Eye on Outremont

Incidentally, if you want to see really good analysis about what the Outremont fracas tells us about the Liberal Party, read this interesting article by L. Ian MacDonald in today's Gazette:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Liberal+follies/2038785/story.html

Cauchon's career path began in his native La Malbaie, where he worked as a butler on the household staff of Paul Desmarais. This is how he would have met Desmarais's son André and his wife France, whose father, Jean Chrétien, became Liberal leader in 1990, after years of constantly undermining the leadership of John Turner.

It's either overlooked or mostly forgotten that Cauchon was the Liberal candidate, its poteau, against Brian Mulroney in Charlevoix in the 1988 election. Cauchon later joked that Mulroney was "my MP." In 1993, when Chrétien's chief Quebec organizer, Pietro Rizutto, couldn't find a star candidate to run in Outremont, he appointed Cauchon with Chrétien's approval. Cauchon went on to become justice minister and Quebec lieutenant in Chrétien's last term, though his accomplishments in both roles are not of historic dimensions.

Yeah, yeah, I know all politics are local... but this should be sent back to the central canadian ghetto it came from. Posted in the wrong forum. Further in national news, cat stuck in a tree in Mississauga...

The plot thickens.

Ignatieff's office was completely unaware of Coderre's plans and said the Liberal leader had not been in contact with his lieutenant over the weekend. However, Ignatieff has left three voice mails on Coderre's cellphone and two emails this morning, all of which have gone unanswered.

Looks like the turkeys are preparing to vote in favour of Thanksgiving.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-prepare-confidence-motion-but-lose-quebec-lieutenant/article1303808

/

You got it WCL! Its pretty clear that the last thing the Liberals want now is a snap election! Imagine if the NDP suddenly announced that it was going to support the Liberal non-confidence motion after all? The Liberals would probably freak and have to vote against their own motion.

That being said, i don't think the NDP should play that game, but I have a feeling that one of the reasons why there been virtually no "blow back" at all to the NDP from its base over keeping the Tories going for a while longer - is the simple fact that its so patently obvious that the Liberals have a death wish and are totally unprepared for an election and that the NDP is actually saving the country from an election where only the Tories seem poised to gain any ground.

His fixed-date election law?

Just kidding. With Michaelle Jean bought and paid for, anything is possible.

Very little. However, unlike the blatent power grab in 2008 that resulted in Harper coming up short, the Harper government doesn't have the luxury of fooling the people twice without scrutiny. There would be no free ride from the media.  The media a have no appetite (Money) to cover another election. 

Regardless, the problem with Outremont is the problem that exists throughout the Liberal party. A battle of entitlement and priveledge.  It is that Entitlement which brought IGGY to secure the nomination against the riding association and the democratic process. Undermining democracy in the Liberal party is part of being a Liberal elitist.  Ignatieff was not punished for his elitism in his riding, but was rewarded instead.  Liberals believe they are entitled to Outremont, and are battling over that entitlement rather then hold a contested nomination. 

Unionist wrote:

His fixed-date election law?

Just kidding. With Michaelle Jean bought and paid for, anything is possible.

Absolutely!  The Liberals seem to be in disarray and the NDP voted confidence in the government.  Harper could damage both parties by calling an election.  And I think he's just that kind of guy.

Harper is not stupid enough to directly call an election himself - his entire message box for the last 6 months has been about "staying on track" with the so-called economic action plan, and he just blasted the Lib non-confidence motion as triggering a needless election just as the economy is starting to recover.  For Harper to drop the writ now would be to annihilate his entire strategy since the Jan 2009 budget where Iggy killed the coalition and supported the Conservative budget.

The more likely Cons strategy to trigger the election is the "poison pill" - some new measure on crime or taxes or something else that resonates with the Conservative base and is somewhat popular to centre-right voters, but anathema to Liberal, BQ and NDP core voters so that all 3 opposition parties will have to vote against it. It might come in the budget or possibly before.  Either way, Harper will decide when the next election happens, but I think he'll do it in such a way that another party will be the one to formally trigger the campaign.

I just heard Jean Lapierre say that at least one person is running against Cauchon for the nomination in Outremont and that on top of that La Prohon may be changing her mind about running in Jeanne LeBer and may challenge Cauchon as well!

Well, enjoy this all you like, but it's bad news for me, personally.

I may have to confront the fact that Bob Rae has been working for the NDP all along, and have to take back all those nasty things I said about him.

Can anyone tell me whether Muclair's staff have been seen as extremely helpful to ALL that walk in the door.  In many close ridings the MP's staff are the difference between a close loss and a close win.  Satisfied citizens tell their friends and that kind of word of mouth is really effective campaigning especially since most people are fundamentally apolitical.

What that was supposed to prove isn't quite clear, NR.

Stockholm wrote:

You got it WCL! Its pretty clear that the last thing the Liberals want now is a snap election! Imagine if the NDP suddenly announced that it was going to support the Liberal non-confidence motion after all? The Liberals would probably freak and have to vote against their own motion.

That being said, i don't think the NDP should play that game, but I have a feeling that one of the reasons why there been virtually no "blow back" at all to the NDP from its base over keeping the Tories going for a while longer - is the simple fact that its so patently obvious that the Liberals have a death wish and are totally unprepared for an election and that the NDP is actually saving the country from an election where only the Tories seem poised to gain any ground.

Um you don't think a pile of polls all agreeing that the NDP has nothing to gain in an election right now might also be part of it. The NDP may or may not have slipped but it sure has not gained since last fall. The party would have to concentrate resources on retaining seats.

also the NDP is looking at both Harper and Ignatief and both these leaders are unlikely to improve. The more time that goes by the more people will think we can have a change of government-- even tolerate an election. Ignatief does not need to be defeated-- can just let him do it to himself. He also is not making friends with the public. Harper is certain to present something objectionable sooner or later and he does not get likable with age.

Frankly, I don't see Harper wanting to bring in another budget in a minority mandate-- either the red ink or the cuts are going to offend. At some point an analysis of the stimulus funding will have to blow all the rhetorical cobwebs away and we'll see what really was done and the jobs actually created. It won't be pretty.

As well the recovery in the rest of the world is going to expose the fault line in the Canadian economy. The first thing to go up will be the cost of oil (already happening). This will push up the dollar choking any manufacturing recovery here. Our economy was taking shocks a year before the downturn due to the high dollar. A recovery just puts us right back in the same place minus the jobs we lost during the recession.

There is no purpose in an election unless there is a reasonable chance of changing the result and if it were to change right now it would not be for the better. And the prospects for the future look brighter-- next spring looks difficult for the government- it can't run its public relations on empty propaganda indefinitely.

The NDP would be nuts to bring down the government.

As well, the party appears to be recovering a bit in the polls -- I think due to its reluctance to force an election nobody wants. I heard on the CBC this morning they were saying many of the emails are in favour of the NDP saying nobody wants an election, that reporters might be angry with Layton for the flipflop but Canadians see it differently. I would prefer the party be more direct about its motives though-- there is nothing wrong with saying that there is no point in forcing an election that will not change the result right now.

Unionist wrote:

His fixed-date election law?

Just kidding. With Michaelle Jean bought and paid for, anything is possible.

I don't think Jean was bought and paid for. You may disagree with what she did-- some believe that the coalition would not have lasted long and the cons would have had a majority. She did not share her rationale-- it may be that she concludedit was not stable and an election would have been a disaster.

Suggesting that she did this as an extraordinary favour to the Cons is unfair-- to say she was paid something borders on the libelous.

Going in to a recession with an unstable and unpopular coalition would ahve been a gift to Harper. Letting him wear it another year in a minority does not seem like a gift to the Cons frankly. she may well have made the decision based on the fact that tehre was no credible prime minister. Canadians did not just reject the Liberals they did it largely historically as a rejection of Dion. Layton's party was not strong enough for him to be PM either. No, I think history may eventually record that she made the right call politically.

As far as cosntitutionally, I think she had little choice. We were too close to an election with little indication that the public mood had shifted agaisnt the government. The Harper governemtn had almost obtained a majority-- if it had been weaker, and the opposition had been stornger, if there had been a credible figure for leader of government, if the populaiton indicated enough support, if there had not been so much blowback about Duceppe's role (something that if it had played on further might have seen him as the only winner with greater division in the country).... if, if, if.

You can disagree but you can't say she did nto have reasons-- constitutionally, legally and politically. Sometimes you need to still respect those you do not agree with. Jean has been quiet as well-- no ringing endorsement of this PM either.

Remember the controversy when she became leader? Elevating the sovereigntists to balance of power in a coalition-- yeah that would have ended her. For waht? A con majority? To what end?

I don't know why Cauchon would want to run against Mulcair. He may have a shot at beating him but there is also a reasonable chance at being humiliated by him.

You know the NDP is going to pour resources from across the province into this contest. Mulcair does well in the media and makes few mistakes. Mulcair also works in both languages-- I don't mean bilingual-- I mean he can connect. he is a fresh face and remains so after a couple years.

Mulcair can be beaten that is for sure but if I have to bet-- I'd place my money on him.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

SCB4 wrote:

"There is a smugness and complacency about the Liberal Party of Canada which has not really changed  since my first encounter."

Bob Rae,

From Protest to Power, 1996, p. 274

Why have we not seen this in a commercial?

Possibly because SCB4 is the only person who has read it?

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

SCB4 wrote:

"There is a smugness and complacency about the Liberal Party of Canada which has not really changed  since my first encounter."

Bob Rae,

From Protest to Power, 1996, p. 274

Why have we not seen this in a commercial?

Possibly because SCB4 is the only person who has read it?

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Hah! Bob Rae also wrote a long mea culpa op ed piece about ten years ago where he basically renounced the NDP and just about everything anyone ever thought he ever believed in.

I'm not at all confused.

Constitutionally she had to know that if Harper lost confidence there would either be a choice of an election right away or the coalition with its instability-- she did not have a third option other than the one she took. Either one likely would have gone over the cliff with the result of a Con majority. The delay allowed a test to see if the Liberals could manage to stay with the coalition over Christmas or not.

I was in favour of the coalition. I was wrong. She was right. The test she placed was if the coalition could hold together for 6 weeks. The coalition failed because the Liebrals were the weak link. If the coalition had held firm then I could say I was right and she was wrong. You can't pretend that you could have had a stable arrangement with an agreement that could not even survive a holiday break without even having any power. If the coalition had come to power we would ahve had the Ignatieff-Rae-Dion fight running the country. when it finally ran its course there would have been an election and a Harper majority. At the time I did not agree with her decision. Hindsight says she was right. We were wrong. doing a coalition with the Liberals is likely not going to be a good idea in the future either. Stick to accords where you maintain the alternative of an NDP government. Fight for our party and eventually govern. Losing opposition status is only worthwhile if you gain the lead in government. In between, you simply do not exist. There is a German politican who could vouch for that this week as well. Being junior in a coalition is worse than being in opposition.

In retrospect, I do not think Dion was capable of leading a government-- not so much that he was not smart enough-- that was not the problem but he could not attract enough support and was incapable of communicating effectively to obtain it. the coaliton would have hurt the country far more had it taken power and it likely would ahve done serious long-term damage to the NDP.

I did you just are not paying attention. Jean may well have concluded that the Liberals did not have the unity or the committment to the coalition for it to succeed. Her job is to make sure Canada has a stable government.

I think the Liberals would have brought down the government on December 8, 2008. I am not at all convinced that they would have managed to stay together and provide government. I think in hindsight it would be fair to believe that Jean could have concluded Dion could not hold his caucus together never mind a two party coalition relying on a third to keep it in power. The result would ahve been an election at an inopportune time.

The day that she creeated a delay in the vote by closing parliament-- which was for 6 weeks over Christmas, people were already wondering if the Liberals could keep it together for 6 weeks. They didn't. Without an explanation from her it is reasonable to suppose this may have been her purpose.

You keep ignoring this question: if the Liberals cannot keep it together over Christmas what kind of government could they offer Canada? If they were fit to govern, they would ahve survived the 6 week breather and brought down the government then. Fact is they were too busy fighting themselves and their coalition partners to provide an alternative government. Given what has happened since, I can't argue with this assessment which was made by some at the time and certainly could have been the rationale for her decision. Since Jean is not Conservative, does not like Harper and has a major axe to grind with the Conservatives who viciously attacked her previously, I think there is a greater likelihood that she thought Dion and co were not fit to govern than her toadying up to Harper.

You are the one bringing the accusation to Jean and you have nothing to substantiate her motive and you are ignoring possible realistic motives that are more likely than the one you proposed. It is a serious, nasty allegation that someone is bought and I think you ahve to back that up. At this point it simply is not credible.

We have no way of knowing what would have happened if Jean had refused to prorogue, the government had fallen and the coalition had taken power. What makes people so sure it would "fall apart"? There is nothing that contributes more to unity than being in power. I suspect that within one nano-second of occupying ministerial offices and being able to run departments and appoint people etc... both the Liberals and the NDP would have a gigantic vested interest in making it work.

Pundits have a habit of predicting that any minority arrangement "can't possibly last" and is too unstable etc... In 2005 in Germany, EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE said that there was NO WAY that a CDU/SPD grand coalition could possibly survive more than a few weeks, that the parties were too far apart etc... what lo and behold it lasted a full four years! I also remember how after haroer first won in 2006 the convention wisdom was that his government was totally unstable and would NEVER last a month since it had no obvious allies among the opposition parties etc... well what do you know, it lasted THREE YEARS and it might have lasted four years if Harper hadn't broken his own fixed election law.