Coalition: Iggy going around it

Thank you all for the very thoughtful discussion.  Much of it is pure speculation, of course, given that we're bystanders in a chess game, and Iggy is a super-chameleon and it's pointless to try to pin down his ideology because --as most of you seem to agree-- he's mainly about getting power (almost impossible to tell right now whether it's mainly for the "good of Canada", for the Liberal Party, or for himself).  This discussion is extremely useful for clarifying polemical lines and in the ways in which different contributors are  providing and organizing facts.   Looking forward to reviewing and mulling it over tonight.

The pundits on Newman's show tonight were suggesting a) that the economy is going to get much, much worse, and that it would be better from the Coalition viewpoint to let the Conservatives wear this and pay the price eventually in an election much later; and, b) that IF the G-G actually calls on Iggy IF the budget is defeated, that he really hasn't much choice - but no one should be pushing the Coalition because of the dreadful economy that lies ahead of us all.

The problem I have with those comments is that by allowing the Conservatives to "wear" the economic disaster, the Coalition will be deprived of actually being able to do something constructive to turn the situation around.

IF FDR had had that attitude, he would have lost the 1932 US election on purpose to let Hoover "wear the Depression". Or maybe Obama should have lost the US election on purpose to let McCain get blamed for the recession!

And it is that attitude that disgusts me too. There are real people in Canadian communities that are going to be hurt by conservative policies that are business friendly and not people friendly. 

I will say it again, only those with safe jobs can look at this as a political chess game. Myself, I see real people, children hurt by an economic situation where the govt says tough love. I lived and worked under the Harris regime, and the damage done, particularly done to poor families left many children who are now in their teens - damaged. 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Iggy supported Thatcher, according to the National Post:

And I'm sure if you went back through what he wrote or broadcast in the 1980s or later, you could find him supporting cut-backs to the welfare state.  He's probably even on the record as being in favour of some kind of two-tier medicare.

Granted, most of the elite in this country probably think the same way, but they are careful not to say so on the record.  The only question is, would voters really care what he said 20 years ago?

Voters didn't care about what Harper said 10 years ago when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition - so why should anyone care about what Ignatieff said 20 years ago?

We can speculate on Iggy's intentions till the cows come home.

Unless he wants to go to an election...which he very well could lose, he's going to have to work with his coalition partners.

One of the things that I think was a bad move during the Liberal/NDP "Accord" days of 1985-87, was that the only demands the NDP made on the Liberals were those that they held in common in their election platforms.

When Peterson "pulled the plug" and called the election, he ended up with a majority government...and progressive initiatives went out the window.

What the NDP should have done was made "additional" demands on the Liberals ...progressive demands that were in the NDP platform but not in the Liberal platform...Peterson may never have gotten that majority in 1987.

Within the "coalition" the NDP/Bloc should be leaning heavily on the Liberals on things like EI reform.   It was the Liberals who made the mess in the first place...Harper is simply carrying on with previous Liberal policy.

As part of the "coalition deal" the two week waiting period for EI recipients will be removed.   That small change is welcome.  It'll help the "newly unemployed".

But daily, I'm seeing folks who have already exhausted their EI benefits...and are heading onto social assistance.  By this time next year, we're going to be seeing hundreds of thousands of "EI exhaustees".

So there is a real need to see EI benefits extended in some way, shape or form.   Money has to be put into worker's pockets so that they can make it through the tough times ahead.

The labour and social movements should be hammering the government on this issue no matter who's in charge.

Exactly 

In the irregular party strategists' column that is back at the Globe, Scott Reid is characteristically pumped about the Liberals shot in the arm.

But he also says this: 

The objective for Mr. Layton is not to sell the idea of the coalition. It is to sell the idea of defeating Mr. Harper — that's the more fertile ground.

In addition, pursue two specific tactics. First, begin to define publicly what sort of mea culpa you believe is needed from the Prime Minister. If you can shape that part of the equation, it may box the Liberals into demanding the same, which Mr. Harper is likely incapable of providing.

This is pretty much what I had in mind.

How Ignatieff changes the game

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.WStrategists12/BNStory/politics/home

Will Iggy turn down the chance to be PM without going through the tedious process of an election?

Sorry, dumb question that should have been a statement. 

And the NDP will be supporting him.

The key difference between then and now is that (a) the public was excited by the idea of a coalition, and (b) they had a legsilative agenda that meant something.

The only people who care about what Harper wrote 10 years ago are people who would never vote Conservative in the first place. Otherwise the hysterical Liberal fear-based campaigns against Harper were a total failure.

The best way to attack Ignatieff is to focus on his actions as Liberal leader and in parliament. If he caves in and props up Harper as the economy meltsdown - that will give the NDP tions of fodder to use. Let's not waste our time with opinion pieces Iggy wrote in the Guardian on foreign policy issues many years ago. The vast majority of of Canadians simply DO NOT CARE!  

So, your theory is that:

a) The only people who cared that Stephen Harper supported the illegal invasion of Iraq are people who weren't going to vote for Harper anyway (ie. Liberals and New Democrats)

b) Therefore, New Democrats shouldn't talk about it, even though the people who care (as you noted) were people who switch between Liberal and New Democrat

c) We should instead focus on Ignatieff's inability to commit to the mind-numbingly unpopular coalition idea.

Good plan.

If Canadians cared that Harper supported the invasion of Iraq - he wouldn't be PM in the first place!!

We are in a totally different place now. This isn't 2003, it is about to be 2009. Obama is about to be President and the Iraq War is about to be wound down. Its a non-issue for the vast majority of Canadians. I think its a waste of time to try to keep touching the "blarney stone" of Bush and Iraq when these are OLD ISSUES now. Only a very tiny minority of Canadians get excited about foreign policy issues - especially issues that are six years out of date.

In Europe, where opposition to the war in Iraq is even more intense than it is here - look at how many parties that actually sent their troops into that war - still got re-elected?? In Italy, 85% of the population was opposed to the war in Iraq - they responded by voting for Berlusconi the war-monger. Pro-war government also won in Denmark and the Netherlands. If the Dutch won't defeat a government that actually put them into war - why would Canadians care about what Ignatieff said about the war many years ago - given that we never fought in the war in the first place?

You should spend less time talking to a few foreign policy wonks who go to protest marches in Montreal and spend more time talking to people in economically depressed one industry towns who are losing their homes.

Yeah, and Barack Obama spoke positively of Ronald Reagan.  Didn't stop him.

Straw person. Who said anything about focusing on Iggy spurning the Coalition?

The NDP will spend the run-up to January 27 raising expectations on what is expected of Harper. [Way too early for that now.] While the Liberals are doing what they have set the stage for: soothing everyone that they are back in the saddle, consulting all around to big wigs, and We [Will] Have A Plan. Gestures and posturing.

When [if] Iggy votes with Harper. He gets tagged with what Harper is not doing. In that narrative the Coaltion that wasn't is just a small part of the story- that Iggy had other options. There is more to raising questions about what kind of leader passed on being Prime Minister so he could play a supporting role to Harper, than there is in raising what the Coalition could have been/done. 

Please read the thread KenS. Stockholm said it and I was responding to him.

Of the three options (allowing Harper's Budget to pass, forming a coalition government, going to an election) I think the Coalition will be the least appetizing to Ignatieff. It's possible that the coalition could govern well and overcome the huge antipathy currently stacked against it, but I doubt Iggy will take the odds.

If he opts for an election, he will destroy the NDP - given that the NDP will have spent the preceding eight weeks telling Canadians he should be Prime Minister.

If he dodges the vote he might scramble to explain himself but I'm not sure how the NDP will score points arguing that the coalition no one wanted (including the man who was supposed to lead it) would have been better. I don't think Igntaieff will have to struggle hard to explain that he opposes Harper, didn't want an election, and didn't want a coalition with the Bloc.

Looking at these options I'm realizing Iggy may go for an election.

George Ignatieff was Provost (not Chancellor) of Trinity College.  He was subsequently Chancellor of the University of Toronto.

In those days, the Chancellor of Trinity College was always a retired Anglican Bishop (the former Robert Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador at that point, IIRC).

If the Liberals bail on the coalition (as I am convinced they will), the course for the NDP is as follows.

- Point to the evidence that the Liberals really do support the Harper agenda.

- Indicate that the NDP would be prepared to support a Conservative initiative to phase out public funding of political parties over a (say) two year period - accompanied by a reduction of the maximum donation provisions.  (Besides the Cons, the NDP is the only party with a snowball's chance of surviving that.)

Why not just a Con-NDP coalition, Malcolm? Why pussyfoot around?

========================== Join M. Spector's tagline Satyagraha!

Malcolm: 

- Indicate that the NDP would be prepared to support a Conservative initiative to phase out public funding of political parties over a (say) two year period - accompanied by a reduction of the maximum donation provisions.  (Besides the Cons, the NDP is the only party with a snowball's chance of surviving that.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then we'll bring all our media friends to spread the word as to the nuances involved while "point(ing) to the evidence" , on some national blackboard, and wait for enlightenment to strike the great unread.

Love your droll sense of humour.

My bad. I think the Chancellor was John Bothwell at that time (1977 - 1980), another retired bishop. I met George Ignatieff many times while I was  at Trinity.

Straw person. Who said anything about focusing on Iggy spurning the Coalition?

The NDP will spend the run-up to January 27 raising expectations on what is expected of Harper. [Way too early for that now.] While the Liberals are doing what they have set the stage for: soothing everyone that they are back in the saddle, consulting all around to big wigs, and We [Will] Have A Plan. Gestures and posturing.

When [if] Iggy votes with Harper. He gets tagged with what Harper is not doing.... Etcetera.

To which Sunday Hat replied: "Please read the thread KenS. Stockholm said it and I was responding to him."

I did read the thread, and I know you were responding to Stockholm. Here's what he said rather than your straw person: "The best way to attack Ignatieff is to focus on his actions as Liberal leader and in parliament. If he caves in and props up Harper as the economy meltsdown - that will give the NDP tions of fodder to use." 

New straw person [with the old one repeated]. Who said the NDP is going to spend the next 8 weeks telling people Iggy should be Prime Minister? Several people- including a Liberal- said the obvious: given the Iggy game plan the NDP will presumably spend its time raising the bar on what is expected of Harper to make it harder for the Liberals to vote for the Throne Speech and declare victory.

I think the new "straw person" is to call someone's argument a "straw person". Congrats. We've hit a low.

I take it as self-evident that if we follow Stockholm's logic and ignore Ignatieff's positions on everything he's ever taken a position on prior to December 12, 2008 we'll only be talking about "the Coalition". If there's something other than that you have not filled me in on what exactly what that is. Please explain what the NDP message on Ignatieff will be beyond "He'll make a great Prime Minister" and/or "He betrayed the Coalition idea. He's in bed with Harper."

I think there's something about the Coalition idea that's eluded some of the champions. If the NDP is arguing that Harper should be replaced by a coalition government headed by the Liberal leader the NDP is arguing that Michael Ignatieff should be Prime Minister. In today's newspapers the NDP are still insisting the coalition is a go.

So, maybe you can explain this to me: how can the NDP head into this new session, claim that they plan to knock off the government and install a coalition with the Liberal party at it's head, and NOT be telling people Iggy should be PM? Whether you like it or not, that's what the NDP is saying.

Way back in the NDP's post-1993 nadir, didn't Nelson Riis propose a strategic alliance with Reform?

 Paul Wells put Harper in a context that leads to why the coalition is the right choice to make ~ Parliament in chaos-just how Harper likes it

And right away, the opposition will face an oddly familiar choice among three options, the third a little fresher than the others:

(a) vote against the government and force an election;

(b) humiliating climbdown, followed (in this instance) by a bad case of Spiky Bed Back;

(c) coalition government.

 Sounds familar and more things seem to change, the more they stay the same!

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

There's a problem with what you take as self-evident. There isn't any NDP message that you ascribe here in the first place. And as to what there is- it's been said several times by a few people: the focus should be on raising expectations of what should be in the Throne Speech. Its the right thing to do, its the kind of thing people want to hear, and it strategically sets the stage best for any of the possibilities that follow from the Throne Speech.

One thing no one has raised yet is.... what if Harper comes up with a stimulus package that satisfies two thirds of Canadians?

I don't know if I'd hazard a guess how likely that is. But I wouldn't call it unlikely.

Now there is something that would leave the NDP out on a limb. I think thats in the category of bridge to be crossed when/if you come to it.

But that possibility is one of the reasons for working to articulate and raise public expectations of a stimulus package.

Making a comparison between the US and Canadian systems in this case has very little validity.

____________________________________________________________ http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.h...

I think the idea of "leave it to harper" is totally cowardly to start with. It has nothing to do with making comparisons between the 2 systems.  Left wing voters voted for left wing candidates to get as much of their policy implimented as possible.  Running away from the job is not an option if you expect people to continue voting for you.

The NDP's position is that it doesn't matter what's in the Budget - the "coalition" will defeat the government regardless. So the idea that they are tactically trying to raise expectations of what's in the Throne Speech makes no sense. Ignatieff may be but Layton's made it clear he doesn't care.

But regardless, I'll play along. What exactly should Harper's Throne Speech contain? What would be the "deal-maker" that would make it easy to launch a coalition? What would be the "deal-breaker"?

Can anyone explain how the auto-sector stimulus plan announced today is different from the auto-sector stimulus plan that the "Coalition" would launch? Can anyone explain how the coalition's corporate tax cuts will be different from the ones Harper will announce? What is the Coalition willing to do that Harper won't? Specifically?

The NDP hasn't said anything other than holding pattern statements for days. Which is a long time right now.

Conditions will change and so will what the NDP says. In fact, the little that has been said at least implicitly takes account of the Liberal shift: "we'll see".

And Iggy is not raising expectations. Its back to the same old Liberal line [before Dion]: we'll take care of things, getting a plan, be reasonable. Etc. Plus some tough generic talk.

What should Harper's Throne Speech contain? I don't know. I don't just work that kind of thing off the top of my head. I'd have to be part of some fairly extensive discussion process to have even a good general idea.

It isn't rocket science either. Just not something as self-evident as it seems to some what it 'must be' about.

"Of the three options (allowing Harper's Budget to pass, forming a coalition government, going to an election) I think the Coalition will be the least appetizing to Ignatieff. It's possible that the coalition could govern well and overcome the huge antipathy currently stacked against it, but I doubt Iggy will take the odds."

ummm....NO! By far the worst case scenario for the Liberals would be a snap election in February. The party is totally broke and cannot even afford a plane or to run any ads and their organization is as atrophied as ever. Its also way too soon for Ignatieff to be remotely prepared to campaign. It would just lead to a Conservative majority government and Iggy either being an impotent opposition leader for the next four years OR Iggy being dumped as Liberal leader in May for having lost the election.

I think that a far better scenario for the Liberals would be to form a coalition and for Ignatieff to be sworn in as PM of Canada on Feb. 28th.

 You could conceivably argue that the Liberals MIGHT be better off letting the Harper minority survive another six months or a year before forcing an election at the right time - but if Liberals have to choose between certain defeat in a snap February election OR taking power in a coalition - they will opt for the latter hands down. 

Yes-yes! The shortest path between the Igg man and reigns of power is by koalition of kommunists and Kuebeckers. In the prairie provinces and Calgary Herald news, that's abbreviated to just KKK. Much easier and faster than rebuilding the party from scratch and waiting for an R.B. Bennett do-over five years later. koup-koup katchoo?

Should the Cons present a budget acceptable to the Liberals, NDP, and most of the Canadian public, it would be politically suicidal to bring the Cons down and attempt to replace it with the coalition. 

We are not at the end of a fixed four year term here, there is some fluidity in the possibilities.

____________________________________________________________

http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.h...

Ugh, talked to my dad on the phone last night and he said Ignatieff seemed like a "good man."  He hasn´t had any time for Liberals since the early days of Trudeau.  Obviously my father doesn´t have great politics but he is non-partisan and fairly typical in his general apathy for recent Canadian politicians, in the past voted for Clark, Broadbent, and in recent years for the Green party. 

I think Iggy is going to benefit a lot from the fact all of the parties are going to give him an extended honeymoon awaiting his final position on the coalition.  We´ll see what happens after that, I think if he supports Harper, it will get more difficult for him to look sympathetic but right now the Liberals are sitting pretty for the first time in a while.

"I think Iggy is going to benefit a lot from the fact all of the parties are going to give him an extended honeymoon awaiting his final position on the coalition."

I hope he enjoys this "honeymoon" which will last exactly five weeks from today - and much of which will be over the holidays when no one will be paying attention. The honeymoon will come to a quick end in late January one way or another and it won't be long before Ignatieff's failings become obvious.

When we eventually have an election a year or so from now and Count Ignatieff is doing his Thurston Howell III imitation from coast to coast and trying to explain why he decided to let Harper rule for another year - no one will remember that he had a month long honeymoon back in Dec of 2008.

I think annologies to FDR or Obama are out of place, because Hoover was already wearing the millstone of the Depression around his neck, (along with Bennet, here)  and so was George W. Bush and the Republicans for Obama.

The coalition suffers from a case of pre mature ejaculation, in that economic misery has not been closely associated-- yet-- with the Harper administration.    If they would have been able to wait another few months, it may have worked.

I would think Iggy and the Liberals best play is to go with the coalition, at this point though.   It allows the technically Canadian Iggy Thumbscrews certain advantages that they will not have otherwise.    He will be in a position as P.M. to blame as much of the still intensifying economic storm on the inaction of the Harper government.   He can work against the NDP by using his staff and the buerocracy to embarass NDP ministers.   He gets two years of fundraising as Prime Minister.   And, he also gets to call an election at his time of choosing, and not Harper's.

 For these reasons I think Iggy will do what he can to use the coalition.  But, clever little lad that he is, he wants to be seen to be given no choice in the matter.

Exactly Tommy. This is my theory as well - though everyone I say this too thinks its crazy.

The coverage Iggy is getting reminds me alot of what Paul Martin received when he first ascended to the Liberal leadership.

The pundits felt, finally, someone like us (class, education etc.)  We can give up the burden of trying to understand the politicians Canadians give to us.  So the congenial puff pieces.  It's even easier with Iggy of course, because he spent so long where the master lives.

Once the real politics starts, however, and Iggy has to actually lead, we should have a return to (Canadian) reality.  Will Iggy end up like Paul Martin?  Remains to be seen. 

"Exactly Tommy. This is my theory as well - though everyone I say this too thinks its crazy."

The other play, to garner peace with the Conservatives through budget input seems to have fewer advantages.  Iggy gets identified with the comming economic shit storm, and preserving Harper.  An emboldened Harper, instead of doing a dramatic "end the subsidy" death for the Liberals can turn to more of a death of a thousand cuts strategy.  And Harper gets to pick the timing, and to a large extent, the issue in the next election.     Meanwhile,  the NDP will be able to campaign on "We told you so-- if it wasn't for the usual Liberal perfidity, we could have ameliorated the effects of the economic shit storm." ..... or words to that effect.

Nope, it matters nothing what the conservatives present. Harper is way too dangerous to be allowed to survive politically. The MINIMUM condition for conservative survival is harper booted out by the cons themselves.  The greens are in coalition in ireland right now and they told their bigger partners, we cannot continue with bertie.And Bertie was just corrupt and getting under the counter money. He never tried to destroy the other political partys like harper has done.

Harper has to go because he attacked democracy itself. 

I'm with T-P and Stock on this.  I can't see Ignat turning down a chance to be PM.  Like *symbols* says- he's simply taking what's his by right of superior breeding and intellect.   

Is it just me or does Ignat remind anyone of John Kerry?  He also reminds me of every pompous piece of shit Prof I ever had the pleasure of dealing with at university.  That shit eating smug little look on his face sums up the man who'll be our next PM.  The kind of person who'll shake your hand then wipe his hand on a hanky when he thinks you're not looking.

I'm certain it's being, or been, dicussed elsewhere....  But what if the Cons pound through an absolutely huge spending budget, as they're almost obliged to do at this point.  The Iggylibs will likely still push for a coaltion, right?  What does the NDP do at that point?  What if Harper dumps a pot of gold in the Bloc's lap?

Doesn't mean the Liberals will see it this way.  No one in Ottawa seems to have a handle on what the public is thinking right now, and on the other hand, they are undoubtedly privy to information we are not, which makes our summations suspect.

And the technically Canadian Iggy Thumbscrews isn't much to look for or at as a leader.

But, maybe it will sustain you as it sustains me, my observation that Canada is a great place to live in spite of our leadership, not because of it. 

Just want to add, If Count Chocula goes with the Con budget and legitimizes it....wait 3 months for Harpo to come back with the elimination of the subsidy..... it will be a politically popular move (as most people don't seem to make the connection that it actually is good for democracy) and thus bankrupting the Liberals....(and So-called Greens and the Bloc) then it goes to election. Team Orange can take the financial hit if it has to (and as mentioned above, would probably try to ammend it with a cap on donations.). Iggy must know this. To those naysaying dippers about Coalition... I suggets you actually read what's in there, firstly, and secondly INDUSTRY MINISTER LAYTON. And probably (guessing here) Heath Care, Indian Affairs, Culture, and two more.

The NDP will ensure a progresive budget, child care, EI reform ect, and stop the Iggy Liberals from going hard right, at least for the time they are in government. It is the right thing to do politically AND morally (quite frankly the NDP has and obligation to do whatever it can to help people now, when they need it. Yes some compromise exists, but guess what, in a minority government situation, you dont have much choice if you are going to get anything done.). There is a good reason things like Afganistan were left out of the document.... The NDP does not agree with the Liberals, and will not be afraid to say so. Finally, ignore the polls, they will change, IMHO.

I don't think that's quite a fair representation of Malcolm's point. It's one policy - and not one which compromises on economic or environmental priorities. Not saying i agree with it, but I do think this is a rather hyperbolic reaction.

I despise your dishonesty.

Apparently you and Unionist cannot grasp the subtle distinction of suporting ONE piece of legislation and forming a coalition government.

Or possibly you're just liars.

Layton follows Iggy into "maybe" land.

 It would have been nice if he'd lead the way here instead of following Ignatieff.

The number one rule for the NDP is to always, always, always, always come across as the most implacably uncompromisingly anti-Harper party. There is nothing to be gained by giving the impression that we are indifferent to getting rid of the Tories. Let the Liberals be wishy-washy apologists for Harper - the NDP has to stake out territory as the party that is diametrically opposed to EVERYTHING that the Harper gov't represents. Our supporters expect nothing less.

Its fine for Layton to say that we will keep an open mind just in case if Harper decides to bring in an NDP-style budget. But realistically, we know that there is ZERO chance of that actually happening. He might throw a few crumsb that will satisfy the Liberals, but he will NEVER satisfy the NDP!!

If the NDP "took the lead" is wanting to prop up Harper (in which case the Liberals would feel free to vote against the budget) - we would lose every single sat we have in the next election. NDP voters are the biggest Harper-haters in the country. We have to be loyal to the beliefs and values of the people who voteus and those people vote for us because they want to send out the strongest possible message WE HATE HARPER and WE WANT HIM OUT OF OFFICE BY ANY LEGAL MEANS.

A friend of mine says the left should abandon the NDP if they still want a coalition with Ignatieff. 

Right, and join the liberal party right and than vote liberal. Not sure where you are coming from LP. Perhaps you could say what you mean and mean what you say.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Sure, Coyote - it would be a hyperbolic reaction if Malcolm had never posted here before. For years he has been comparing Liberals to "Nazis", soft-pedalling the dangers of Harperite conservatism, and calling on the NDP to eliminate (and replace) the Liberals. Now he suggests a specific alliance on "one policy" which will, he thinks, accomplish that.

I wasn't reacting to Malcolm's post. I was reacting to Malcolm. And when anyone hits the nail on the head, he goes overboard - as you can readily see.

I am now more convinced than at any time since prorogation that the coalition is a go.  Both Iggy and Jack are sync-ing up thier talking points - we will wait to see if Harper's budget is enough (news flash - it won't be) and if Harper shows that he is willing to work with Parliament (news flash - he won't be).

You can not be opposed to something you haven't seen yet, that would be partisan posturing - and it is supposed to be Harper that can't compromise.

The real test will come in the 2nd week of January when it dawns on the Conservatives that even with all the platitudes and dithering, Iggy has not ruled out the coalition.  Then the gloves will come off again - confirming everyones' suspicion that the Harper Conservatives are divisive partisans.  I actually like how this game board is shaping up.

"That will be the Ignatieff message box in the next campaign."

If Ignatieff decides to support the Harper budget and prop up his government indefinitely - the Liberals will lose any ability to pose as the party that is opposed to Harper. In fact the NDP could have a field day in the next election campaigning against the defacto Liberal/Conservative "grand coalotion" that is running the country into the ground. If that happened Iggy would be stuck to Harper like Krazy Glue.

I say to Ignatieff - go ahead and make my day and prop up Harper - then watch the stampede of Liberals who thought they were voting to get rid of Harper in the last election shift on en masse to the NDP. 

I see.

"Taking on" Harper has taken the NDP from 18 to 12 per cent so, surely, doing more of the same is the path to government.

I would like to draw the moderators' attention to the fact that Unionist has freely admitted that his post was an unprovoked personal attack.

Pretty much par for the course from Unionist.

Malcolm posted those 3 minutes earlier over here.

I'd better stop dating him. I'm getting to know him way too well.

My "attack", Malcolm, was not on your personality - it is on your questionable politics of allying with Conservatives to eliminate the Liberals. You've been peddling that for years, and I have the right to challenge it.

George:

Love your droll sense of humour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malcolm:

 I despise your dishonesty.

 Apparently you and Unionist cannot grasp the subtle distinction of suporting ONE piece of legislation and forming a coalition government.

 Or possibly you're just liars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No drollness left, eh?

Oh. Long-standing feud. Never mind. I'm not getting involved in one of those.

There are only two choices for the NDP - either prop up Harper and support his budget and all the other horrid policies he will bring forth OR do everything possible to bring him down and replace him with a viable alternative government at the first opportunity. There is no other alternative. Either we support him or we oppose him. PERIOD

I'm fine with the NDP opposing Harper and I'm not against a coalition but I think the party needs to do a better job of selling what their contribution to the coalition will be and that they haven't abandoned some of their principles for power-especially on foreign policy.  I suppose they don't want to spook the Liberals but the 'Harper is evil' meme(which I don't think is untrue) obviously helps the Liberals more than the NDP, I think everyone on this board understands that.  The NDP needs to talk about their vision for the country as well or they will be drowned out by the Ignatieff media love-in.

The Ignatieff "media love-in" is 100% predictable and would have happened whenever he became leader. I still remember the Dion love-in two years ago when we were treated to all these glowing articles about his dog named Kyoto and his little backpack etc...

 Easy come, easy go.

Meanwhile this week Layton is on a cross-Canada tour talking about what needs to be done about the economy - which is exactly what he should be doing.

Layton should just admit that his coalition deal was with Dion. he did it because Dion was so weak that the NDP could have been in the driver seat if things had played out as Layton wanted them to.

finish up with saying that today is a new day blah blah blah

What's there to understand?  None of the PM's you mention came from upper class backgrounds.

Chretien:  Son of a mill worker.

Mulroney:  Son of a mill worker. 

Pearson:  Son of a Methodist minister.  

Now, I'm sure Chretien's and Mulroney's fathers were probably skilled workers, and so made a good wage.  And minister's usually get a free house and other benefits.

Maybe you consider that upper class. 

I consider being a lawyer for a considerable period of time before entering politics to make someone of the same class as a university professor like Ignatieff.

"Layton should just admit that his coalition deal was with Dion. he did it because Dion was so weak that the NDP could have been in the driver seat if things had played out as Layton wanted them to."

I can aboslutely assure you that one thing you will never hear Layton say publicly in a hundred million years is "my deal with only valid as long as Dion was Liberal leader because i thought i could control and manipulate him. Now that the Liberals have a more formidable leader - the deal is off". Are you some NDP-hater who is trying to give the party the most totally destructive advice imaginable???

Liberals refuse to come up with ideas for fighting the recession. In a well thought-out move the Liberals, who are backing away from the coalition by insisting they want to see "concrete action" from Harper, are now refusing to say what that concrete action might be.

This is fascinating. The Tories force Iggy to back down from the Coalition. Iggy does but, to save face, says he wants the Tories to produce a stimulus budget. The Tories, hoping to steal his thunder and gain an accomplice, ask Liberals what that budget should contain. They refuse to tell him.

I'm not sure who looks stupider here.

I don't know if that is his problem but there seems to be a complete misreading of the game being played by Jack, Iggy and Harper.  Its not something unique to here, either, the media's echo chamber declaring the death of the coalition is in full gear.  Repeating an untruth may spread it far and wide but it will not make the untruth a truth (see 'Iraq has WMD and we know where they are' for further details).

Iggy can not champion the coalition option right now, but he could kill it.  Why hasn't he?  He is using it to exact concessions, ok, that's one possible reason but they are concessions based on the existence of a deal to take power.  What concessions would satisfy him?  He, wisely, hasn't said.  Jack is playing right along on this.  Coalition if necessary but not necessarily coalition is channelling a pretty successful strategy in Canada.  We did get conscription, in the end, but by the time it arrived it did so with only a slight blip on the public opinion radar as opposed to a full-on protest.  If the coalition's "reintroduction" goes as smoothly we will be debating who should be the NDP cabinet in weeks.

Ignatieff has reportedly written 17 books. How can someone who has written so voluminously be such an unknown quantity. Clearly I need to get my ass to the library and start reading over the holidays. I suggest we all do the same.

This was all covered in the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign.

Ignatieff is essentially an Isaiah Berlin-style individualist; except where the interests of the great powers are concerned.  In that case, the national identities of those countries (the US, maybe Russia) are so transcendant and perfect that they are in fact universal (Empire Lite stage).

Of course, these were his ideas when he was singing for his supper in the UK/USA (where his books were written).  Now that he must please a Canadian audience, we'll see what the line is (he has a new book coming out in the spring, in time for the leadership convention). 

You have the right to challenge whatever you please.

You do not have the right to lie.

I have never proposed "allying with the Conservatives."

So sad that you are prepared to lie through your teeth to defend your pathetic, right wing Liberal Party.

That exchange was a few days ago, right after Iggy's ascension. In the time since events has unolded as I suggested. The Liberals narrative is all about the Harper government listening, taking this seriously. Fell good stuff. No substantive expectations being mentioned, let alone raised.

While Jack Layton has been talking about the substance which we must see- and do not expect- in the Throne Speech. All the things he has mentioned are in the Coalition agreement package, which is important, but he has made no reference to that. IE, its all about the substantive requirements, not about the coalition.

Further, Jack has featured aspects of the stimulus package that it is guaranteed will not be offered Harper even if he bends backward completely:

"Housing, child care on NDP list"

"The federal budget must offer affordable housing and child care programs alongside support for lagging industries in order to receive the NDP's support, Jack Layton said yesterday."

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=1083909

Even if Harper produces exactly the kind of package that is Iggys best hope for declaring victory it will all be bailouts, infrastructure and other investment in development, etc. Affordable housing and child care programs are not going to be on the list.

They are also programs that appeal to NDP and Liberal and Lib/NDP voters [plus a lot of Cons/NDP swing voters in BC and elsewhere].

And, later the NDP can remind people what the Liberals passed on in favour of propping up the Harper regime... whose honeymoon around doing the right thing will be measured in mere weeks after the glow of the Throne Speech.

[For Jack's comments see also. Layton not expecting 'miracle'. Doubts federal budget will contain proposals needed to win support of opposition parties. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/555105 [101] ]

Iggy is definitely not in the catbirds seat on this.

The positioning the Liberals want is to be able to blame Harper when the economy goes sour "and you didn't do enough."

There is an obvious flaw in that. Then why did the Liberals vote for the Throne Speech?

Because the coaliton agreement was available to the Liberals- featuring the very same 'doing more' that the Liberals will be wanting to say should have been done.

Which is why Jack talks about the substance now and for the next several weeks. It isn't the coalition that matters- its what the coalition set out. and how that becomes the measure.

In my opinion, if the Coalition comes to pass then people will be measuring it by what it does, not about how they did not think it was right/wise. That may or may not be true, and we won't find until if it happens.

But what most voters think about the coalition itself will definitely be forgotten if it never happens. Critics just assumed the NDP would continue promoting the coalition itself. It was always evident that was neither desirable or necessary. So its no surprise that the NDP has focused completely on the substance of what was in the coalition agreement.