I don't pay any attention to what this paper says anyway - because they're just too biased.

Can't trust the source to be detached as journalists should be.  

NEWS

Campbell best-liked PM in 30 years: poll

By Edison Stewart TORONTO STAR

16 August 1993

OTTAWA - Kim Campbell has the highest approval rating of any Canadian prime minister in 30 years, according to a Gallup poll.

Slightly more than half of the respondents - 51 per cent - approve of how she is handling her job while only 22 per cent disapprove, the survey found.

"Not since the days of Lester B. Pearson (who hit 56 per cent in 1963) has a Canadian prime minister received as high an approval rating as Kim Campbell does today," Gallup reported.

The only other prime minister to receive a higher rating since 1957 was John Diefenbaker, who hit 52 per cent in 1959.
 

Iggy has no charisma is an arrogant self righteous snob that thinks he deserves to be PM regardeless how he has treated people.he comes on like a full blown bully.he should take all his high class freinds that he boasted about and go back to the US.We dont need an amerian that was out of the country for 34 years to come back here & take our tax money and tell us what he is goling to do whether we like it or not.Dione tried that and said he was going to put the carbon taxin whether we liked it or not and we saw him in his same bullying ways go out to pasture.They are all carbon copies of chretien.He was tyhe meanest most miserable sun of a gun I ever saw.Who do they think is paying their wages.
the liberal thing is see how much they can rob from us
sponsorship scandal wasted billions billions
gun reg wasted billions
robbed EI plan stole billions then made out they had a surplus
cancelled helicopters and subs for troops
wouldnt buy new camouflaged uniforms sent troops out to fight in dessert in bright green uniforms cut funding for our troops
cut doctors nurses and closed hospitals & cut funding to health care
ALL LIBERALS EVER NEW WAS TO LIE AND ADD MORE TAXES TO THE LITTLE GUY so they could give all the tax breaks to the rich large companies and tax the heck out of the little guy to pay for it.
NOW THEY WANT THE HST AND BC HAS THE CARBON TAX TO RUIN THE LITTLE GUYS 

Hey, Margaret, when I don't pay attention to a paper, I don't read it. :-) 

Everyone knew what Ignaiteff's writing's were and frankly many including myself have told him we didn't like him for the fact that that was what Students were reading- however- he was in America- he was stained by his surroundings on what Canadians thought and think about war and terror,he has ow been here a while and has heard lots of disent- ,whether he understands that afisherman may have known better than him on Canadian Liberals deepest thoughts of cooersive interrigation or not,well he hasn't said much- but he was right in one thing- not beleiving Liberals need the NDP to form govt,and espically not the Bloc- we need voters- and when voters decide to stop wasting time on Politcal parties that only destroy any possiblity of ousting Tories,becuase the Liberals have good policys-then it won't matter whom the leader of the Liberal Party is ,we will win.We don't need an Enviromentalist in Charge- or War mongers- we need someone who looks at those issues as easy ,it is the details of the rest of Canadian life that it seems is not being spoken to enough from us Liberals-and frankly Jane hasn't said anything about that 

The Liberal Party is a sinking ship. Their vessel so adrift that they needed to appoint a new Captain instead of electing one. And yet they feel they have the right to govern this country. Sheer arrogance....

Perhaps Iggy is the right man to lead the party. He believes in that value. 

Iggy who? 

Didn't this party , Liberals, decide to take the E.I. funds and plop them into general revenue, did this party take the C.P.P. table of future rate of pensions and down scale the benefit monthly cheques. Neither move shrunk the taxpayer burden. The Liberals only pretend to consult the public with the bogus meetings acros the country. And we are the running shoe people to them. Arrogance doesn't beget a vote.
Sorry tweedle dee and tweedle dum is what the pol. looks like. When will we elect our senate or abolish it?
The payments to candidate seems open for corruption. Since i pay for the CBC ,why not give the airtime to discussion/debate, and have it over with in days. No ads ,no boasts, no palaver. None of the ccandidates ever owns up the fact no promises are kept.
No promises should be given without the candidate being liable for a contract. 

Great synopsis. This event shows what happens in a soundbite world of superficiality; entire democracies can be infiltrated and hijacked by a very few people who have a flashy frontman, power,money, persistance and a plan while the general public are in collective A.D.D.. Freedom and democracy are like muscles; usem or losem. A guy I know put a graphic of a Rogers logo with a duncehat on his facebook page: he was ordered to remove it cause his employer is hoping to someday get Rogers as a client. It's time for the younger people to get more involved in politics; Flash mobs are the best tool for that today,I think. 

I'm a "US Import" to Vancouver (truly the best place on earth) and am still trying to figure out the Canadian political arena, so I can't knowledgeably pipe in on much yet -- but I can't help wondering why Canadians would fall for anyone who thinks if he spends 30 years in the States he's then qualified to run Canada?!

If an outsider's observations can be helpful then I'll share -- I do feel Canadian citizens don't give themselves enough credit and practice a dangerous, naive passivity. I observe an "odd" relationship with both the Queen (of England?!) and the States. The relationship with the States is a mixed bag of "hands-off" and "take-care-of-us," often in the same sentence.

Case in point, since I'm "American" I'm often the recipient of what Canadians would apparently like to tell the States. Here's an example: Canadian's statement: "I hate that the States has got Canada now spending money on military." (my response: "well, I hope Canada at least is able to defend it's territories if necessary because the world is beginning to realize that Canada has an abundance of natural resources without the conflicts of say the Middle East or Africa to get at them. God forbid if someone just decides to come and take them, especially the oil in the northern territories"), Canadian's response: "Oh the States would never let that happen." (my response -- uh, mouth drops open as in ARE YOU FOR REAL).

It's not the first time I've heard that the States is expected to safeguard the world -- when the war in Sri Lanka was going on I was asked "why don't you (the States) do something," and recently I was asked why the States can't come "rescue" the Iranian people (to this I helped the person recall that not that long ago US citizens were held hostage while the vast majority of Iranian citizens supported the induction of the current regime -- we don't forget that easily, tho we hope they will find the way to free themselves). These other two countries have not yet achieved democracy or the mind-set yet -- but Canada?! It's like a love-hate, passive-aggressive relationship that I just don't get.

During the recent US presidential election I was told more than once by Canadian citizens, always trying to engage me in debate about the candidates, that they felt they should be able to vote for the US president, driving around in their cars with Obama or McCain bumper stickers (huh?) -- these Canadian citizens had no clue who was running for political office in Canada when I thought it should be quid pro quo and I asked about Canadian politics?! What's up with that?

I see Canada (yes, you're only 32 million people in a vast land -- less than the population of California, which I keep having to remind myself) as this amazing place with amazing, kind, generous people, an amazing heritage and so, so much potential!

Canada's banking system is #1 in what's shaping up to be the worst global financial disaster in history -- #1. We ("Americans") are becoming so self-involved we've been asleep at the wheel -- I believe we've woken up. (And it's not like "Americans" don't need to be more cognizant of the definition of democracy and make sure we're not taking it for granted! But being "fat and lazy" isn't the same as what I observe here.)

There's so much in Canada to be brazenly proud of. But potential is nothing if it is not acknowledged and acted upon. The most powerful thing you can do is -- recognize your power. Too much of the leadership being "elected" in Canada from an outsiders pov doesn't reflect that. Leaders (who, by definition, must have more in their gut than mere civil manager types or self-absorbed flash) are elected to perform the will of the people -- but the people must be ever aware of what their will is. Are you?

I may be singing to some of the choir here -- from reading the posts, but hope an outside pov is somehow helpful. 

Denis Smith may be right, but really there's a simpler thing going on here that has little to do with Ignatieff, other than the fact that he is the second academic in a row for the Liberals, and traditionally intellectuals have not done well with Canadian voters. Just think about how Tom Berger and Davie Fulton fared in BC politics.

The Liberals are not in power. That's it. A Liberal Party out of office, out of power, and out of patronage is a disarmed and essentially defenceless Liberal Party that can be and is assaulted with impunity. Without the perks of power and the advantages of incumbency there is no Liberal magic or mystique, no Liberal professionalism, and yes, not even any Liberal values, since the Liberal Party was about winning elections and little more.

In the early part of the decade the Liberal hand seemed a strong one, in that it was sufficient to survive, albeit with a minority, the Sponsorship Scandal in the 2004 election. But the Liberal hand was vulnerable.

Rather like holding a straight flush in poker, the Liberals had to loose only one card, any card, for the hand to be rendered worthless. Other players, witih three of a kind, or two pair, or a full house, could drop a card and still have something to show.

So once the Liberals lost he majority government card, the rest of the hand went to zero. They were no longer invicible, no longer certain winners, and that was the beginning of the end. Blaming this on Ignatieff's writing is a bit off target, but perhaps it's more palatable than admitting that a lot of Canadian voters simply play the winner and little else.


Rod Smelser 

Thats my prediction and I also predict the Liberals will have another ten years as the governing party. And Harper well what can I say but Ha Ha as Canadians take the smirk off that over cocky prime minister's face. 

Ashley MAcIsaac,
We all love a little stream of consciousness mixed with E.E.Cummings, but when it comes to making sense, the tired old majuscule and period have been known to work wonders. 

Iggy could have won the next election but he played his HST card wrong and was to eager to back corporations than to back Canadians costing the Liberal party any real hopes of recovery. But Harper on the other is busily destorying Canada's good name as Bad Canada is on the lips of many leaving Canadians wondering exactly what their prime minister plans are for Canada as investors from around the globe jump at the chance at getting something for nothing and their kicks for free. Although Iggy on the other hand is not an Island onto himself and had to consider the liberals premiers and their sell out to the priovinces its looks like Canada's future is left to the whims of politicians and greedy investors.
How about the NDP as the new leader of the country it couldn't hurt.