Election - Post-Game Thoughts

So, there we have it: the Cons have a majority government. The NDP is the official opposition. Iggy led the Liberal party to a historic low in the house. The BQ is all but decimated and, at this point, Elizabeth May of the Greens might have won a seat for her party - finally. (Update - she won.)

Polls showed last week that the Big Orange Surge towards the NDP was a force but no one predicted this tsunami.

Ignatieff, who may have lost his seat at the time of this writing, (update: he lost it) was never an inspiring figure and I've wasted several pixels on my opinion of him on this blog through the years since he was anointed by the Libs. I never saw him as a potential prime minister and now, most of the country has told him that at the voting booth. As for the Liberal party, when you stand for mushy-middle centrism, you get what you deserve: a yawn and a wave goodbye.

Layton? Not my favourite person either - especially when he propped up the Cons in the past - but he deserves congratulations for leading his party to this monumental win. The NDP has more seats in parliament than they probably imagined they could have pulled off and the stark contrast between real left and right parties will make for very interesting times.

The BQ loss in Quebec shows a sea change in public opinion. I'm not surprised that so many Quebecois chose the NDP - not after watching the constant opposition to Canada's participation in the Afghanistan war. That province has often leaned more left than most others. I have to say that I admired Gilles' Duceppe's political skills. He's been quite adept. But - he lost his seat and now his party doesn't have enough seats for minority party status. That era is over. (Update: he resigned.)

As for Steve? Haven't we had ENOUGH of him? Now that he has majority power, we may be in for some seriously authoritarian moves (okay, even more of them than he's pulled so far). He doesn't have a hidden agenda. He's just never had enough power to ram it through. Layton and his new, large band of MPs are going to have their work cut out for them. I cringe at some of the right-wing crap this government will now feel very free to foist upon Canada. But - let them do it. Perhaps they'll push it just a little too far - as some of the wingnuts have recently done in the states. They may just end up hoisting themselves on their own petard. Cons always seem to manage that when they have absolute power. (Mulroney, anyone?)
 

Iggy Accuses Guergis of Lying

Airport tantrum queen Helena Guergis is in hot water again. This time, she's being accused of lying about not knowing that her staffers have been sending "glowing letters about her to newspapers while posing as regular voters.".

CTV's Robert Fife has the latest.

Fife: "There's nobody in the Conservative caucus that supports her. They're all shaking their heads."

See you later, Helena.
 

The Liberals' Family Planning Vote Fiasco

It should have been a simple thing: present a motion to force the Cons to take a formal stand on supporting maternal health initiatives (ie. contraception) in advance of the upcoming G8 meeting - a reaffirmation of Canada's foreign policy stance for the past 25 years.

But the Liberals, who introduced the motion, managed to defeat their own motion.

This, after catching the Cons in their own roller coaster of confusion over the policy last week and on the heels of Bev Oda laughingly calling the policy "anti-American". (Apparently, being against former and regressive Bush administration policies equals anti-Americanism to the spectacularly dull and ineffective Ms Oda).

And the Cons also believed that even talking about contraception was some sort of slippery slope to re-opening the debate about abortion - which wasn't even on the table.

Yet, the Liberals still managed to embarass themselves.

There were 3 "no" votes from members of their party and a number didn't even show up.

On top of that:

The Liberals' problems were compounded when a handful of members proceeded to get confused about how they were to vote on the next measure and accidentally voted in favour of the supplementary estimates attached to the budget. Once they realized their error, the MPs tried to vote against it. Finally, Speaker Peter Milliken allowed the MPs' nay votes to be counted.

If the upcoming speaker's ruling on the Afghan detainee document issue prompts an election call, as Chantal Herbert speculates, the disorganized Liberals had better hope that their little "thinking conference" to be held this week generates some way to make sure they're all on the same page. Of course, not inviting your own MPs to actually be there in person might make that just a tad difficult since Ignatieff doesn't even appear to want to have his party members in the same room. Maybe they should just hold their future caucus meetings via Twitter.

Update:

Ignatieff: dissenters face 'internal discipline'

I'm sure they'll get a sternly-worded letter...
 

Torture: Layton Takes a Swipe at Ignatieff

From Monday's Question Period:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this whole question of torture, unlike other party leaders, we are not going to stand for denying of the evidence. We are not going to cover up the truth. We are not going to write books justifying torture in any way, shape or form. Nothing can justify torture and nothing can justify the full-scale denial mode that we see from the Conservatives right now.

Why will the government not do the right thing and launch a public inquiry, as we have called for, so that we will have all the facts on the table?

Pick a Hill to Die On, Iggy

I find it amusing, that when the opposition party is in opposition, that the media are constantly pressing us to lay out our wares - constantly 'put your big ideas in front of the public'. The reality is the government has been elected to govern and we will come out with a platform when Canadians are ready to make their choice because we're into a general election. Mr Ignatieff has been very forthright in speeches on foreign policy, on energy and the environment and on a range of areas, including most recently issues affecting women - the general principles of which he's following. Now, the big bold ideas that you want to see, the brilliant strokes that the media are looking for - why would we lay those out? Why would we telegraph those to a government that has, in its unbelievably cynical, partisan way, taken everything that's said, twisted it out of context, perverted the meaning, perverted the message? Why would we do that in advance when we haven't got a level playing field to lay those out?

- Alfred Apps, President of the Liberal Party on CTV's Question Period responding to a question by Craig Oliver about the lack of a Liberal Party platform

Flashback: Ignatieff wants campaign platform by June [2009]

Newly confirmed Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff wants his party to have a campaign platform ready for June, but says that doesn't mean he's looking for a spring election.

"I've told my people I want a platform in June," he said at a news conference Sunday.

"And don't derive electoral timetables from that," he added. "You asked me a question, I'm giving you an answer. I'm not playing games with you."

It's clear that the Liberal party has become gun-shy after Stephane Dion was trounced last year by the Cons over his carbon tax plan.

What Mr Apps fails to grasp is that the release of a Liberal party platform is a necessity if he wants the public to distinguish between his party, the Cons and the NDP. This isn't about what's good for the media or the Harper government. His reason for the party withholding its platform simply makes him - and Iggy - look weak - especially since Ignatieff had promised a platform by a June deadline that has long come and gone. And if he'd been paying attention, Apps would know that Ignatieff's speeches, which he seems to think provide the public with a clear view of his policies, are about as popular as his sagging poll numbers. (19%? Even Dick Cheney has better numbers than that).

Apps may find it "amusing" but I doubt he'll be laughing when the Liberals lose yet another election thanks to the party disarray that has ensued since Ignatieff was crowned.
 

Newsflash: A Major Liberal Party Strategy Shift?

Appearing on Friday afternoon's CBC Politics, journalist Evan Solomon previewed what may be a major strategy change by Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal party as a result of its (and his) tanking poll numbers.

Solomon said that in an interview for CBC Radio's The House to be run on Saturday, Ignatieff told him that (paraphrasing) he has backed away from a wholesale rejection of the Conservative government to opposing them on an "issue by issue" basis.

Looks like Michael 'your time is up' Ignatieff is history.

How long do you think it will take before the Cons react with the scary NDP-Libs-BQ coalition talking points after this news?

The Liberal party needs a platform, Michael. Why don't you start with that?
 

Quote du Jour: Iggy's Face Plant

It's like he [Ignatieff] went from being the messiah to being the village idiot.
- Frank Graves, EKOS president on CBC's Politics

Graves was reacting to his company's latest poll which shows Ignatieff's approval number at 19%.

Ouch.
 

It's economic report card time again...

It was time for yet another episode of Steve's Dog & Pony Show today:

Speaking at the Southern Railway, Mechanical Shop & Administration Office, Harper used the announcement of his economic update to say that trying to force an "unnecessary and wasteful election in the middle of a global recession is not in the country's interests."

That's right, peasants. Only Steve is allowed to break his own election law to call unnecessary and wasteful elections during a recession. We should all know that by now.

Apparently unwilling to wait for the upcoming "fruit" that Action Plan Steve is waiting to harvest, Ignatieff huffed and puffed and threatened to blow the house down - again. But that won't be happening any time soon.

As expected, a loud yawn was heard all across the country.

Dogs, ponies, fruit... all in a day's work in Ottawa.
 

Coderre Steps Down

Denis Coderre has stepped down as Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant.

The controversy, according to CTV's Robert Fife:

The rift between Ignatieff and Coderre broke open last week over who should be nominated as the Liberal candidate in the Montreal riding of Outremont.

Former justice minister Martin Cauchon, who left politics in 2004, has signalled his intention to return to Parliament Hill and reclaim the riding he held for 11 years.

However, Ignatieff announced last Monday that he would appoint businesswoman Nathalie Le Prohon, who was selected by Coderre, as the Liberal candidate in Outremont,

The decision seemed to end Cauchon's hopes of a political comeback, but Coderre announced later in the week that another riding would be offered to Cauchon.

Meanwhile, a number of Liberal MPs, including Bob Rae, rallied around Cauchon in his bid for Outremont.

By the end of the week, Ignatieff had reversed his own decision about Outremont to allow for an open nomination contest in the riding.

"We do know that Mr. Coderre has been very angry at Michael Ignatieff, who overruled him -- had first supported him when he said that Mr. Cauchon could not run for the Liberal party in Outremont -- and then changed his mind and then supported (Cauchon)," Fife said. "So over the weekend, Mr. Coderre...has been mulling over his plans."

According to Fife, Cauchon would likely emerge as a rival to Coderre to replace Ignatieff in a future Liberal leadership contest.

But an immediate concern, Fife said, is that should Coderre step down, the move would cause turmoil "and perhaps open warfare in the Liberal Party."

"In the long-term here, nobody in this country who wants to lead a party can win if he can't control his own party," Fife told CTV News Channel. "Voters don't elect people who can't run their own party. More important than that, this is happening in Quebec, where the Liberal Party needs to win seats if they are going to have any chance of beating the Conservatives and forming a minority government."

The riding was a onetime Liberal stronghold until New Democrat Thomas Mulcair grabbed the seat in a 2007 by-election upset victory.

During his press conference today, Coderre stated that he felt he had lost the "moral authority" to do his job. He has not resigned as MP.

If there's one thing that you can count on with the Liberal party, it's the fact that eventually the circular firing squad will go very public with the injured then licking their various wounds in front of the microphones.

Popcorn!
 

Harper's in bed with socialists and separatists - again

Steve, last week:

...in the candid speech given to party members in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. last week, the prime minister repeatedly stressed his aspiration to win a majority.

He warned that, without one, the country would get a Liberal government propped up by "the socialists and the separatists."

Steve, this week:

OTTAWA — The New Democratic Party will join the Bloc Quebecois in supporting the minority Conservative government in Friday's confidence vote.

Red herring alert!

NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair announced the decision Wednesday following a caucus meeting.

He told reporters it would be "irresponsible" not to support the ways and means motion, which is a confidence vote, because of the home renovation tax credit that it contains.

Ignatieff has already stated that the Liberals would make sure that if they won the next election they would preserve the tax credit.

"Mr. Harper is trying to scare Canadians with the thought that we would jeopardize the home renovation tax credit," Ignatieff said on Friday. "That’s completely false, and he knows it."

“We supported the home renovation tax credit before. Our problem is we just don’t support the government any more. But home renovation tax credit is a good measure, and it would continue under a Liberal government."

Ignatieff's Big Lie

Stephen Harper hasn’t just failed to stand up for Canada—he’s also failed to stand up for Canadians.

Suaad Mohamud. Omar Khadr. Makhtal. Bahari. Mohamed. Abdelrazik.

Being a Canadian must mean the Canadian government will stand up for you—no matter where, no matter when. This is at the heart of what every Liberal believes: a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

A Liberal government would stand by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We would stand by our citizens.

And we would bring forward legislation to protect Canadians abroad—to make it illegal for the government to pick and choose which citizens it protects—to make sure these abuses never happen again.

- Ignatieff's speech

Apparently, Ignatieff isn't aware of the Liberal party's history of refusing to fight for Omar Khadr's return while it was in power. Former foreign affairs minister Bill Graham justified it thusly in 2008:

Graham concedes that the Liberal government's response was not unlike that given by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government today – that Canada will not interfere as it accepts U.S. assurances Khadr is being treated and will face justice.

"That was our response as well," Graham said. "I think a year or two years after 9/11 that was a perfectly legitimate response."

He only changed his tune after his Liberal government fell.

And the Liberal party track record on Maher Arar's case was equally as dismal as it enabled the Syrians and Americans to get away with confining and torturing him.

How dare he spout that "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" is "at the heart of what every Liberal believes" when actions prove otherwise?
 

Ignatieff's Talking Tough - Again

The headline du jour coming out of the Liberal party's caucus meeting in Sudbury courtesy of Ignatieff is: "Mr Harper, your time is up; we cannot support this government any further".

Speaking after Mr Ignatieff and going further than Iggy was willing to, Denis Coderre informed reporters that the Liberals will take their first opposition day in October to introduce a non-confidence motion. That certainly remains to be seen considering the cry wolf scenario the Liberals have been repeating over and over this year.

In response to Ignatieff, Steve said:

"Going through more political games, more political instability, does not serve the country's interests right now."

Games like perogying proroguing parliament? Because that little chess game sure was fun.

The Liberal party may have the lead in the fund raising race but the party platform that Ignatieff promised when he was anointed back in the spring which he said would be released in June has yet to materialize. Ignatieff talked about their "vision" during his speech. Okay then: what is it? Because from where I sit, the talk is about being Conservative-Lite (which is basically what the party has become anyway).

It's no secret that I find Ignatieff to be incredibly uninspiring and about as exciting as melba toast. And I'm not alone in that. How the party plans to actually win an election after a year of basically being tied in the polls with Steve's government is beyond me.

I think the party missed the boat when it backed down in June at a time when the recession was a majorly stressful concern across this country. That stress has eased somewhat since then even though the economics haven't improved all that much (and are, in fact, worse in some areas). Steve's government didn't deserve to coast through the summer while being allowed every opportunity to make its case. The poll results clearly show that the summer was a write-off for the opposition parties that provided a boost for the Conservatives.

So, here the Liberals are without a clear platform and with a leader who'd do a better job of narrating lullaby books on tape than rallying Canadians to vote for him. "We can do better" is not a policy statement.

Related:

You can read Ignatieff's speech here.

In my next post about that speech, I'll expose one big lie that Ignatieff spouted. Stay tuned.

Update:

Skepticism abounds in the blogosphere:

Calgary Grit: This Time We Mean It?

Driving the Porcelain Bus: "Liberals won't prop up Tories: Ignatieff" - Hard to believe with their record

Scott's Diatribes: Ignatieff: '‘The Liberal Party of Canada cannot support this government any further’

Accidental Deliberations: On revelations

Hell, Upside Down: Iggy Applies the George Costanza Theory

BigCityLib: What The Hell Does It Mean?
 

No election - No surprise

Following the news today that Iggy has decided to commute the pending death penalty of Steve's government, BQ leader Gilles Duceppe was quick to say of Ignatieff that "he choked" and that "he looked in the mirror and saw Stephane Dion".

No doubt.

Not to be outdone in the department of flourishing rhetoric, Steve told that country via a press conference that if the Liberals decided to try to bring down his government in the fall, there would be "dangerous results for the country". Really, Steve? Do tell...

I guess if we have a fall election, the terrorists win. Or something.

Jack Layton, who missed the house shenanigans to spend time with his newly born granddaughter and whose recent poll numbers showed a bleak outcome for an election any time soon for his party anyway, was interviewed by Don Newman and stated the obvious: the fact that the new Lib/Con coalition (as Gilles called it) has decided to strike a committee to study EI reform this summer has just pushed any real changes for real people off into the sunset (my words, not his). We all know what happens when dreaded committees are sent off to study anything.

In my humble opinion, Ignatieff has blown it for his party. The latest numbers in Quebec and Ontario favoured a positive outcome for the Liberals. And with talk of this recession starting to possibly turn around by the end of this year, the Cons can coast through once again having by then picked up more support as the results of their stimulus package begin to kick in. (They surely have nothing to show in that department right now).

And, speaking of stimuli, she who should have been fired last week got the chance to try to rehab her reputation by announcing $1 billion for the pulp and paper industry today. Long overdue and an obvious move by the Cons to deflect that as a possible election issue had the campaigning actually begun at the end of this week.

When Ignatieff was anointed as party leader in May, he declared that the Liberals would release their policy agenda/platform in June. Where is it?

These guys are so quick to assert that "Canadians don't want an election right now" but, guess what? We're going to have to put up with months and months of their annoying partisan ads anyway, so what difference does it make? And when do Canadians ever really want an election?

Smoke and mirrors.

Ignatieff pretends he's The Uniter while leaving too many Canadians high and dry. I thought it was quite telling earlier this week when I saw him interviewed and he kept on using the word "I". "I" haven't decided if "I" will vote confidence in this government on Friday, etc. To use a well-worn cliché: there's no "I" in team. And there certainly isn't one in "party" either. The man is a self-centered ass.

This is what Ignatieff held the government to in January, 2009:

Text of the proposed Liberal amendment to the government's budget motion:

That the motion be amended by changing the period to a comma and adding the following:

"on condition that the government table reports in Parliament no later than five sitting days before the last allotted day in each of the supply periods ending March 26, 2009, June 23, 2009, and Dec. 10, 2009,

(a) to provide ongoing economic and fiscal updates;

(b) to detail the actual implementation of the budget;

(c) to itemize the actual effects of the budget with respect to the protection of the most vulnerable in Canadian society, the minimizing of existing job losses, the creation of the employment opportunities of tomorrow, the provision of economic stimulus in a manner fair to all regions of Canada, and the assurance that the government's deficit is not a burden to future generations or a detriment to economic recovery and finally;

(d) to provide details on any adjustments or new measures as may be required to benefit the Canadian economy."

Have the Cons held up their end of the deal?

Hardly.

So, why is Steve really being given a free pass?

Is it because there's no majority in site for Iggy? That he's not ready? That he really thinks he can cozy up to Steve and make things right for Canadians by doing so? Based on what, exactly?

He obviously needs to get out more if he thinks his new buddy isn't beyond stabbing him in the back whenever he gets the chance. But Ignatieff has chosen to play the lead role in Saving Stephen Harper - a performance that desperate Canadians won't be applauding any time soon.
 

Ignatieff Bashes the Coalition

All politicians lie. The job of a voter is to decide whose lies they like more. While Michael Ignatieff was out pimping his new book, True Patriot Love, on Sunday in Montreal (a "love" Star columnist Linda Diebel questioned back in December 2008 considering Ignatieff's extended leave from Canada), he was also busy trashing the coalition between the BQ, Liberals and NDP that almost brought down the failing Conservative government until Harper chose the coward's way out and prorogued parliament to avoid his own demise.

MONTREAL — If the proposed coalition of opposition parties had come to power last year it would have deeply and enduringly divided Canadians, says Michael Ignatieff.

In Montreal on Sunday to promote his most recent book, the federal Liberal leader also said the coalition came at a time when the party's right to govern would have been called into question after one of the worst election results in its history.

The party lost 19 seats and captured just 26 per cent of the vote in last October's federal election.

"I'm in politics to unify people, not to divide them," Ignatieff said.

"There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me."

...

Ignatieff felt that Canada, entering into a severe economic recession, needed more certainty than the coalition could provide, comparing the tentative deal to an unstable three-legged stool.

"I felt it was very difficult to guarantee the necessary political stability during a time of crisis with three partners in a formal coalition," he said.

"That was my first doubt. I couldn't guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition under the circumstances."

As Blogging Horse notes:

...things Ignatieff used to say about the coalition he now derides:

“I think the thing that the Canadian people…have to understand is that the coalition agreement does not jeopardize the national unity of our country. No Liberal, certainly not me with would ever sign into any agreement that jeopardized the national unity of the country, that compromises the national authority of the government or sets in place unequal treatment of provinces." – Michael Ignatieff, "Mike Duffy Live", 5 December 2008

“I support the [Coalition] accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality that our party has always believed in.” – Michael Ignatieff

In fact, Ignatieff was so opposed to the coalition accord he now considers more divisive than Stephen Harper, that he was only willing to sign a petition to the Governor General in favour of it...

Despite what Ignatieff was saying publicly back then, it was obvious to astute observers that he considered the coalition a non-starter. As Jack Layton put it when Ignatieff supported the Cons' budget, "Mr Ignatieff has chosen to form a new coalition with Mr Harper."

Of course, the idea that the coalition would have shattered Canadian unity is just a strawman for the politics behind the situation. The Liberals weren't ready for an election. Ignatieff would have been loathe to share power with other coalition leaders when he had just grabbed the brass ring of leadership. The Liberal party had to revamp its platform - a task it still hasn't completed. Perhaps Ignatieff should have spent less time writing a new book about his personal life and more focused on what he's supposed to be doing as leader.

The Liberal party is expected to bring out its' new and improved policies in June - a time when the Canadian public will be more focused on the last days of school and the coming days of summer. As former White House chief of staff Andrew Card said of announcing the drumbeats of war against Iraq in September, 2002, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." And this session of parliament will likely end with the Dhalla Nannygate scandal hanging in the air over whatever the Liberals might wish to do policy-wise.

For some unknown reason, Michael Ignatieff decided this was a good time to throw his political allies in the Bloc and NDP under the bus by backing off his previously stated support of the coalition - an idea that had broad support across Canada during very turbulent times. He might want to spend some time with a political consultant or two in between book tour appearances to learn a bit about how to win friends and influence people.
 

Good thing the Libs voted for the budget!

Hey, with expert money-managers like these Conservatives, why didn't all of the opposition parties vote with them?

If this little trifecta of news stories doesn't convince you that the Cons are competent to handle our money, I just don't know what possibly could:

Feds can't prove their costly green programs work: commissioner

Auditor General's Delayed Report Shows How Gov't. Is Wasting Your Money

Budget overly optimistic about economy, Page says

And, as if the Libs support of the budget wasn't boneheaded enough for you, check out the latest news:

On Thursday, the Liberals served notice that the further deterioration of the economy has them worried that last month's aid package is insufficient. It was only three days ago they kept alive the minority Conservative government – and its stimulus package – by voting for the 2009 budget over the objections of the NDP and Bloc Québécois.

John McCallum, the Liberal finance critic and a senior member of Leader Michael Ignatieff's policy team, told reporters he's worried Ottawa may need to come up with a second stimulus package before Parliament breaks in June.

He said there's growing evidence the economy is worsening beyond expectations and that the amount of stimulus in the Jan. 27 budget is less than advertised.

Gee, maybe you should have done your damn homework before you let Harper dance on your lap.

What's that? The Liberal party isn't ready for an election? New leader and no cash and all of that? Too bad. These are peoples' lives you're screwing around with while you're playing politics. And if you think the Cons give a flying f*ck about the little report cards you've asked them to submit this year, think about how seriously they might be taking your threats every time you look into parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance Ted What, me worry? Menzies' goofy-looking mug each time he gets up to defend the Cons during question period - because that really is just how much they don't care about what Canada needs to do to get through this depression.
 

Cons Will Support Iggy's Report Card Amendment

The Cons, via Josee Verner, have announced in the house that they'll bend over for the soft little slap on the bum to be delivered by Michael Ignatieff. Then they'll get right onto that homework he assigned i.e. those "reports" the Liberals want in exchange for propping up the budget of Steve and his Lying Band of Neocon Misfits.

I'll tell you this: watching the debate in the house with Liberals like Judy Sgro and Paul Szabo justifying this deal Iggy has made and actually shelling out some praise for the budget, it must be (or should be) a wholly embarrassing day to be a Liberal. How Liberal MPs can rationalize this cave without visibly cringing is beyond me. (The NDP's Mulcair did a good job of humiliating them while ripping the Cons a new one in the house in response but one word to that party: will you please stop acting like every public appearance is some sort of campaign stop? You're looking pathetic. Repeating "join us" at every opportunity is just plain annoying.)

The political theatre continues. Good thing that's still free, at least.
 

Ignatieff Puts Harper on Notice; Liberal Party Caves

In true Harvard professorial style, interim Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff announced today that (as predicted) the Liberal government will support the Cons' new throw everything against the wall and see what sticks budget as long as Harper agrees to submit 3 reports while being on probation over the next year. That begs the question: if Steve fails, will he get the strap?

So, what's this really about? Politics as usual.

Delaying a possible election until next year (really - don't expect the Liberals to vote against this government before that time) gives Ignatieff time to be rubber-stamped during the spring convention as the new Liberal leader. If the party had chosen to defeat the government now, Iggy obviously would not have any kind of track record to provide Canadians that might show what kind of PM he would be. If you listened to his press conference or read the transcript, you'll know that he referred to himself much more often that the party - a lot of "I" and very little "we". And if you really paid attention, you caught the fact that he's not all that schooled on parliamentary procedure - preferring to answer those types of questions with political philosophy or using slippery slope faulty logic such as, 'if we propose fiscal amendments to the budget, that process will never end'. Never? Really? C'mon now.

In other words, he needs time to learn what he needs to know to do his job as the leader of a party and as a possible future leader of this country.

As for the opposition coalition, as Jack Layton put it, "Mr Ignatieff has chosen to form a new coalition with Mr Harper." Duceppe called Ignatieff's "absolutely ridiculous" amendment "a smokescreen". Exactly. He's nobody's fool and formally announced, in response to the Liberal party's decision, that the coalition is dead. RIP.

As for the budget, what can you say about a finance minister who lied to the public about an upcoming surplus and who now says that the economy should show a turnaround by July? No one knows when the global economy will show real signs of recovery and the experts I've listened to are predicting possible progress in about 18 months at the earliest. In fact, today the IMF has predicted a "weaker Canadian rebound".

Referring to the IMF's 2010 outlook, Eric Lascelles, chief economics and rates strategist at TD Securities, said it is “the weakest figure we have seen, and it appears that the IMF has revised the Canadian outlook downward by the most of any ‘advanced economy.' “In the Canadian context, what is most noteworthy is that the Bank of Canada and the federal government are of the minority opinion regarding prospects for a short-lived period of weakness in the Canadian economy followed by a strong 2010 rebound,” said Derek Holt and Karen Cordes at Scotia Capital.

Throwing financial crumbs out to a starving public is no way to ensure a solid, timely recovery but that apparently doesn't bother the Liberal party enough to bring down this government. It's politics first. What else is new?
 

Rae Out; Ignatieff In

Well, this is all rather sordid, isn't it? Bob Rae, as he explained to the press today, apparently had an overnite epiphany (minus a visit from the archangel Michael [last initial "I"]) and has decided to drop out of the Liberal leadership race thus handing a coronation as interim leader to Ignatieff.

Ignatieff was lying low on Tuesday and not available for public comment, but was expected to speak after the Liberal caucus meets on Wednesday.

On his website, however, he did express gratitude for Rae's decision, writing, "His decision today reflects his commitment to the unity of our party and our purpose in these challenging times."

Followed by, "I'm king of the world!"

(kidding)

Seriously, good luck Liberals. You're going to need it.

I've expressed my (negative) opinions of Ignatieff here repeatedly so I won't get into all of the reasons that I think he would be a terrible leader for your party - which he will end up being permanently (such as that type of permanence is) if no one else throws their hat into the leadership race by the end of February. Start polishing that crown and have it ready for May, by which time the idea of a Liberal/NDP coalition will be ancient history.
 

Dion out; Ignatieff in?

So, it looks like Stephane Dion will resign as Liberal leader today and that he's expected to be replaced by Ignatieff in a caucus vote on Wednesday. Dominic Leblanc will reportedly withdraw from the race this afternoon to support Ignatieff. That leaves Bob Rae flapping in the wind.

I was struck by the lack of analysis on right-wing radio this morning about a new poll suggesting that the idea of a coalition led by Ignatieff isn't much more "palatable" than one led by Dion. The conclusion drawn that it doesn't matter who leads the coalition.

It does to me.

I supported the coalition with Dion at the helm. I would not support it with Ignatieff, so those poll numbers may be somewhat inaccurate. I have absolutely no use for Ignatieff and I believe that choosing him as party leader will be a huge mistake for a number of reasons - not the least of which is his lack of leadership experience. (And don't even try to spring the Obama argument on me. At least he served in his state senate for a number of years.)

And Ignatieff's neocon-like, interventionist military beliefs which some claim he has since changed his stripes about (not buying that, sorry) show that he is not a man to be trusted. He plays intellectual gymnastics on the issue of torture - so much so that he contradicts himself as he attempts to contort what he really believes.

In the end, I'm not a Liberal party supporter anymore so I wouldn't give a flying fig who they chose as their leader except for the fact that we now have an empowered dictatorial bully in charge of our country and the only salvation for those of us who are tired of his antics is to ignite growing popularity for the coalition or to remake the Liberal party into something that is more palatable. I don't see the latter happening with Ignatieff in charge. He was rejected the last time around and for good reason.

I have to laugh looking back now while hearing John Manley called for the rapid ouster of Dion on the weekend, considering what he said during the last Liberal leadership convention while everybody was waiting for the results i.e. that it was "inhumane" and "cruel" to make poor Iggy wait. History repeats itself. I wonder what kind of government job Ignatieff has in mind for Manley. I guess we'll find out.

Update:

I see that while I was writing this post, Dion has made it official and will step down 'effective as soon as successor is duly chosen';.

On Sunday, Mr. Ignatieff launched a bulldozer charge at the leadership, campaigning for the party's parliamentary caucus to elect him immediately as an interim replacement for Mr. Dion.

Mr. Ignatieff's organizers said they had the support of at least 55 of the party's 77 MPs, including Mr. Dion's most vocal supporter, suburban Toronto MP Bryon Wilfert, and MP Maurizio Bevilacqua, who chaired the 2006 leadership campaign of Mr. Ignatieff's major opponent, Bob Rae.

In addition, Mr. LeBlanc flew to Toronto Sunday night to meet with Mr. Ignatieff.

The plan calls for Mr. Dion's resignation followed by a vote that would likely install Mr. Ignatieff at the helm as interim leader. At a second-stage process — almost certainly the leadership convention currently scheduled for May — the party either would confirm him as leader or turn to his only other declared opponent, Mr. Rae.

The party's caucus executive met Sunday night and agreed to recommend the two-stage selection process to the national party executive, which is to decide the issue on Tuesday.

Should the Ignatieff plan prevail, the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition could well be scuttled. Mr. Ignatieff was never an avid supporter of the coalition and had turned against it by Saturday, according to party insiders.

There's what our future now looks like - stuck in the opposition for the duration while Harper cooks up new and even more insulting policy changes for the new year. What fun.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

I didn't have internet access most of the day. (Yikes.) Time to catch up on what I missed:

- What if you screamed for your life and no one helped you? Get involved.

- Columnist Paul Jackson provides comic relief. Rob Anders = "rock star"? What else can you expect from a man who believes this:

I've contended for some time if Harper can win a majority, and he will, he will become a beloved PM of our nation, and will be able to hold the job for as long as he wants.

- With rumblings that Harper will soon shuffle his cabinet (code words for finally dumping the useless Gordon O'Connor) Steve at Far and Wide claims to have an exclusive on what the new cabinet will look like. (h/t penlan)

- Can someone please tell me why Canada cannot secure the release of Omar Khadr - the only known Canadian known to be held in Gitmo? Via The Independent:

The families of five former British residents incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for up to five years were celebrating after learning the men could finally be coming home within months.

The end of their ordeal was in sight after the Government formally requested the release of the five men, who had been living legally in the UK before they were picked up abroad by the American authorities.

All nine British nationals held in the notorious military base in Cuba were returned to this country by 2005, but Tony Blair had refused to intervene on behalf of another group of men legally resident in this country before their detention. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, announced a change of heart and raised the subject in talks last week with President George Bush. He was encouraged by signs that the White House is moving towards closing the camp. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, have written to Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, to ask for the men's release.

Our gutless, heartless Conservative government refuses to do absolutely anything to help Khadr as other countries' detainees are going home. Write to your MP and demand action. This has gone on long enough.

- Michael Ignatieff performs some intellectual masturbation about intellectual masturbation and, somewhere in there, admits he was wrong to support the Iraq war. I may have missed it - because I passed out from boredom after he mentioned Machiavelli - but I don't suppose he's given that much thought to his vote to extend Canada's Afghanistan mission last year, has he? Maybe we'll have to wait a few more years until his next mea culpa NYT editorial to see that happen.

- Newsflash: Bush is a lying warmonger.

US President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons -- an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran.

"It's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon," he said during a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

But Iran has repeatedly said that its nuclear program, which is widely believed in the West to be cover for an effort to develop atomic weapons, is for civilian purposes.

Asked to provide examples of Tehran openly declaring that it seeks atomic weapons, White House officials contacted by AFP said that Bush was referring to Iran's defiance of international calls to freeze sensitive nuclear work.

Looks like they'll have to cook up a newly forged Niger yellowcake letter to make that one fly.

- Meanwhile, some young Iranian cyclists have been very busy riding across Europe, the UK and the US as part of their "Miles For Peace" campaign. Perhaps if warmongering westerners actually saw real-life Iranian people besides Ahmadinejad, they might think about the repercussions of possibly bombing Iran. Then again...history has proven otherwise, hasn't it?

- The Asia Times offers an in depth look at tensions within Iran from insurgent groups and possible US involvement in supporting those activities.

- Uri Avnery on White Elephants.