We woke at the cabin to near-freezing temperatures, this morning, and also plenty of rain. Will make a run for it when things die down a bit.

Also woke to morning headlines suggesting that the Reformatory leader is now “licking his lips” about a Liberal-NDP get-together – and the Liberal leader pouring coldish water on merging.

I don’t suppose that the former could say a Liberal-Democrat Party actually worries him – just as the latter can’t simply say he’s now worried enough to embrace it. Both men are saying what they can only say, given the circumstances.

Meanwhile, me – and those like me – may be completely wrong. One thing is a fact, however: if the Grits drop much more below that 25 per cent floor, their rank-and-file will be transformed into an army of pro-coalition missionaries.

But if the Libs wait that long, of course, the NDP won’t be in the mood to be converted to the coalition cause. And that’ll likely be right around the time you start to read stories and columns about the Dippers’ ambitious re-decoration plans for 409-S.

Man oh man, the weather is nasty out there, isn’t it?

Comments (29)

Here, however, Jim Travesty sets up the biggest straw man ever so that he can try to knock it down, and thereby meet his Saturday column obligations.

What a load of bollocks. But, that said, it sure would be awesome, wouldn’t it?

We’d dispatch the Reformatories in a single afternoon.

Comments (31)

I did CBC Radio’s The Current before I left for the cabin. I guess it’ll be on Monday morning. I’m not sure.

Anyway. They wanted to know why I favoured a Liberal-NDP merger or coalition or whatever. Three reasons, I said.

One, the Conservatives and Reform/Alliance did it, and it obviously kind of worked for them. Splitting your votes isn’t usually a path to success, conservatives concluded. They were right.

Two, it’s a characteristic of modern democracy everywhere – most notably, and most recently, in Britain. It’s not something that is for “losers” or is somehow undemocratic. It’s for winners. And it’s the very essence of democracy – cooperation, conciliation, compromise. Those are good things.

Thirdly, I told them, I had the privilege to work for Jean Chrétien. My experience is that, if he says something is a good idea politically, it always is. A Liberal-Democrat Party is a good idea. Trust the old guy. He knows.

So, CBC asked, is it all a repudiation of Liberal history?

No way, said I. The Liberal Party has been successful because we’ve never been doctrinaire – historically, we have been successful because we are flexible enough to attract red Tories as well as fiscally-responsible social democrats. That isn’t against our history, I said.

It is our history.

Comments (33)

I was driving two of my boys to school yesterday morning, and a poet came on CBC Radio to recite an old Canadian poem (anyone also hear it, have it?), and talk about the Griffin Trust Awards, and my boys were absolutely attentive. It was utter silence in the car; they were transfixed. When the poet was done, the youngest asked me why poetry – Roethke, cummings, Yeats, Auden – was so important to me. “It’s words that sing,” I said.

Someone else must have said that before, and I remembered it. But anyway – here is some verse to get your day started right, and what I say to my children I feel about them:

i carry your heart with me by E. E. Cummings

i carry your heart with me(i carry it in
my heart) i am never without it (anywhere
i go you go, my dear; and whatever is done
by only me is your doing, my darling)
i fear
no fate (for you are my fate, my sweet) i want
no world (for beautiful you are my world, my true)
and it’s you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you

here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows
higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that’s keeping the stars apart

i carry your heart (i carry it in my heart)

Comments (11)

Hebert:

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien feels a Liberal/NDP coalition is a concept worth exploring. “If it’s doable, let’s do it” he told CBC television last week. Former NDP premier Roy Romanow agrees. In an interview on the same network this week, he said the two parties should at least be “bold” enough to discuss the notion.

In his own days as a minority premier in Saskatchewan, Romanow experimented with a governing coalition and found it a constructive experience. In a recent op-ed piece, Bob Rae – who as an Ontario NDP leader signed on to a pact that allowed David Peterson’s minority Liberals to govern the province from 1985 to 1987 – used the 25th anniversary of the event to write it up as a worthwhile exercise.

Among the three of them, Rae, Chrétien and Romanow command a larger audience than current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

That may explain why, despite efforts on the part of Ignatieff and his palace guard, the idea of coalition-building will not go away.

The forces of the status quo, however, are reduced to personally attacking the likes of Jean Chretien, which tells you all you need about them and the quality of their argument: “…the few Liberal advocates of such an alliance are most at fault…Those who would sacrifice [the Liberal] legacy with so little spirit should be greeted with skepticism. Or worse.”

Get that? “Or worse.” Perhaps they plan to tar and feather us.

Meanwhile, I hear that Bob Richardson – the influential and respected head of Red Leaf – was on CBC national radio last night to say we should look at what Chretien and others have to say, and not ever dismiss it out of hand.

Better get a lot more tar and feathers, tough guy.

Comments (24)

The Munk Debate guys asked Andrew and I to debate whether Canadian politicians were afraid to debate the health care system.  Always being one unafraid to have my keester kicked by a superior mind, I said sure.  The bloody results can be eyeballed here.

Comments (6)

Yep.

Comments (10)

Harper in Opposition, then: “The opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation…consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options.”

Harper in power, now: “Losers don’t get to form coalitions.”

That is, he wanted a government led by conservatives, even if it involved the “separatists,” because it would get them power. But he’s against “close consultation” for the federalist centre and left, because – among other things – it means conservatives would lose power.

Starting to get the impression he doesn’t want a coalition to happen, perhaps?  That it worries him?

I am.

Comments (60)

When the current crew in Ottawa shut down Liberal election readiness, the Reformatories noticed.  They knew, among other things, it meant that the Liberal Party would not be seeking to defeat the government for a long, long time – however much they planned to huff and puff about bogus stimulus cheques or women’s reproductive freedom.  In politics, when you throw it down, you have to be prepared to back it up.

In the context of a minority Parliament – where you can be plunged into an election at any time – shuttering your war room and sending your election team home is also highly, highly risky.  Readiness means being ready; that is, being fully prepared for a national, multi-million-dollar election campaign that lasts for weeks isn’t something that can be turned on like flipping a like a light switch.  When you are in Opposition – where, let’s face it, you are not running much of anything – there is no excuse for lack of readiness.  None.

Thus, my friend Ian’s op-ed in today’s National Post. I’m delighted that he’s back swinging, and I’m in agreement with much of what he has to say.

A sampling is below.  Check it out:

There is no way of predicting the duration of a minority government. The current composition of the House suggests that the Conservatives might be tempted to engineer their own defeat before the other three parties align themselves. The rule of thumb, then, is to be ready to go at any time. Liberals need to move expeditiously on election readiness. That means being fully prepared, with money in the bank and the team and the leader set.

Comments (19)

There’s quite a bit of coverage of this issue today, so I thought I would put together another one of my Highly Scientific and Fair™ online polls.

I’m counting on you being a Liberal.  Reformatories aren’t allowed to vote, because we know all of them are against it.  (Because the prospect of a unified Centre-Left scares them shitless, among other things.)

Comments are open, naturally.  Beer and popcorn are gratis if the “no” side somehow wins!

Comments (125)