‘It’s about what kind of politics we’re going to have in this country’


Michael Ignatieff talks to the Star.

Upbeat and relaxed in the early days of the election contest, Ignatieff says the campaign is a watershed for Canadians. “It’s about what kind of politics we’re going to have in this country,” he said. Will it be the “politics of American-style personal destruction” or something else, he asks. Will Canadians accept “politicians who will literally stop at nothing to stay in power, including shutting down the people’s Parliament,” he asked in a reference to Harper’s decision to avoid the defeat of his government by proroguing Parliament. Will Canadians accept a government that “shuts off the tap on Access to Information?” And “what about election fraud?” he said in a reference to the senior Conservatives charged by Elections Canada for alleged overspending in the 2006 campaign.

In his first round of campaign interviews, the Liberal leader also talks to the Globe and Post.


‘It’s about what kind of politics we’re going to have in this country’

  1. Hope over fear…always.

    Keep up the good work Michael.

  2. Will Canadians accept “politicians who will literally stop at nothing to stay in power, including shutting down the people's Parliament

    He's a Professor, he should be ashamed of himself for this.

  3. Why's that? It's a perfectly accurate characterization of what he did in 2008 to avoid that confidence motion.

  4. ashamed? Don't be ridiculous, John. This professor is willing to debate the politician who literally stopped at nothing to stay in power. That politician is afraid he can't handle the truth.

    Don't you know that the Conservative- Reform-Alliance-Party have ushered in an era Beyond Shame? ;0)

  5. Harper did literally shut down the people's Parliament. I agree that the sentence is a little off, but the point is valid.

  6. It's time to dethrone king Harper !

  7. Michael Ignatieff = Disingenuous

    – Giving a false appearance of simple frankness
    – Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating

  8. I believe that particular word describes Mr. Harper quite well

    "Harper's news conference was marked by a testy exchange with the reporters travelling with the campaign, who complain that Harper is taking only four questions a day from them.

    Reporters on the national campaign, whose media outlets pay about $10,000 a week to travel with the leader, are frustrated at the lack of access. At the event Thursday, journalists were kept in a steel pen, far from Harper and the local Conservatives brought in to applaud his speech."


  9. Lisingenuous Leo practising the fine art of 'pot, meet kettle'… Get thy self to a ninnery…

  10. I'm just (pettily) objecting to a common misuse of the word literally. Presumably politicians who will literally stop at nothing to stay in power would be fine with assassination, kidnapping opponent's children, and anything else you care to imagine.

    Notice literally is applied to stop at nothing not to shut down parliament. In case its not completely obvious I am not making a political point here …

  11. See reply to Reverend_Blair below.

  12. Well, Harper has resorted to character assassination and personal attacks on Ignatieff's (and before him Dion's) family.

    I realize you are making a grammatical, not political, argument. I would suggest that Ignatieff may be sincerely wondering how low Harper is willing to go.

  13. What if the media decided not to follow his campaign?

  14. Poor media, boo-hoo. Of course that entitles them to write articles in main stream media where they refer to Harper as "hair in fridge" throughout the article. Nice, intelligent, grown-up reporting.

  15. I don't think so, he's just exaggerating for effect. Of course it's not nearly as bad as talking about imaginary coalitions about 50 times in every speech …

    And in case anyone objects to the phrase imaginary coalitions, I would point out that it's an accurate description of a coalition that might or might not happen after an election that hasn't happened yet.

  16. Excellent article! Thanks for posting.

  17. I take your point, but it's hard to self-edit while speaking; the odd misplaced word is not uncommon. He probably would have been more grammatically precise in a written statement. Unless, of course, he thinks that this is just the tip of the iceberg that consists of what Harper is capable of doing…

  18. The article you are referring to is here:

    It is an interesting read, except for the "Hair in the fridge" references. Why a journalist of some distinction would resort to this silly name calling is beyond me.

  19. Well it was only meant to be a slightly snarky observation about someone who should know better misusing a word. It's irritating (if you care about these things) because if you know what the word means it should be almost impossible to use it in this context.

  20. It was clear to me. But then I have the same issue with the sloppy use of language.

  21. It was a grammatical/vocabulary point. Not a political point.

  22. Doyle is an entertainment columnist, not a political news reporter. Columnists are supposed to have a provocative point of view, not simply chronicle events.

    If political reporters and columnists can comment on television fare (which they often do), why can't an entertainment columnist whose beat is TV comment on politics?

  23. If any other minority party leaders where put in the same position as Harper they would have done the same thing – prorogue parliament. – and their supporters would be shouting bravo because it is a legal protocol tool.____It appears hypocritical of Ignatieff or an other of the current miniority leaders to say otherwise – they orchestrated a "contempt of parliament" fiasco by using their opposition "majority" to achieve that defeat and close parliament – so given the polls in favor of CPC is there an ulterior motive here by the oppositions against the CPC by calling an election now – Harper thinks so – the real story issue will become evident after the election ( like maybe Trudeau ( priceand wage controls ) and Chretin (GST)? ) as its highly likely the coalition opposition that defeated the current CPC governemnt on a non-confidence vote will take over from the legimate party to govern canada – evidence of this

  24. While I don’t like the kind of politics Stephen Harper practices … I’m not at all convinced that a Liberal Party still dominated by the Sponsorship Scandal Cabal will be any better … it has been said, I’m sure, that everything Stephen Harper learned about pushing the legal limits of power he learned while he was in the Opposition to Jean Chretien … You almost (but never) feel sorry for Harper … all he is saying is “you got away with it, now its my turn …

  25. Harpers trolls are at it again. Deflection is their key attack. Never mind what the article is saying about how the rest of the world views what is happening in our Country, let's talk about the important stuff, grammer! Arent you guys supposed to be trolling facebook for seal hunt comments? Get back to work you right wing nuts!!!

  26. Give me a sposorship scandal anyday over the contempt, carson, prisons, fighter jets, big business tax breaks that are destroying our democracy and will end up costing us some 60 billion dollars. The sponsorship scandal was over saving Canada, Harpers scandals are over destroying Canada. You choose!

  27. Talk to me again after you have listened to a sniveler telling you to let Liberal-sponsored corruption go by, because "its better than Zimbabwe" …

  28. Unlike the Sponsorship Scandal, which was done within Budget.

    Mulroney and Harper robbed us blind while running massive deficits.

Sign in to comment.