Ignatieff takes over as Liberal leader
December 9, 2008 - 9:45pm
Looks like the much anticipated poop-storm at Liberal Party Headquarters is finally hitting the fan. According to the Star, Dion might resign as early as tomorrow. LeBlanc is expected to step aside and support Ignatieff, and predictions are a quick caucus vote would favour Iggy.
I think this coalition is going to quickly fall apart.
After which, Iggy will join a War Cabinet with Harper. They agree on most issues anyway.
All that will be needed than is for Harper to grow a big moustache and start center-parting his hair, and Canada can party like it's 1917!
_________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
Iggy, Jack and Stevie all on the same side, they might as well create one single political party.
Edited
Maybe Fidel's dreams of the revolution are here.
Iggy is going to be a dangerous player, unlike the bumbling Dion. It is by no accident that Iggy went to ground while the coalition was busy committing political suicide. After numerous polls that showed Canadians were less than anxious to tolerate this hasty coalition, Bob Rae decided to wear it and allow Iggy an end run. Under Iggy, the Liberals will make another end run - right around the coalition toward a renewed Liberal party.
I have no idea what the Liberal rules are for leadership selection. But I would be very surprised if Bob Rae can be simply outvoted and have Iggy installed immediately.
It does look like Dion is as good as out. And that if he has to go he will want out of the humiliation ASAP. I'd be extremely surprised if Rae cannot veto a virtually immediate permenant selection. And my guess is that effectively he would also have to agree to Iggy being named Interim. I can't see Rae agreeing, or Iggy taking te risks of looking like hes seizing the reigns just to get the Interim.
Have you ever listened to Ignatieff. The common touch eludes him completely. He is impossible to watch speaking as he is continually making faces like he let an sbd and is afraid you might smell it too.
His best and most lasting chance at government is a coalition.
Webgear, the game is politics and to predict how people are going to act you need to stand in their shoes. Ignatieff has far more to gain from the Coalition's success than its failure. Failure brings with it a price but he will keep his powder dry and not invest much personal political capital into the project so as to be as untouched by any collapse that might happen. Bob Rae will be the point person for the Coalition but make no mistake, Iggy very much wants it to succeed.
He's about to become Leader of the Opposition. Nobody wants that job, they want to be PM. The Coalition gives him his best chance of becoming PM and doing so within weeks. Why on Earth would he want it to fail?! Does he want to fight an election against Harper with no money and at a time and place of Harper's choosing? Hardly.
You have a flair for the overstated drama Ratbert.
The Liberals don't have to 'end run' the Coalition.
If they are going to ditch the Coalition the only running they will be doing is away. And if they do, it is possible they won't pay a price, but it would hardly be the proactive and triumphal move you portray it as.
I'm not so sure that having Iggy become Liberal leader is such a bad thing. Its clear that keeping Dion is out of the question. He is a total fiasco. If not Dion, then who? Well, I think that the Liberals really need a permanent leader by Late january otherwise they could be stuck with a PM or a leader in an election who is only supposed to be there for three months - that just won't fly.
I'm not sure what makes people think there is ANY ideological difference between Iggy and Rae (or Dion for that matter). To the extent that he has anything to say on economic and social issues - its just the usual mainstreal Liberal Party pablum that all these guys say. At least Iggy doesn't have the kind of vicious anti-NDP personal emotional baggage that Rae has.
I'm also not so sure that the coalition doesn't continue with Iggy as leader. Face it - what he wants more than anything is to be PM of Canada. If he sticks with the coalition, he can become PM on January 28th and have the job for at least a year and a half and maybe much more. The alternative is to meekly surrender to Harper and not have another chance to be PM until an election a year from now at the earliest - and he may or may not win it either. I have to think that once he knows that he is the Liberal leader - it will be extremely tempting for Iggy to go along with the coalition and become Prime Minister of Canada next month.
Pretty much sums him up for me too. i like dion because i know what he stands for . I have no idea what iggie stands for.
Have you ever listened to Ignatieff. The common touch eludes him completely. He is impossible to watch speaking as he is continually making faces like he let an sbd and is afraid you might smell it too.
His best and most lasting chance at government is a coalition.
Ignatieff's "coalition if necessary but not necessarily coalition" quip today makes it clear enough that he sees it as a bargaining chip, one he'll be happy to cash in as soon as Harper presents his impression of a stimulus package. I'm quite sure Iggy would rather sit for a year or two as leader of the opposition during the worst economic storm in living memory than govern joined at the hip to New Democrats, when he means to recover votes lost to the Conservatives.
I'm not so sure. Anyone who gets this far in politics is very ambitious and the thought of being PM NOW - not in two years maybe - but NOW DEFINITELY - will weigh heavily on Ignatieff.
I also think that Harper has probably learned nothing from this whole episode and will try to humiliate the Liberals by not giving them any face saving way to support the budget. Once again Harper will miscalculate and Iggy will be PM on Jan. 28th.
Once Ignatieff clinches the leadership - I would not be surprised at all to see him suddenly embrace the coalition because its the fastest way for him to be PM. He wasn't crazy about it before because he saw it as complicating his campaign to lead the Liberals - but once he is the Liberal leader - things could change very quickly.
It was a good move for his leadership ambitions to be pro-coalition but not quite as outspoken as Rae - this way Iggy can get support from all factions of the party. But its all about winning the leadership - once he has that in the bag - it will be very tempting for him to move right into 24 Sussex Drive.
Ratbert, you are such a hoot.
Rae and Iggnatief were personal friends. Rae's best chance to win the Liberal leadership was last time out and had Dion not become the "compromise" candidate, he might well have done so. His train left the station a while ago but the Liberals were never going to refill their party coffers without a leadership race selling gobs of "instant Liberal" memberships and you can't have a race if only one candidate shows up at the starting line. The competition between the two of them is a fraud and so is the current "schism" over the Coalition.
The Budget will be the means but the "reason" given to Canadians for arrogance and crisis-addicted style of the Prime Minister. The fact that he has not stepped down as PM will be reason enough to vote non-confidence in the Government.
Iggy's speech to Canadians will be much more focused than Dion's (I know, but I couldn't resist) and will be much more effective. I predict it will go something like this:
"My fellow Canadians. For the second time in less than two months Prime Minister Harper is going to ask the Governor General to rescue him from a political crisis of his own creation. This is the same PM who asked for an election in October because the House was unworkable. He returned to a new Parliament promising to work cooperatively with all parties and then provoked a consitutional crisis within a week. It is clear to all by now that it is not Parliament that is unworkable, it is the current Prime Minister.
We have serious work to do. PM Harper has demonstrated time and again that he is not the man to do it. He is either incapable or unwilling to make the compromises and avoid the rank partisanship that is needed to make this Parliament work. It is, quite simply, a gross failure of leadership.
We in the Liberal Party have put our differences aside. I know the personal sacrifice my leadership opponents made to withdraw from the race for this job. All Canadians are proud to know that they put the needs of Canadians before personal ambition.
Mr. Layton and the New Democratic Party members have similarly agreed that what Canadians need now is less partisanship and more statesmanship and I look forward to working with all Coalition members in the days, months and years ahead. We disagree on many things, and do so passionately but when we debate policy in this, your Parlaiment, we will do so in a manner that is democratic. The Coalition will never threaten this Parliament or Canadians with a needless, expensive election for crass partisan gain.
Mr. Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and I could not disagree more about the future of Quebec within Canada but I will never question his commitment to democracy. I do not agree with the goals of the Bloc or their supporters but I would never tell millions of Canadians that their votes are somehow less worthy of respect or that their duly elected representatives do not deserve to be heard in their Parliament.
When the leader of the Bloc Quebecois shows more committment to making Canada's Parliament work than the current Prime Minister, it is time for that Prime Minister to step aside.
To my friends in the Conservative benches and their supporters accross the country. I want you to know that there are many, many good, honest, patriotic and committed members who are dismayed by what their party leader, PM Harper, has tried to do. I wish them godspeed in selecting a new leader who can restore the dignity, decorum and passionate debate that this, your Parliament, deserves.
Mr. Layton and I have both sent letters to the Governor General advising her that should the Government lose the non-confidence vote set for tommorow that there is a viable Government that can be formed from the coalition members in this, your Parliament. A coalition formed of democratically elected members of Parlaiment and that can hold the confidence of the majority of House. The parties that have committed themselves to the stability of the Coalition and the continued work of this, your Parliament, represent over 62% of the votes cast in the October Federal Election.
Prime Minister Harper has demonstrated, repeatedly, that he has little interest in making your Parliament work. Canadians deserve better. I pledge to the Governor General and to you, the people of this country, that the Coalition can put an end to the games and the politics of crisis of the current Government. The time-out is over, it is time for the games to be over too. There is much work to be done and no more time to spare.
Good night."
Unlike Dion's fiasco, Jack should get time as well, not as much as Iggy but some. Duceppe isn't part of the coalition so he doesn't. Given that the NDP are part of the communication team now I bet that this happens.
Jack's speech only needs to echo three things. 1) Harper can't work with anyone. 2) The NDP supports the coalition and pledges to work with this, your Parliament (see the theme here). 3) We will work passionately for what we believe in but we will respect the will of the majority of members in this, your Parliament. Unlike the current PM, we will not subject Canadians to the brinksmanship politics of the current PM or drag Canadians through another, needless election.
Jack too can echo that he and his caucus have sent a letter to the GG advising of their support for the Coalition and believe that it can meet the House and demonstrate the confidence of the majority.
Either the coaliton works , pickings it's Prime Minster,cabinet and agenda or the Liberals fracture, as the right wing goes Harper.. Assuming the Liberals go with Iggy as leader right now, , does that mean they have rejected the Coaliton, the Rae approach,? does that mean to passively go with Harper-accept the budget by sitting on their hands- or do they go all the way and form a Unionist style governemnt -non Progresive Conservatives and right wing Liberals.Ifi the Liberals bail on the coaliton and prop up Harper in january, how can they refuse to prop him in Febrary and March and....
But the coalition can still work. GO, JACK, GO!!
Ignatieff is portraying the Coalition as a tool to force Harper to produce good government. So Iggy has left the door wide open to the Liberals supporting the Conservative budget.
Iggy describes his position as "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."
I see two possibilities:
1 - Harper produces a budget that Iggy thinks will be popular with the public. In this case Iggy will support the budget and wait for the economic downturn to do the Conservatives in. Iggy will say that he continues to support the Coalition as a mechanism to keep the Harper government in line.
2 - Harper's produces a budget that Iggy thinks will be unpopular. In this case Iggy will want an election ASAP. He will say the people must decide.
Either way the Coalition will NOT take power.
How should the NDP react to this?
http://tinyurl.com/652lab
Dion continued to promote the coalition at a rally Saturday in Toronto where he shared the stage with NDP Leader Jack Layton, while Rae attended a similar rally in Winnipeg.
Ignatieff has been more ambivalent, describing his position Sunday as "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."
He said the power-sharing deal is serving a useful purpose by keeping the pressure on Harper in advance of the budget promised for January.
But he also said the Liberals have to be prepared to look at the budget before making any final decisions.
There was no comment from Layton and the NDP on the latest turn of events among their erstwhile partners in Liberal ranks.
How will making it impossible to stop Harper from implementing reactionary legislation that the Canadian people don't want lead to a RENEWED Liberal Party?
They hardly have anything to gain from Canada's political spectrum and the range of political options available to future Canadian governments being pushed permanently to the extreme right.
_________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
do they go all the way and form a Unionist style governemnt -non Progresive Conservatives and right wing Liberals.
Hey now, there's a lot of things you could say about our Unionist, but you could never accuse him of backing a Liberal-Tory coalition.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
self-delete. Dupe post.
free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Unionist Party was formed in 1917 by Members of Parliament (MPs) in Canada who supported the "Union government" formed by Sir Robert Borden during World War I.
In May 1917, Conservative Prime Minister Borden proposed the formation of a national unity government or coalition government to Liberal leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier in order to enact conscription, and to govern for the remainder of the war. Laurier rejected this proposal because of the opposition of his Quebec MPs, and fears that Quebec nationalist leader Henri Bourassa would be able to exploit the situation.
As an alternative to a coalition with Laurier, on October 12, 1917, Borden formed the Union government with a Cabinet of twelve Conservatives, nine Liberals and Independents and one "Labour" MP. To represent "labour" and the working class, Borden appointed to the Cabinet Conservative Senator Gideon Decker Robertson who had been appointed to the Senate in January and had links with the conservative wing of the labour movement through his profession as a telegrapher. Robertson, however, was a Tory and not a member of any Labour or socialist party.
Borden then called an election for December 1917 on the issue of conscription (see also Conscription Crisis of 1917),
running as head of the "Unionist Party" composed of Borden's
Conservatives, independent MPs, and members of the Liberals who left
Laurier's caucus to support conscription.
Supporters of the Borden government ran for parliament as "Unionists", while some of the Liberals running as government supporters preferred to call themselves "Liberal-Unionist".
This tactic split the Liberal Party: those who did not join the Unionist Party ran as Laurier Liberals. The election resulted in a landslide election victory for Borden.
Borden attempted to continue the Unionist Party after the war and when Arthur Meighen
succeeded him in 1920, he renamed it the "National Liberal and
Conservative Party" in the hope of making the coalition permanent. The
Unionists had never been officially a single party, and therefore
lacked the structure of an official party. Meighen hoped to change this.
In the 1921 general election, most of the Liberal-Unionist MPs did not join this party, and ran as Liberals under the leadership of its new leader, William Lyon Mackenzie King.
Only a handful ran again as Liberal-Unionists or joined Meighen's
renamed party. Prominent Liberal Unionists who stayed with the
Conservatives include Hugh Guthrie and Robert Manion.
Following the defeat of Meighen's government, the "National Liberal
and Conservative Party" changed its name to the "Liberal-Conservative
Party of Canada", although it was commonly known as the "Conservative
Party".
During World War II, the Conservatives attempted to oppose the Liberal government of William Lyon Mackenzie King in the 1940 election
by proposing a "national government" along the lines of the previous
war's Unionist government. Accordingly, they ran in the election under
the name National Government party but did not repeat the success of the Unionist party and failed to make a dent in King's governing majority.
[edit]
I knew that was what you were actually referring to, peterj. Just couldn't help playing with the double meaning of "Unionist" here in Le Monde Du Babble`
______________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
"I'm also not so sure that the coalition doesn't continue with Iggy as leader. Face it - what he wants more than anything is to be PM of Canada. If he sticks with the coalition, he can become PM on January 28th and have the job for at least a year and a half and maybe much more. The alternative is to meekly surrender to Harper and not have another chance to be PM until an election a year from now at the earliest - and he may or may not win it either. I have to think that once he knows that he is the Liberal leader - it will be extremely tempting for Iggy to go along with the coalition and become Prime Minister of Canada next month. "
Iggy wants no part of the coalition, and its probably best that the coalition want no part of Iggy. What he's angling for is a spring election. He wants to be free from the "taint" of the NDP and the Bloc while going into it. So, he and most of the rest of the Liberals will angle to bring down the government while ensuring that new elections is the alternative.
Why the coalition would want to lineup behind someone who supported the Iraq war and dreams of the right conditions to torture is beyond me. Not to mention someone who opposed the coaltion from the getgo.
I guess this thread is the better place for a general discussion of the coalition than the Accord Vs. Coalition thread. But some of us expressed opinions there that however much Iggy didn't want the Coalition, its here and if it can make him PM, he'll take it.
It looks like Iggy is going to get to be Interim Leader soon. I'm of the opinion that doesn't substantially change the Coalition dynamic beyond finishing the cahnce it will be preented as going to vote against Harper regardless of what he offers.
I can't see how a communications push can be effective with a 'maybe' message. But lords knows what can come up next.
=====================
Ignatieff makes his move. Swayed by negative polls and discomfort with coalition, Liberals near agreement to oust Dion immediately.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081207.wdion1207/BNStory/politics/home
Iggy wants no part of the coalition, and its probably best that the coalition want no part of Iggy. What he's angling for is a spring election.
The angling for a Spring election part is flat out dead wrong. Whatever anyone might like to do in their dreams- this would be seen as a ridiculous stement from some backbench MP or fringie, let alone coming from a leadrship candidate.
From the G & M article you linked to:
"Should the Ignatieff plan prevail, the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition could well be scuttled. Mr. Ignatieff was never an avid supporter of the coalition and had turned against it by Saturday, according to party insiders.
Support for the coalition from the caucus had also weakened."
Is that supposed to be inconsistent with what I have argued?
Its pretty much a statement of the obvious and has been for a while, if not from the beginning.
The question is what will follow.
Layton has neatly backed the Liberals into a damn if they do- damned if they don't situation. Digging into the polls you can see the support for a coalition is there for the partisans (by and large) and that Harper is very disliked and damaged. If the Liberals back away from a coalition and help Harper be the bully boy in an enabling kind of way they are sunk. At this point, precisly because of Ignatieff's patrician leadership and comfort with Conservative policies the Liberals look fractured and in disarray. That will continue either way, with Dion or without. Ignatieff's only hope would be to embrace the coalition and provide good if not inspiring government. It is the Liberals only hope at this point. But will Ignatieff be able to overcome his inlination to be a Conservative clone on almost every issue but a few soical issues. That remains to be seen.
Two things are certain:
First, Harper will produce an economic stimulus budget, to trap Iggy into supporting the Conservatives in their 'economic leadership' of Canada.
Second, that the Conservatives, immediately afterwards, begin the process of humiliating the Liberals with non-confidence votes to force through the most reactionary Conservative agenda possible. Not because Harper cares particularly about pandering to the base, but in order to force an election as soon as they've regained the upper hand.
The trap, or the coalition. Does Iggy get it?
The trap, or the coalition. Does Iggy get it?
Better Iggy then Dion....at least he can speak and I'm sure he could find someone to run a Video Camera!
Sniper
One Shot One Kill!
You have a flair for the overstated drama Ratbert.
The Liberals don't have to 'end run' the Coalition.
If they are going to ditch the Coalition the only running they will be doing is away. And if they do, it is possible they won't pay a price, but it would hardly be the proactive and triumphal move you portray it as.
Well, Ken, with due respect, you have your own way of saying precisely the same thing I said without the flair. The end run I refer to is ditching the coalition by running away without paying a price.
This is Canadian politics and every weaselmove is portrayed as proactive and triumphal. Iggy can ditch the coalition until the Speech from the Throne, at which time he has the luxury of making a backroom deal with Harper allowing him time to rebuild or, resurrecting the coalition on even more favourable terms to the Liberals.
Cynic that I am, I think the Liberals will do any desperate deed to avoid watering their wine by jumping in the sack with either the Bloc or the Dippers. They can slough off any political poo sticking to their fur for ditching the coalition but giving government power to the Dippers or being held hostage by the Bloc will cost them dearly in an election.
As far as flair is concerned, would you prefer the mendacious personal attacks of the angry extremists? Meh!
I guess the liberals are goint to appoint Ignatieff. To bad the membership can't have a say. What happeded to Bob Ray. Guess he tured in to cowpie!
How will making it impossible to stop Harper from implementing reactionary legislation that the Canadian people don't want lead to a RENEWED Liberal Party?
They hardly have anything to gain from Canada's political spectrum and the range of political options available to future Canadian governments being pushed permanently to the extreme right.
_________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
I've addressed this question in the post above. If you have listened to Iggy, you will realise that he is not Dion. His 'cowardice' in not embracing this coalition is in fact,a strategic withdrawl which leaves his options open, rather than Rae's desperate embrace of a lost cause.
The next few months give Iggy a chance to show his stuff to the voter. His patrician bearing does not play well with the unwashed but he does have the parts to be PM.
I'm a social progressive/fiscal conservative - slightly to the right of center in respect to fiscal policy that needs to be well crafted and sustainable, rather than reactionary spending aimed at political gain. I've stated before that Harper is a sociopath who needs to go and Iggy may well get my vote.
If the Liberals are smart - and that's certainly been questionable for the last little while - they'll realise that the coalition is their chance to get rid of Harper. Probably permanently. There's dissension in the Conservative ranks, Canadians are clearly unhappy with Harper even if they support his party, and Harper has badly overplayed his hand. This is the best chance the Liberals are going to have to take Harper out. If they don't he'll regroup and come back stronger.
As for the polls we've been seeing, they don't make much sense to me. Either I'm missing something, or the polls are. The first CBC poll that came out had the NDP losing support to the Conservatives. That doesn't even begin to make sense to me. What NDP supporter says to themself "Hey, now that my party finally has the chance to stand up for the things they said they'd do during the election, I'm going to switch my vote to the party that is most diametrically opposed to those things?" It's nonsensical. So is the Toronto Star poll that showed a big shift of NDP support to the Liberals if Ignatieff is named leader. What NDP supporter thinks bomb-everything-that-moves, torture-is-A-OK Ignatieff is a good representative of their viewpoints? It just doesn't make sense to me.
It's weird, the way these past few weeks have gone. First I was outraged (when the fiscal update was first revealed), then I was hopeful (when it seemed like Harper's ego was finally going to do him in), now I'm just getting depressed. I don't know if the problem is that Canadians are uninformed, or if they're just much more mean-spirited than I think they are, but when Harper prorogued Parliament I expected the country to be outraged. Instead there's been virtually no outcry. That's incredibly discouraging.
" I guess the liberals are goint to appoint Ignatieff. To bad the membership can't have a say. What happeded to Bob Ray. Guess he tured in to cowpie!
It really is too bad that they don't teach proper spelling etc. in the Alberta education system but you forgot to uppercase the "L" in liberals and goint should be "going" and it's "too" not "to" and it's "happened" not happeded and its "Rae" not Ray and it "turned" not tured - Gosh if they can't spell in Alberta what would they know about the running the economy.
I admire the courage of those above who believe they can predict what's going to come next in this unfolding drama. One of you, by sheer chance, could end up looking pretty smart.
My own feeling is that this will be driven less by what the players on the Liberal bench want, however that important sub-plot works out, and more by Harper, who's starting to remind me a bit of Charles X of France. A tyical Bourbon, he was capable of learning nothing and forgetting nothing. Were I to hazard a guess, it will be that Harper will make conciliatory noises through much of January, then attempt to kneecap the opposition as soon as he can and back them into a corner. Why? because it's too much part of his DNA not to. If Iggy goes with a coalition, it will be because he's made to, not because he wants to, and now, unlike in the last parliament, they know how.
Layton has neatly backed the Liberals into a damn if they do- damned if they don't situation. Digging into the polls you can see the support for a coalition is there for the partisans (by and large) and that Harper is very disliked and damaged. If the Liberals back away from a coalition and help Harper be the bully boy in an enabling kind of way they are sunk. At this point, precisly because of Ignatieff's patrician leadership and comfort with Conservative policies the Liberals look fractured and in disarray. That will continue either way, with Dion or without. Ignatieff's only hope would be to embrace the coalition and provide good if not inspiring government. It is the Liberals only hope at this point. But will Ignatieff be able to overcome his inlination to be a Conservative clone on almost every issue but a few soical issues. That remains to be seen.
I find myself agreeing with Bookish Agrarian for the most part. Lord knows I'm no big fan of Ignatieff, but I do believe he's better positioned on climate change than Harper, and I also believe he now has a somewhat different position on Iraq than he once did, so we'd be unwise to argue otherwise.
Still, there are some strategic pitfalls for the Liberals to overcome if they proceed down the path it looks like they're taking.
First of all, installing any leader now, but particularly Ignatieff, means that they will have done an end-run around the current membership, and given up the opportunity to do whatever cross-country party building could have been accomplished between now and May.
Secondly, and corollary to my first point, this means that their predominantly eastern party establishment will have selected the leader, without the adequate input of the party members and leadership from out west. This has the potential effect of further marginalizing the federal Liberals as part of political debate in western Canada.
Third, it marginalizes Bob Rae within the Liberal party, saying in effect that no matter what he does, no matter how much of a team player he is, no matter what his political skills, no matter how willing he is to trash his former NDP colleagues in their areas of political strength, they will never let him live his past down.
Fourth, and following from my third point, it is becoming clear that the biggest fear for the Liberals in the path the coalition talks sent them down is not the liaison with the Bloc ... it's the NDP. From sources as disparate as the "Calgary Grit" to Jim Karygiannis on CBC Newsworld just now, it is clear that legitimizing the NDP any further is something that Liberals fear more than Stephen Harper. Most of the Liberals who are active now, got their start during a time when the NDP was weakened (ironically after the 1993 election and the aftermath of the Charlottetown Accord), and they have come to view the votes of NDP-Liberal switchers as rightfully theirs. Structurally the Liberal Party has become even more reliant on those votes, owing to their grave weakness in Quebec, and more recently their waning organizational presence in western Canada. They still believe the NDP should have been the junior partner, if not the silent partner, in their re-elevation to government, and are very conflicted about giving up their last strategic leg up on the NDP (our perceived unreadiness for government or fiscal responsibility).
On the other hand, the NDP of course, still faces its own strategic risks should the desire to rid the country of Harper gel around the Liberals. But Liberals were shocked that they couldn't knock us down from our base last time, and truly are not sure how to do it this time either.
So, I agree: Layton has achieved a pretty good strategic position, and kept his eye on the policy ball overall. If Ignatieff backs off and winds up supporting Harper, he risks hurting the Liberals' positioning as an alternative to Harper; and if not, he helps the NDP overcome its biggest current strategic challenges, and hurts his ability to distinguish the Liberals from us. And he will have foregone an opportunity to rebuild their own party infrastructure in the process. Meantime, the NDP will elect a provincial government in Nova Scotia, and possibly BC, and look to be on the ascension in Canada.
Ratbert, you are such a hoot.
....Iggy's speech to Canadians will be much more focused than Dion's (I know, but I couldn't resist) and will be much more effective. I predict it will go something like this: ....
I've not yet begun to hoot but I will never presume to write Iggy's speeches for him.
For reasons of brevity, I've deleted most of your post. I don't disagree that what you write may come to pass but I still hold the opinion that Iggy will keep his options open. He is politically closer to harper than Layton and can forsee any embrace of the Dippers becoming his political shroud in the next election.
The latest Angus-Reid poll shows him only 5 points behind Harper as leader. harper's support also appears soft- based more on fear of the unknown than support for the PM.
Why would a proven wordweaselmeister like Iggy jump the broomstick with Layton when he can succeed without him?
Iggy as leader will pry open the changepurses of the Liberals and attract the soft center support of the CPC.
Good points both BA and Ottawa Observer..... I tend to agree. If the coalition fails the Libs wear it. Propping up Harpo, the Libs wear it, and will sit on their hands over and over again as the NDP points it out. If Iggy Thumbscrews thinks he's rather go to an election, trying to pull Con votes, let him. The NDP will be alone on the centre / left, and new NDP provincial governments will be not be lost on Canadians.
Two things are certain:
First, Harper will produce an economic stimulus budget, to trap Iggy into supporting the Conservatives in their 'economic leadership' of Canada.
Second, that the Conservatives, immediately afterwards, begin the process of humiliating the Liberals with non-confidence votes to force through the most reactionary Conservative agenda possible. Not because Harper cares particularly about pandering to the base, but in order to force an election as soon as they've regained the upper hand.
The trap, or the coalition. Does Iggy get it?
I agree with your two certainties but the change in Liberal leaders and the ensuing six weeks of political theatre before the Throne Speech allow for considerable strategic and tactical leeway.
The PM is incapable of offering an honest legislative agenda and the big variable is the reaction of the voter to both his party and to a coalition proposal that can offer concrete policies over the next six weeks.
Interesting how you can agree, and then ignore the point entirely...
I'm not ignoring it, just not rushing in to embrace it. Like Iggy
The stunts of the past 10 days - all aside from the fact they were conducted in the middle of the international financial crisis - have made politics itself offensive to almost every citizen. True partisans alone excepted.
Mr. Harper triggered this crisis. Let's be clear on that. But the opposition parties' mad dive into the strange carpentry they call the coalition was built on an arrogance as deep as Mr. Harper's but, ultimately, more dangerous.
Now that we have a pause, I'm sure those same citizens are perplexed. They wander into the Christmas season with the deep realization that, come Jan. 26, they don't know who in their hearts they really want to win.
Rex Murphy in the G+M
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081206.COMURPHY06/TPStory/specialComment/columnists
Yeah, just supporting the outrageous partisan agenda laid out in the "Economic Update" would have been far better! Why can't the NDP just forget about pesky things like workers rights and take one for the (Conservative) team...
Dion Resigns..........
Half of it is pathetic, the latter half is much better......
still, too little, much too late
Oh wonderfull now we are supposed to listen to Rex Murphy to form our thoughts from! pffft...
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Oh wonderfull now we are supposed to listen to Rex Murphy to form our thoughts from! pffft...
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
double posted for some reason?????
Hoodeet (JW)
I'm concerned mainly with the concessions that the NDP will have to make to keep the Coalition alive. (I know there's another thread on this topic, but I think it's crucial to this discussion.) And the Bloc. We've already heard the deafening silence on Afghanistan. What else will they shelf or kill?
As for the will-iggy-sink-the-coalition-or-will-he-use-it debate, I am inclined to think he'll try to outfox both Harper and Jack L. I suppose he could use the coalition to sink the gov't then work within it to push his centre-right agenda, silencing the social-agenda Liberals and the NDP and the Bloc, as long as Harper is head of the Cons. As soon as the other Alpha male is ousted from that party, Iggy would call an election and sink the coalition. I can't really trust Iggy any more than Mr. Herpes. At least with Mr. H. we know what we're getting: mendacity and bullying; Iggy has been cagier, seeming to control his Alpha-male instincts in public, so far.
So the pressure must come from the rank-and-file of all three parties in the coalition, against the Bay Street boys, the neoliberals and the pure pragmatists.
Oh wonderfull now we are supposed to listen to Rex Murphy to form our thoughts from! pffft...
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Your thoughts are fully formed. Don't waste your time on other views.
The oddest thing is the time-lag between the two posts... I read your first comment then recieved a new comment indicator and returned to read you second comment (of the same)!
Rex isn't so bad in person, its a shame someone went and put him on the air...
If this was Rex's considered opinion on Saturday, he must have been bowled over on Sunday, during Cross Country Check-up. There was incredible hostility towards Harper while I was listening, and virtually no one spewing canned Con talking-points.
Hedy and Dosanjh
Hedy Fry, the Vancouver Centre Liberal MP, said a "good stimulus package" in the budget could be supported.
Cracks appeared in the federal coalition yesterday as B.C. Liberal MPs said they might support Stephen Harper's budget when Parliament resumes........
"If the budget is appropriate, I'm willing to consider it. We can't be unreasonable. Canadians expect us to be reasonable." Dosanjh said.
Canadians also expected Harper to be reasonable - theoretically, anyway. How did that work out for us?
So far today:
Dion resigns (again), LeBlanc drops out and endorses Ignatieff, Kennedy endorses Rae (3 years too late), Iggy declares himself a candidate for "interim" leader, Rae refuses to drop out saying he doesn't think coronations are healthy and calls for a OMOV process to be held in January because democracy is good.
The coalition is effed.
Keystone cops. Watching Liberals is like watching the WWF (or whatever it's called now). That aside, I have to say Rae is right.
Read the Bible for its wisdom: "He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it." Politicians should tattoo that onto their skulls.
Stephen Harper duggeth himself one vast pit, all by his shovel-wielding lonesome, when he set out to chop the public financing of his rivals. And promptly went in head first.
It was naked hardball politics. He was out to nail the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois. That triggered the mess that's roiling the country. He came within a Rideau Hall cucumber sandwich of losing power. Napoleon one day, General Custer the next.
It was his mean and near unfathomable inability to resist taking a cheap shot that brought down the whole monsoon shower of partisan hysteria and grandstanding that's electrified every Tim Hortons and Starbucks from St. John's to Victoria.
Mr. Murphy's opening remarks are spot on. There is genuine hostility from across the political spectrum toward PM Harper. This latest partisan stunt shows not only that he is incapable of governing in the best interests of Canadians but that he holds Canadians' concerns in contempt.
The LPC are incapable of getting their act together. Everything they do is a patchwork solution. I don't know how anyone can have confidence in the Liberals.
The Keystone cops are funny. The Liberals are supposed to be "Our naturally Governing Party". I don't think so.
Any party that couldn't successfully exploit the recent catastrophy of the Harper Government, is incapable of becoming the next government, let alone lead a coalition.
The LPC are on their way to becoming the Eternal "B" team, no matter who is at the helm.
NDP Leader Jack Layton issued a statement, saying he is looking forward to working with the next leader of the "Liberal-New Democrat coalition" on proposals for the economy.
"Mr. Dion and the entire Liberal caucus have shown courage and leadership by putting aside political differences with New Democrats to forge a majority coalition," Mr. Layton said. "They have made a commitment to the coalition to get the economy on the right track for Canadian families."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081208.wPOLliberals...
Jack continues to play it very smartly. All the praise he heaps now on his erstwhile coalition partners must make them wince. And since I don't believe Ignatieff has the slightest intention of making good Dion's word - and I can't imagine Layton believes he does either - I'm now looking forward to the inevitable and appropriate blasts of indignation. When Canadians were looking for leadership, Mr Harper and Mr Ignatieff cared more about their own jobs than yours! That kinda stuff.
Just dropping by to see how the software is working, and saw this thread.
Regardless of whether Iggy becomes the next Liberal leader or not, if the Budget is defeated at the end of January, I seriously doubt the G-G will hand over power to the Coalition under any circumstances - thus Iggy (or Rae) will never be PM. There will be an election, instead, and Harper will be very close to a majority next time.
There will be an election, instead, and Harper will be very close to a majority next time.
Harper has discredited himself so much over the last week, especially in Quebec. I can't see him winning a majority now. Especially since he won't have Dion to kick around anymore. At least Ignatieff can communicate to the public.
Warning: rambling rant to follow,
I think Iggy will get the interim leadership. I think Iggy is also going to play cute on whether he supports the coalition or not. He will try to position himself as the moderate interlocutor between a coalition government and a reprieve for the Tories. The Liberals under Ignatieff will temporarily strive to be the party again of the "mushy middle." As suggested earlier in this thread, Iggy will try to use the coalition as a bargaining chip primarily between Harper and Layton. I think he even has the audacity to try and renegotiate the coalition's terms with the NDP to try and make it more favourable to the Liberals. THe NDP should say "no, once signed a deal is a deal."
As for whether the coalition is dead or not. I think it is still alive and well. Ignatieff is the kind of ambitious prick that has always wanted the PM-ship delivered to him on a golden platter. If he can become PM without ever having to face the electorate, either in his party or the Liberal party, he will do it. He will do it, because he knows (based on his 2006 face plant and other "brick walls" hit in his professional career) that the risks of actually following a democratic process for him are quite large. He yearns for the unearned opportunity to go down in Canadian history books as PM Iggy and the illusory prestige of becoming prime minister of a G8 country.
For most of Ignatieff's life, "I'm Canadian" has been a pick-up line. Now expect him gush about his love for this country.
As for his ideology, it is remarkably similar to the other candidates. Apart from them, he is dumb/arrogant enough to be on the record for getting away from the Liberal party "sacred cows" of health care, etc. (Classic, ivy-league, write some more books, papers, and get invited to conferences phony controversy bullshit). He is also dumb/arrogant enough to be on the record for supporting Torture Lite(TM*) as director of Harvards "Human Rights" centre- one of many "sycophant to power" and "apologist for the status quo" moments in his intellectual career.
He wants to be PM, make no mistake about that. His preference will be for no election to take place, make no mistake about that. The question is, whether or not he and his backers are satisfied that the Liberal Party walks into power sufficiently in control to make up for any "little" risks like the NDP gaining legitimacy, etc. Also, expect Michael Ignatieff to step up his (Provence aristocrat *snigger*) courting of Quebec- which incidentally can be a good profile raiser for Mulcair, as the more rooted Anglo.
All in all with the Liberal party, "le plus ca change, le plus ca reste le meme." Harper's in a pickle.
The last bit of Liberal motivation for a coalition, yes I know they're broke, has to be the polls. If the polls are saying Tory majority, don't expect them to suddenly become sensitive to the idea of bailing out Harper. They bail out Harper in January and Harper can call an election in May. No one will come running to the Liberals aid when they cry wolf then. The only way the Liberals get to take away the keys from power drunk Harper, is if they move into 24 Sussex Drive.
Iggy on the Middle East.
I know.. it's frightening, isn't it. That those with a realistic chance of becoming PM is either Harper or Mr. "lesser of two evils" Ignatieff.
The Complex Missions of Michael Ignatieff
It's no surprise that he has a different speech for different occasions and audiences. Earlier in this thread, there was mention of a hole being dug by the liberals into which they would fall headlong. In fact, it is the partisan supporters of the NDP who will push their party into the abyss, out of a self-important desire for some scrap of ephemeral influence, like an introverted wallflower, mesmerized by the hypnotizing effects of the disco ball. A man like Ignatieff, vilified on this board in the past as an enemy to everything the left stands for, and rightfully so, has now become an acceptable dance partner as the night wears on.
Iggy Iraq, great.....
Right on about the "evil" part. Hope you're correct about the "lesser" part...
Some great political theatre ahead as two very smart, capable individuals ( who are not that far apart, ideologically) manoevre for the support of the key to power - the political center.
Yeah, there's nothing better than watching two people who don't have your interests in mind fight to see who will have the chance to screw you over; wheee!
Yes, XBox please!
Shhh!
You're talking about our beloved Koalition Kaptain!
Remember: Harper is the bad guy, not Iggy!
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
I've never been a fan of tag lines Spector but yours gets me every time, and its growing on me... I think its having the opposite of its intended effect.
How is the campaign going btw? I thought I recalled Michelle being opposed to those things from the get-go and yet, here they are.
A man like Ignatieff, vilified on this board in the past as an enemy to everything the left stands for, and rightfully so, has now become an acceptable dance partner as the night wears on.
Ignatieff's stand concerning human rights has been twisted for political reasons. People should consider his own words before passing judgement.
Who Are Americans To Think That Freedom Is Theirs To Spread ? New York Times Magazine by Michael IgnatieffAnd then there are the prisoners, the hooded man with the wires hanging from his body, the universal icon of the gap between the ideals of American freedom and the sordid -- and criminal -- realities of American detention and interrogation practice. The fetid example of these abuses makes American talk of democracy sound hollow. It will not be possible to encourage the rule of law in Egypt if America is sending Hosni Mubarak shackled prisoners to torture. It will be impossible to secure democratic change in Morocco or Afghanistan or anywhere else if Muslims believe that American guards desecrated the Koran. The failure to convict anybody higher than a sergeant for these crimes leaves many Americans and a lot of the world wondering whether Jefferson's vision of America hasn't degenerated into an ideology of self-congratulation, whose function is no longer to inspire but to lie.
...
Americans have difficulty understanding that there are many different forms that this yearning can take, Islamic democracy among them. Democracy may be a universal value, but democracies differ -- mightily -- on ultimate questions. One reason the American promotion of democracy conjures up so little support from other democrats is that American democracy, once a model to emulate, has become an exception to avoid.
Consider America's neighbor to the north. Canadians look south and ask themselves why access to health care remains a privilege of income in the United States and not a right of citizenship. They like hunting and shooting, but can't understand why anyone would regard a right to bear arms as a constitutional right. They can't understand why the American love of limited government does not extend to a ban on the government's ultimate power -- capital punishment. The Canadian government seems poised to extend full marriage rights to gays.
I think Ignatieff is a strong advocate for human rights. That's why he was chosen to be the Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Kennedy School of Government in Harvard University.
M hasn't been winning much lately even his anti-coalition stance...oh I only posted this so everyone could look at my tagline. Actually I gave some content in my post unlike some. :P
______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
Ignatieff to Harper: Change or fall
“Stephen Harper’s government is not providing Canada with the leadership or stability it needs ... he’s offered no hope, no solutions, no plan for our country,” he told a news conference.
“Where Mr. Harper has failed, we can succeed.”
Ignatieff accused Harper of being “spiteful” and “divisive,” and said he must change his ways.
It looks like Iggy is willing to cut Harper some slack. Conservatives never change. Change is a terrifying experience for political conservatives
Fidel Just watched Poltitics, forget about it. Iggy has said he will side with harper. That is about waht I got from the messaging.______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky
I hear ya. Like two peas of the same pod.
An in-depth portrait of Ignatieff from the Globe & Mail a couple of years ago is worth a read. On throwing his little brother under the bus:
"Writing in Old Boys, however, he acknowledges that UCC also encouraged him to be an authoritarian prig. And nothing illustrates his youthful ego — and what could lie beneath the surface — quite like the way he treated his younger brother.
Andrew followed him to UCC in 1962. A self-described "fat little prick," he was absent his brother's talents. He was not an athlete, not adept at writing and public speaking, not competitive. While Michael was "God," and "everybody bowed and scraped when he passed," Andrew became known as "fatty," "piggy," "slob," "spaz," "big ass" — and "Iggy," a nickname he loathed.
He, too, contributed to Old Boys — it's the last public comment he has made about his brother.
"Before I started at age 12," he writes, "our parents sat down with my older brother and me. They said, 'Michael, you're the big brother, and Andrew is going to UCC for the first time. It's the first time he has ever been away. You have to understand you have to be good to him.'
"Michael was very sweet and he told me how wonderful UCC would be. Then we went to my Aunt Helen's house and again he was very sweet. My Aunt Helen [Ignatieff, the boys' in loco parentis in Canada] again impressed on him the importance of him looking out for me. Then we went to the school and he introduced me to all the masters in the prep.
"The next morning he said, 'How are things going? Did you sleep well?' I said, 'Yes, I slept well.' He said, 'How was the food?' I said. 'It was gross.' He said, 'Do you want to go for a walk?'
"We went for a walk, and he said, 'I want to make one thing absolutely clear to you. When we're at Aunt Helen's house or Aunt Charity's house [Charity Grant, their mother's sister], you can say whatever you want to me. But if you ever see me on the school grounds, you're not to talk to me. You're not to recognize that I'm your brother. You don't exist as far as I'm concerned. Do I make myself clear?'"
And here's an interview with Linda McQuaig in which she savages Ignatieff's support for war etc:
"That quote [in Holding the Bully's Coat] from Ignatieff, where he talks about torture [being defensible] as long as it's done by a patriotic American, now that's an interesting quote. That one hasn't gotten the play that some of the others [have]. That one was from an interview he did with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. That is an incredible statement of the notion of American exceptionalism, the idea that America should be excepted from being bound by international law. And for Ignatieff to come out and endorse that in the way he did is just phenomenal. I find it striking, because he doesn't talk like that in Canada. You don't hear him talk like that so much in Parliament.... And yet if you actually look at some of the things he's said, he's actually an extraordinary neoconservative. He's up there with guys like Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith and some of those people in terms of the extremism of his position. And yet this guy's a prominent politician in Canada....
"I mean imagine somebody in the U.S., a politician, spending 40 years outside the country and then thinking that they could just sort of sweep in and run for president. I mean the arrogance of it is just mind-boggling. And yet he came very close."
Is he now. His words are contained in various publications, one of them being a book he wrote called "THE LESSER EVIL: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror," reviewed here: The Lesser Evil
People should indeed consider his own words, especially those in favour of a coalition with this party. There are more than a few here, hypocrites actually, who still support this concept, knowing full well that Ignatieff held these views, and that he was a strong contender for the Liberal leadership, and thus leader of the coalition. It will be difficult to take them seriously going forward when they speak here on progressive issues, rights, dignity, etc.
"We went for a walk, and he said, 'I want to make one thing absolutely clear to you. When we're at Aunt Helen's house or Aunt Charity's house [Charity Grant, their mother's sister], you can say whatever you want to me. But if you ever see me on the school grounds, you're not to talk to me. You're not to recognize that I'm your brother. You don't exist as far as I'm concerned. Do I make myself clear?'"
Sounds like Iggy is Doug Niedermeyer from Animal House. " You're all worthless and weak! Now drop and give me twenty!"
I'm not suggesting that Iggy is a lesser evil. I call him "Mr. Lesser of two evils" because it is this argument he used to justify war, torture, etc.
'The Lesser Evils'
The right is using the usual scare tactic against the centrists, to draw them toward the right, namely that by aligning with the NDP they'll be pushed to the left.
It's more likely, in my opinion, that Jack L., in his blind drive for power,could be dragged rightward with the NDP.
It is shocking to realize that Iggy tailors his discourse to his audiences, and the public needs to know more.
I will have a polemic about this later.
For now let me say that this is great new from the standpoint of the Trotskyist Propagandist, a white russian now leads the second capitalist party. (sarcasm this is bad news ofcourse but the sylogisms and analogies are flooding the gates of my brain now.)
The Complex Missions of Michael Ignatieff
____________________________________________________________ http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.h...
I was positively blown away by Mr. Ignatteff's press conference this afternoon. He exuded confidence, poise, and rational thinking. He very firmly stood up to the lunatic PM that we have right now. Harper is on notice that the free ride is over.
Harper could yet win the war but he has a foe in Ignatieff who is very strong indeed.
Ignatieff is all hat, no cattle.
He can reverse or reinvent himself at the first whiff of greater "prestige." Take anything he says seriously, at your own risk.
To take some liberties with what Stockholm said earlier, at least the Liberals now have a saleman to match the sliminess of their brand.
"He very firmly stood up to the lunatic PM that we have right now. Harper is on notice that the free ride is over."
So what if after raising expectations that he will stand up to Harper, Iggy buckles and loses his nerve and votes for Harper's budget and gives him a de facto free ride for the next year or two? Can he live that down?
I actually think he WILL vote down the budget and that the coalition's chances of success have never been greater.
1. The media narrative on Iggy is on what a great compromiser he is, relative to Harper. Chantal Hebert, for instance, sounded trumpets that the Liberals have learned to unite as a party... uhhh... no, Bob Rae has got to be pissed - the Liberals didn't unite, they just let the elite run the party moreso. Why is that narrative important? Blame. If the budget gets voted down Ignatieff needs to be able to blame Harper for not compromising.
2. Iggy has indicated that he will "neither agree nor disagree to meet with Harper". That sounds like a disagreement to meeting with Harper. His line "I will vote for the budget if it is good for the economy" is interesting, because it suggests he has no specific terms on the budget. In practice, he will let Harper do whatever he wants on the budget, and try to figure out what the polls say. If they are good, he takes power, if not, he votes for the budget.
3. Under Dion the coalition would not have had the ability to keep its members in line. Wilfert was basically Dion's only caucus supporter - Iggy would never have made Dion PM. Now that Iggy is in charge though, he has a strong incentive to keep his attack dogs in line.
4. The Liberals are broke, and being in power is a great boon for fundraising. Moreover, the opportunity to run a deficit without blame is great payola for any leader. They get to create funds and programs and such all with their names on it.
Before, there is almost no way the coalition would have gone through given prorogation, with an interim leader or Dion. Now, there is a chance. Iggy can use his media honeymoon to get the benefit of the doubt on a takedown for Harper.
Now if you think he will govern as a progressive, or that Jack Layton will take him down - given how much of Layton's credibility is locked up in this deal - you don't know Jack.
The PR battle over the budget will determine a lot here. If the Coalition parties can convince Canadians the budget is a dud then one way or another the Harper Conservatives will be out of power either by the establishment of a Coalition or an election, dependinh on what form of execution the GG decides upon.
I actually agree for the most part with Parkdale-High Park. I'm actually startingt to think that ther coalition has a BETTER chance of surviving and taking power now than it did last week.
Ignatieff is a permanent Liberal leader and he is getting a honeymoon from the media. He is cleverly saying that he will vote down the budget unless Harper does good things for the economy. That is setting the bar awfully high. Does anyone see Ignatieff pronouncing that Harper has brought in a budget that is "good" for the Canadian economy?? Hardly a good way to make your first splash as opposition leader.
You could be right. Canadians' faith in their electoral democracy and the Liberal Party is at an all time low. A coalition with the NDP and Bloc and being seen and heard to do progressive things for 18-30 months might do wonders for their overall popularity. Every capitalist and politician knows that to reap financial windfall they have to invest time, money, and work beforehand. And the Liberals need to take some risks and begin to appear to address ordinary people's concerns. These particular Liberals may not owe as many political favours as we might expect. I think big money was really counting on the Harpers to come through for them in the crunch.
I generally agree with Parkdale High Park also. I thought that Ignatief was making it incredibly tough for Harper. Asked for details on demands he refused. He reititerated that any budget also needs to include rebuilding of trust, which is something very subjective. Finally, he did throw down one line in the sand, asking Harper to 'walk down the hill'. I don't know how to interpret this, except to say that Harper has to admit error.
If it was simply economic concepts I could see Harper somehow working through the minefield, but I cannot see Harper stepping up and taking the blame.
As for the coalition, Ignatief said that he believed that the coalition deal was final and not open to amendments.
I said in an earlier thread that Ignatieff would present a greater challenge to the NDP than Rae because he would be a more credible opponent for Harper, and I'm more persuaded of that after his assured performance yesterday. Policy is not going to matter very much to the Anybody But Harper voter. Even without Ignatieff making a credible outreach to progressives he is still going to appear awfully attractive after Harper, and with the menace of a Conservative majority now evident to all I expect a shitstorm of hold-your-nose-for-Iggy "strategic voting" the likes of which we've never seen.
If you're right it would seem the NDP's choice to back a coalition with the Libs instead of going up against them in an immediate election is a smart move.
I actually think he WILL vote down the budget and that the coalition's chances of success have never been greater.
1. The media narrative on Iggy is on what a great compromiser he is, relative to Harper. Chantal Hebert, for instance, sounded trumpets that the Liberals have learned to unite as a party... uhhh... no, Bob Rae has got to be pissed - the Liberals didn't unite, they just let the elite run the party moreso. Why is that narrative important? Blame. If the budget gets voted down Ignatieff needs to be able to blame Harper for not compromising.
2. Iggy has indicated that he will "neither agree nor disagree to meet with Harper". That sounds like a disagreement to meeting with Harper. His line "I will vote for the budget if it is good for the economy" is interesting, because it suggests he has no specific terms on the budget. In practice, he will let Harper do whatever he wants on the budget, and try to figure out what the polls say. If they are good, he takes power, if not, he votes for the budget.
3. Under Dion the coalition would not have had the ability to keep its members in line. Wilfert was basically Dion's only caucus supporter - Iggy would never have made Dion PM. Now that Iggy is in charge though, he has a strong incentive to keep his attack dogs in line.
4. The Liberals are broke, and being in power is a great boon for fundraising. Moreover, the opportunity to run a deficit without blame is great payola for any leader. They get to create funds and programs and such all with their names on it.
Before, there is almost no way the coalition would have gone through given prorogation, with an interim leader or Dion. Now, there is a chance. Iggy can use his media honeymoon to get the benefit of the doubt on a takedown for Harper.
All perfectly reasonable points, but it won't happen. Iggy would rather take his chances and face an election with his party short on funds than take power in an alliance with the NDP and the Bloc.
If you're right it would seem the NDP's choice to back a coalition with the Libs instead of going up against them in an immediate election is a smart move.
I think so. Layton's been very smart about playing the hand he's dealt. If Iggy supports Harper's budget, as I think likely, that gives the NDP a good early chance to negatively define his leadership to progressive swing voters.
An election may not be as early as many people think. The Liberals are still hurting for money, and will probably seize the talk-tough-but-accomodate ground, which will appear much more credible under Iggy than it ever did under Dion. And as favourable as the polls must appear to Harper, I think he must realize he'd be punished for forcing another needless election upon the country so soon after the last.
Now Ignatieff's in place, I don't think there'll be an election before 2010.
What is wrong with the LPC. Why is Ignatieff the best they can do? Surely, you can't expect this person to be accepted by Canadians. I am drawing a conclusion that the LPC is becoming a party that nobody cares about. Especially those on the inside. Dion, Ignatieff and Rae provided the weakest list ever seen to contend for the Liberal Leadership. The LPC has no bright lights.
I see an easy ride for Harper.
Iggy would rather take his chances and face an election with his party short on funds ....
This seems to be an article of faith with you.
They aren't just 'short of funds' or hurting for money.
They could borrow really deeply to run one election, like they just did. But they simply cannot do that again in the really near term. Even if they would be willing to bet the fram by borrowing enough for another spending limit election, they won't get the credit.
If the NDP needed to go into another election right now they would also need to borrow most of the money. But they are a reasonable credit risk. The Liberals are borrowing money just to run normal operations- let alone an election. I'm sure there are high rollers who would still guarantee their loans- but then they would be REALLY behind the 8 ball with Elections Canada.
So they aren't going to be able to immediately reload and run a full spending limit campaign. Period. And this is people who are already in serious orginazational dissaray, who then have to decide which 50% of a campaign they can survive without.
Ignatieff appears to be playing up the Liberals as the fiscally responsible party, in an attempt to draw votes away from the Conservatives. I think the fact that he spent so much of the press conference focussing on the fact that the Conservatives were being dishonest about the state of the economy and the deficit is a big part of that. It seems that what Ignatieff really wants is not for Harper to tackle the economic crisis, but for Harper to admit that his party cooked the books and that Canada is actually in pretty bad fiscal shape. It's an interesting tactic, because he's basically challenging Harper to drop his ego. We'll see where it goes, but it wasn't the tactic I was expecting from Ignatieff.
They aren't just 'short of funds' or hurting for money.
They could borrow really deeply to run one election, like they just did. But they simply cannot do that again in the really near term. Even if they would be willing to bet the fram by borrowing enough for another spending limit election, they won't get the credit.
If the NDP needed to go into another election right now they would also need to borrow most of the money. But they are a reasonable credit risk. The Liberals are borrowing money just to run normal operations- let alone an election. I'm sure there are high rollers who would still guarantee their loans- but then they would be REALLY behind the 8 ball with Elections Canada.
So they aren't going to be able to immediately reload and run a full spending limit campaign. Period. And this is people who are already in serious orginazational dissaray, who then have to decide which 50% of a campaign they can survive without.
If that's the case, then Iggy will hold out for the best deal he can get from Harper before folding his cards.
Its like a poker game with a lot of "bluffing" and misleading signals.
I stand by my prediction. After a month of mixed signals and hemming and hawing - Harper will bring in a budget that will NOT be deemed "good for the economy" by Iggy and Iggy will grab the chance to be PM right away as aopposed to taking is chances on winning an election a couple of years down the road and to everyone's surprise the coalition will be reborn.
Of course i could be wrong.
As a number of us have noted- Iggy doesn't have to go into an election. While it isn't certain the GG would recognize a Coalition government, that is considerably more likely than an election.
Some think Iggy would rather fold and let Harper govern anyway. Some of us have pointed out that also has its severe practical risks: more humiliation of continual caving to Harper, and for Iggy no certainty he'll ever have a 'better' [for him] crack at being PM.
On the other hand... there is no guarantee the Coalition will survive [or survive without concessions to partners Iggy refuses to make] until the Liberals are in reasonable financial position to fight an election. And with Harper able to hang the virtually guaranteed economic turmoil on the Liberals.
So I can also see him choosing to fold rather than become PM at the head of the Coalition. For one thing, conditions have changed somewhat. Harper is now universally seen as the bully. And Iggy is not Dion. Plus there were always creative House procedures the Liberals simply did not use under Dion.
So it would be reasonable for Iggy to figure that if Harper tries they same bully and humiliation tactics, he can make Harper wear it.
But at best, that only means Iggy would have a chance to win an election. Versus the certainty that he is PM if he goes with the Coalition. Yes that has lots of traps to a Liberal point of view. But there are ways to deal with those.... so going that way is no more inherently hazardous than the path of coming back from the wilderness to [maybe] win an election.
No decisions have been made, in my estimation. I think the big "what if?" now is "what if Harper quits?" The media should be sticking to that like a cheap suit if they want to continue recycling their lazy melodrama of whether the coalition will survive or not. There are some indications though the latest flavour is an Ignatieff honeymoon destined to be punctuated by soap opera sighs and slights by his Conservative "suitors." What a waste of talent and brain power.
Meanwhile the word on the substance of the coalition (e.g. the policy) does not get out. I watched both Mulcair and Layton (the latter given short shrift on the National last night) trying to talk about the substance/policy accord of the coalition and being shut down by interviewers and commentators fixated on the "will the coalition survive or not?" mullarkey. Time to take the word to the base, can anyone say direct mail fundraiser? The Conservatives are so good at this. They take one 80 word clipping from Reader's Digest and raise $80,000.
You don't think the NDP begs for money enough? Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of finding party pamphlets in my mailbox packaged with yet another entreaty as to why THIS VERY MINUTE is when the party needs my support MORE THAN EVER!!!
I agree that they already beg for a lot of money in that way and it's annoying. In any case, I'm not sure that direct mail is the best way to go about fundraising. I consider most of that stuff junk mail, and frankly it's kind of an expensive and inefficient way to raise money. I mean for gods sake we're in the 21st century, can't they learn how to use the internet? Just look south of the border. Besides, they've barely outraised the Liberals so it's not as if same-old-same-old is the way to go. I guess that's OK if you want to be the 3rd-4th party but if they want to be official opposition, let alone government, they're going to need to at least be half as competitive as King Stephen's crew in the money department.
The Liberal party is lacking in funds. A leadership contest would have generated badly-needed revenue in the form of new memberships.
The Liberals would not be able to afford an election any time soon.
If there is an election in 2009 the Liberals will not be able to keep up with the Conservatives in terms of fundraising.
So I predict that the Liberals will do what they can to delay any elections for as long as possible. They will be hoping that their new leader inspires their donors to kick down some cash for the party.
A second general election in less than a year, and I've read that the last one cost $300 million, would seriously piss off the country. I hope the G-G can read the signs of the times, and seriously consider giving the Coalition a chance if Harpoon's/Flaherty's upcoming budget doesn't pass the confidence vote.
Boom Boom I share you hopes but I can't say I share the value you place on our elections (flawed though they may be). For the better part of the last decade we've spent billons of dollars each year to murder people on the other side of the planet, given that, spending $300 million a year to hold elections is hardly the spending we should be complaining about!
He is lacking in a common touch, as most patricians are, and in a party that needs mending, this will be a problem. Some Liberal MPs find him coldly arrogant. They cite his performance at a caucus meeting last Friday where he warned, perhaps wisely, against being gung-ho on a coalition. "Michael got up and did a rant and it was a disaster," said one participant. "His finger was jabbing at us. He was saying, 'Don't you assume that if we bring down the government that the Governor-General will let us govern.' Well, we weren't assuming that anyway.
"So then he keeps going on and his damn finger keeps jabbing at us and he's well over his time limit. People are shouting, 'Time! Time! Order! Order! Sit down!' But he just kept going. And when he finally left the microphone, no one stood up for him. Not even his supporters clapped."
Oh dear! I wish Mr. Ignatieff a continuation of the same sort of success in future.
I do not understand why the liberal executive searched this guy out and installed him. So here he is fighting against the idea of coalition. Well, Iggie, have you asked her?
I mean, you guys appointed her. ASK THE Lady, If she says, "I am just as against the coalition as you, iggie" you have your answer and you can suck up to harper like you always wanted. and if she says," I am open to coalition government", you can lie, cos she never opens her mouth anyway.
He is lacking in a common touch, as most patricians are, and in a party that needs mending, this will be a problem. Some Liberal MPs find him coldly arrogant. They cite his performance at a caucus meeting last Friday where he warned, perhaps wisely, against being gung-ho on a coalition. "Michael got up and did a rant and it was a disaster," said one participant. "His finger was jabbing at us. He was saying, 'Don't you assume that if we bring down the government that the Governor-General will let us govern.' Well, we weren't assuming that anyway.
"So then he keeps going on and his damn finger keeps jabbing at us and he's well over his time limit. People are shouting, 'Time! Time! Order! Order! Sit down!' But he just kept going. And when he finally left the microphone, no one stood up for him. Not even his supporters clapped."
Oh dear! I wish Mr. Ignatieff a continuation of the same sort of success in future.
You don't think the NDP begs for money enough?
Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of finding party pamphlets in my mailbox packaged with yet another entreaty as to why THIS VERY MINUTE is when the party needs my support MORE THAN EVER!!!
LTJ they somehow called me at my parents house. I cut the guy off half way through and said "is this a money pitch" he stammered some more(BTW the guy they had calling was very bad, like I was his first call or something) and said "hmm yes kinda, no, yes" I replied with "I am layed off and when I get back on my feet I will donate." The guy got pissed at me saying "Come on you can give 15 or 20 dollars!" "Dude I am layed off" I hung up the phone absolutely pissed. For one I haven't lived at my mom and dads in 8 years. I am not, nore have I ever been a registered member of the NDP, I have never even donated money back when I lived at home. I am layed off and he still thinks I can spare some money. Single income and even though I am skilled trades we aren't union so my pay isn't as huge as one would think(No OT and workshare for 3 years). Very unprofessional, and the guy was very rude.
I may still let the NDP know they need to train their people better. Even for myself they never trained me when I went canvassing. I'm still not sure if I am doing it right. They are just usually thrilled to have volunteers. This make them look like chumps, it is as bad as the NDP dial a dollar phone bank they had. We have a huge communications issue.
______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
A tip: I've discovered that the way to end the biweekly (or so) parade of dead trees in your mailbox from the NDP is to not renew your membership, and move three times after that. It takes about four years, though. ;)
P.S. Long thread. :)