- Harper v. Ignatieff = The devil you know v. the angel you don't know

Submitted: 9:32am, PDT 5 May '10 The Toronto Star

Hébert: Another perplexing move from the Liberals, May 5 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/804515--hebert-another-perplexing-move-from-the-liberals

Wasn't Saint Michael the Archangel who defeat Satin and drove him from heaven.

Wow! Now there's a metaphor.

Ignatieff giving Harper the boot - there's something of biblical proportions. I'm sure thy will be making statues of that for eons.

The media seems to love to criticize Ignatieff for just about anything and everything. This of course is normal and goes with the turf as leader of the Opposition. Harper and the Con's vicious personal attacks add to the matter.

Part of Ignatieff's problems stem from his under-abundance of political experience. However, given that Leader of the Opposition is a tough job at the best of times, with Harper and the Con's it is even harder.

Everything considered Ignatieff is growing into the position quite nicely and is a quick study. One need only consider the evolution of his speeches. I actually heard one that I thought was indicative of a 'maturing political force'. I suggested that the Liberals make transcripts of his speeches available. But I have heard nothing on that and 'therein lies the rub'.

A good example is the motion on family planning introduced by the Liberals and defeated partly because of Liberals not voting and voting against it. This is indicative of issues in a Party, not a leader. It is hard to imagine anyone elected to Parliament that would need to have the importance of supporting a motion introduced by their party explained to them. Also, keep in mind that Ignatieff took the hit for that one. Harper wouldn't have (of course no Con would have dared to step out of line to begin with), his m.o. indicates he would have found someone to blame.



After being in power for 10 years or so, it may be a Party becomes top heavy with people who have the power and influence and not only feel they still know how to do things but they want to be the one that single-handedly brings the Party back to power. Not only do they not understand on an intuitive, anything other than lip service, level, changes that the nation has undergone politically, economically, socially and outlook, they are closed to anything new, since, well quite frankly they know it all.

It apparently takes around 8 years for the Party to break up this hardening and rid themselves of this and allow the up and comers who not only intuitively understand the new landscape, they are 'hungry' and willing to work and to learn, and adapt to, what it takes to not only approach the people in the fashion they understand but also to, themselves understand, on a fundamental level, and identify with their concerns and the issues of the day that the people feel are important.

So, we only have 7 more years. Then Ignatieff will be a seasoned leader, honed in battle, with a rejuvenated, vital Liberal Party ready and eager to follow. The problem is that by that time Canada will have gone to Hell.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html