Why Ignatieff should not be leader

I really agonized over writing something like this, because I honestly do like Mr. Ignatieff. But the fact of the matter is, putting aside whether or not he'd make a good prime minister, he is simply unsuited to be the leader of the opposition and the prime minister in waiting.

I don't think Mr. Ignatieff can win a general election. If he is elected leader, I hope that I'm proven wrong. But I don't like his chances.

First of all, the torture allegations. They are vile, baseless, and digusting allegations. It is unfair that Ignatieff now has a reputation among some people as the guy who supports torture. But he does have that reputation nonetheless, and you know, you KNOW both the Conservatives and the NDP, not to mention the Bloc, would use it against him mercilessly. They would perform that trick they do where they repeat something so many times that, in the eyes of the public, it becomes true. "The Liberal Party is corrupt." A ridiculous statement, given that all the facts show is that a few high-ranking Liberals were corrupt, who have been both kicked out of the party and some of them jailed. But nevertheless, "The Liberal Party is corrupt." There's no way to argue against it if half the public is dead-set against believing anything else. "Michael Ignatieff supports torture." I don't know about you, but I think that one's worse. And they'll do it, too. They will all assassinate the character of a good man over baseless allegations, just like they did to Paul Martin.

Second, his support of the war in Iraq. Now, I know Scott Brison also technically supported that war - but he was not nearly as vocal a supporter as Mr. Ignatieff. Ignatieff has used a lot of ink writing about his vehement support for the war, and even though I sort of agree with him, that makes it very easy for the NDP to take the anti-war vote. Too easy, in fact. I mean, the only thing that would make it easier to steal left-leaning votes would be if there was some ridiculous but nevertheless widespread belief that the man supports, I don't know, torture or something.

Third, I don't like his chances in Quebec. Quebeckers tend, more often than not, to vote for the favourite son. (Laurier, St. Laurent, Trudeau, Mulroney, Bouchard, Chretien, Duceppe.) He has to beat back both Harper and Duceppe in Quebec, which will be no easy task - Duceppe has the homefield advantage, and Harper is currently neck-and-neck with the current favourite son. An Albertan had enough trouble winning just ten seats in Quebec - imagine someone who hasn't even lived in the country for the past quarter-century!

And finally, I just can't see him being good for party unity. He himself is already the most divisive subject within the party - Iggy-boosters and Iggy-haters alike are very, very zealous in their defences and detractions. (Particularly the latter.) Yes, he does have Chretien and Martin people behind him, but really, will that matter if he creates an entirely new division based entirely around him? Given that he's generally estimated to have the support of about 25-30% of the party right now, how will that other 70-75% feel if he wins; more importantly, what if he only wins by a bare margin - what will the other half think? Obviously, you win some and you lose some, but there are enough people who just flat-out dislike Ignatieff that I can't see an Ignatieff victory being good for party unity, and we absolutely must be united going into the next election, otherwise we're toast. The pro-Iggy and anti-Iggy sides of the party can't be fighting their own battle DURING an election campaign - and we really, REALLY can't afford to lose the left of the party to the NDP. That's a ticket to third-party status.