Liberals Pushing Iggy Out?

Lots of people say that sort of thing.

But this is Angelo Persichilli, both a credible journalist and tapped in Liberal who they all talk to.

In the article he names names; with times and places said named people met, and who else was there.

All those quoted MPs were asked if they wanted their names in- and probably even those just mentioned were asked too.

The significance is not that it would be Rae taking over- thats pretty much a given if Iggy gets the boot.

The one caveat I have in mind, beside the obvious one that even a revolt brewing does not necessarily complete, is that Persichilli obviously really dislikes Iggy and is himself fomenting the plot. He does have his credibility as a journalist to consider, but his obvious stake in this may have significantly fluffed up the portrayal of the revolt.

On the other hand, Iggy isn't much of a fighter; and while he had more friends and resources to protect him than did Dion, he gave them the boot.

My guess is the lid will come off this pretty fast- whatever the outcome.

There is probably some significance in it being days since the conversations happened and since Persichilli knew about them- probably present for some. But that may just have been making sure they wanted to out this big time as they have.

I wouldn't assume the push is coming frrom Rae or those next to them. Persichilli gives strong indications that it is coming from the many MPs worried about their seats. And Rae is a wily enough politicican to know he has to stay back- not even working in the background. Just "being there."

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.

If this continues to develop it will put Donolo in an interesting position.

He who remained close to Chretien, who John Rae is close to, etc.

I really don't think this was a calculated plot. [Get Donolo in, Iggy's friends out, etc.]

And this does't need any active help from all of them to develop. But if it does develop, I can't see any of them fighting it off to protect Iggy.

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.

One of the named MPs, Glen Pearson, is vigourously (and credibly, I think) denying Persichilli's reporting, and saying that Persichilli had not spoken with ANY of the principals in the story before publishing.

Ken, I think you're more correct when you say that Persichilli has an ax to grind against Iggy, than when you say he would be concerned for his journalistic integrity.  He owns the publication he writes in, as I understand it (although he also has a column in the Hill Times).  He's never struck me as much of a journalist; although he does know the insides of the Liberal Party very well ... which comes from having strong opinions about how things should proceed within it.

So, it's likely that: (a) the story is wrong, and (b) Persichilli wishes it were true, and is implicitly encouraging more such meetings to occur, because he wants Iggy out.

Jonas, you got to that one faster than me!

The way Donolo's arrival was being feted as the second coming, I wouldn't be surprised if we started hearing HIS name bandied around as a potential leader these days ;-)

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......

Whatever is really going on...

popcorn time!

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.

Iggy is such a dud - anyone would look better by comparsion to him.

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!

Friday's CBC Power and Politics ran a clip of Ignatieff on the HST after their caucus meeting, which was SO bad and SO unenthusiastic and SO unconvincing, and he just looked SO tired of the whole process ... that it occurred to me he might decide to pack it in himself and get out of Dodge.  I think the job has turned out to be a lot different than he thought, and the road to Sussex Drive a lot longer and twistier than he expected.  And I'm not sure he has any idea at all of how to get from here to there.

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.  

There are very, very, very few examples (if any) in Canadian politics of anyone winning the leadership of a party and then reading some apparent writing on the wall and deciding to quit just like that before even leading their party in an election. There are even examples of people who stubbornly tried to stay on AFTER suffering humiliating defeats that ought to have been their political obituaries.

No sooner was Joe Clark elected PC leader than people started whispering that he was a big mistake (which he was) and he was constantly watching has back...then even after his TOTAL miscalculation in 1979 - he still tried to stay on as leader and almost succeeded.

Thenh there was John Turner who was supposed to be the great white knight who crashed and burned and saw his party reduced to 40 seats - but still he stayed on and fought endless rear guard actions against the Chretien crowd etc...There were even attempts to dump Turner DURING the campaign in 1984! The knives were out for Harper after 2004 and many eople declared him "unelectable" etc...and similarly I remember in the late 90s all these brown envelope poison pen screeds by anonmymous Liberals about how they would NEVER win an election with McGuinty as leader.

Dion also refused to consider quitting no matter how much of a liability he was turningv out to be.

Ignatieff not only campaigned hard for the leadership in 2006, once Dion became leader he kep his campaign alive and was constantly plotting to be his successor etc... Politicians are not people like you and me - to get that far in politics you have to have a gigantic ego and delusions of grandeur. No one spends YEARS fighting step by step to become Liberal leader - and then quits suddenly because of a few unfavourable polls.

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.

In general, I agree with Stockholm, but the case of Ignatieff is a little different for the reason that he hadn't spent years and years pining after the leadership ... he was recruited for it by a group of Liberal insiders, who probably held out the expectation that he could ascend to the Prime Ministership within short order.

Now that it looks like a much longer road (and I'm not disputing anything you say about egos, that's for sure), at some point he may get a better offer and jump at it.  It would surprise me IN THE LEAST, for the reasons OCSI outlines, if Stephen Harper weren't trying to create exactly that kind of opportunity as we speak.

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...

With these Liberal clowns Harper's track record is starting to look better and better each day. They are no match for him. But Rae as Liberal leader, I just can't see it, although he does seem to be the most effective one of the bunch. Humm.....I wonder how Iggy's people are reacting to this

Persichilli reminds me a bit of Bourque.

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?!) 

Let's also keep in mind that its not just Iggy himself but his entire "camp". Dion was elected leader because he was everyone's second choice and only had a handful of supporters in caucus - there was no real "faction" backing him. Ignatieff is the front man for the old Turner/Martin etc... faction of the Liberal party and those people would do everything posible to make sure that control of the party doesn't slip from their grasp. Unlike Dion, Iggy actually has a large faction of loyalists and there are also large factions of Liberals who would rather lose an election under Iggy and have a multi-candidate competitive leadership race afterwards than have Iggy quit tomorrow and have Rae crowned without opposition (which is what would probably happen).

IMHO - this is all gossip and Iggy will limp along until the next election.

And, lest we forget, Dief.

Agreed again.  In fact, it's probably the key point.

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 [26] 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... [27]

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.

True or false, the story is now out there, and is just another nail in the Liberal coffin. If Ignatieff cannot even whip his caucus on the HST vote, how is he going to contain this. I say he can't, even though he will remain as leader, at least for the time being.

So here it comes.

A palace coup?

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

Tim Powers-who pays his bills? Anyway, even if everything in the Persichelli story was correct, it still does not support the headline of his article.

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

Whether or not the story is true, damage is being done. We have already had several articles - there will be more, rest assured of that. 

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.

That would be my take on it.  This is just Conservatives trying to do as much damage as they can to an already wounded beast.  Better the beast you can see than one growling in the bush.

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.

I agree Tommy.

For the next election at least, both Ignatieff and the Liberals party are done, and they both know it. Ignatieff, being the brilliant man he is, blew his one chance to become prime minister by destroying the coalition. We will continue to see this kind of scenario being played out until Ignatieff is gone. Then the game starts all over again.

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.

Liberals, or anyone who wanted to attempt to discredit this story would of course say that. Strange no one questioned his columns before when he attacked the NDP, etc.

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. 

I also agree with that Tommy. At one time I thought Ignatieff would do much better than Rae as Liberal leader. Now I'm not so sure of that.

Talk abut twisting the knife.

http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/backrooms-12-7-2009

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.

Iggy's no Tiger but that's Canada for you

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/iggys-no-tiger-but-thats-canada-for-you-78587087.html

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.

Well it not's even a confidence motion but the idiotic Liberals, at least the ones that can be whipped, are still voting for it. Go figure.

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)

Poor Liberals are freakin' once again. It's so bad that journalists are publicly trying to tell them what to do. Toronto Star journalists of course 

The discussion of journalistic ethics is welcome, of course, but as I've said to some people this morning as well, Liberals have  a problem to confront and I'd argue that it's a bit more serious than a dilemma over what journalists they can trust. This story wasn't dreamt up by Persichilli; someone wanted him to write it, clearly. In my email traffic, this morning, a lot of people seem to have pretty good ideas about who's behind this. (And before anyone asks, no, I'm not going to name those names publicly here.)

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/12/crime-and-punishment.html

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.

http://ignatieff.me/ 

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

If the truth be known

Oh what a tangled web we lead, when we set out to deceive....

http://www.carolynbennett.ca/whatsNewPosting.cfm?ID=2577

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 [52]. 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?

would seem a good guess wilf.......but I am still going for someone wanting at least 2 of those gone in conversation...if not 3, or at the very least silenced

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.

With respect, Tommy, that's totally incorrect.  Harmonization was and remains a core federal Liberal policy - if you read the actual wording of the 1993 Liberal Red Book (as opposed to the famous Chrétien and Copps quotes about scrapping the GST) it talks about replacing the GST with an alternative sales tax that is harmonized with the provinces, more transparent, yada, yada.  Paul Martin spent 2 years trying to get all provinces to agree to the HST so he could say that they kept the Red Book promise, but he didn't get anywhere and had to apologize to voters in 1995 (that's when Copps quit as MP and ran in the GST by-election in Hamilton and got re-elected handily).  All Liberal Finance Ministers were pushing harmonization until they were defeated in 2006.

In fact, it was Harper that reduced the regressive GST by 2% and it was the Liberals who were the most vociferous opponents of that policy, with the NDP strangely agreeing with the Liberals on this point. 

Bottom line: the HST is a regressive tax but it is part of the core Lib/Conservative consensus economic strategy, which is heavily geared to making things easier for corporations and harder for consumers and taxpayers.  The NDP is right to oppose the HST, we stand alone against the Libs, Cons and BQ on this issue.  The next challenge for Jack is to make the positive case for progressive income taxes and ending tax breaks for corporations and fossil fuel producers - moving from "Scrap the HST" to "the NDP alternative to the HST."  When we make that transition, I'll know Layton is serious about running for government next time.

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!

Like Rae would be remotely electable in Ontario...

The term,"Delusions of Grandeur",comes to mind....

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.

And the Black Rod is made of chocolate!

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/07/and-the-black-rod-is-made-of-chocolate/

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.

The problem wasn't Turner. It wasn't Chretien. It wasn't Martin. It wasn't Dion. It's not Ignatieff.

The problem is the Liberal Party of Canada.

When you build a party based entirely on your ability to hand out candy, it's just not sustainable -- particularly when you lose the ability to hand out candy.

So, by all means, keep fighting amongst each other. It's so much easier than actually standing for something.

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?

Nicely put.

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 [65] 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.

"NDP delights in press release pot shots" 

And who doesn't?

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.'

Worth quoting:

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

I read it today in the grocery store.   They have him down to a T.    My gf at the time of the last liberal leadership contest was terrified that he would beat out dion because he does not stand for anything. And people were saying he was a great speaker when I though he is a shitty speaker.

He has arrogance gone to his head as far as I can see.  We could not stand him  then so our sickening feeling about iggie has been justified.

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.

Well, as I predicted above, Perisichilli's column turned out to be a non-story this week and has barely gotten any coverage on the news or politics shows.

He has also taken some criticism from some other political journalists such as Don Martin who chide him for jumping to conclusions based on the rumblings of some disgruntled Liberal MP's.

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. 

Not again. It just doesn't stop, does it.

Liberal MP: Iggy doesn’t need a Christmas break

http://www.hilltimes.com/blog/?p=185 [75]

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?

Is Liberal caucus discipline going to pot?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/is-liberal-caucus-disci...