06.11.2010 06:20 AM

Not unrelated

This and this. Oh, and this, spotted by a reporter friend.

Anyone know what I’m getting at?

Comments are open.

56 Comments

  1. john g says:

    Just a guess…the brewing war you allude to in the first link leaves the Liberals unable to do anything at the moment about what Harper wants to do in the second link?

  2. e says:

    Hebert political trash talk; she is good at it

  3. Geoffrey Tuck says:

    Chretien for PM.

    Liberal-NDP merger please. Solidify our progressive values, our values that we hold most dear as Canadians. Save our souls. Vision for a healthy, educated, tolerant, and more egalitarian Canada, not increasing corporatisation and Americanisation.

  4. MississaugaPeter says:

    WK, you of all people, should know that an effective campaign can reverse the 5-10 point deficit the Liberals are experiencing.

    Me thinks, any merger between the Liberals and the NDP will be dominated by the NDP the same way that the Reform/Tory merger is dominated by the Reform.

    I just wish that this issue would die so the newspaper mastheads and media air times were solely focused on the $1B G8/G20 boondoggle.

    Talking to many grassroots Liberals (although not prepared to speak out in public), agree with me that the Kinsella Brand is taking a big hit right now for your persistence on this issue.

    • Warren says:

      Sorry, but I heard that same stuff during the Martin years, and I guess I wasn’t too far off in my analysis, no?

      I’m saying what I truly believe, and I am motivated by a desire to improve the fortunes of the party I’ve been a member of for longer than you’ve been alive (I suspect!).

      I support the leader and the caucus, and I know there is a way of having this discussion without resorting to calling people liars.

      • MississaugaPeter says:

        Martin and his folks messed up, and the Ignatieff folks may end up doing the same. The only thing is that no one blamed you for Martin’s mess up, but some may start to blame you for Ignatieff’s.

        Wrong, you are only 2 years older. We both attended the same high school (BCHS). I made buttons for the Hot Nasties and another band I believe called The Sturgeons (sold them to red-haired Conan and his girlfriend). I was U. of A. Liberal prez. I now have the same number of children as you (with one wife).

        I am sure people have called you a lot worse. Perception out there is that you did, but do not now support the leader/caucus.

        No matter what anyone says, your response reveals that you are not censoring criticism. That is admirable.

        • Warren says:

          Oh my Lord! I apologize. I thought you were (like everyone, seemingly, these days) way younger than me. And the Nasties, no less! Wow.

          Anyway. If you have been observing me that long, you will know I don’t generally give a shit about my critics. You can’t be “out there” as much as I am without having a big target on your back. They can call me whatever they want – but don’t call me a liar or a crook! Then’s fighting words, as some have discovered to their regret.

          Ignatieff, in my view, isn’t “messing up.” If things were as bad as the corporate media claim, Harper would be tracking at 45 per cent. But he hasn’t broken 37 per cent, really, for four years.

          I support my leader and my party. But I’m a private citizen, I am not representing anybody, and I am permitted to say what I think.

          The Sturgeons, too? Wow. We’re both old!

      • Geoffrey Tuck says:

        Stick to your guns. You always do. It’s a big tent. Brand might be taking a hit to some, but your motivations are well placed and are an inspiration to many.

        I like what “Catherine” says. Lifespans of leaders can be short. Many in the grassroots did not support Ignatieff in the beginning, and certainly not the way he was annointed. Many of those same people rallied behind him for a time, but alas, as Catherine suggests, perhaps his time has passed.

  5. Catherine says:

    From Ian Davey: ‘Opposition can be tough at the best of times. Things are particularly challenging these days, but no matter how difficult they become, Liberals must stand together and behind their leader…’

    One Liberal standing behind our leader, Mr. Ignatieff.

    • Catherine says:

      I think that the message is that times change and in the lives of politicians they can change very quickly. It was once opportune for Liberals to stand behind Michael Ignatieff as leader of the party, but, that time has passed, and if the leader can’t change stroke mid-stream they he’s pushing the river in the wrong direction. The choice now among the Liberal party gurus and grassroots might be to seriously consider new leadership sooner rather than later. Don’t kill the brand, kill the guy who risks dumbing the brand down or giving it away in a knee-jerk reaction to some uninspiring journalism.

      How’s that Warren? Do I win a case of KD?

      • Bill Templeman says:

        Catherine, I agree with you about time for a leadership change. There have been so many issues on which the LPC should have screamed at Harper in defiance. Instead we have over-coached platitudes. Where does the LPC stand on poverty reduction, the growing demographic / health care crisis as the population ages, environmental issues, climate change, foreign policy reset, the ballooning federal debt, tax cuts, and so on….we need positions, we need policies, we need to stand up and be counted, we need leadership. Sadly such leadership is not on offer.

  6. Joseph says:

    Yes. The Liberals have one more chance to get it right. The legacy of a party is maintained not through its name, but through its achievements. Losing, especially to Harper, is not an achievement.

    The Liberal Party should embrace the merger option. Ignatieff, if he had better advice, would take the lead on it, and use the summer bus tour to encourage party members to support it. Instead, he appears intent on writing his own political obituary.

  7. Patagonia says:

    Let me attempt a shot at what you’re getting at. Is it the irony of talking cooperation with a different party when we can’t even pretend to heal the rifts within our own? No, didn’t think so.

    Like many others, I have mixed feelings about the various forms of arrangements that could see the Libs and NDP working together to end the tyranny of the Cons. My views are affected by both my extreme loathing of what the Cons represent but also by the fact that I have lived in a riding represented by a dipper since 2002. We’ve been battling that side of the political wing in every election since. Not so easy to just wake up one day to say we like the guy. Can we get over ourselves for the greater good? A tall order when we haven’t managed to get over ourselves within our own party (as masterfully exemplified by those who suround current and former leaders). All this having been said, I would feel more comfortable with confirmation that Joe Clark and other reputable former real tories are involved in these discussions.

  8. Clari says:

    The Liberal Party for some reason, are nervous Nellies when it comes to all of their Leaders.
    Chretien was thought of to be dud,,even worried about Pierre, as to whether he was good enough to win!!!they were way down in the polls

  9. Cam says:

    Spent the last two days traveling thru Ohio and Michigan, coincided with a number of state run-offs and primaries and was struck by the support for The Tea Party.

    A few days ago we saw Mr. Harper stand up in the House and ridicule the Liberal Party in response to pointed questions about his government’s spending on the G8/G20. Seems to me Mr. Harper’s mean-spirited volleys are a strategic error. Given his embrace of the U.S. Right-wing style politics in Canada, a Canadian version of The Tea Party can’t be far behind.

    Such a development will be outside of his control especially with a super convenient catalyst handed to true Conservatives in the form of the $1.2B spent on the G8/G20.

    Many Republicans’ conservative credentials are now under scrutiny and strategic electoral races have been identified where The Tea Party is waging all-out, high profile campaigns. They’re getting support from folks like Sarah Palin, sending loads of volunteers and money into these races.

    My question, how long will it be before we see a similar revolt here amongst Canadian Conservatives?

    • Michael Watkins says:

      How long before you see a revolt in Conservative ranks? Not soon, not soon at all. The opposition will be steamrollered if they sit back waiting for this to happen.

      Reformers and PC’s alike well remember what it is like being out of power for more than a decade and they will not willingly go back there soon. Wishing for a fracture within the Conservative party won’t make it happen. They’ve built a steamroller of a machine. Eventually they’ll figure out how to make it flatten enough Liberal turf to get the majority they want. It is only a matter of time. They all know it. Riding associations that had poor organization and funding before the merger now have big organizations and tons of funding.

      The difference is night and day for many, and memories are too fresh, for people to consider going back, and to what?

      While there are some impatient voices, one only needs to look at how integrated Stockwell Day is within the party and how patient he has been. While the comparison isn’t 1:1 he holds some control over a goodly section of support within the party in a way Martin did vs Chretien. The socons are not going to force a power grab until the party has a majority, if even then. The smarter of them realize they can’t achieve anything without patience.

      Anyone within the Conservatives with their brains screwed on right, who leans to the right, who leans to destroying the opposition regardless of the cost to a functioning democracy, who leans to major cuts to government, who leans to a much more individualistic future for Canada, knows that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party are their best, no, their only hope of seeing this come to fruition. They’ll sit tight and let him do their thing. There is no heir apparent in the wings, anyway.

      • Cam says:

        How about Wildrose Party of Alberta?

        • Michael Watkins says:

          If Harper were not doing what he is doing, he’d be leading something like the WIldrose Party of Alberta. No, they are not a threat to him. Plus you’d need a broader regional party to spring up and there is no such beast happening here in BC.

  10. gretschfan says:

    Despite all the good points in favour of forming a merged party, my gut says that the Liberals will embrace it seriously only after they suffer big losses in the next election. And by then, they’ll be weakened and in a far worse position for negotiating in talks. By then, we’ll realize this time right now was the golden opportunity they let pass all because of foolish pride.

    • Geoffrey Tuck says:

      All too true. Now is the time. Later will be too late.

      It is an understatement to say that these are formative times in the World. A merger could facilitate formative change and opportunity. Canada could re-establish its progressive place in the world and pioneer great things. The legacy of any ‘Tea Party’ might be grande. I just wish certain people had more vision and gull and were not so caught up in the minutiae and internal politics.

      Alas, the status quo might likely remain. More dithering at the behest of one’s personal intersts in safety, security and lust for power at the expense of evolution and progression for the people.

  11. Abigail T says:

    Sworn affidavits trump “email responses” every time. I’m looking forward to seeing Scott Reid eat that microphone.

    Team Ignatieff is a gong show. At least when Davey was running the show, they still had some soul.

  12. Catherine says:

    Catherine M: I am a Liberal.

    Not a Chretien Liberal, nor a Martin Liberal. Rather a Liberal.

    Because I believe that my social conscience is best telegraphed through the beliefs of the LPC.

    I hate the bickering. Detest the locker room gossip.

    Let’s get on with restoring our place in a changing world.

    And let’s start with stewardship of our environment.

    • Geoffrey Tuck says:

      “Let’s get on with restoring our place in a changing world.

      And let’s start with stewardship of our environment.”

      Amen.

      • MississaugaPeter says:

        James,

        The 58% is because we have a Liberal leader that has so far failed to inspire/connect with Canadians. That does not mean he can’t and won’t, but that is the problem. If he goes to France to contemplate again this summer, rather than continue to try to inspire/connect with Canadians, the knives will be out in the fall. Until then, I still have hope.

        But the $1B G8/G20 boondoggle is Harper’s Adscam. It must be shouted out from the mountaintops at the same ferocity as the much less significant Adscam was by Harper. That and a few core promises (much like Harper’s road to power). The waste pisses off even the most ardent Conservatives. Like prorogation, it has to keep Harper away from forcing an election until Ignatieff gets his mojo.

    • nastyboy says:

      You actually think the LPC cares about the environment? Ignatieff constantly sucks up to the Tar Sands, and all of the Tar Sands currently killing the planet were approved under the watch of the Liberals.

      Apart from signing the Kyoto Accord and doing nothing to implement it, the Libs have no environmental record.

    • Sandra says:

      Catherine – absolutly – you are correct.

      They just keep eating each other up, but the problem with that is it’s hurting the party. Either they are in it for the Liberal supporters or they’re not.

      They are acting like petty whiny children – how can people be confident in a bunch who can’t keep secrets away from the likes of Taber.

      If they can’t stop this nonsense they don’t deserve to be MP’s.

  13. Geoffrey Tuck says:

    This is the minutae I’m talking about:

    “I just wish that this issue would die so the newspaper mastheads and media air times were solely focused on the $1B G8/G20 boondoggle.”

    Yes it is a lot of money, and yes it is a boondoggle. But the merger many grassroots liberals like myself support is so much bigger than this. What? We should focus on the boondoggle and get Iggie elected (and he is the right man to restore our place in our changing world?). This is so short-sighted.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      Geoffrey,

      Yes, Ignatieff is too far to the right for my liking and the liking of many other grassroots Liberals (that is why he was not chosen in 2006).

      Yes, I was outraged that Ignatieff was one of the few Liberals to vote with extending the Liberal mission in Afghanistan.

      Yes, I feel that Ignatieff should be more critical of the Tar Sands.

      Yes, I thought Coalition with Dion was the way to go rather than wait for the economy to implode on Harper (yes, another Ignatieff mistake).

      Yes, I would prefer Bob Rae over Ignatieff.

      In spite of all this, YES, I WILL VOTE FOR IGNATIEFF because I am a Liberal and because he is far better than any of the other alternatives out there. In that vote, I will hope that he will be a far better prime minister than he has been opposition leader. I will work on Liberal campaigns and only Liberal campaigns when an election is called.

      No, I refuse to see the Liberal Party taken over by a bunch of socialists. Unfortunately, the NDP is much, much stronger in motivating their folks to show up (just like Reformers are much, much stronger in motivating their folks to show up versus Tories). A merger will take the new party way too far away from the centre and ensure that Harper gets his majority not only in the next election, but many, many more elections. So much for my “short-sighted” view.

      • Rick T. says:

        News Flash MississaugaPeter:

        Bob Ray is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Also Harper will win the next election.

  14. Ted says:

    Poll, June 2010: LIB ? 27%

    Also not unrelated, some other polls:
    March 1979: LIB ? 76%
    June 1979: LIB ? 28%
    September 1979: LIB ? 30% [2 weeks before Clark lost confidence vote]
    ELECTION FEBRUARY 18, 1980: LIB ? 44%

    ELECTION NOVEMBER 21, 1988: LIB ? 31%
    LEADERSHIP CONVENTION JUNE 23, 1990: LIB ? 28%LIB ? 30%
    October 1990: LIB ? 20%
    January 1991: LIB ? 20%
    April 1991: LIB ? 21%
    July 1991: LIB ? 23%
    October 1991: LIB ? 24%
    February 1992: LIB ? 25%
    May 1992: LIB ? 27%
    August 1992: LIB ? 25%
    August 1993: LIB ? 24% [2 weeks before election called]
    ELECTION OCTOBER 25, 1993: LIB ? 41%

    Q4 2004: Con ? 23%
    Q4 2005: Con ? 25% [2 months before Martin lost confidence vote]
    ELECTION JANUARY 23, 2006 ? Con ? 36%

    In 1979, the Liberals were leaders, divided, in fighting without focus. In early 1993. the Liberals were yesterday?s men, endlessly fighting the latest scandal of the day but without any vision on focus. In the fall of 2005, the media was counting down the days of Harper?s leadership and wondering if the entire OLO staff was a sign of a leaderless, directionless party and Harper just could not connect with Canadians.

    The difference between pre-election polling and election result? An election platform that showed leadership by demonstrating a focus on priorities and policy and substance. For Trudeau, a robust policy platform the constitution, the upcoming referendum (he took 74 of 75 seats in Quebec), and a national energy plan. For Chretien, a robust policy platform (the red book) focused on research and innovation, accountability and good governance. For Harper, a robust policy platform with a focus on accountability and good governance.

    I like my baby, if he?s not all grown up yet. It?s the bathwater I don?t like after he?s clean.

    • Ted says:

      that first one should be 26% obviously, not 76%

    • Michael Watkins says:

      While I would not want to take away anything from either Trudeau – who as a kid I loved – or Chretien, I certainly hope that both would acknowledge that the outgoing incumbent party and their public standing in the battles of 1979 and 1993 had a lot to do with Liberal wins.

      Yes, Trudeau came back to do something great, but he squared off against Clark and that Crosbie cat. Clark had stumbled badly and the public was in no mood to reward the fumbler nor pay higher gas taxes. If only they knew what was coming down the road!

      As for 1993, I do believe that even John Turner could have won that battle, so poisoned was public attitudes towards Mulroney and the Tories and Campbell did nothing to ameliorate that wound. And from 1989 onward the Tories were under assault from within and without, on a regional basis then, thanks to the rise of the Reformers. Yes, the Red Book is famous and all that. Got it.

      I took the voter intentions data from yesterday, split the parties back up into their own individual entities, and used a more revealing presentation as a stacked bar chart. On top of that I’ve highlighted each election over the past 30+ years. Result:

      http://mikewatkins.ca/2010/06/11/1989-began-an-age-of-uncertainty/

      When I look at that I see a deeply fractured opposition to the Conservatives. What once worked to Jean Chretien’s benefit (and rightly so) now stands a chance at working for Stephen Harper, only the opposition to him is far more fractured than ever, and Liberal support is not only low but has been persistently low for the past five years, a situation not seen once in the prior 27 years this data covers.

      If the response is stop-fighting, deliver another Red Book, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Policy and playmates are not going to restore the regional support the once trans-national Liberal party has lost.

      PS: I inked in a 25% line, figuring that Warren might appreciate that.

      Looks to me like a dance with oblivion.

  15. Loraine Lamontagne says:

    I can’t think of a citizen or a journalist who would have remembered the details of the Chevrolet Summit, the existence of the NYT article or known that fabrics were recycled into curtains for 24 Sussex. I want to thank the Liberals (whoever they are) for putting a smile on my face for at least the coming weekend.

  16. James Bow says:

    Though I think a full merger between the Liberals and the NDP is a bad idea, I will say this: pinning your hopes on the electorate souring on the Conservatives due to the huge numbers coming out of the G8/G20 summits is another example of a problem that plagues the Liberal party. The sense that some Canadians have is that the Liberals aren’t doing anything to deserve to win back their place in government; they’re just sitting around, waiting for the Conservatives to fail, hoping that Canadians come to their senses and vote Liberal again.

    It is, in my view, an echo of the Liberal sense of entitlement that soured Canadians to the Liberals in the first place, and it suggests that these Liberals haven’t learned the lesson that got them canned in the first place. Also, the excesses coming out of the G8/G20 summit are hurting the Conservatives, yes, but they’re really feeding into a sentiment that many Canadians have of “a pox on all your houses”. Did you notice the recent Ekos poll where the Conservatives have dropped to 31%, but where the combined support of the Liberals and the Conservatives is at a nearly historic low of 58%? Canadians are already well aware of the reasons why the Conservatives deserve defeat, but they have no confidence that the Liberals deserve victory. Sitting around waiting for the Conservatives to collapse isn’t going to do the party any favours.

    The merger/coalition/cooperation talks, if they exist, are at least an attempt by some Liberals to reach beyond their base to contact new allies and build an agenda that more Canadians can be happy with. It is, at least, an acknowledgement that just sitting around and doing nothing isn’t the way to go. And I credit the various Liberals involved in this for seeking to do something constructive.

  17. Elizabeth says:

    This – I do not understand why the Bloc is completely out of any coalition discussion, as the writer says “they are not Hamas”. They’re smarter than the average bear, they’re not afraid to say what they think – Duceppe is popular across Canada as well as in Quebec.

    Talk to the Bloc. It doesn?t surprise me that someone such as, say, Maclean?s writer Andrew Coyne would subscribe to a strict ?federalists only? conception of Canadian coalition-making. But I find it odd to see Liberals such as Rob Silver and Samuel Lavoie, president of the party?s youth wing, hanging ?no separatists/interdit aux s

    • dj says:

      “Duceppe is popular across Canada as well as in Quebec.” Are you stupid? He just warned Canadians that another referendum is just a matter of time. People like you Liz must be from Ontario. You are willing to give everything to Quebec to preserve the status quo. I don’t think the people of Western Canada will put up with Quebec much longer. Same goes for the Liberal prty of Canada. The East can only F over W Canada for so long and it’s see you later

  18. Wascally Wabbit says:

    Strange! To me – the debate is strategy – and I suppose timing!
    It’s clear, from what I can see, that Harper fears a coalition.
    It has been the ONLY thing that has stopped him in his tracks since he came to “power” in 2006.
    His strategy is based upon continuing to divide the Opposition – and grudging hat tip – it has succeeded – at the same time making the opposition leaders appear weak and in constant turmoil.
    I’m pretty sure the general attitude of the Canadian voter in ROC right now is – we don’t like Harper – but we won’t vote for you until you show us how you would govern.
    In that situation – actually playing like grown ups and putting aside school yard partisan games would attract the necessary level of support to both leading opposition teams in the ROC (I’m not sure how it would play in Quebec).

  19. H Holmes says:

    The fundamental issue to most of the liberal problems as I see themre as follows,
    1. Party leadership willing to throw out backroom leadership at a moments notice.
    2. Relying on subsides to fuel the party. Lets come up with policies that people will donate to see happen.
    3. Promoting short term ideas, like childcare and not focusing nearly enough on the fact the population is getting older.
    4. Rehashing failed policies, like the carbon tax and lementing that Canadians don’t understand them.
    Newsflash people want to keep their own money. People will donate if they can keep there own money.
    5. Having an ideas confrence and then not announcing the next liberal platform based on the conference.
    6. Running on social issues that deeply divide our party. This must not happen any more.
    7. Mr Kinsella and I might have opposite views on many topics, but he was and is a winner. I refuse to believe that you hire people with losing records to run anything. You take their advice about national campaigning as gold.

    Lets put our minds together to fix the party.

    Personally I would like to see a winners conference, where the presidents of the liberal organizations that have won the last election, get together and push up what they did to win. This is the exact opposite of what we are doing now. We are running the pparty like it is still 1965. We need to move towards the future.

    Finaly we need to follow LEAN principles to improve the party. There are easier more effective ways of doing anything we need to find them.

  20. whyshouldIsellhourwheat says:

    The only way a merger or pre-election coalition or federation defeats Harper is if Chretien is leading it with Romanov, Layton, and Ignatieff as his lieutenants.

    When does Chretien make the announcement of a Liberal-NDP federation for the next election, with a formal merger later, and a leadership convention in three years after Chretien retires.

    For the pool, I’m picking August 1.

  21. LW says:

    The problem is now that the big tent is not working. We have drifted too far without input from our membership. Frankly, I do not see any solid leader who is ready, and the policy vision is lacking. The old Martin and Chretien camps are still splitting us.

  22. Namesake says:

    I. Re: what you’re getting at, I think it’s just the venerable: Told ya so.

    II. Re: who’s the real Iago in the Libs’ midst, you, JC, or… I think it’s El Prez! Look at what the king maker’s done so far, in 4 Acts:

    1) Martin is foundering, we’re tanking;what to do? “We have an App for that: let’s bring in Iggy, to be PET’s second (er, third) coming.”

    2) Iggy hasn’t come far enough yet, & Dion, the Green Shift, & the coalition are all tanking; what to do? “We have an App for that: anoint King Iggy!”

    3) King Iggy hasn’t caught on with either the populace or the membership and we’re tanking worse than ever; what to do? “I am the App for that; why, I’ll just get the ex-Kings & Princes together in secret, non-serious discusssions to craft and sire a new Royal Line …”

    4) The secret non-serious discussions haven’t progressed far or fast enough _and_ they’ve been leaked, the King now feels there’s sedition afoot and looks more flat-foted than ever, and we’re in danger of being extinguished once we lose our electoral tax subsidy; what to do? “I have one last App for that: tell the electorate to vote strategically!” (thereby undermining the Leader and dozens of hapless ridings one last time).

    [See the end of John Geddes article, on p. 23 of the June 21 MacLean’s released yesterday: ” App suggests they should vote less for the party they prefer than the House they want. “The question that Canadians have to ask in the next election,” he says, “whichever riding they live in, is, “What is the best way to get a progressive majority in Parliament?” ”

    III. And Re: How to run an honest, winnable, coalition platform that can both unseat the Cons & give most every party faithful what they say they most want (the preservation of their parties & being able to represent their ideals):

    I still think there’s merit in my suggestion in an earlier thread: an electoral accord with the NDP & the Greens (& even the BQ, for that matter) on an “Let’s get together and enact a Proportional Representation system” platform:
    http://warrenkinsella.com/2010/06/coalition-on-the-current/#comment-3927

    • PolyGon says:

      Couldn’t agree more – or could I?

      The bigness of the LPC tent has got to be, in some measure, a major cause of its internal disunity. Martin, Dion, Ignatieff have each worn the mantle of flailing and failing leadership – but really, the job of uniting a party with a foreign policy that ranges from the Axworthian to the.. well, Ignatieffian… is a tough tough job. So many factions, so few lowest common denominators.

      I say that in criticism of LPC-NDP merger talk. What hope would an elephantine progressive “Lib Dem” party in Canada have of speaking with a clear voice, with an elevator pitch that’s coherent and believeable? It would exacerbate the Liberals’ current crisis of identity in a way that would turn Canadians off. “These guys can’t agree on the weather…”

      So, multiparty democracy it is, though the Liberals are going to need to accept the age-old NDP insistence upon a referendum on voting reform – alternative vote, as the Brits are going to do, or even deeper PR. It might mean Death To Majorities, but it also means more (and a fairer representation of) progressives in the House, while retaining the party distinctions that make them coherent in their affiliation. That’s all a good thing.

      Where I’m not sure I agree, or maybe don’t fully understand, is your call for an electoral accord…. is this before the election? Humm. I’d prefer the LPC talks electoral reform as a campaigning point, but they still fight like hell without any formal entente with the NDP. A good campaign should be enough (shouldn’t it?) for the LPC to win a minority… emphasis on a “good campaign”… then the coalition building can begin, huzzah

      • Namesake says:

        re: [My] call for an electoral accord…. is this before the election?

        Yes (but _not_ to incl. the BQ, now that they’re beating the separatist drums again).

        Because I really don’t think the Libs will win the next election(s) w/o one — esp. if they ran on electoral reform on their own, ‘cuz then it’d be portrayed as just wanting to change the first-past-the-post unfairly, now that it was no longer benefitting it.

        The aim, obviously, would be stop the vote-splitting in the potentially winnable ridings, by just running one non-Con. (and non-BQ) in each riding, but just in the next election (or until that electoral reform was achieved).

        I really don’t know whether this would best be done in every riding or just in the 20 or so some have identified where the Con’s won w. less than 50% of the vote, or how or who should go about deciding which non-Con/BQ to run.

        But I do have a suggestion for fending off the inevitable “this is outrageously illegitimate” hysterical Con-bot attacks:

        an interim party could be set up for both the sole-candidates & the post-election coalition, called — wait for it — the Canadian Democratic Alliance…

        w. a mutually agreed Lib/NDP/Green short term economic & social platform they’d abide by for the year or two or whatever it took to get the electoral reform (and referundum on it, if need be) through, which should be hammered out by our elders & their ‘sherpas’ this summer.

  23. allegra fortissima says:

    One of my fb friends posted a comment about the current coalition talks in Germany last night:

    A Liberal politician labels the Christian Social Union as a “wild boar”.

    A Christian Socialist counters and describes the Liberal Party as a “cucumber group” regarding Health Care Policy.

    Another friend sees those “dream partners” in a “forced marriage”, while a third friend thinks of “Sodom & Gomorrha”.

    Gotta luv it!

    I know, all you polite and well-behaved Canadians here (Canadians are famous for being polite and well-behaved all over the world) are reading this in awe. But no worries, all parties will finally come to a reasonable solution – they have to compromise in order to govern. No choice!

    I am looking forward to coalition talks in Canada – polite and well-behaved, please 🙂

  24. Iris Mclean says:

    How about the Liberals just bow out for the next few years, take some time to grow up and get their squabbling done with, and maybe come back as a respected party like it used to be. In the meantime the Bloc and NDP can serve as proper opposition parties as they have been doing. Given the gutless, childish, and embarrassing performance of the Liberal party over the last few years, maybe they should have a time-out.

  25. Lipman, Derek says:

    Iris:

    Wow, what would we be without your sweeping generalizations.

    • Iris Mclean says:

      We’ve had four years to watch Harper doing what ever the hell he wants to do. We have had four years of watching the Liberals being absent in the house so that Harper can have his way. We have had many more years of fighting within the party. I suppose that that is sweeping.

  26. I hate music says:

    I suspect the media people plastering some poll about Canadians being against a merger get what yr getting at, I suspect.

  27. JStanton says:

    I have no relationship with Mr. Ignatieff. I thought I did, once, but then he betrayed me by failing in exactly the way I feared a theoretician and political neophyte would.

    I should have trusted my instincts; I should never have succumbed to wishful thinking.

    The Liberal Party has pretty near exhausted it’s font of goodwill. We had a good thing going for a lot of years because of Mr. Chretien. For reasons I don’t fully understand, some Liberal office-holders felt the need to betrayed him, and us, and things have been spiraling out of control ever since.

    First, Mr. Martin succumbed to defeat by hubris. Then, Mr. Dion suffered a slow death, by his own hand, on the altar of good intentions. And now Mr. Ignatieff is drowning in a sea of denial.

    Frankly, I’m sick of being jerked around by LPC insiders and their apparently arbitrary leadership picks. These guys are supposed to be seasoned political operatives, but instead, we get the level of judgment reasonably expected from summer interns.

    And the more they prevaricate, the clearer it becomes that they have nothing left to offer. Fine. I kept the faith for ten years while they succumbed to their own self indulgences. Now I’m done with them. Bring on the election; bring on the blood. We need a good cleansing. Then we can rebuild the party, hopefully without them.

  28. Michael Watkins says:

    I’m not sure I should guess after a beer, but one thing that worries me is a mutiny on the good ship Liberal, fomented by the Conservatives.

    This would seem to explain why Warren’s old boss appears to have blessed a rather activist agenda.

    A – Jean Chretien now sees a life-threatening risk to the Liberal party and, I think more importantly, to “liberal” pragmatic politics in Canada. This is a change in his thinking, and such changes are not made lightly by one with M. Chretien’s experience and thus should be heeded by others.

    B – M. Chretien recognizes from his own experience that opposition support split among four parties gives Harper a proven mechanism to win. Mr. Harper also knows this, and his options for forming a coalition are very limited indeed.

    C – A Harper majority threatens more than 7 million dollars in annual electoral subsidies to the Liberals at a time the party can both ill afford the gap it would represent nor seems able to fund raise its way out of this. Given this is partly one of M. Chretien’s legacies, he might feel some sense of responsibility here. Personally I applauded election finance reform – something had to be done.

    A+B+C means the Liberal party is in a tough place, and that makes the natives (MPs who may lose their seats, or lose any hope of sighting power in the next 5 – 8 years) very restless, very unpredictable, very difficult to control.

    When animals are cornered they can sometimes lash out and do unpredictable things.

    With all the talk of coalition, some of the more active minds may be thinking there are other coalitions they can join.

    Is it possible that the LPC could lose control of sufficient caucus members to allow Stephen Harper to “pull a Robert Borden” (include some Liberals in his cabinet/government), and seize a majority or at least an even stronger minority before almost immediately heading into another election? He doesn’t have a world war and conscription as an excuse, but no doubt some excuse could be concocted. The possibility has to be acknowledged at the very least, and ideally, countered. Ahead of the pass. With an ambush at the Blue Canyon.

    Ironically all this talk of mergers and coalitions with the NDP could even precipitate defections, which is why deft and trusted hands need to be at the table working through the possibilities, not the current leaders. That’s not to say the current leaders can’t play the game, once the chess pieces are put into play by others.

    Alternatively, Jack Layton might have enough hubris to believe that he would be a long term benefactor of the destruction of the Liberal party; would he consider joining forces with Stephen Harper in a UK style arrangement. Would many of his members rip up their cards over that? Yes, but who knows what runs through that mind.

    At present in 2010 the CPC is raising money at 4X the rate of the LPC; last year the CPC raised almost 2X what the Liberals did, and raised more than the Liberals and NDP combined. The threat of losing electoral subsidies without some equitable approach in place is a concern in the here and now.

    Clearly following “status quo” or “same old same old” operating procedures has got to go at this point.

  29. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Letting Conservatives Speak…

    Posted at Threehundredeight.com:

    Shadow said…

    Don’t let Quebec separate, it would give Harper a comfortable majority !!

    Hmm …

    Could this be why a lot of western Canadians want Quebec kicked out of Canada, where as Liberals are fighting for it to stay ?

    Interesting to think about.

    12 June, 2010 17:26

    And I was worried about those guys being Canada’s worst nightmare. What was I thinking?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*