NDP and Liberals

With the passing, deification, and Saturday's memorial for Jack Layton, pundits, bloggers, and journos were quick to begin the speculation on who should run for the NDP leadership.  Names such as party prez Brian Topp and Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair, uh, top the list.  And Jack was right in his final letter saying they need to pick someone as soon as possible.  Because with Quebec Solidaire member Nycole Turmel as it's interim leader, the worse the NDP will fair in the public eye or be taken seriously in the House of Commons and in the media.

For the other interim leader, Liberal Bob Rae says a merger with the NDP is not his focus "at the moment".  Ah Bob, always leaves a slight crack open.  As the Liberals gear up for a meeting among MPs, senators, and more failed candidates than ever, they need to do a lot of things to get back in the game.  Merging with the NDP right now is the dumbest thing the Liberals could do from a position of great weakness.  As well, that all depends on who they and the NDP pick for their leader.  And even if that leadership candidate says a merger is not in the cards, I'd dare them to ask Stephen Harper and Peter Mackay their thoughts on that.

Even though he said he's not running (they all say that at the start), the best hope for the Liberals, in my humble Hatrock opinion is Justin Trudeau--maybe not in 2015 but 2019.  That said, I've heard of absolutely no rumours of anyone running, which is how Bob would like it.  My guess is that a lot of Liberals think Harper will win the next election, but then the public will grow tired of him and that's the time to run.  Bob Rae will finally step down and a new Liberal leader will emerge.  And if I was Justin Trudeau, that's exactly what I'd do.

Entering the political fray is about three things:  patience, timing, and momentum.

So back to the NDP speculation.  Patience is short, the timing is in the next month, and the momentum is derived from a build up of the speculation.  I'll be honest I don't know who Brian Topp is, although I've heard the name before and that name is certainly being built-up.  So is former Manitoba premier and Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer.  The more they resist the urge to run, the more build-up and support occurs.  That said, Thomas Mulcair has the best advantage being from Quebec, which is where most of the NDP is from now.  Olivia Chow should not run because she won't win, which will be an embarrassment.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper and the Conservative government sit back and run the show with a majority in both houses and yet not too much attention on them.

Liberals...kickin' themselves when they're down

Wikileaks cables have revealed the tension within the Liberal Party of Canada since Ignatieff was given the reigns to the leadership, particularly from new interim leader Bob Rae, and former insider Rocco Rossi.

Why is this surprising?

I think many of us in the Conservative blogosphere, knew Bob Rae and his minions were behind the scenes in somehow undermining or planning to undermine Michael Ignatieff's leadership, like Iggy did to Stephane Dion.

Bob Rae knew over two years ago that the Liberal Party wasn't going to grow.  Maybe that's why he let Ignatieff take the reigns unchallenged just after the initial coalition agreement and Dion's resulting departure.

It's also more apparent that Bob Rae, although interim leader, will eventually be crowned permanent leader?  Why?  Because it will be ensured no one will run.

I know I've said on my Twitter that we shouldn't be focusing on the Liberals rebuilding.  I'm not though.  I'm focusing on their demise.

Bob the Interim cont'd...

Hot off the wire, the Liberals have picked Bob Rae to be their interim leader.

Several Blogging Tories have suggested that this is really a ruse by Bob to eventually lead the party.  Now that Justin Trudeau says he doesn't want to lead the party, and he was the favourite, really, who else will step forward besides Dominic Leblanc?

Not only that, but in four years, who'd really want to go up against the very strong Conservative and NDP parties?

With the government about to remove taxpayer party subsidies, the Liberals are in trouble as far as fundraising compared to the CPC and NDP.

So, I kind of agree and predict the following will play out.  There won't be any real candidates step forward and the Liberal bagmen will let Bob continue and fight the next election, which he'll lose obviously.  Then, in 2016, there will finally be a competitive Liberal race, Justin will run and win, and then contest the 2019 election.  How that election will play out, I have no idea, and neither does anyone really.

Now, there's no denying that Bob wants to merge the Liberals with the NDP, but the Liberals were only open to it when they had the upperhand to swallow the NDP.  That's not true anymore.

Bob Rae continually gets voted as the best parliamentarian in the House of Commons by his fellow MPs likely due to his gentlemanly, calm demeanour.  With Jack Layton announcing that his caucus will refrain from heckling, that Harper has certainly toned it down over the years, methinks Question Period is going to be pretty boring for a while. 

Oh wait, Thomas Mulcair won his seat though, didn't he?

Bob Rae the Interim

It appears that Toronto-Centre MP and former Ontario NDP Premier, Bob Rae, will take the Liberal Party interim leadership for the next year and a half when they finally have a leadership vote in the fall of 2012.

This quashes any actual leadership or prime ministerial ambitions he has had.

I've always had my eye on him (politically!) and believed that he was quietly undermining Michael Ignatieff's leadership, especially after bowing out of any leadership race when Stephane Dion stepped down.

There is also no doubt that Bob wants to merge the Liberals and NDP, but with the NDP in a much, much, much stronger position than the Liberals, that possibility is off the table.

Bob's getting up there in age, but I think the Liberal diaspora saw the writing on the wall if Rae was elected their leader.  The Conservative Party would have a Rae hay day in slamming his record as premier of Ontario.

This is a good move for the Liberals.

Far from me to give advice to them, but I would suggest that they reconnect with their original roots and purpose.  They were called Grits back in the day.  Does anyone call them that anymore?  No.  They need to find that "grittiness" to garner attention and purpose to exist.  Rae is not gritty, but actually quite eloquent in the House of Commons, so whomever the Libs pick as leader, he or she has gotta have the grit, because their last three leaders didn't.

Why would they want an election?

Yesterday, the budget debate got postponed, meaning the government will likely fall on Friday over the Liberal non-confidence motion on the Conservative government being in contempt of parliament, which in my opinion, is still debatable being that the house affairs committee has a majority opposition.

So I've been thinking, why would the Liberals and Dippers really want an election?  Poll numbers would indicate that things aren't looking that good for either of them where the Conservatives have been inching up toward a majority.

Are Liberal backroom dealers making Iggy go for it because they want him to lose so they can replace him with a Liberal-NDP merger-friendly leader, say, like Bob Rae?

Same with the NDP?  This is likely Jack's last election anyway. 


Or, primarily, are the Liberals and NDP still thinking that if Harper doesn't get his majority (and it will be close), they have a chance at forming a coalition government of losers in cahoots with the Bloc?

Yesterday, the media directly asked Iggy if he'd form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc.  He didn't say 'no'. 

When pressed further at the news conference about whether he is prepared to accept the verdict of voters if they elect a minority Conservative government, Ignatieff returned to his previous answer.

"There's a blue door. There's a red door. We're going to form a Liberal government. Is that clear enough for you?" Ignatieff then abruptly ended the news conference and walked off.

Actually, Mr. Ignatieff, no, it's not clear.  Is that a Liberal government with an NDP/Bloc coalition?

Why else would you really want to head into an election then?  You are not going to win on your own.

Election looming?

The big question on Parliament Hill is whether the Liberals are going to use a sneaky non-confidence motion to bring down the government.  Of course, for that motion to pass, they need the support of the Bloc and NDP, not one or the other.  Bloc will be there.

But will the NDP?  All indicators to me are no.  Jack doesn't want to.  He just got out of a successful hip surgery and reeling from prostate cancer treatment.  So I don't think he's in a mood to go to an election when his party is setting as high in seat total as it will for a while.  That dog won't bark.

So I believe the Liberals are using this to put a feeler out there to see what the NDP would do.  Now, Quebec NDP MP Thomas Muclair would appear to want an election and take the leadership, but is adamant this isn't true. Hmm.  The Bloc have supposedly made a quiet deal with the NDP in Muclair's riding to ensure he wins, and preventing the Liberal candidate there, former Liberal Quebec lieutenant Martin Couchon doesn't win.  Confused?  Moi aussi.

Even if the motion doesn't pass, the Liberals then get to see what the public reaction is to it and can then attack the NDP for supporting the government.  THEN, when the budget comes, the Liberals will know the NDP will also probably vote for it, potentially bleeding more support from the NDP.

This would seem the Liberals are trying to grab support from the left flank and ignoring the centre-right and even the centre where the Conservatives are becoming stronger.

OR, has Ignatieff been tricked into thinking that this is the wise approach?

If you were Bob Rae, you'd want to weaken the NDP, force an election so Ignatieff resigns, win the leadership, then make a deal with the NDP to merge the parties into the Liberal Democrats, and voila, possibly have more support than the Conservatives, then force another election next Spring.

So in summary, will there be an election soon?

Only if Jack can prevent it.

Parliamentary numbers

Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed two folks to the Senate--former CFL commissioner Larry Smith and Toronto preacher Don Meredith, bumping the Conservatives' standings in the 105 seat Senate to 54, just short of a majority but enough to get bills from the House passed and defeat opposition bills. (Correction: strikeout "just short of a majority")

As well, the Globe and Mail has an interesting and easy to read article on seat standings in the House of Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

	Current	Hypothetical*	Difference
Conservative	143	154	+11
Liberal	77	73	-4
BQ	47	47	n/c
NDP	36	32	-4
Ind.	2	2	n/c
Vacant	3		-3

* - if Conservatives win all vulnerable seats and incumbant parties win vacanies.
So in the hypothetical situation, the Conservatives would be in majority zone with 50% of the seats, plus the two independents who usually vote with the government.

Now let's look at the senate.


SENATE

	Current	Hypothetical*	Difference
Conservative	54	43	-11
Liberal	47	41	-6
BQ	0	14	+14
NDP	0	4	+4
Progressive Conservative	2	1	-1
Ind.	2	2	n/c

* - if an elected Senate were in place in 1995.  Now this isn't entirely accurate of today's political climate but shows why there's a push by the Conservatives to have 8-year term limits for senators to try and knock off as many Liberals as possible.

ELECTION SPECULATION

Opposition Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has been throwing speculation balloons out there regarding the upcoming federal budget and that the Liberals will vote against it likely to trigger an election.  While at the same time, the Prime Minister has smartly said that there won't be a "poison pill" in the budget to vote against.  But that doesn't mean there might be a contentious one for the Liberals to trigger an election on and that issue may be the election focus among other things like a North American border for freer trade, refugee reform, and the continuing justice bills.

By saying he doesn't want to trigger an election, what the Prime Minister has done is put the ball in Ignatieff's hands.  The Conservatives are in power, have been leading in the polls, have way more money than the Liberals, and are also getting things through the Senate now so the momentum is with them for sure.  If the Liberals want to have an election, bring it on, but Canadians will know that it was Ignatieff who triggered it.  So in essence, Harper has once again out-manoeuvred Iggy once again.

MY PREDICTION

My guess is that secret backroom Liberals controlled by Bob Rae will push to defeat the budget, go for an election, sour the campaign to make Ignatieff look bad, reducing the number of Liberals seats to about 70, with the Conservatives barely winning a majority. Then a legitimate summer/fall Liberal leadership race will happen with Bob Rae going up against Trudeau, Kennedy, LeBlanc, and a handful of other candidates who want name recognition.

LIBERAL-NDP MERGER

If the Conservative get another minority, former NDP now Liberal leader Bob will push for the creation of the Liberal Democrats as a merger between the Liberals and NDP.  If a merger happens (although I don't think it will) the opposition will defeat the government again in late 2012 or 2013.  Bob may be in a good position here though as Canadians may grow tired of Stephen Harper, including Conservatives who wanted a majority.

In regards to the merger, there are a chunk of blue liberals who would probably jump ship to the Conservatives knowing there would be a strong socialist wing to the party.  And don't count out the Greens.  If they ever get a new leader who actually has political prowess, the Greens could cause vote splitting.

BACK TO THE PRESENT

So I think if Harper actually sees that the odds of a majority is above 40%, he'll poison the budget enough for the Liberals to have no choice but to defeat it.  If not, how long will Ignatieff wait as opposition leader and how long will Bob Rae sit and wait for his opportunity to strike?

In the meantime, Stephen Harper really has nothing to lose either way.

Waves of provincial and federal party support

A poll was just released showing 3/4 Ontarians want Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty and his party out (29% support) and Tim Hudak's PCs in (41% support).

In last night's election in New Brunswick, the PCs trounced the incumbent Liberals, 42 to 13 seats. (It could be argued though that the PCs were even to the left of the Liberals there.)

Many believe that this wave of 'conservatism' on a provincial level directly translates to votes for conservatives on a federal level.  It doesn't.  While there are numerous examples, let us look at Ontario's recent history, because how Ontario votes federally basically determines who wins for the whole country.

In Ontario in the 80's, Mulroney's federal PC government dominated Ontario, yet provincially at that time, Ontario was Liberal. And then Bob Rae's NDP came in.

Then in 1993, once Ontario went with Chretien's Liberals, a couple years later, Ontarians went with Mike Harris' provincial PCs.  Then Paul Martin (tending to be a bit more conservative than Chretien) was PM and Ontario goes Liberal provincially with Dalton McGuinty. Soon later, Ontarians support Harper's Conservatives federally.

So my theory, backed up by strong evidence mind you, is that Ontarians, feeling like they are the big province that holds the country together, generally like to balance out their politics between who's in power federally versus provincially.

So for you Ontario Conservatives who are cheering for a potential Tim Hudak PC win, keep in mind the recent history, which dictates that soon after, Ontario federally will eventually switch to the Liberals putting the Liberals back in power. 

Which is why you'd better hope to heck that after the next federal election when Ignatieff's Liberals lose, that they replace him with Bob Rae, because I don't think Ontarians are that gullible to support him again, and will hopefully make an exception to my theory.

Hopefully.

Iggy on the GG: then, now, and the future...

Two months ago:

“We’ve considered the question and we think the right way to go here is to reappoint Michaëlle Jean.” 

Now:

“I want to congratulate David Johnston for his appointment as Canada’s 28th Governor General.

“David Johnston’s dedication to learning and innovation – which are essential to Canada’s success – combined with his legal expertise the constitutional knowledge makes him an ideal choice for Governor General."

So Mr. Ignatieff, which is it?  The "right way" or "an ideal choice"?

As much as I'm not a fan of summer polls, especially from Ekos (Greens above 11% my ass), is it any wonder Liberal support has dipped below 25%?

Good timing, because of Senators picking apart the budget bill, the Conservatives are now ready to "rock and roll" for a fall election.

[Conservative Senator and campaign manager, Doug] Finley said he's hopeful senators will eventually bow to the will of the elected Commons, which has already approved the bill. But if they don't, he said: "Let's dance."

"We're ready to go to an election if we have to. The buses, the planes, the trains, the money, the boardroom — everything's ready to rock and roll," said Finley.

"We're in good shape for an election."

Now being the Bob Rae/PowerCorp conspirator theorist that I am, I believe the Rae Liberals will help trigger an election somehow, and cut their losses.  Then Ignatieff will step down but stay on as an MP (if he wins). Regardless of that though, he'll continue his abysmal attendance record (307th worst) but then announce he's not running again and will return to Harvard.  It's obvious Ignatieff has no passion for being an MP, only PM.

With Jack Layton's health in question, although he'll likely run come a fall election as there's no time for the Dippers to have a leadership race.  Afterward though, Jack may step down, and some Dippers may be more comfortable with merging with the Liberals.  Then let the Liberal Democrat merger/coalition massively ramp up with Bob Rae being "the great uniter".

Surely many soft Liberals supporters won't stick around and while some will migrate to the Conservatives, don't be surprised at Green numbers rising and a push to oust Elizabeth May who will once again lose against a Conservative cabinet minister, Gary Lunn, in BC.

If the Conservatives win a majority this fall, the Liberal leadership race will take a year or two, and Bob Rae will want that to happen, to ensure he's 'democratically elected', unlike his old roommate, to legitimize his support within the party.  The big question of course will be the merger, because nothing else will really be supported.  If any other Liberal leadership candidate comes forward against a merger, say Dominic LeBlanc, Gerard Kennedy, Martin Couchon, or heck, even a Justin Trudeau, will they be able to unite the Liberals again.

For the NDP, if Thomas Muclair gets reelected, he has a good shot at becoming the next NDP leader. And if he's anti-merger, then nothing will change.  If Muclair doesn't win, then who knows will emerge.  Regardless, the Harper Conservatives will enjoy more time in government while the new opposition party leaders get their feet wet and try to win the trust of Canadians.

All of this news is good for Conservatives and don't think Harper hasn't thought out all of the scenarios in his continued long-game to replace the Liberals as the natural governing party of Canada.

And the coalition talk continues...

It's great, isn't it? That this coalition talk has had the legs it does?

I've theorized that it's been Bob Rae in the background who's been keeping this flame alive.  Why?  Well, with Michael Ignatieff's low poll numbers, and the penchant for Liberals to continually drool at gaining power again, they'll do anything to get there.  Including supposed high-level full-out merger talks.

Was this coalition banter propped by Liberals and Dippers who point out that recently in Britain, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government, so why can't it work here with Liberals and Dippers?

Ah, but there's the difference ... UK Conservatives WON, where the Lib-Dip coalition of losers, as our Prime Minister so pointed out, did not.  The UK Conservatives had the most seats and it should be their choice who they want to form a coalition with, if any.

In Canada, Harper's Conservatives WON the last election with the most seats.  They've just chosen not to form a coalition with any of the other caucuses.  And with the way these parties have fumbled in opposition, and how unprepared they are to fight an election, why would you?

Polls are out showing that a Liberal-Democrat coalition/merger, under certain leaders, yadda yadda, would beat the Conservatives.

Yet I'm also reading online how there's no way in Marx that Dippers would join with Liberals and how Blue Liberals are very uncomfortable with some of these hard-line socialists.  Maybe they'll move to the Conservatives.  But who the hell REALLY knows at this point.  It's all speculation.

So that said, I'd like to point out that the Libs and Dips have ALREADY formed coalitions in the past. And no, I'm not talking about the Lib-NDP working relationship in the 60's and early 70's that brought us health care, the new flag, and Petro Canada. I'm talking about the last federal election--specifically in Edmonton, and more specifically, the ridings of Centre and Strathcona.

We recall in Edmonton Strathcona where NDP Linda Duncan beat out then Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, where he had enjoyed the split vote on the left for several elections.  In 2008, the Liberal candidate's campaign was very weak, yet there were a plethora of Liberals helping out the better of the "progressive" candidates in Duncan's campaign.

Same can be said in Edmonton Centre where Liberals have continually enjoyed support from Dippers who migrate over to the better campaign to beat the evil Reform/Alliance/Conservative.  Would "Landslide Annie" McLellan have ever won in 1993, 1997, and 2000 with a strong NDP campaign competing with her?  I doubt it.  So why do the NDP continually put forth a weak candidate in that riding, yet a strong one in Strathcona, where the Liberals do the opposite? 

After she finally lost to Laurie Hawn in 2004, a campaign team I was very proud to be a part of, in 2008, Liberal Andy Hladyshyvsky's campaign was also formidable, but didn't have the traction to win over as many lefties who saw the likely win of Hawn's superior campaign machine and the fact that he's a darn good MP.

So what I'm saying is that for many years Liberals and Dippers have already formed local coalitions.  Are local-level Liberals and Dippers getting together over veggie omelettes to plan this out?  I'm wondering if this has been intentional, because in Edmonton, it sure as hell seems that way. 

Which is why it doesn't surprise me that supposed "high-level" omelette talks between Liberals and Dippers are occurring at a federal level to merge both parties, let alone a working electoral coalition.

While I believe this is Bob Rae's sneaky attempt to quietly discredit Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, its also the primary method for him to become leader of a united Lib-Dem party and the only possible way he'll ever get the keys to 24 Sussex.

And do you think perhaps ol' PowerCorp, where Bob Rae AND Jean Chretien used to be on the board, is behind this merger/coalition talk?

Which is why I also think it just might happen.

Then the question becomes, should Conservatives be worried? 

What about Bob?

With a hat-tip to the Christian Conservative blog, just as I called it, Bob Rae has some thoughts on a Lib-Dip coalition.

Remember what I said just the other day:

As I always do, look at this from another point of view...  a certain someone and Jean Chretien were on PowerCorp.  Chretien likes Dion and brought him into cabinet.  In first leadership race after Martin steps down, a certain someone drops out and supports Dion on last ballot, not Iggy. 

Do you think the NDP grassroots would ever want to be in a coalition with Ignatieff?  I don't think so.  But perhaps a certain someone. Someone who was a former provincial NDPer himself. 

Again, I ask, if Michael Ignatieff's poll numbers weren't so low, would anyone be talking about a coalition?

Iggy and The Grits

Many of you have heard that this coming weekend, the Liberals are having a "Thinkers Conference" in Quebec somewhere, but Liberal MPs, are being left out. That's right, the democratically elected Liberal Members of Parliament weren't invited. So does this now show that Liberal MPs don't have to do any thinking for the party?

Well, not necessarily...

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Toronto-Centre(of the universe) MP and Liberal Deputy Leader Bob Rae introduces a motion on maternal health for developing countries...

"the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception," and "refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States"

The motion, which called on the government to include a broader range of maternal health programs, including contraception, in an initiative for developing countries, was supported by all three opposition parties and was designated a whipped vote by the Liberals.

The Bloc and NDP supported the motion, but when several Liberals failed to show up [*1], three voted against it [*2], and one abstained [*3], the Liberal's motion was actually defeated 144-138 thanks to.. well, Liberals.

And so it does appear that there are three Liberals who can do some thinking of their own!

But Iggy can't have that!  Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he's going to internally discipline the three that voted against it. But even if they voted in favour, the motion would have still lost because it would have been tied 141-141 and the Speaker votes with the gov't.

Anyway, the question arises:  Did these three renegade MPs vote against their own party's motion simply because:

a) they're representing their constituents feelings and want to keep their voters happy against strong Conservative contenders in their ridings,

b) that they're pissed off that they weren't invited to the Thinkers Conference, or

c) former/current Liberal leader hopeful Bob Rae was trying to embarrass Iggy's leadership but secretly sabotaging the vote on a motion he introduced and had MPs not show up and some vote against it?

But if you picked c), then check this out..

After first losing their own Opposition day motion on maternal health, the Liberals proceeded to royally mix up how they voted next, on the supplementary estimates attached to the budget.

The Liberals were supposed to vote NO [to oppose the government's spending plans], but confusion reigned, and instead a handful of MPs on the front bench voted YES.

After realizing their error, the MPs tried to correct the parliamentary mishap by voting AGAIN: this time AGAINST the estimates.

So what does this have to do with Bob Rae?  Well, apparently, one of the MPs who mistakenly voted yes was BOB RAE!!!  Maybe we can call him BOB YEA now.  So any thought of him secretly sagotaging, I think, is out the window, unless he was openly doing it to embarrass Iggy!  While it's fun to speculate, I think the correct answer is the simpliest, most boring one and that's a) They were simply representing their constituents.  But wow, is this Liberal caucus ever disorganized.

In summary...

• Liberal MPs can't attend Liberal Thinkers Conference.
• Liberal MPs vote against their own motion and many don't show up, defeating the motion itself.
• Liberal MPs vote in favour of something they were going to vote against.

Wow. What a party they are. "Oh, they're weird and they're wonderful.. Iggy and The Grits".

And as one person commented on CBC.ca: 

"The Liberals couldn't host a drunk at a brewery."

___________________

Liberal MPs mentioned:

[*1] - Albina Guarnieri, Anita Neville, Gerard Kennedy, Andrew Kania, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Alan Tonks, Marlene Jennings, Joe Volpe, Lawrence MacAuley, Stephane Dion, Mario Silva (paired with B. Calkins), Jim Karygiannis, Albina Guarnieri, and Derek Lee (although he was in the House just moments before the vote)

[*2] - John McKay, Paul Szabo, and Dan McTeague

[*3] - Gurbax Malhi
_____________________


UPDATE:  Liberal MP Derek Lee gets cornered by reporters to ask him if he thought it was a party whipped vote.  He doesn't think so, although the party whip made it "clear".  More here...

Why Liberals love China

Ezra tells it like it is.

PowerCorp again.  Guess who else has sat on the board?  Maurice Strong (Kofi Annan's and Paul Martin's buddy).  Bob Rae et al.  That's the company that's supposedly been running the country from behind the scenes for the past long while. If there's been any party in Canada that has been in the pocket of big business, it's the Liberals.

3D House of Iggy

Halloween is coming and let me tell you, folks, this is scariest teaser trailer that I have ever seen...



h/t Ardvark

Egging on Iggy

Bob Rae just bowed out of the Liberal leadership as well in the name of "party unity", when just yesterday he was saying that not having a race probably wasn't a good idea. Man, Bob Rae is the master of changing his tune when it suits him, doesn't it? Anyone doubting he's a Liberal should have no doubt now!

So nicely played, Mr. Ignatieff. Use a crisis and panic to have everyone unify around you. Paul Martin didn't even do as well.

At least Stephen Harper fought TWO contentious leadership races, unifed two parties, and has won a second mandate. Martin didn't. Ignatieff lost a leadership race to Dion (!), isn't going to unify two parties, and I predict he won't win the next election either.

That is, if he wants a fight come January.

Even if Ignatieff is the leader of a coalition, Canadians don't want it. Iggy knows this.

So now we're left two scenarios for Ignatieff:

A) Defeat the budget and fight an election in February/March, which the Liberals would lose, and Iggy is mired as opposition leader for 4 years.

B) Build the Liberal party and fight an election next fall or thereafter. Much better chance at winning.

But don't you find it amazing how all Liberals sign a letter supporting Dion as leader of a coalition gov't, then the next week in a two day period, they dump him, and two leadership candidates drop out and support Ignatieff.

Just like that.

There was some MAJOR backroom play going on for Ignatieff and the Liberal party membership was completely shut out of the whole thing. And this coalition is shutting out the Canadian voter.

It's the Liberal way folks. Circumvent democracy at every turn.

Completely opposite of how Stephen Harper and the Conservatives climbed their way to the top.

Oh, and congratulations to Premier Jean Charest in winning a 7 seat majority in Quebec last night. Mario Dumont quits as ADQ leader (that party is done like dinner). I'd like to know how many folks who voted Bloc in the federal election voted Liberal in this Quebec election.

Anyway, back to federal...

You know what I think Harper is going to do? I think he and Flaherty are going to present another modest budget with some help for the auto and forest industry, but it just isn't going to be good enough for Iggy and Co. And Iggy is going to be caught in a tough spot. Now that he's crowned, and the Liberals are "unified", many Liberals are going to want to push for an election with their new leader.

Harper WANTS an election. He knows he'd win a majority.

Is Ignatieff's ego that big that he'll call Harper's bluff and have an election?

Or will he do the smart thing and wait?

The egg awaits.

That's the Iggy

Well, it "seems" that Michael Ignatieff wants to follow his party's constitution and have the leadership race in May. But that'll only happen now if his old roommate Bob Rae stays in the race.

I'm telling ya, if Ignatieff becomes the interim leader and the Liberals defeat the budget in January, he'd wouldn't be smart embracing this coalition government. He also wouldn't be smart in him asking the Governor General for an election, but Stephen Harper would, because the Conservatives would get a majority.

So what Ignatieff will do is threaten an election or dangle the coalition so Harper puts a half-decent budget together, then pulls the numbers game to avoid both a coalition and delay an election until a later time. He'll have 15 or so of his caucus members abstain and the budget will pass.

Look, Iggy's a smart guy like Harper. They both see the long game and aren't much different on policy.

It's a very interesting chess game.

That's my prediction.

Rob Silver asks the tough question

I've been glued to one of the best new political blogs, "Silver-Powers", a dual (duel?) blog on GlobeAndMail.com by two very bright party strategists, Liberal Rob Silver and Conservative Tim Powers.

One of Rob's latest postings asks THE tough question for Liberal MPs...

So either:

(a) The Liberal caucus was UNANIMOUS in supporting both the coalition and Dion as leader until May; or

(b) There are a bunch of MPs in the Liberal caucus who are both cowardly and whose word means little (or whose opinions change with the wind).

Really, this is a binary situation - make your choice.

Rob, a very good question, and I have an answer for you regarding why Liberal MPs do these types of things...

Very few have principle, they go whichever way the wind blows at the moment (or seems to blow), and thus, they have miscalculated the overwhelming view among Canadians that the coalition government isn't what we want, and why the polls show the Liberals at their lowest point in HISTORY.

Friends, that is NOT leadership. And this party wants to form government? That's how they've always been and always will be. If they can't even decide or stand up for anything, you really want them managing the economy at this time?

What drove them ALL to sign the letter for the Governor General? As your blogmate said, "The sniff of power."

Canadians saw that too.

Now that the sniff of power appears to be with Michael Ignatieff, leadership contender, Dominic LeBlanc has ended his bid and joined with Iggy. Too bad. Too bad the Liberal party doesn't respect democracy.

While the other contender, Bob Rae, has embraced the coalition because he's going to need new members joining from the NDP to be delegates at the Liberal convention, perhaps Ignatieff set him a trap and he fell into it.

Ignatieff never publicly said he's for or against the coalition and Bob Rae even had Ignatieff and LeBlanc show their public support for Stephane Dion as leader of the coalition government. I guess that is a wash, now that it appears Dion will step down (read: pushed out) in a few days at the Liberal caucus meeting instead of the originally planned May leadership convention in Vancouver.

Ignatieff's gut instinct was correct though, that the coalition is not a way to build the Liberal party, where it's Bob Rae's way to go.

Now that Dion is gone, and the party needs to accelerate that processes in getting a new leader, and that the coalition is now the so-called the backup plan, the Liberal caucus' new "instinct" is either:

A) the Liberals will support or abstain on the Conservative budget when the House starts up again in January, and resume with its May leadership convention, with Ignatieff having recently shored up caucus support, and Bob Rae will likely retreat from the coalition, but he'll be damaged goods,

or

B) the Liberals will vote against the budget and with new interim/permanent leader, Michael Ignatieff, already in place they will be 'ready' for a new election, and excited that they'll do better.

Ignatieff left the door open for Harper to have a strong budget.

I didn't mention the machinations of how the Liberals are picking their new leader, because frankly, it doesn't really matter. If the Liberal caucus does it this week and names Ignatieff as interim to replace Dion and decides it's not going to have a convention and says Ignatieff is permanent leader, it's going to divide the party for a while, but eventually, Liberals will balk, because "Ignatieff was going to be leader anyway, so get behind him or go hang out with Bob Rae."

So in my opinion, this coalition idea is as good as dead. And you know who's to thank? You. It's the thousands of Canadians who went out to show support for democracy and against the coalition takeover.

So now, it's up to Michael Ignatieff to decide if he wants to fight an election in February/March or if he wants to wait until May and spend cash on a leadership bid that he'll win anyway, raise money for the Liberals and then fight an election next fall.

Because I think he knows the Conservatives would win a majority in February/March, and so he'd will be opposition leader for 4 years.

That would be the smart thing to do, to wait, as it gives voters an opportunity to see who he is as opposition leader while they grow weary of Harper, otherwise, if he fights an election this February/March, people won't know him as well, and will be hesitant, while the Conservatives go neg on his ambition for power with the coalition, exposing his actual view against it and dividing the Liberals, while economic numbers improve, showing the Conservatives as good managers.

Federal Liblead Race -- The Roommates and the Visitor

Many people know that Liberal MPs Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff were once college roommates. Funny that.

Monday night I was discussing with a friend about how I now think this federal Liberal leadership race is turning into a coronation for Bob Rae. How so?--by eliminating the competition before the race even starts and "taking over" the party, which Bob seems to have done using his old Powercorp/Demarais connections, etc.

The Quebec Liberal wing tried to put into the rules that candidates had to be debt-free from the last race. While it didn't get implemented, the idea was put out there and basically immediately knocked out those with debt. They also put in a $90,000 entry fee (yikes!) and are limiting spending to $1.5 million (which isn't much).

Both play well for Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff.

So the other day Martha Hall Finlay decided not to run. Gerard Kennedy today announced that he's not running either. Both have around $200k of debt. It's too bad (for Liberals). I think Gerard is the type of renewal guy they need and not having any women doesn't look good either.

Bob Rae, on the other hand, did no such thing (not noticeable anyway). He actively supported Dion, and even defended the Green Shift. Iggy, not so much.

We also know MPs Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae are running. Michael Ignatieff hasn't decided if he's running yet, but he probably will. I think there's no doubt that Iggy and Co. were undermining Dion throughout his leadership, the by-elections, and especially watching him in the House of Commons whenever Dion spoke. Iggy is relatively new to Canadian politics and doesn't have the same power connections that Rae has had for some time.

I have no idea who LeBlanc is and likely neither do a lot of Canadians. Ontarians certainly know who, Bob Rae, their former premier, is, and while the left like him, the centre and centre-right likely does not at all one bit. The hope for the Liberals in this sense is that they would try to unite the left without actual merger with the NDP and Green. This would require fear mongering and attacking Stephen Harper to no end in typical Liberal fashion. Bob Rae doesn't stand for much other than trying to come across as a happy politician but attacking opponents whenever possible. With Iggy it's different. It would be a battle for the centre and a debate of actual ideas, yet I'm sure attacks would be in there for sure.

If no other candidates besides these three enter, LeBlanc has no hope as there are no other lesser candidates to support him on subsequent ballots like Kennedy did with Dion to allow him to shoot up the middle between Iggy and Rae. Which means Iggy can't win.

I'd assume LeBlanc has been well tied into the Liberal family for some time, with his father Romeo as a past Governor General, meaning I'd guess he'd be convinced to support Rae on the 2nd ballot for a plum cabinet post. Or more likely is his friend Warren Kinsella convincing him to go Iggy.

However, I don't know the insides of the Liberal party all that well and if there is a genuine desire for actual "renewal" like the Democrats and Americans did by electing Barack Obama, then LeBlanc has a chance. But I don't that's what Liberals want... an unknown. So if that spirit is there then Ignatieff is the guy. He's well spoken and intelligent.

But I do know the outsides of the Liberal Party (as do many of us) and when they mean "renewal", that's Liberal-speak for "power at all costs", so that translates to Bob Rae.

But I wonder if Bob Rae was supporting Dion so actively to try and chum his way into the Liberal party. Maybe Ignatieff has had the actual reins on the party since his last race.

Regardless, as I mentioned, Dominic LeBlanc is the guy visiting those old college roommates and the king-maker. Who will be the first to offer him a beer?

Bob Rae giving talking points to Dion

I love ads that simply directly quote people... and with Pink Floyd to boot! (h/t Steve Janke).

On Dion's Green Shift Carbon Tax

The big buzz in the Canadian blogosphere is how Liberal leader Stephane Dion wants to tax carbon, lower income taxes to "balance" it out. I'm not going to bother getting into the debate on this policy. Why?

Because I'm asking, why does anyone believe that Stephane Dion and the Liberals will even win the next election?

They won't. And you know who knows it? Ignatieff and Bob Rae. Do you hear them standing up and defending the Green Shift policy?