Liberals Pushing Iggy Out?

That said about Rae likely not doing anything more than talk to people who come to him- and be VERY careful what he encourages...

His ambitions aren't served by waiting. If Iggy falls now or soon enough, Rae is it by default. But if he waits for Iggy to really do himself in, he has rivals and the always unpredictable dynamic of a wide open leadership race.

I presume that if Iggy resigns they do have to give some minimum time for a contest. But the sooner it is, the more likely it would be another de facto coronation. They do have the minority government situation to rationalize haste. It would be hasty to start talking as if Iggy IS going, but how it can happen is part of whether or not people give him the push.

Interesting follow up article by Glen Pearson - http://glenpearson.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/wounded-in-the-house-of-friends/

Sorry, I forget how to post a link properly.

Jonas, you got to that one faster than me!

Goodness, TWO articles by Glen Pearson on the same subject -  http://glenpearson.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/life-under-a-slide/

Methinks the lady doth protest too much......

I have to say, that from what I've heard about him, I trust Pearson's credibility a lot more than that of an axe grinder.

[And I was pasing surprised to see Pearson's name in Perischelli' column.]

But it doesn't really matter how reel this movie is- the Liberals just can't stop from haunting themselves.

It may be that Persichilli is trying to stir the pot and make his column into a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the fact of the matter is that barring Iggy having a sudden massive stroke - he WILL lead the Liberals into the next election. There is no mechanism in the Liberal party to depose a leader other than a leadership review - which can only happen AFTER an election.  This is not Australia where a party leader by be dumped at any time by a simple majority vote by the caucus (as happened this week to the leader of the Liberal party in Australia).

Liberals have made their bed with Iggy, now they have to lie in it!

Yeah Stock, the self fullfilling prophecy can easily work. If it goes from Persichilli's column to even a trickle of Liberal MPs saying similar things elsewhere- it will get untenable for Iggy.

For all his probably wishful thinking, Persichilli is right about one thing. If it happens, the final act will be Iggy packing it in, not being literally forced out.  

If Ignatieff was pushed out and Rae become leader of the Liberal party, the Conservative "anger machine" would make minced meat out of him.  And, because he used to be a New Democrat, the NDP would suffer significant collateral damage.  Sure, Rae is a scrapper and he'd be much better at defending himself than Ignatieff but, once the "socialist" label gets thrown around, the Cons would be getting two birds with one stone, as it were.  I suspect the Cons are hoping more than the Liberals that Rae becomes their leader.

that was all very interesting reading.....

and am tending towards Jonas' perceptions on this about protesting too much, with the last piece linked. Mainly because of the following comeants by Pearson:

*bolding mine

The first comment, despite denials, gives credence to  Persichilli's slant on it, as the use of "it" is refering to the statements in the Star article about Iggy being gone by month's end.  This is furthered shored up  by  the use of "it" again in the last bold supposed to be being 'private'.

It cannot be both "private" and non-factual.

That Rae is out of the country when all this is happening is very strange too...I think...though I may be out in "left" field, is that the Liberal brass,  via Persichilli, has given notice to those whom they want out.....or silenced.

Perhaps Pearson is even being punished for his failure to publically disclose info he had against the Cons....as maybe the Liberals are looking to place specific blame upon their own, for the current mess they are in, look at the line up that were fingered by Persichilli...

If Iggy ends up leaving the Liberals will have to be very careful how they replace him. Coronations are becoming all too common in the Liberal Party and if there are any grassroots left, I would hope they would speak up in favour of a democratic process this time around (novel idea eh?!) 

And, lest we forget, Dief.

Check this out as well:

"Oh, Liberals. If you're going to plot against your leader ...or even simply assemble in numbers greater than one to talk caucus politics in a frank and candid way, wouldn't it make more sense to do so within the cosier confines of ... well, pretty much anywhere in Ottawa other than the bar of the Chateau, post-political event, surrounded by various off the clock, but still observant Hill revelers of various partisan and professional persuasions? Because -- wow, if that's the case, your party really has lost that diabolical cunning for which it still gets grudging credit from the rest of the Canadian politicoverse. "

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12/oh-liberals-if-youre-g...

Also, bear in mind what Paul Wells said about how in Canadian politics the most likely outcome is always the one that is the least interesting.

So here it comes.

A palace coup?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/a-palace-coup/article1390489/

It does confirm, though, that the Conservatives will happily do whatever they can to get Iggy out of there.

It confirms that the Tories will happily stir the pot of Liberal dissension. i don't think they actually wnat Ignatieff to leave since they know that he's a flop and they wouldn't mind running against him. If he leaves things become less predictable.

In the Liberal and Conservative world, there's only one thing worse than an unethical journalist:  an ethical journalist.

The Pearson doth protest too much, methinks.

Actually, Angelo Persichilli is not the brightest bulb, and he has written quite a few silly columns this year.  He's not even that influential in the Italian community, of which I am a member.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the subject of Mr. P.

This is where, I think, the Conservatives can't help outsmarting themselves.  By being relentless in their attacks on Liberal leaders, they stand a very good chance of selecting a competant leader for the Liberals, sort of like how Lions select for the fastest gazelles. 

Maybe I miss the game entirely, and the Conservative plan has been to do their best to winnow away all the others until Rae is leader, and that's who they feel most confident running against in an election.   But, really, I'd rather have campaigned against Dion than anyhone else, and thier relentless attack adds against Dion only served to put in place a better leader-- not that Iggy is a good leader, but if I was a Liberal (which, because I don't own a business that is competing for a government contract, I'm not) I'd feel better about my chances under Iggy than Dion, and Conservatives must feel similarly, if for opposite reasons.

Mostly though, I think they've just read and are following the Carl Rove playbook without much thinking beyond it:   Attack the leader before he has a chance to define himself in his own way.

The knee slapper in all this, is that harmonizing these regressive flat taxes is very much a Harper idea that he knows can be unpopular, and he's managed to make it all look like a Liberal idea, and for them to take the fall.

Exactly, and to add to the confusiuon is how BC liberals are for the most part con supporters and not liberals. But people will put 2 plus 2 together and add up to 5 anyway. I understand how we in ontario are upset at Dalton(no public consulttation is pretty arrogant) but no one is looking at how our money federally is being used to bribe the provinces to bring in a business tax cut at our expense. Tax me once(bribe) tax me twice(harper sales tax) = business tax cut. They aren't even bothering with the usual lie of growing a pie or whatever, just a big tax cut for business(100 million in admin cost is nothing compared to the billions that will be lopped off of profit taxes)

Jean Chretien had an innovative way of dealing with potential cabinet leaks -- he told his  cabinet  that he would fire ministers one by one, indiscriminately, until the guilty party came forward. I don't remember too many leaks from his cabinet. 

Reminds me of a great scene from the movie "The Hill"  where veteran character actor Harry Andrews, as the Regimental Sergeant Major stares down a riot by promising to punish the ringleaders.   When someone from the back yells " 'oose tha ringleaders then?"   Andrews screams "EVERY TENTH MAN" The riot quelled, the prisoners return to order by singing "kiss me goodnight, sergeant major".

Iggy, however, doesn't have that ability.  What can he threaten them with?

Politics is a function of prepositions.  Iggy doesn't have much in the doing something for anyone, or to anyone bag.

Kinsella and the Toronto frat boys are clearly unhappy with the longer commute to Hy's Steakhouse.

Liberal MPs plot early retirement for Ignatieff

Okay, let's recap. At the table were Bob Rae, Glen Pearson, Carolyn Bennett, and Ruby Dhalla. Pearson and Bennett have issued denials posted here. Bob Rae's blog has nothing, but his Facebook page does. He confirms that four people, apparently the four named, did have a conversation, but says Persichilli's account is "fictional" -- not exactly a denial -- and says "I have done everything I can to be an effective member of the Liberal team, and I shall continue to do so." (Persichilli, of course, never said otherwise.) Pearson says "I have never, not once, been asked to any meeting with anyone about moving Ignatieff on" which nicely sidesteps whether the conversation happened.

And Ruby Dhalla wisely says nothing at all. Except perhaps to Persichilli?

Ironically, Dhalla was Iggy's leadership co-chair.  She's just carrying a resentment now, because they didn't back her up during the nanny allegations.  She's also the one rumour has it was trying to cross the floor to the Conservatives.  I think she sees the writing on the wall in her riding.

I can't read Rae's post as I'm not on Facebook, but Pearson's response is a classic non-denial denial - the only substantive point he clearly rejects from the Persichilli article (beyond the trivial process issue of whether Rae called the meeting or whether it happened spontaneously) is the claim that the "gang of 4" were calling for Goodale to be removed as House leader, which is really a side issue to the main point of the article.  Pearson confirms they were talking about enhancing Rae's role in the House, discussing Iggy's low standing in the polls, going to make recommendations to Donolo for changes, etc. 

Rae's "I have done everything I can to be an effective member of the Liberal team..." line is eerily similar to what Iggy was saying when Dion's leadership was floundering "I'm here to help Stéphane in any way I can.." and we know how that ended.  Rae is particularly egregious in this case in not making a clear statement of support for Ignatieff in response to the article, which would have put the whole issue to rest much more firmly.  It fits with the Angelo P piece which basically claims Rae was trashing Iggy's performance but adding he doesn't want a coup d'état and his loyalty is to the LPC first and foremost. 

This is the basic Rae message: "I'm a party loyalist and I'm ready to serve if called upon. I won't trash the leader publicly but I won't defend him and I will support those who want change." Rae's hope is that Iggy will implode and leave without Rae's fingerprints and then Rae can be quickly coronated.   More fun times ahead for us Dippers - love to watch the Grits self-destruct yet again!

The fact of the matter is that people talk. You get four Liberal MPs in a bar chatting about the political scene and its inevitable that some will say some of the things that Persichilli mentions in his article. In this case some one must have eaves dropped and heard what was said and embellished it into a full blown insurrection. In reality, i think it was 4 depressed, drunk Liberal MPs drowning out their sorrows at the bar at the Chateau Laurier.

There really isn't anything in the account of the conversation that you wouldn't just call 'deep grumbling'. And if you read the words of the various denials- they aren't actually contradicting those kind of portrayals.

Most likely the portrayal of it as a budding coup is just a dramatized expression of Perischelli's wishes.

Ironically, if anything I would think this has the opposite effect of what Perischelli is trying to egg on. Conversations like that are the precursor of more orchestrated talk against the Leader- which could ultimately be fatal for Iggy. But any MP who may have been ready to agitate more, is going to keep quite after what looks like a premature attempt by Perischelli to get the pot stirred.

But who knows? Maybe the pot really was already rumbling, and will soon go back to that.

[Next, a little helpful push from the PMO?]

At a minimum: in and around the good ship Liberal, cool heads are not prevailing.

I saw an article in today's Globe & Mail which reports on Liberal Senator Raymond lavigne's trial for misappropriating Senate funds.

Any idea how Iggy stands on this Chretien appointee?  Will this be another nail in the Liberal Party coffin if he is convicted?

I haven't seen any reporting on that David.  The media up here seems more than willing to give politicians a pass on the Senate.  Probably because they're all secretly hoping for an appointment like Jim Munson, Pamela Wallin, and Mike Duffy themselves.

You may not have seen this post of the Jurist's at Accidental Deliberations earlier today on Mia Rabson's blogpost about the NDP's "Senator of the Week" Friday releases.  As rightly pointed out by Peter Stoffer last month out, there is precious little basis for comparing MPs' expenses with Senators' expenses.  The former are accountable for them to their electors; the latter are not.

From the Department of Ringing Endorsements:

Michael Iggnatieff: not great, but better then the devil we know.

Several hundred words of "yeah, he really does suck, and in all these differnt ways."

Couple sentences to close: 'but he'll be staying where he is.'

The Stranger Within: the cover story on Ignatieff in the Walrus is online here.

IMO, Persichilli shines about as bright as a tulip bulb. Which is why I've always been dismayed by the fact he seems to have some influence in the Liberal party.

Right, it was another wonderful week for the Liberals.

As opposed to be focusing on torture, oops can't go there, focusing on climate change oops can't go there either, oh well focusing on the HST, oops what am I thinking. Maybe it actually was a good thing the Liberals dealt with their internal party problems once again. 

Is it just me,or does it seem that the Liberal Party is going to have to be completely decimated and rebuilt before they could ever think about forming a government ever again?