Thursday, November 13, 2008

Ignatieff Offers Change Of Leader Or Real Change?

Today Michael Ignatieff made his bid to be the next Liberal Leader official, and in the most recent Globe and Mail suggested one of his first priorities would be to usher in change within the Liberal Party. Though such a promise is admirable, and all Liberals would agree necessary, one must ask Is it real change if it's just coming from the top of the party down? Is it real change if it's being proposed just by people who see that it's popular to do so? Is it real change if its coming from the most organized and entrenched Liberal Leadership candidate?

Gerard Kennedy announced yesterday that he would not be seeking the position of Liberal Leader, Gerard a candidate in the 2006 race who ran on change where Michael Ignatieff did not. Michael's decision to make his announcement the day after Kennedy's, and on top of that to stress the necessity of change appears at the very least to be suspect of opportunistic motivations, possibly hoping to capture those ardent Kennedy supporters. Adding to that is weeks ago Kennedy voiced strong interest into "Liberal 308," an election strategy modeled after the Democrats successful plan under Howard Dean; and coincidentally the Globe reported that today:

Mr. Ignatieff promised a "308-riding strategy" to defeat the Harper Conservatives and pledged to reengage the party's grassroots.
Though it is open to interpretation, one cannot ignore the timing of Michael Ignatieff's announcement, especially considering his organization had been waiting weeks for it, and the similarity of what Michael proposed to that of Gerard's message.

Adding to the questionable motives behind Michael Ignatieff's promise of change is his dependency on his large network of organizers, which include Don Guy, Steven MacKinnon, and Mark Marissen. This feature does not preclude a grassroots revolution, but it significantly hampers it. How natural of a movement can it be if it's organized by a few older men in Ottawa?

But perhaps the strongest question to the viability of change from the Ignatieff campaign, is if there is no real challenge, no underdog status, then what is he really fighting to change? If he already had the largest organizers within the party, the most notorious on some accounts, and he possibly already had the largest support among caucus or even the membership, even before he had promised change, then how can anyone suggest his idea of change is coming from us, Liberals?

It would stand to reason, the change Michael Ignatieff has begun campaigning on, is not change from the grassroots, but a top-down oriented strategy, and I'm left wondering is it real change.


MississaugaPeter said...

Yesterday's disappointment is becoming today's ridiculous:

"Ignatieff pledged that if elected, he would hold a policy conference within 100 days of the Liberal leadership convention in Vancouver, where the next party leader will be crowned.

It would be designed to "initiate renewal at the grassroots," Ignatieff said."






habitual_change said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

habitual: Grasroots change is not restricted to any time frame or event. This is a political party, if it ever had a time when change couldn't occur from ordinary Liberals I'd rip up my card and do everything in my power to fight it.


habitual_change said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Habitual Change: No you did not say anything of the kind, and I never said you did. It is you who should drop the drama.

You posed this question: "Can real grassroots change happen while we're split 3 ways in a leadership race?"

And I answered it.

I never claimed you said anything.

Please don't ask questions that you don't want answers to.


habitual_change said...

I don't know why I bothered. Ciao.

Anonymous said...

Habitual: You comment suggesting grassroots change can't occur during a three way leadership race, then you put words in my mouth. Then you delete your comments so no one can see them.

Ciao indeed


habitual_change said...

I thought that by deleting my comments and saying goodbye I could end this ultimatly pointless dialogue. I didn't put words in your mouth though and I also didn't suggest that change could not occure while we are divided. I said that inclusive change could not occure. Now it's you who's putting words in my mouth.

Anonymous said...

Habitual: I don't see how deleting your comments would do anything other than allow you to hide what you said.

If you stand by what you said then I suggest you repost them, otherwise I will not discuss these points further as you have shown you can say things then pretend you didn't say them.


habitual_change said...

LoL at Scott, I was actually going to repost what I had said to prove that I:
1. Didn't say that change wasn't possible in a leadership
2. Did say that inclusive change was not

Scott, Most bloggers recieve e-mail copies of the comments that are made so I'll leave it up to you to check to see that I'm not lying.

I wasn't looking to discuss anything further with you Scott, in fact I made a point to say that I had hoped to end this dialogue (that comment is still up so you can go look and see if you'd like).

I almost asked if you acted the same way with all of your readers, but all it took was a quick look back to get my answer.

Cheers m8, And please don't have me come back to reply again. This dialogue really has run it's course don't you think?

Anonymous said...

Habitual Change: You said "mississaugapeter - While policy and vision will be discuessed at length during the leadership race I feel that Ignatieff is attempting to ensure that change and renewal is a very inclusive process. Can real grassroots change happen while we're split 3 ways in a leadership race?"

Then after I answered you with the comment above, you responded:
"I didn't say that change can't happen or even that it shouldn't happen during the leadership race. I also didn't say that it should be restricted to a time line or fact NO ONE has said that! Let's not be dramatic."

Now no where did I ever suggest anyone said those things, I merely answered your question. Then when I pointed this out, you decided to delete your messages.


Matt said...

Thanks for the link to 308 Scott.