Media Manipulation: Journalists or Playwrights?

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

When media mogul Rupert Murdoch, first met Ronald Regan, he was surprised at how old and frail he was. Murdoch had been invited to the White House for a luncheon and Reagan actually fell asleep during the meal. 'The other guests went on eating and the waiters continued to take the plates away'. (1)

Murdoch later described the experience as "awful".

He had backed the Reagan campaign but the man he saw was nothing like the man he had portrayed. How could this be?

In their book Newsmongers, Mary Anne Comber and Robert Mayne, present an interesting theory on election campaigns, comparing them to plays. The stage is set and the actors assigned their roles. It is then up to the media to write their lines, and they rarely allow them to go off script.

Ronald Reagan was billed as the "Great Communicator", and though revisionist history paints him as a much loved man, in fact he was never really that popular, and had a horrible track record. But he could communicate. He knew how to deliver his lines. The media applauded.

A favourite journalistic device is to compare politics to a stage play. Politicians are referred to as actors on the political stage. In any story some politicians have lead roles and others are cast in supporting roles. They give performances and the spotlight tracks them across the political stage. One implication of this device is that it allows journalists to play the role of theatre critic. (2)

Neocons have recognized this and found a way to capitalize on the phenomenon, by creating the characters themselves. They even publish the playbills, also known as "ten percenters".

Stéphane Dion Starring in 'Not a Leader'

When I attended a townhall meeting in Kingston during the 2008 coalition attempt, one of the speakers was a retired professor from Queens University. He had been the head of the political science department and told of how Mr. Dion was one of the most respected men in his field. He was quoted often.

In his book, the Rights Revolution, written in 2000, Michael Ignatieff placed Dion as a leader in the understanding of group rights and multiculturalism. (3) He was also the author of the Clarity Act.

In Losing Confidence, Elizabeth May describes Dion's uphill battle to have the Kyoto Protocol adopted. She reveals how Stephen Harper and Jack Layton colluded to call an election on the exact date of the "opening day of the most important global climate negotiations in history." (4) And simply because they didn't want the Liberals to look good on the International stage.

Forget that it meant that Canada would look good on the International stage. I lost a lot of respect for Jack Layton after reading that.

But despite the ploy, Stéphane Dion would be victorious as a result of the most selfless act of any politician in a very long time.

Dion told the world immediately after the government fell that he now worked for the United Nations. He said he would resume his life as a Canadian politician on December 10, when the meeting was over.

Incredibly, he steered the meetings to the high-water mark of possible objectives, across every issue. I may never have had a happier moment than when the meetings concluded on December 11 at 6:17 in the morning after round-the-clock negotiations. Dion brought down the gavel on the most aggressive possible actions to advance limits in the next commitment period, set to begin in 2013. (4)

Can you imagine Stephen Harper ever sacrificing his own political career for an opportunity to allow Canada to shine?

I may never have been as devastated as when Stephen Harper was elected, knowing he would do whatever he could to stop progress in reducing greenhouse gases. What we didn't see as a further disaster in bringing down the government on November 28 was that it effectively rendered the Montreal negotiations invisible to the Canadian public. The media was off on the typical brainless pursuit of Canadian election as horserace. Policy and science, particularly UN discussions of the climate crisis, were not going to be covered in an election campaign. (4)

And when Dion became the party boss in 2008, Harper immediately went to work, laying out the play's story, and narrowing the dialogue. And despite proving enormous leadership on the world stage, Dion's "character" was that of a bumbling idiot with weak leadership skills.

And Harper, who lacks any real leadership qualities, played the role of the strong commander, who would slay the recession dragon and pull Canadians out of the abyss. One he threw us into.

Benjamin Disraeli once said: “I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?" Harper lacks the skills to motivate and bring out the best in people. He also refuses to share the limelight. He is a one-man show, and those around him, only there for his amusement.

When he was running the National Citizens Coalition his VP, Gerry Nicholls once suggested that there was a problem with a billboard that Harper had designed, but when he shared his thoughts, Harper responded icily "I don't give a f--- what you think." (5)

He feels the same way about us, believe me.

Michael Ignatieff Starring in 'Just Visiting'

After the successful run of 'Not a Leader', our budding playwright was ready for a sequel with the new Liberal leader. And while he needed to downplay Dion's enormous diplomatic success, he now had to destroy Michael Ignatieff's history, as a member of one of Canada's most important families.

So how best to do this? Cast him in the role of a man who only returned to Canada as a matter of convenience. He was 'just visiting'. If he didn't become prime minister he would return to teaching at Harvard, where he headed the Human Rights department.

But in a clever plot twist, despite the fact that most of Ignatieff's career was spent in the UK, where he made documentaries for the BBC, including one that won him a Gemini; worked as a war correspondent, taught at Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics, and wrote 17 books, they had to make Canadians believe that he was somehow an American. So they capitalized on a two letter word 'we', that he used to connect with his audience when working in the U.S. (for only 5 years)

And the audience lapped it up. The media held their flashlights, directing the patrons to their seats, and called the play a triumph. Of course they would. They wrote the lines.

And if any among them gave the play a thumbs down, they were dismissed as Liberal hacks and a promise made that they would "never work in this town again."

Time For a New Play

With an election on the horizon, rumour has it that Harper is working on a new play, the working title: 'The Coalition is a Coup'. It's got pirates and everything.

But personally, I'm not too impressed with his skills as a playwright, so I think it's time that Canadians collaborated and wrote their own play.

'Goodbye Stephen Harper'. Catchy, don't you think?

Order your tickets now. It's guaranteed to be 'Sold Out'.

Previous:

Media Manipulation: Setting Agendas and Shielding Your Bum

Sources:

1. Murdoch, By William Shawcross, Simon & Schuster, 1992, ISBN: 0-671-67327, Pg. 197

2. The Newsmongers: How the Media Distort the Political News, By Mary Anne Comber and Robert S. Mayne, John Deyell Printing, 1986, ISBN: 0-7710-2239-5, Pg. 17

3. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 11

4. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 3-5

5. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 12

A Deceptive Democracy: On His Knees and Out of His Head

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Another chapter of the book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, was written by Ned Franks, who taught at Queen's University for over thirty-five years in the Department of Political Studies, and is an expert in Parliamentary procedure.

He sought to answer the question: "did the Governor General make the right decision" when she allowed Stephen Harper to close down Parliament in 2008, to avoid facing a confidence vote that would have assuredly exiled him to opposition.

Under the circumstances, she probably made the only decision she could have at the time, and the real threat to democracy was the fact that Stephen Harper asked for it in the first place. It set a dangerous precedence.

When Harper presented his own coalition, that included the full support of both the NDP and Bloc, to then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, she says in her book Heart Matters, that Paul Martin came to her requesting that she step in, dissolve parliament and call another election. But she refused. (1)

Instead she told him to fix it and he did. Besides, by then Harper's coalition was crumbling, as Jack Layton had a change of heart, and backed out.

Adrienne Clarkson actually wrote the forward for Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, and she says that: "In November/ December 2008 there was an enormous interest in the functioning of our political system accompanied by an abysmal lack of knowledge about the system. The idea that we were in crisis is something that I personally take with a grain of salt. Just because a resolution has to be found does not mean that the situation is a crisis." (2)

The only threat (crisis) was Stephen Harper losing his job, and what he did to keep it was not only undemocratic but reprehensible.

It's important to revisit this now, because the Harper government is trying to replicate that "crisis" by once again presenting a coalition as a "threat".

But Back to 2008 and the Winter of Our Discontent

It is well established that the governor general should not allow a prime minister to use dissolution of a Parliament to escape facing a vote of confidence in the House, especially when the session is new (and Parliament had sat for only thirteen days in the first session of the 40th Parliament when Prime Minister Stephen Harper requested prorogation of the governor general to avoid a vote of confidence the following Monday). The dissolution precedent dictates that the governor general should reject a prime minister's advice to prorogue a session when a viable alternative government exists. The Liberal Party, New Democratic Party (NDP), and the Bloc Quebecois had made a public commitment to support a Liberal-NDP coalition government for at least a year and a half. Following this precedent, the governor general should have refused Harper's advice to prorogue. (3)

Those are the words of Ned Franks, but while he suggests that precedence should have prompted the GG to refuse Stephen Harper, reality dictated that that may have been a mistake.

As he delves into the political climate at the time of the potential removal of the Harper government from power in 2008, he concludes that the Governor General at the time made the right decision. He does not base it on any notion that Harper was right for the country, but on the inevitable outcome if the coalition had been allowed to form a government.

Harper was not a strong leader, but he had the most money behind him and was able to launch the most effective public relations campaign. And that campaign was filled with, as Franks reminds us, "misrepresentations and half-truths", including the suggestion that the electorate had given him a stronger mandate. The Conservative vote count was down by almost 200,000. Only vote-splitting and apathy (the lowest voter turn out in our history) gave him more seats. So he was not the "choice of the electorate", only the choice of roughly 1/3 of those who bothered to cast a ballot.

This means that more than 60% of active voters, voted against his party.

But because the destruction of Stephane Dion had been so complete, a Dion led government was not palpable to most Canadians, including many Liberals. And we know what would have happened. The Conservatives in opposition, with their corporate sponsors, would have made it impossible for anyone else to govern.

And a country already fragile form the economic crisis, would have surely been in serious trouble. Sadly, this would not concern Harper at all. He is motivated by hatred and contempt and hates to lose.

However, I think they might be making a mistake dredging up the "coalition" nonsense now, although it may be all they have left. As David Climenhaga says: "this scare story is certain to be the No. 1 talking point of the scorched earth federal Conservative election campaign that's coming soon, and Harper and Flaherty, not to mention all the other little Tories, will be stickin' to it."

The biggest problem with the 2008 coalition was the "Dion factor". But despite similar never ending attack ads, Michael Ignatieff is still standing. And with the Harperites continually calling this the "Ignatieff coalition", that, while imaginary, would mean he headed up a government representing 2/3 of Canadians, they might actually be campaigning for him.

Any marketing person will tell you that it's all about name recognition.

And as the Harper government's corruption, and unheard of abuse of tax dollars for self promotion, continue to dominate the news, they might just be presenting voters with the choice between Harper and a majority headed by Michael Ignatieff, who they have helped to make a household name.

Previous:

1. Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

2. Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

3. Harper From Pugnacious to Dangerous

4. A Confidence Game

Sources:

1. Heart Matters: A Memoir, By Adrienne Clarkson, Viking Press, 2006, ISBN: 10-978-0-670-06546-3

2. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9. 2, Forward

3. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, 2009, Pg. 33

The Harper Government and the Colour of Democracy

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In September of 2005, Michael Ignatieff was invited to speak at the U. S. Coast Guard Academy, on leadership, and what that meant. He was originally going to talk about human rights and international politics, but this was in the wake of Katrina, so he changed his lecture to one of current relevance.

I wanted to share with you in a very raw form, a very direct form this civilian’s view of some of the challenges—some of the moral and ethical challenges that arise from the Katrina story, that is still unfolding. This is the largest natural disaster in US history, but it’s not just the loss of life and the scale of devastation that’s shaken the country. The most troubling aspect has been the failure of anticipation and the failure of response by almost all levels of government ... (1)

Using the levee as a metaphor, he suggests that the people in Katrina's path believed that it would protect them in the same way they expected their government to protect them, and just as the levee burst, so too did their faith in the government.

And to go off topic a bit, I think what happened in the U.S. in the wake of this disaster, epitomizes why neoconservative ideology will fail. There is far too much "assumption" and too little fact. But there is also a dismissive attitude toward those who are disadvantaged.

The evacuation plan for New Orleans ... assumed that people would leave by private car. Assumption number one. And assumption number two—that people, when they left, would be basically housed by their family and domestic networks. Both assumptions turned out to be flawed.

The assumptions were correct for seventy percent of the population or eighty percent of the population but not correct for twenty percent of the population, and we know what percentage of the population it wasn’t true for. It was not true for people who can’t drive. It was not true for people without extensive family networks out of state. It was not true for people without the resources to rent cars. It was not true for very large numbers of human beings. (1)

As images were shown from New Orleans and the surrounding area, and sent around the world, what we saw was a side of the United States that they tried very hard to keep hidden. These people were poor before the hurricane. And most of these devastatingly poor people were black.

A duty of care involves social knowledge—social knowledge about the facts of race and class, however unpleasant they may be in our society, and a willingness to create an evacuation plan that deals with a society that actually exists...

... Katrina was one of those moments where we saw the ties that bind the country together put under tremendous strain, the ties that bind were frayed by what happened in Katrina. One of the cries that went up from the people trapped in the convention center in New Orleans was very significant and I’ll never forget seeing the woman who said this: she said, “We are American citizens, we are American citizens, we are not refugees, we are not stateless objects of your charity, we are citizens of this republic, we have rights here and our rights have been denied.”

Ok, for that woman and for thousands of people who went through the experience of the last five or six days, the thing that was so shocking was that their citizenship counted so little.... But these ties of citizenship are legitimate and accepted as binding only if citizenship confers equal rights regardless of race and social class. (1)

"The thing that was so shocking was that their citizenship counted so little."

And sadly we are now living in a country where citizenship for many Canadians means very little indeed.

Sydney Sharpe, former member of the Ottawa Press Gallery, once wrote that: "This way of thinking characterizes the ideology and behaviour of right-wing Supremacist groups such as the Heritage Front. While such groups can, to a certain extent, be ignored because of their small numbers, such thinking is also evident in the doctrines of the Reform Party [those doctrines written by their policy chief Stephen Harper], who won a substantial number of votes in the federal election of 1993 and who hold 52 seats in Parliament." (2)

So should we really be surprised that the Reform Party, that changed it's name to Alliance Party and now call themselves the Conservative Party of Canada, have written a policy of selective citizenship?

We saw this with Suaad Hagi Mohamud, the Canadian woman who visited relatives in Kenya but was not allowed home until she took a DNA test.

If Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud were wealthy or politically connected or media savvy, she would never have been stripped of her passport and her rights while travelling through Kenya.

She might have been stopped at the airport in Nairobi. Initially, a Canadian consular official might even have supported her detention. When she presented her identification, the Canadian system would have rallied to her side. Suaad Hagi Mohamud, however, is not rich. She's not a political insider. She's not a media darling. She is a black Somali immigrant who had to live on charity once Canadian authorities sent her passport to Kenyan police and suggested they prosecute her for not really being one of us. She had produced a half-dozen forms of valid identification, but our bureaucrats closed their ears to her desperate pleas for help. By cancelling her passport, they rendered her stateless. (3)

Her "citizenship counted so little."

And we are seeing it with Omar Khadr:

Lawrence Cannon stood up in the House of Commons and pronounced his guilt, before a court of law had determined that he was guilty of anything, and they refuse to bring him home.

"There's never been any allegation that Omar conspired to injure Canadians," said Nate Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers .... it seems to me a terrible abuse of power that government ministers (or even little spokespersons) should be able to make insinuations about the criminal guilt of individual Canadian citizens, especially when no legitimate prosecutor has ever raised such charges and when Omar Khadr is still, under any legal process, however suspect, as the U.S. military commissions are universally considered to be entitled to the presumption of innocence. (4)

His "citizenship counted so little."

Or Brenda Martin, the Canadian woman languishing in a Mexican jail. Helena Guergis said that her government was doing everything possible to help her. Guergis even flew to Mexico herself, but never visited Martin or anyone involved. Instead she went partying and later said that she spoke to someone at the party about her.

Supporters of a Canadian woman imprisoned without trial in Mexico for nearly two years were astonished when they learned that a federal cabinet member is publicly claiming she and her government have worked hard behind the scenes to expedite Brenda Martin's case and to ensure her legal and human rights have been respected. Incredulity turned to anger when Helena Guergis, the secretary of state for foreign affairs and international trade, warned in a letter to the editor published in the Edmonton Journal that "those who are playing politics with Ms Martin's regrettable situation . . . are not helping to advance her case or get her home any faster."

... In her letter to the editor, Guergis, who is engaged to Edmonton MP Rahim Jaffer, said the federal government has "strongly and repeatedly pressed senior Mexican officials" to expedite Martin's case. But Dan McTeague, the Liberal foreign affairs critic for consular services, said he met with the Mexican ambassador to Canada, Emilio Goicoechea Luna, earlier this month and the ambassador told him no one from foreign affairs had ever contacted him about Martin's case. (5)

Martin wasn't black but was not wealthy. She didn't move in their circles.

Her "citizenship counted so little."

Or Jason Kenney removing gay rights from the citizenship guide.

Their "citizenship counted so little."

Or Stephen Harper removing the word "equality" from the Status for Women.

As for Canadian women, it is doubtful that Harper’s sudden interest in championing women in the developing world will wash. They have heard those words before. Shortly after taking power, Harper broke his pre-election promise to “take concrete and immediate measures…to ensure Canada upholds its commitments to women.” He removed the words “equality” out of the Status of Women’s mandate, closed 12 out of 16 SWC offices, abandoned a Universal childcare program and killed off the Courts Challenges Program. The program subsidized Constitutional
test cases for finally disadvantaged groups including women. A major beneficiary of the program was the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) that intervened in over 150 constitutional equality cases including violence against women, sexual assault and pay equity issues. (6)

Our "citizenship counted so little."

Which brings us to Abousfian Abdelrazik.

The Harper government was warned shortly after it came to office in 2006 that Sudan’s notorious military intelligence agency was ready to “disappear” Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen, unless Ottawa allowed him to go home, The Globe and Mail has learned. Sudan wanted to “deal with this case for once and for all: we judge as significant their verbal reference to a ‘permanent solution,’” Ottawa was bluntly told by Canadian diplomats in the Sudanese capital, according to documents now in possession of The Globe.

Instead of protesting the threat or warning Sudan – a regime notorious for its human rights abuses – that Ottawa would hold it responsible if harm came to a Canadian citizen held in one of its prisons, diplomats in Khartoum were ordered by a senior Canadian intelligence official to deliver a non-committal response “notwithstanding the expected displeasure of the Sudanese.” (7)

And rather than deal with it, Lawrence Cannon simply lied to the Canadian people and to Mr. Abdelrazik.

The lobby of the Canadian embassy in one of the world’s leading basketcase nations is an odd place for our government to house a man posing a serious threat to national security, wouldn’t you say? And yet, this is what Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon would have us believe he and his predecessor have been doing with Abousfian Abdelrazik for over a year. Yesterday, the latest chapter in the Sudanese-Canadian’s mind-boggling six-year struggle to return home unfolded as many had ruefully predicted. Having booked and paid for a flight to Canada, thus fulfilling the conditions under which the government had promised, in writing, to issue an emergency passport, the apparently destitute Abdelrazik was instead told he needed somehow to get himself removed from the United Nations’ no-fly list before the papers would be issued. (8)

So I am pleased to learn that Abousfian Abdelrazik has won the right to sue not only the Harper government, but Lawrence Cannon personally.

A Montreal man who claims he was abandoned by Canada and subjected to torture in Sudan has the green light to pursue his lawsuit against the federal government. The Federal Court this week rejected a government motion to strike significant parts of Abousfian Abdelrazik's suit for $27 million. The government argued it couldn't be sued by individuals for torture, that the government isn't duty-bound to protect Canadians detained abroad and that
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon couldn't be named personally in the
lawsuit.

In his statement of claim, Abdelrazik alleges the government arranged for him to be detained, encouraged or condoned his torture and actively obstructed his repatriation to Canada. In it, he singles out Cannon, seeking $3 million in damages for allegedly blocking his attempts to return. (9)

We need to let this government, and any future government, know that this kind of behaviour reflects badly on Canadians. It's not who we are and it's not who we want to be. Because despite the Reform Party mindset, our equal citizenship counts for everything!

Sources:

1. U.S. Coast Guard Academy Institute for Leadership presents the 2nd event in the 2005-2006 academic year’s Leadership Speaker Series: Dr. Michael Ignatieff, September 8th, 2005

2. The Colour of Democracy, Racism in Canadian Society, By Frances Henry, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1995, ISBN: 0-7747-3255-5, Pg. 24

3. A country that abandons its own, Toronto Star, August 29, 2009

4. Lawrence Cannon aspires to be ... Richard Nixon?!? By skdadl, Peace, Order and Good Government, eh?, April 25, 2009

5. Guergis warns against 'playing politics', By The Vancouver Province, December 26, 2007

6. STOP PLAYING WITH WOMEN’S LIVES, Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights Media Release, February 22, 2010

7. Canada 'indifferent' to Sudan's threat to kill Abdelrazik, files show, By Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, July 31, 2009

8. "The Trial," by Lawrence Cannon, By Chris Selley, National Post, April 04, 2009

9. Feds fail in attempt to avoid Sudan torture lawsuit, By Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News, September 1, 2010

If He Had Been the First Prime Minister Ignatieff

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

My library has a running book sale to raise money for various library events, and yesterday I picked up a 1987 book compiled and published by Mel Hurtig: If I Were Prime Minister.

Each chapter was written by a prominent Canadian who details what they would do if they led the country.

One of those prominent Canadians in 1987 was George Ignatieff, who is shown in Life Magazine, the one with glasses. I presented a brief history of Michael Ignatieff's family before, but thought these musings of his dad's were worth sharing. They outline a vision that is now, in most areas, the same vision held by his son.

So Who Exactly is George Ignatieff

George Ignatieff, according to his Trinity College profile, was "A Canadian Ambassador of Peace." That's quite a statement, but defines him in a nutshell. When working under John Diefenbaker, he tried to broker a deal with President Kennedy over nuclear warheads. Ignatieff was opposed, but as a diplomat, tried to reach a compromise.

Ignatieff, although a diplomatic realist, was also an indefatigable champion of disarmament, and he sought to provide Diefenbaker with a formula that he could use with Kennedy in articulating the near-incomprehensibility of Canada's official position on warheads. The urbane diplomat proposed that the prime minister say he would accept warheads on two conditions: first, if there were joint control in their use — a joint control of Diefenbaker's particular definition; and second, only if an all-out effort at disarmament were launched first and if, at the end, it was determined that there could be no progress.

That formula would buy Diefenbaker some time and it might well wash politically in Canada, even if it wouldn't in Washington. "Making clear-cut decisions was not part of Diefenbaker's nature," Ignatieff later remarked. (1)

And according to Trinity, where there is a theatre named in his honour:

In 1984, he [George Ignatieff] received the Pearson Peace Medal by the United Nations Association in Canada. The Pearson Peace Medal recognizes, in Lester B. Pearson’s name, Canadians who, through voluntary work or other efforts, have contributed to those causes for which Lester Pearson stood: aid to the developing world, mediation between those confronting one another with arms, succor to refugees and others in need, and peaceful change through world law and world organizations.

George Ignatieff enjoyed a distinguished career in international service. He was Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia from 1956 to 1958 and Assistant Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs from 1960 to 1962. In successive appointments between 1963 and 1972, he was Canada’s permanent representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the United Nations, including the Security Council; the Committee on Disarmament; the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the United Nations in Geneva. He was a Companion of the Order of Canada, a member of the Atlantic Council and the Canadian Pugwash Group on Disarmament, and former President of the United Nations Association in Canada.

It's a shame that Canadians don't get to know this, because it helps to define the kind of prime minister Michael Ignatieff will be. Diplomacy and leadership are in his veins. But it explains why the Conservative Party spent ten million dollars on "Just Visiting" ads. They can't let us know just how Canadian Michael Ignatieff really is.

If I were Prime Minister By: George Ignatieff

Following are some excerpts from Michael's father, with his dreams for Canada. He starts out with a goal of nuclear disarmament, his life's passion, then moves onto other areas.

- The duty of a prime minister is to serve the vital interests of the Canadian people. In an age dominated by revolutionary changes wrought by science and technology, including the threat to survival by the risks of nuclear war, top priority must be given to trying to ensure survival. The dangers of nuclear war must be kept in check by active Canadian participation in negotiations for drastic arms limitation and increased international understanding.

- Canada, as the country with the largest space in relation to population, has a major stake in world co-operation and stability. I would give priority to the pursuit of international co-operation and global relationships, and would expand trade relations with all countries—including the Soviet Union, China, Japan, and the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America--rather than concentrating on a bilateral agreement about access to a continental market. I would also give priority to fighting American protectionism*, which is inconsistent with the spread, throughout the world, of revolutionary changes in finance and technology.

- Canada's traditions of multiculturalism enable us to set an example for peaceful coexistence throughout the global village. This gives us an enviable influence in world affairs. Moreover, Canada's contribution to United Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking (which should be indivisible) gives us a unique destiny. We should be approaching the new millennium with confidence, knowing that we can look after our vital interests of security in an interdependent world society, rather than leaning towards dependence on the superpower-oriented world view of the United States.

- Individual security and support services are the other priorities to which 1, as prime minister, would give my attention. We are moving away from the neoconservative reaction, when it was thought that free-market forces would somehow ensure full employment and competitive advantages in world markets. In fact, profits do not necessarily mean prosperity for the majority. The ideology of the "mean and lean" has produced a further gap between the government and the people. My concern would be how to cope with the problem of information—the crucial indicator of power in the information age. The executive, even in such a democratic and traditionally egalitarian society as Canada, seems to be obtaining an unbreakable monopoly on information, despite remedial legislation. Is there much benefit, for instance, in having access to information about the expense account of the prime minister, or his journeying—including such trivia as to whether he was accompanied by a valet and a maid—when our elected representatives are denied essential information about the issue of survival, flowing from Canada's nuclear commitments under NORAD?

- Education offers part of the answer. Education and research would not only contribute to help train the younger generation for the many new services opening up in the information age, but they would also provide the necessary background knowledge so that Canadians could ask the right questions when seeking to become better-informed citizens. In an information society, education and training must have better public funding. We badly need trained minds to cope with the problems of the twenty-first century, especially in using science and technology for the enlargement of human knowledge, for the development of social controls, and for improved standards of living.

- Canada's priorities should be related to the values most Canadians accept—values that include a sense of responsibility for oneself, as well as for one's neighbour. Unemployment in our society is primarily related to the question of human dignity and the individual's freedom of choice. When seeking solutions, it is not enough to place our faith mainly on the value of the market place. Solutions require changes in policy, in responsibility at all levels—federal, provincial, municipal, and community. But this necessary move towards equity and justice is hindered by numerous difficulties: the problem of adjusting the thinking of a large government bureaucracy; the seeming lack of genuine leadership and initiative at the political level; the remaining discrimination against women; disputes between large businesses and small ones; the dislocation of employment by technological changes; disagreements among economic experts; feelings of frustration among the young and the handicapped, and the lack of educational opportunities in an informational society.

- In coping with these inequities, priority should be given to unemployment rather than to fighting deficits or inflation. Women must be given equal pay for equal work, and any woman should have the right to six months' maternity leave. Day-care centres, with properly trained personnel to care for the children, should become part of medicare, as should compulsory medical examination through grade and secondary schools.

- A fund should be created to finance public works at the municipal level, with emphasis on low-cost housing. An industrial strategy needs to be worked out to create permanent jobs for people in local communities, especially with regard to better social services, care, and pensions for the increasing proportion of aged in the Canadian population.

- In co-operation with labour unions, workers should be invited to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for employment (such as a shorter work week, staggered holidays, and subsidized travel on railroads and other public transport). There should be a more balanced and equitable program of tax reform, including increases in taxes to keep the deficit under control (the principle being that governments should set an example to society by paying their bills). Various tax deductions allowed to businesses should be reviewed, eliminating "tax expenditures" by corporations. Every effort should be made to improve medicare and social security benefits, and there must be pension reform, especially for those most handicapped by technological displacement. Finally, the farmers must be given greater protection from interest-rate hikes and debts, as well as being provided with co-operative insurance schemes and credit guarantees to give them protection against crop destruction.

- Modernizing the economy should be accompanied by a process of gradual conversion from defence-oriented industries (dominated by the defence-sharing agreement with the United States and the various subsidiaries of American defence production) to providing tax incentives to encourage the production for Canada's civilian needs, as well as for export. For too long, high technology has been allowed to flourish in the production of lethal or unusable weaponry, while research and development in the civil sector have suffered from chronic underfunding. If the arms race is allowed to continue uncontrolled, we shall only sacrifice our security further, by trying to cope with twenty-first-century weapons with twentieth-century mindsets.

- Finally, the unity of Canada under a federal system needs more than the patriation of our constitution and legislation on human rights. Canada needs a functioning common market. Instead of having a federal minister responsible for regional development and the cabinet operating a regional "pork barrel" according to its transitory party interests, I would set up in Ottawa a council of ministers, appointed by each provincial government, that would be responsible for making a common market work for Canada. This council would report quarterly to the meeting of premiers and would be staffed by a group of permanent officials, appointed by each province, with the task of promoting on-going federal-provincial economic and social cooperation. As prime minister of Canada, I would then feel more qualified to speak for Canada with a single voice when dealing competitively with the other members of the international community in protecting Canada's vital interests in the common interest. (2)

And I love his last line: "However, if a woman with similar views should care for the job, I would gladly yield to her." What an intelligent and charming man.

We have got to start paying attention. The goal of neoconservatism is to dummy down the population. We've seen it in the U.S., who with the help of Fox News has turned their political system into a nightmare. And Canada is now just one Tea Party away from being a nation of political morons.

Unfortunately, most of our media is more concerned with spin than substance. Stephen Harper doesn't speak to them, and despite the fact that Michael Ignatieff does; they listen to Ignatieff, but only speak through Harper.

Because if they actually reported what Michael Ignatieff said, almost all of his ideas were articulated by his father in 1987 and by himself in the Rights Revolution**. And both men, father and son, believe that "The duty of a prime minister is to serve the vital interests of the Canadian people."

A concept that Stephen Harper has been unable, or unwilling, to grasp.

Footnotes:

*Harper's idea of fighting American protectionism was to simply give away the farm.

** The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2

Sources:

1. Kennedy & Diefenbaker:The Feud That Helped Topple a Government, By Knowlton Nash, McClelland & Stewart, 1991, ISBN: 0-7710-6711-9, Pg. 100-101

2. If I Were Prime Minister, Compiled by Mel Hurtig, Hurtig Publishers, 1987, ISBN: 0-88830-315-7, Pg. 135-139

The Making of a Prime Minister From the Ground Up

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

George Munro Grant was born on December 22, 1835 in Stellarton, Pictou County, Nova Scotia; the son of James Grant and Mary Monro.

His parents had emigrated from Scotland in 1826 and like other Scottish settlers, tried his hand at farming. However, it was not his calling, so he earned his way teaching school and offering legal services. But then he tried his hand at investing, leaving the family in financial ruin.

At the age of nine, George lost all the fingers on his right hand in a battle with a threshing machine (1), which made a career in farming impossible, and with little money, seemingly few options.

But fortunately his mother, Mary Munro was a strong and determined woman who insisted that he receive a good education. After attending Pictou Academy he received a scholarship from the Presbyterian Church to study in Scotland, and on his return was given the Parish of St. Matthews in Halifax.

But he was determined not to lead his congregation with the old fire and brimstone, typical of his youth, but with an emphasis on the positive things that faith could achieve.

Grant was effective in implementing typically evangelical solutions to the social problems of Halifax. He was involved in the direction of the School for the Blind, the Halifax Institution for the Deaf and Dumb, the Children’s Home and Child Immigration Schemes, the Old Ladies’ Home, the Halifax Industrial School, the Halifax Visiting Dispensary, and the Young Men’s Christian Association, and helped raise money for them.

In addition, St Matthew’s Church supported a city missionary, James S. Potter, who provided relief to the poor and operated the Night Refuge for the Homeless. But Grant did not consider such works the means to salve the bad consciences of the rich. He preached frankly to his congregation of merchants and shipowners on the relationship of labour and capital and denounced men who made money by risking the lives of their crews in unseaworthy hulks or saw charity at home as a substitute for justice at sea. (2)

In other words, like Tommy Douglas, he ascribed to a social gospel.

On May 7, 1867, he married Jessie Lawson, daughter of one of the leading merchants in the city, but it is said that he himself "lived frugally and gave generously". (3)

The couple would have two children; William Lawson and George, who died at the age of 12.

George Munro earned a reputation, not only as a preacher, but a compelling speaker on political topics. In 1867, when Nova Scotia was adamantly opposed to Confederation, Grant championed the cause, and his verbal battles with journalist Joseph Howe were legendary.

It is said that had Grant not thrown his whole weight in favour of Canadian confederation, it may not have taken place when it did. As to Howe, there was no real animosity and Grant would later write a glowing biography if his adversary. Later, his son, William Lawson would also author The Tribune of Nova Scotia: A Chronicle of Joseph Howe, as part of the Chronicles of Canada.

But George Munro Grant was not finished impacting Canadian history. In 1872, he traveled across Canada:

.... from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, with the engineers, including lifelong friend, Sir Sandford Fleming, who surveyed the route of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Grant's book Ocean to Ocean (1873) was one of the first things that opened the eyes of Canadians to the value of the immense heritage they enjoyed. He never lost an opportunity, whether in the pulpit or on the platform, of pressing on his listeners that the greatest future for Canada lay in unity with the rest of the British Empire; and his broad statesmanlike judgment made him an authority which politicians of all parties were glad to consult. (3)

And in 1877, as Principal of Queen's University, he also left his mark. According to the University's own literature:

Grant is the most important of all Queen's Principals. More famous in his day than any Queen's Principal before or since, Grant transformed the university in his 25 years of leadership (1877-1902) from a struggling denominational college into a dynamic national institution. (4)

George Munro Grant died in Kingston on May 10, 1902

Grant’s most lasting achievement is Queen’s, where, as noted by Hilda Marion Neatby, he “set his personal mark . . . so indelibly that its history in his time has almost to be written in personal terms.” By the end of his life, “Geordie Our King” had assumed legendary proportions.

...The Cambridge classicist Terrot Reaveley Glover, who began his career at Queen’s, wrote of Grant that “it was yet no small part of the education that Queen’s gave to associate with a man of such outlooks, such range and such political integrity. . . . Teacher, builder, driver – call Grant what you will; he saved the University from intellectual ruin as surely as he did from financial; and, with all his limitations, his presence, his word, his glance, were inspiration.” (2)

William Lawson Grant

William Lawson Grant was born on November 2, 1872 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, the son of George Munro Grant and Jessie Lawson. He would become a professor at Queens University and Principal of Upper Canada College.

He married Maude Erskin Parkin on June 1, 1911, and they had four children: Margaret Monro, Charity Lawson, Jessie "Alison" and George Parkin.

William Lawson died on February 3, 1935.

The Other Side of the Equation:

Russia in the early 19th century was a place of much turmoil. Czar Nicholas II, though a good family man, was an incompetent leader, and when war broke out he went to play soldier instead of addressing matters at home.

And while Russia was at war, there was an internal war taking place on many fronts. The fraudulent Protocols of Zion, had resulted in pogroms, as the Jewish people were now thought to be behind a conspiracy to take over the world. A mass exodus took place, and for those who chose to stay, anti-Semitism was rampant and often violent.

Vladimir Lenin opposed the Imperialistic war, and instead was promoting a class war. While practising law, he worked on mostly land-ownership cases, where he gained insight to the Russian peasants' socio-economic condition. As a result he developed a political system he called Leninism, which was described as a pragmatic Marxism and often referred to as Lenin-Marxism.
Vladimir was in Switzerland at the time of the February Revolution that saw the Czar Nicholas II deposed, but with the help of the Germans, he was able to get safely back to Russia to join in the powder keg of revolt.

With the end of the Romanov dynasty an alliance between liberals and socialists formed a provisional government, committed to political reform, by creating a democratically-elected executive and assembly.

However, this new government failed, in part because they agreed to continue their participation in the Great War, and the riots continued, finally culminating in the October Revolution that saw the Bolshevik government under Lenin gain power, and the country was thrown into civil war.

On August 30, 1918 the head of the Petrograd secret police was assassinated, and a would be assassin tried and failed to take out Lenin. In retaliation many members of the royal family and those loyal to the White Army, a counter-revolutionary force, were rounded up and arrested.

On September 6, 1918, 25 armed men entered the home of Count Pavel Nikolayevich Ignatiev and his wife Princess Natalya Meshcherskaya. Pavel was arrested and held with counter-revolutionary prisoners, all slated for execution.

He had been the education minister at the Imperial Court, but was a Ukranian farmer of some means. Against the protests of her family and friends, Natalyan followed her husband demanding his release. But it wasn't until a geography teacher heard that Pavel had been arrested and was being held that his luck changed.

The teacher, remembering that Pavel had been instrumental in improving the educational system in the country, organized a student protest and as a result the ailing Pavel was allowed to return to his family.

However, they were constantly tormented. Their home was looted seventeen times, the final government sanctioned robbery netting what was left in their children's dresser drawers.

Finally forced to flee*, they eventually settled in Upper Melbourne, Quebec, where Pavel would return to his first love; farming. Pavel and Natalyan are better known as Paul and Natasia Ignatieff. She died in 1944 and the New York Times wrote of her death in an article entitled 'Princess Ignatieff'. Paul died in 1945.

One of Pavel's five sons, George; would grow up to become a long serving Canadian diplomat and personal assistant to the Canadian High Commissioner in London, Vincent Massey. He would marry Massey's niece, Alison Grant, who of course was the daughter of William Lawson Grant, mentioned above and granddaughter of George Munro Grant.

George Ignatieff was also the assistant under-secretary of state for external affairs, under John Diefenbaker, and helped to negotiate an arms agreement with President Kennedy.

He turned to George Ignatieff ... for advice on a rationale for his hesitation on acquiring nuclear warheads. "I tried to make him understand," Ignatieff said, "that by committing Canada to an integrated North American defence system, he had accepted a subordinate role in a strategy based almost entirely on the nuclear deterrent."

Diefenbaker told Ignatieff that he'd been misled by the military into believing the Bomarc-B anti-aircraft missile [that replaced the Avro Arrow] could use conventional weapons — a claim that flies in the face of all evidence. An earlier version of Bomarc, the Bomarc-A, was capable of using conventional warheads, but Diefenbaker had deliberately committed Canada to the nuclear-only Bomarc-B. "The day he approved NORAD," Ignatieff said, "he embarked on a course which led to the acceptance of nuclear weapons."

Ignatieff, although a diplomatic realist, was also an indefatigable champion of disarmament, and he sought to provide Diefenbaker with a formula that he could use with Kennedy in articulating the near-incomprehensibility of Canada's official position on warheads. The urbane diplomat proposed that the prime minister say he would accept warheads on two conditions: first, if there were joint control in their use — a joint control of Diefenbaker's particular definition; and second, only if an all-out effort at disarmament were launched first and if, at the end, it was determined that there could be no progress.

That formula would buy Diefenbaker some time and it might well wash politically in Canada, even if it wouldn't in Washington. "Making clear-cut decisions was not part of Diefenbaker's nature," Ignatieff later remarked. (6)

George Ignatieff, was the father of Michael Ignatieff, the next prime minister of Canada; making George Munro Grant his grandfather, through his mother Alison; the niece of the Governor General at the time, Vincent Massey.

Diefenbaker's feud with JFK is believed to be responsible, in part, for his downfall. Michael Ignatieff's uncle George Parkin Grant, was a devout Diefenbaker follower. Upon his demise he wrote a book : Lament For a Nation, believing that Canada would now be selling out to the U.S. The book became a Bible to Canada's left, despite the fact that George Parkin was a Conservative Christian. (7)

And it is this background that Michael Ignatieff will be taking with him as leader of this country. He is not "just visiting" as the Reformers suggest, but is to the very soul, a Canadian.

Forbes magazine recently named him one of the top 100 people to watch as an international star:

"Michael Ignatieff. After decades in Britain and the U.S., the professional intellectual returned to his native Canada and became head of the Liberal party. If a federal election is called in 2010, he could become the next prime minister, and the Canadian head of state with the biggest international profile since Pierre Trudeau."

The above picture appears in Pierre Trudeau's Memoirs. The caption reads: "Amid unusually comfortable surroundings at London School of Economics I chatted with Michael Ignatieff, son of distinguished Canadian diplomat George Ignatieff." (8) Michael not only taught at the London School of Economics, but also Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge and the University of Paris, among others.

It's not good enough to simply convince people that the Harper government must go, but we also have to give Canadians something and someone to believe in.

Footnotes:

* Two brothers Terentiy and Lukyanov also fled from the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution, settling in Chicago. Terentiy Lavrentievich's wife Anna and son Zinoviy, had fled with him, and eventually they made their way to Brantford Ontario, where four more children would be born: Fedor, Vasiliy, Ekaterina, and Olga.

About 1930 conditions in their homeland had improved and Anna wanted to return, but Terentiy preferred to stay in Canada, so the family separated. He would then marry a Polish girl, Mary of Pidhaytsi, Ukraine, and they would have a son named Walter who would eventually have a son named Wayne, who would grow up to be the greatest hockey player that ever lived.

Sources:

1. True Patriot Love: Four Generations in Search of Canada, by Michael Ignatieff, Penguin Books, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-670-06972-9, Pg. 33

2. GRANT, GEORGE MONRO, Dictionary of Canadian Biographies, 1901-1910 (Volume XIII)

3. George Munro Grant, Wikipedia

4. The Rev George Monro Grant (1835-1902), Queen's Encyclopedia

5. The Russian Album, By: Michael Ignatieff, Penguin Books, 1987, ISBN: 978-0-14-317165-2, Pg. 153-162

6. Kennedy & Diefenbaker:The Feud That Helped Topple a Government, By Knowlton Nash, McClelland & Stewart, 1991, ISBN: 0-7710-6711-9, Pg. 100-101

7. Patriot Love, Ignatieff, 2009, Pg. 144-145

8. Memoirs, By Pierre Elliot Trudeau, McClelland & Stewart, 1993, ISBN: 0-7710-8588-5, Pg. 41

Chapter Thirty-Seven: Keeping Step With the Times

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Preston Manning was born into politics and being a politician was a birthright. But he was out of step with the times.

The radical sixties presented conservatism and capitalism with a major problem: the focus of all the new social movements, and the rejuvenated older ones, was the failure of the "capitalist system" to respond to the needs — economic, social, and cultural —of the young, women, native and poor people, and the otherwise marginalized.

The efforts of Preston Manning and his young associates had been primarily aimed at saving Social Credit — the provincial bastion of social conservatism in Alberta. Ernest Manning's efforts had been focused equally at the national level. (1)

When Peter Lougheed beat out the Social Credit Party in Alberta in 1971, author Allan Hustak wrote:

Thirty-six years of 'God's government' had come to an end ... but in terms of Alberta's history it was a triumph of style rather than substance — the secular equivalent of a revival meeting — a new minister had been selected to do a better job than the old one but the faith remained the same. There was no substantive chance in political philosophy. (1)

It was still a right-wing government but one better equipped to handle the times. For Preston, who had run for the Social Credit party in 1965 but failed to win, he resigned himself to the fact that his political career would have to wait, if he had one at all.

The federal scene was distinctly hostile to his right-wing conservatism and more specifically to his father's efforts at "realignment." Provincially, Preston Manning could certainly have considered working towards the leadership of the Social Credit. It still held a third of the legislative seats and remained a viable party. But the goal of political realignment in Alberta had already been accomplished. Social Credit, spent force or not, was now considered irrelevant by the man who had led it for a quarter of a century.

At nearly thirty years old, Preston Manning had emerged from his six years of political experience with a political ideology, a political objective, and an approach to politics firmly worked out. These elements of Preston Manning's thinking did not change much, if at all, in the proceeding fifteen years before he founded the Reform Party. (1)

An Unlikely Politician

If Preston Manning was born to be a politician another young man was not.

Pierre-Philippe Elliot Trudeau came from a very affluent family, who in today's political climate would be referred to as an elitist. He was an intellectual, and a man about town, who preferred solitude to crowds.

But by 1965, he was worried about the rise of Quebec nationalism and decided that he had to get into politics to stem the tide.

Though he had only been an MP for three years, when Lester Pearson announced his retirement, Trudeau reluctantly decided to enter the leadership race.

His friend Jean de Grandpre, tried to talk him out of it.

Trudeau listened carefully. Then he proceeded to explain why his logic compelled him to run for Canada's highest public office. He had entered federal politics three years earlier to fight the resurgence of Quebec nationalism by establishing a strong federal government, one with plenty of francophones in it. If he didn't run, there wouldn't be a French-Canadian contender in the leadership race, and francophones would continue to be relegated to the backseat of power in the federal government, which in turn would provide the nationalists in Quebec with more ammunition. "If I am logical with myself, I have to say yes," Trudeau told de Grandpre. "But not because I want it."

That hesitancy in another politician might only be part of the political tap dance to precede a run for power. But in Trudeau's case, the decision to seek the prime minister's job forced him to choose between his intellectual commitment and the reclusive life he had cultivated since his youth. Trudeau had never set out to be prime minister. He was an intellectual, for years an elegant man about town, a loner, not a joiner. Still, Trudeau was so brilliant, especially in his attacks against Quebec nationalists, that his friends at the journal Cite Libre used to daydream about Trudeau's potential as a political leader. "We would say, wouldn't it be extraordinary if a man like that became prime minister," Trudeau's close friend, former senator Jacques Hebert, told Macleans. "But we were making a joke. It was unthinkable. He was never a member of an association. He never even showed any political ambition." (2)

But in 1968, at the Liberal Leadership Convention, Pierre Elliot Trudeau became the unexpected winner in what the Globe and Mail called "the most chaotic, confusing, and emotionally draining convention in Canadian political history."

He had captured the imagination of the country and inspired many to join his campaign, including the national youth organizer and party delegate for Trudeau's leadership, the twenty-year-old, Michael Ignatieff.

Continued: Images of Our Time

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 44-45

2. Trudeau: His Life and Legacy, Macleans Special Commemorative Edition, 2000

Tony Panyi Continued: A Shake Up in the Legislature

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Though the young Tories of Tony Clement were elated with the victory of Brian Mulroney and their role in his success, there was still a lot of work to be done in Ontario. The party under Bill Davis, was said to be moving to the left of the Liberals, as they worked to appease a more urbanized and progressive province.

Many members of the government, including Gordon Walker, Alan Pope, and senior cabinet minister Frank Miller, also believed the party had drifted too far to the he left, and saw in this group of young radicals, potential allies who could be used as shock troops, should they decide to run for leadership. (1)

They would soon be given an opportunity when Bill Davis announced that he would be stepping down. In a tight race, Frank Miller won the leadership race at their January convention, and was named premier on February 8, 1985, by appealing to those in favour of a swing back to the right.

One supporter was a backbencher from Nippising, who was drawn in part to Miller's previous plans to close a number of hospitals and consolidate urban services. His ideas failed because of opposition from within Miller's own party, but when this MPP from Nippising, later became premier, he, Mike Harris, would not fail.

At the time the PCs were at 55% in the polls, so Miller immediately called an election. It would prove to be his Waterloo.

Ontario Not Ready for Right Wing Revolution:

William Davis was a Red Tory, which is where the provinces' comfort zone lay. However, Frank Miller was not, and he may have been misguided to believe that he could draw the electorate in with a complete shift in policy. Bob Rae, then leader of the Ontario NDP, explains:

Miller was actually older than Davis, and cut from a very different cloth. He was affable enough, but determined to take his party to the right. His plaid jackets spoke of another era. His references to Reagan and Thatcher spoke of an ideological agenda that, to that point, had been foreign to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

Frank Miller's message seemed to be the one the party faithful wanted to hear in early 1985. When the Tory convention was held, the delegates rejected younger, more progressive voices. The great beneficiary of this choice was not me but David Peterson. I did not fully realize this at the time, nor did I understand that the more effective I was in demolishing Miller, the more I was simply opening up room for Peterson. Three-party politics in Ontario create a unique dynamic. For the better part of my lifetime, the success of the Ontario Tories had been their ability to occupy the middle, forcing the Liberals often to the right, and us to the left. (2)

Miller came on the scene in Ontario, in the same way that Barry Goldwater first shocked the moderate and progressive populace in the United States.

(Bob Rae is in the centre of the 1970 photo on the left, and to his left is someone you may have heard of: Michael Ignatieff. They were lifelong friends and roomed together when they were both at Harvard)

Rae continues:

The choice of Miller put the Tories well to the right, and created a generational divide as well. The Liberals' campaign in 1985 was well organized and well presented. Mine was less confident at first, and by the time we gained our voice it was too late. We didn't have enough money, so I had to share a bus with the press. Someone gave me an electric piano, and I drove them crazy with what I thought were clever songs about Frank Miller and the Tories. At the same time, David Peterson was cruising with confidence, promising beer and wine in the corner store, and looking and sounding more like a winner. (2)

But what also hurt the Tories, was Bill Davis's decision that it was time to provide equal funding to Catholic high schools. This definitely became an election issue. When the results were in the PCs were reduced to 52 seats, the Liberals had 48 and the NDP 25, giving them the balance of power. But in a surprise move, Bob Rae brokered a deal with the Liberals , promising support for two years, if his agenda was honoured. Peterson grabbed the opportunity and the PCs became the opposition for the first time in 42 years.

Miller resigned on August 20, 1985, having served as premier for just six months.

The accord with the NDP had proved a gift from God for the Liberals. The agenda that Rae demanded was wildly popular with the electorate, and the Ontario economy—recovering nicely, it seemed, from the early eighties recession—was more than able to accommodate the necessary increase in government spending. Environmental laws were toughened, the scope of rent controls widened. Money was spent on child care and affordable housing. Equal rights for homosexuals were entrenched in the province's human rights code. First steps were taken towards pay equity for women. And most important, the Liberals moved to ban extra billing by doctors, an increasingly common practice across the province. The doctors reacted by going on a limited strike. The government stared them down. The strike collapsed.(3)

Continued: A Party Self Destructs

Sources:

1. Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution, By John Ibbitson, 1997, ISBN: 0136738648, Pg. 33

2. From Protest to Power: Personal Reflections on a Life in Politics, By Bob Rae, Viking Press, 1996, ISBN: 0-670-86842-6, Pg. 89-90

3. Ibbitson, 1997, Pg. 35

Michael Ignatieff Has Nothing to Worry About. It's Deja Vu All Over Again

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In June of 2005, Bourque News, the source for all political gossip, reported that there were some behind the scenes machinations to remove Stephen Harper as leader of the Reform-Conservative party and have him replaced by Ontario MPP, Jim Flaherty.

Bourque has learned that longtime Ontario Cabinet Minister and two-time provincial leadership contender Jim Flaherty may well be positioning himself for an early opportunity to unseat Stephen Harper, the disappointing Conservative Party incumbent, increasingly seen as a lame duck leader who’s political capital may well have expired .... Sources tell Bourque that failed retail heiress Nicky Eaton hosted a swish gathering at her country estate in Caledon for Flaherty’s intimates to discuss a bid for Harper’s job.

Present and accounted for included Tony Clement, recently disclosed as a recipient of Liberal CabMin Belinda Stronach’s largess, the surprisingly ambitious Mulroney Senator appointee Consiglio DiNino, and our old friend Tom Long, the Gaspesian Undertaker and defrocked Tory “strategist”. It is also understood that close supporters Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay, New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, and former CA leader Stockwell Day may also be quietly testing the leadership waters. (1)

The Globe and Mail was reporting:

Political knives are out for Stephen Harper as his federal Conservatives sink deeper in the polls, and the sharpest weapons are being brandished by members of his own party. “There is a lot of discontent with the turn of things. People are saying it’s time to replace the leader,” said one key Conservative organizer in Toronto who, like many others, asked not to be named because it could hurt his status in the party.

... a recent poll puts the Conservatives eight percentage points behind the Liberals and suggests that six in 10 Canadians have a negative view of Mr. Harper, he can be unseated only if he decides to step aside. ... behind the scenes, party members from coast to coast are pointing fingers and asking why opinion surveys have the Tories battling for third place nationally when the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal should still be tarring the Liberals with the stigma of corruption.

Dissatisfaction with Mr. Harper’s leadership “started expanding with the Belinda [Stronach] defection and then it continued to expand when we didn’t get our [confidence] vote passed [on May 19] and a lot of people in the party are tired of waiting,” said one organizer, who also asked to remain anonymous. “This guy was supposed to be the answer, and, instead of being 20 points up in the polls which should be happening with the way things are in the Liberal Party, he’s eight points down in the polls. Like, what the hell?”(2)

And with Senator Eaton now lambasting Harper's attack on freedom of the press, maybe Michael Ignatieff's job is safer than Stephen Harper's. I mean Senator Eaton is the same Nicky Eaton who was parading Jim Flaherty around as a replacement for Harper.

And the Religious Right in Canada love Flaherty. Charles McVety has been a long time supporter, since Flaherty is a declared anti-abortion and just weeks before his "coming out" party, he spoke at a rally against same-sex marriage.

Pro-family leaders including Campaign Life Coalition President Jim Hughes, Dr. Charles McVety of Defend Marriage Canada, Jim Duffy of Witness, Jewish leader Joseph Benami made brief remarks ... Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament Jim Flaherty and Saskatchewan Federal Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott also addressed the crowd. (3)

And so far he's given them everything they wanted: an end to a national day care plan, funding for religious schools, censorship. What more could they ask for? (A lot more, trust me, and he will be just as good as Harper at giving in to their demands)

No, Michael Ignatieff has nothing to worry about. The press may be questioning his future, just as they did Harper's in 2005, and his poll numbers are currently stronger. Harper had his party at 23% and his own rating was just 14%.

Sources:

1. Flaherty Plotting to Overthrow Harper? Bourque Newswatch, June 13, 2005

2. Stephen Harper: On His Way Out?, Globe and Mail, June 14, 2005

3. Faiths Unite vs Same-Sex, Canada, com, June 24, 2005