ignatieff take the Liberals into Harper's camp?

Maybe it was because his 2006 leadership bid was so mired in blunders the point was lost.

Maybe it’s because short circuiting the most recent leadership race avoided any further scrutiny.

Or maybe it’s because following the 2008 disaster, federal Liberals are just happy to have someone else lead them – and it hardly matters who.

But hidden beneath his rhetoric, Michael Ignatieff has already moved his party as close to the Conservaitve Party as any leader has in two decades.

That’s the point Bob Hepburn makes in his column in today’s Toronto Star.

"Since January, when he was anointed interim leader by the party's backroom boys and its sitting MPs and senators, Ignatieff has moved quickly to erase much of the left-leaning social agenda pursued by his predecessors, Stéphane Dion and Paul Martin.

He killed any idea of a coalition with the New Democrats, which Dion backed. He isolated Liberal MPs clearly identified with the left wing of the party, notably Justin Trudeau and Gerard Kennedy. He ditched Dion's "Green Shift" carbon tax plan.

To win support in western Canada, he has championed the development of Alberta's oil sands, which worries environmentalists concerned with massive pollution associated with the projects.

And he is aligned almost perfectly with Harper in agreeing to end Canada's military role in Afghanistan in 2011, in their visions of Quebec and free trade, and in their unqualified support of Israel.

… In fact, since Ignatieff became leader, the Liberals have yet to vote against the Conservatives on any issue of significance other than a tepid effort by some Tory MPs to kill off the long-gun registry."

Hepburn’s is a good point. If either Harper or Ignatieff had been in the Prime Minister’s office in March 2003, Canadian troops would have been fighting in Iraq. How unsettling is that to Chretien Liberals?

As they gather in Vancouver, do Liberals really know what they are doing? Do they actually think Canadians will want to replace one right wing prime minister with another?

The imaginary "crisis" of the New Democrats

Satire, they say, is best when it contains a little bit of truth.

Knowing this, it’s easy to conclude that Chantal Hebert’s column is not satire. Because her second in a series in the Toronto Star on the thesis “the NDP is down in the polls and Layton needs to go” is completely without a morsel of truth.

Her column is built on the fact-vacant allegation that "Current polls do suggest that [New Democrats are] facing diminishing returns in the next election."

What?

Presuming that polls DO matter to decisions parties make this far in advance of an election, the fact that the NDP is polling at or near the margin of error of the 2008 election in the middle of a love-in for Michael Ignatieff is no small feat.

Even in Hebert’s home province, the NDP is today holding the 12 percent it got in Quebec six months ago – effectively disproving her claim that “Outremont’s Thomas Mulcair might not even have a seat in parliament after the next election.”

But even if you took Hebert’s wild argument at face value: do you dump a popular leader who brought the NDP from 13 seats to its second highest result in history on the basis of a poll? That’s ridiculous. If polls were all that mattered, we would be marking the 100th day of President Hillary Clinton’s administration today.

Hebert mentions NDP strategist Brian Topp, yet she studiously avoids two points he made in a recent Globe and Mail discussion, 1) New Democrats don’t have the culture of “playing leadership politics” the same as the old line parties and 2) Layton’s leadership is on par with past NDP leaders:

The federal NDP doesn't play leadership politics the way the Liberals and Tories do. We debate things, including the leadership, but don't generally divide into suicidal factions over leadership issues.

Second thing worth saying: Jack Layton has only been federal leader for six years. In that brief time he has taken our caucus from 13 to 37 members, added 1.5 million votes to our column, and has been working very effectively in Parliament in the best traditions of his predecessors. It's true that he didn't get to the Cabinet table (this time) - but he did force a Conservative government to do a 180-degree turn on its what-me-worry policy towards the economic crisis, and to adopt stimulus measures it fundamentally rejected only weeks before. Not bad for the first few weeks of a new Parliament.

The most cynical bit in all of this is that the column doesn't provide anyone, anywhere calling for a change of leadership except for “comments” to a previous column from people she describes as “some New Democrats”.

But only a few weeks ago, Peter Stoffer, among the most independent-minded MPs in the NDP caucus, and one who has not always seen eye-to-eye with Layton gave an unequivocal endorsement of his leader and flatly refuted claims of any displeasure in the grassroots:

"To say that we're looking for a new leader is simply false, I haven't heard that on the ground, I haven't heard that in our caucus, I haven't heard that even privately from people who speak to me on a regular basis. I haven't heard that at all. So it's simply not on."

In sum, the “NDP is down in the polls and Layton needs to go” thesis is the stuff of a Red Bull-fueled imagination. Almost no one is discussing leadership change in party that just achieved its second best result in history. What is out there is an erroneous assumption that there's “panic” based on polls that are not a great deal different from the historic result of the last election.

So what is this really about? Without being out right cynical, who really knows?

But like the klutz who shoves you from behind and then points to the fellow next to him, the only thing that columns like this are trying to do is create a problem where none actually exists.

Factdown!: Poll shows Iggy popped

The Liberal Party message box on offer right now is that Michael Ignatieff and the Canadian people are enjoying an exciting, fireworksy new romance that’s certain to bloom into an embarrassingly steamy make-out session at the ballot box.

The corollary of this message is that the new Liberal leader’s limitless popularity is hurting the New Democratic Party and forcing them into a state of panic. The media, bored of economic stories and anxious to return to covering horseracing are happy to parrot the tired Liberal lines.

The only thing lacking in this twaddle is any actual ounce of reality.

By way of illustration, the Harris Decima poll that came out this week demonstrates two facts that fly in the face of the Liberal message:

1) Support for the Ignatieff Liberals has been on a steady DOWNWARD trend since late March; and
2) Support for Jack Layton's New Democrats has been GROWING since the middle of last month.

As for the corollary that a new Liberal leader foretells of an inevitable end of days for New Democrats, let's review, shall we ...

... The Paul Martin juggernaut was poised to win 290 seats – wiping the NDP clean off the electoral map in the process. Actual result: NDP growth / Liberal decline.

... Stephane Dion was going to consume all the political oxygen on the left, deny Jack Layton his well earned credibility on the environment and reduce the party to a rump. Actual result: NDP growth / worst Liberal result in history.

... Now there’s Ignatieff.

For most Canadians – after five leaders of the Liberal Party in six years - this whole melodrama is getting a bit predictable.