Ignatieff/Harper

I must confess, one of the more off base narratives I've seen making the rounds is this nonsensical notion that the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff are akin to Harper's Conservatives. Now, to be clear, it's fine to criticize, as I've done, when you see a particular policy that resembles the government line. The recent debate over Gaza is a clear example, it troubles me that Ignatieff has taken such a "firm" stance, that has won him accolades from surprising sources. However, viewing one issue in isolation, as representative of an over-arching similarity, is both intellectually dishonest and factually insignificant.

Michael Ignatieff is nowhere near Stephen Harper, and if I thought for a second he was, I simply wouldn't support him. Period. In reality, what first brought my endorsement of Ignatieff was a re-introduction, wherein I reviewed the words, the pedigree, the speeches, the policy presented, on my own terms, without some of the "conclusions" people have drawn, lifting bits and pieces, here and there, to create some sort of anti-progressive monster. In other words, what does it all tell me about where Ignatieff sits, rather than the interpretation of others, many with their own bias and agenda? What I found was a leader that shared many of the same values, possessed a boldness of thought to think out of box, and above all a intellectual curiosity that demonstrated the clear capacity to learn from experience, to entertain input and react accordingly. I actually saw the potential for greatness.

The other day, Ignatieff met with Layton to discuss the upcoming budget. According to Layton, the meeting went well, which assumes some "agreement". Now, if these two men can find some common ground, does that equate to Ignatieff being the same as Layton? Sounds silly, but that's exactly what I see, when people select an issue and run with it as indicative of totality.

Listen to an Ignatieff speech and compare it with Harper. Listen to Ignatieff speak on the environment, the less fortunate, the federation, the role of government, human rights, etc, and then compare it with Harper. Maybe Ignatieff will overlap Harper on certain points, but just as likely he will disagree in a fundamental way. My only point, criticize where warranted, that's my perspective, but don't extrapolate a branch as representative of the entire tree. Just because I'm disappointed with a particular policy, doesn't mean I now doubt Ignatieff as a far, far better option than Harper, doesn't mean the Liberal Party has abandoned it's left flank and embraced right wing policies. If I say "Ignatieff sounds like Harper", that is only an expression of disappointment on a particular issue, one that I happen to be passionate about. However, it is just plain wrong to take the next step and then argue that because of said position, there is no difference between these two leaders, because the next day you will see an issue like Omar Khadr come to the fore, and the clear distinctions will be reaffirmed.

I still like the new guy, I like him a lot.

AWOL: 221 Days

Listening to the debate on infrastructure initiatives, one thing is clear, it will take considerable time for any money injected into the economy to offset the downturn. Most expert analysis agrees that it will be 2010 before any impact is felt, which is troublesome, considering economists expect us to hit bottom later this year. In many respects, whatever the government does now, it is too late in terms of avoidance, rather a strategy for the other side. The reality of delayed return started my thinking- just where in the hell has the Government of Canada been the last year?

Did you know, that apart for the fall farce, it will be 221 days since Parliament last sat, when Flaherty delivers his budget? Think about that, in the face of an economic storm, our government has been AWOL. A highly relevant fact, for a myriad of reasons, particularly this crap coming from the Conservatives. Bragging about the earliest budget delivery in history, arguing ad nauseum about all the early steps they took to cushion the blow now, steady hands at the tiller, etc, etc.

Let's review the facts, and then judge if Canadians should be concerned. Last spring, this government muddled through the entire session, with an agenda that was considered "light" by every one's standards, so thin MP's had trouble keeping busy with government business, nothing on the plate, talk of "retooling" and the government needing "new ideas". SPENT. Remember that the Parliament was sent home early for the summer break, June 20th 2008.

Prior to Parliament's return in September, as the economic storm gathered further, the Prime Minister decided to manufacture a crisis of confidence, as he began the march towards an election. Before Parliament could reconvene, Harper plunged the country into another election. While people were touring the country, kissing babies and wearing cute sweaters, the economy was crumbling and Parliament sat empty.

After the election, a period of inactivity, but finally Parliament reconvened. When it did, and no reasonable person disputes this fact, the government came forth with a commitment of nothingness, using disingenious data. All the inaction, and Canadians were given such a disaster that Parliament was forced to evaporate once again, the government still at a standstill.

Everybody already knows the above timeline, but when I hear talk from the likes of Baird about "quick action" and recognizing the gravity, the proud record of pre-emptive measures, it's worth remembering- 221 days of a Parliament completely AWOL, during the worst economic crisis in at least a generation. More staggering, the government points to its record, as evidence of staying ahead of the economic curve, and yet 221 days of NOTHING, over seven months of NADA. So, when you understand the reality of no impact from a stimulus until 2010, it's "too late" for measurable difference in 2009, it really begs the question- where was the Government of Canada during the crucial time? Either on holiday, forcing an election, proroguing Parliament or spending all their energy trying to kill political opponents. That's it, while Rome burned. A disgrace, by any measure.

Making The Rounds

Ignatieff appearances on Mercer and 22 Minutes. Interesting tidbit from the Mercer clip, Ignatieff said the Liberals offered Harper Stornoway while 24 Sussex was under renovation. Given recent events, you can see why Harper might have declined:

Optics

A piece in Le Devoir today, which outlines some of the rationale, for why the budget is likely to pass. The requisite anonymous Liberal insider:

"I would be very surprised if they voted against the budget," said a person close to Mr. Ignatieff. «Le gars [le premier ministre] s'est mis à terre, il a donné à peu près tout ce qu'on veut. "The guy [Prime Minister] went ashore, he gave almost anything you want. If we end up with 30 or 40 billion dollars in deficit, will we ask for more?"

There are two chief issues here that confront the Liberals, and both revolve around optics. The first is outlined in the above- how do the Liberals rationalize a vote against the budget, if said budget comes with many of their demands, if it represents a significant departure for the fiscal update? No reasonable interpretation expects the Conservative budget to completely mirror what the Liberals want. But, a partial overlap does give the Conservatives some room to argue that they've responded, they've tried for compromise in a minority parliament. As the above suggests, if we see a substantial deficit, with significant stimulus, infrastructure money, then any vote against risks looking too political for the Liberals. The public won't pour over the finer details, if the broad strokes show a Harper climb down from the past, there will be little appetite for quibbling.

Many people just assume, that if the budget is defeated, historical precedent will allow the coaltion to form. We all know the arguments, but I don't put much faith in believing that Jean will turn to the opposition. I don't think you can discount public opinion in any decision, the public want will surely be weighed. Even more important, don't discount Harper's ability to argue for an election. IF, Harper brings a budget that addresses some of the root demands, he can then make a case to Jean that his government has responded to this crisis, and the opposition's continued resistance speaks more to a want for power, than the idea of making parliament work. Look at where we were, look at where we've moved, clearly this isn't about good government. Harper will surely push this angle to justify another election, and one can easily see how Jean could support the logic. Stephen Harper is the only one who knows what Jean said during their meeting, and I suspect he is operating with that knowledge in mind.

Of course, all of the above falls apart, should Harper deliver another dud, or is provocative. Short of that, in terms of optics, the Liberals will be hard pressed to bring down the government, using any assumption on the coalition.

Harper: Flaherty "Extremely Thin" On Budget Proposals

Harper's sorry attempt to criticize the Liberals today, ended with an interesting admission. In trying to call out the opposition, Harper made the following statement:

The opposition has yet to offer much constructive advice on a budget that could bring down his government, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Calgary today.

"They're extremely thin - we do not have detailed proposals," Harper told CHQR radio.

Okay, so what the Liberals have been saying is "extremely thin". Remember that.

When the question turned to tax cuts, Harper said of the Liberals:

"Much of what Mr. Ignatieff is saying is close to what Mr. Flaherty is saying,"

So, if the Liberals have been "extremely thin", and Flaherty agrees with the Liberals, what does that make Flaherty's proposals? Exactly.

Thanks But No Thanks

When the National Post starts singing your praises, it might be a sign that you want to re-visit your stance, or more correctly, the interpretation of your stance. BCL points to the Kay column, but we also had a McParland column yesterday, which also lauded Ignatieff's "firm" position.

McParland:

He has done a lot of good for himself in his handling of the Gaza crisis, taking a firm line in support of Israel and letting the left wing of the party know that the days of shallow posturing are over. In doing so he risks alienating important elements of the party, but it's the sort of strong-minded decision-making that won Stephen Harper respect from voters, even those not disposed to admiring Tories.

Kay:

But not under Michael Ignatieff. Notwithstanding his own rhetorical toadying to Israel's critics in 2006, he's taken a firm pro-Israel line in the Gaza conflict....

This is more than just a stirring demonstration of moral clarity. It is also smart politics...

Ignatieff is signalling that a well-informed adult is now firmly in command.

The Kay column is particularly nonsensical, because it presents a false choice between unequivocal support for Israel and the far left, Sid Ryan routine. How anyone can credibly posit such a simplistic choice, concerning such a complex issue, escapes me, but it is a black and white world for ideologues I suppose.

I would argue, it's a worrying development that NP is lavishing praise, because frankly it appeals to a demographic which is really weak terrain for the Liberals. The argument that this policy speaks to the "center" is wrong, a one-sided perspective appeals to the right (not withstanding Jewish support, which does have electoral consequence) a subset which is firmly in the pocket of the Conservatives. The feverish hawk vote is the Conservative base, you see no argument or discussion within this group (see BT's for a practical example), it's just knee jerk support, based on ideology. Only a fool entertains the notion that a firm position can realistically siphon off this support, the Liberals might earn "respect", but the votes will never come.

The Liberals need to appeal to the center, the mainstream view of this conflict, which largely supports one view or another, with caveats for dual responsibility. Eliminate the far left, because that isn't fertile ground, but don't alienate the majority view, in some non-starter pursuit of the Conservative base. The fact the NP thinks you're bang on, means your probably out of step from where you need to be.

I understand the impetus for the "firm" position, because you can't view Ignatieff's position in isolation. There is no question, that past musings during the Lebanon conflict cost Ignatieff politically, it spoke to a lack of seasoning, a bumbling quality that was counter-productive. Fast forward to today, and you can see how handlers wanted to avoid a repeat, a desire to look resolute and solid. Couple that fact, with the usual heat from the right, to try and paint the Liberal Party as soft on terror, anti-Israel, and Ignatieff's "reaction" is seen in a better light. Not a statement on correctness, but just some recognition of the environment within.

The Liberal Party should just ignore the 20-25% of voters that make up the Conservative core, just as they should ignore the other side, equally one-sided, lacking any sense of nuance, far too cut and dry for a serious read. I could care less what Ezra Levant thinks, or a newspaper with an agenda, it's not our audience, it's irrelevant to our thought process. Largely parroting the Harper view might win you temporary praise from entities that will never support you in the end, but it isn't a sound recipe for electoral success. It is also pure folly to alienate part of your own base, as you appeal to the unattainable.

What we see isn't "smart politics", because if I'm looking to areas of the country where Ignatieff could shine, this position doesn't win many converts, in fact it's somewhat offside. I view the "praise" as a clear signal that you've moved a touch too far, it's not a positive, more correctly concerning.

Good Idea Duff

How will CTV survive the "huge hole", that is Mike Duffy's departure? Apparently, two sitting MP's have applied for the job, along with a host of others. Duffy himself offers an interesting proposal:

Mr. Duffy, who spoke to The Hill Times last Tuesday, said he has no idea who the MPs seeking to replace him could be, however he noted that MPs "know the game" and that it might be interesting to have a politician take over where he left off.

"It would be kind of neat if you had somebody from each of the parties with their own show once a week, see their different takes on things. That's probably not practical but it would be novel."

I agree with Duffy's idea. In that way, we could have each party pushing their points of view, in rotating fashion, a clear upgrade over Duffy's show, which pushed one party's agenda everyday. Good idea Duff, what a "novel" concept, balance.

Another Coalition Poll

Nanos weighs in with a poll on the coalition, that shows the same regional discrepancy we've seen before, although the numbers are more balanced in Ontario, compared with prior polling:

Overall, 49 per cent said an election should be called versus 42 per cent who said Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean should invite the opposition parties to form a coalition.

In Quebec, 62 per cent wanted the opposition parties to have a chance to govern, while 30 per cent wanted an election called.

Those numbers were reversed in western Canada, where 65 per cent wanted an election and only 29 per cent favoured an opposition coalition.

Ontario and Atlantic respondents were more closely split, with 46 per cent and 49 per cent respectively favouring an election. Forty per cent in both regions favoured a coalition government.

The only "region" that backs a coalition is Quebec, which is hardly surprising. Nanos also affirms the decided rejection of a coalition in the "west". Ontario doesn't support the option, but the numbers are closer than we've seen before, which is noteworthy.

There's nothing here that dissuades me from my point of view, that while constitutional and justified, a coalition would create a national unity crisis. When you only have one province showing solid support, it's pretty hard to make a compelling argument for legitmacy, apart from the weak "they'll get used it/they'll learn to love it" reasoning. A coalition would create a national chasm, you need more regional balance, for it too thrive.

The reality is, a coalition is clearly no longer a likely option, apart from some half hearted proclamations, none of the parties are really pushing hard. Still on the table, but a side dish at best.

Not The Best Visual

When a newspaper is posting an article, detailing the rationalization for Toronto calling in the army, to deal with excessive snowfall, it's probably best that the accompanying photo is representative of the "grave" situation. As it stands, this photo the Toronto Star chose, made me giggle:



Not sure if it's the bare roads, the buses running, the pedestrians easily navigating, or the Canadian forces fella with the "what the hell I am doing here" look, but it sort of feeds, what has become a national past time- the mockery I mean.

The Globe and Mail tries for a better representation:


At least the road is white, although the military vehicle is being passed by a brave minivan(must have had the good winter tires on).

Good fun.

Bob Rae on Gaza

A somewhat more nuanced position(source Question Period), which should become official Liberal policy:

"We all want to see a resolution, to what is becoming an increasing tragic situation, in terms of the loss of civilian life, which is VERY, VERY high at the moment. But, I think we have to fair and clear minded about how we go about this, and that is pushing a durable ceasefire. Canada has to be doing everything diplomatically, with the Egyptians, with our friends and allies around the world who share this perspective. That perspective has clearly been put forth by the United Nations. I mean, it's not everyday that you get a Security Council resolution that's endorsed by all of the great powers of the world. We should be PUSHING HARD on that basis, to get to a ceasefire."

An acknowledgement of a worsening human tragedy, with a strong emphasis on "pushing hard" for an immediate ceasefire. That view distinguishes the Liberals from the government, who have been completely absent on the world stage, content to present a one-sided view, that barely mentions the real toll, with no forceful push on a ceasefire. I would describe Rae's view as more representative of mainstream Canada and I would hope our "official" position demands an immediate ceasefire, which clearly supercedes any of the underlying philosophical positions, as to who is justified and who deserves blame.

Leadership

Interesting shift in the NANOS poll on leadership, unlike the Ipsos poll last week, the gains Ignatieff makes on the "best PM" score don't come at the expense of Harper, but from erosion in the other leaders score:



Harper has maintained, even a uptick in Western Canada, while Ignatieff doubles the score of his predecessor, at the expense of Layton, Duceppe and May. The Ipsos poll showed Harper dropping 7 points against Ignatieff, although it also showed him gaining as the expense of other leaders.

The NANOS polls seems to suggest something of a consolidation around Ignatieff as the alternative. Dion considered so weak, people looked to other opposition leaders, to fill the void, they didn't like Harper, but they had little faith in the Liberal leader. Harper's advantage is still large, but not particularly striking in a historical sense, for a sitting PM. Ignatieff is in the game, and that's the realistic expectation.

On "Listening To Canadians"

While my leader is touring the country, conducting a "listening" tour to gauge public opinion, he might want to consider the following finding, because I think it presents the need for an even-handed Liberal position. Most people would agree, that Hamas shares the bulk of the blame for inciting Israel, with their despicable rocket attacks on civilians. On that starting point:

But a plurality of those following the events blame the Palestinians and Hamas (43%) for the current conflict in the region compared with only two in ten (18%) who think Israel is to blame. Still, four in ten (39%) believe neither side is to blame, or don't know who is at fault.

A considerable portion don't assert blame, but those that do lay it at the feet of Hamas. That's reasonable, and I have no qualms with my party parroting this feeling, because it's warranted. However, and this is where people need to separate impetus from response, when asked if the Israeli reaction is justified, the numbers change. Canadians seem to understand the rationale, but that doesn't preclude them denoting concern regarding the reaction:

Thinking about the Israeli response, Canadians following the events are split: while four in ten (39%) believe it has been 'appropriate', one half (49%) thinks it has been 'excessive'. One in ten (13%) doesn't know.

And, there it is, and really it's all I'm asking from our leadership. Yes, defend Israel's right to defend herself, blame Hamas, decry the rocket attacks, but don't just stop there, because the omission is maddening. If you're "listening" to Canadians, then surely you're getting some feedback, outside of the Israel lobby, that something has gone horribly amiss in Gaza, the response is "excessive". To my mind, that means the Liberal Party should be DEMANDING(beyond the timid words) an immediate ceasefire, support and PUSH the UN resolution and address the humanitarian angle, beyond secondary considerations. The Liberal position can be unequivocal in its support for Israeli rights and justifications, while at the same time demonstrating a nimbleness that allows it to react to events on the ground, events that represent a human tragedy. If average Canadians can demonstrate a capacity for complex views, pretty disappointing that the Liberal Party can't articulate a position that doesn't sound like Condi or Stephen. I would categorize the current Liberal position as "wimpy", trying to be so politically correct in conveying support for Israel that it lacks any courage to stand up for innocents in the immediate. I'm curious to see if the Liberal Party is "listening", or are we merely "listening" to a vocal subset at the exclusion of overall opinion?

Nanos Poll

A new Nanos poll, that shows the Liberals statistically tied with the Conservatives, well ahead of their election night result. This poll furthers my contention that people made a grave error putting much stock in coalition polls, that then asked horse race questions (you simply can't garner accurate party support, when you muddy the questions). At the very least, this finding should put an end to all the delusional Conservatives and their "riding high" perspective:

The Nanos Research survey, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, suggests the Liberals have moved into a virtual tie with the governing Tories.

Liberal support stood at 34 per cent, one point ahead of the Conservatives and up eight points from the Liberals' dismal showing in the Oct. 14 election under the leadership of Stephane Dion.

The results in Quebec, are particularly relevant:

The poll suggests the Liberal resurgence was particularly pronounced in Quebec, where the party vaulted into the lead with 39 per cent support to 29 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois, 17 per cent for the Tories and 14 per cent for the NDP.

Those are amazing numbers in Quebec, and even if slightly skewed, it's still impressive stuff.

Nanos also asked some leadership questions, with tend to mirror the Ipsos results, Ignatieff well up over his predecessor, but Harper maintains a lead. As I've stated earlier, there is no historical precedent for an opposition leader besting a sitting PM, so these numbers are quite encouraging, you just want to be in the neighborhood:

A voter honeymoon with Ignatieff, who was hastily installed as leader last month, appeared to be the driving force behind the Liberal bounce.

Thirty-four per cent of respondents said they had a more favourable impression of the party since the change in leadership.

Moreover, 23 per cent said Ignatieff would make the best prime minister - double the score previously won by Dion, although still 12 points behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Nanos hasn't posted the full results yet, but his last poll in November had it 32% Cons, 30% Libs, NDP 20%. That means the Conservatives have stablilized, and the Liberal gain is mostly because of Quebec, up a full 13% in the province since the last offering. It would appear, the "bounce" is entirely a Quebec calculation, Liberal support really the same in the rest of the country. Given that I see Quebec as our best chance to regain power, and part of the attraction to Ignatieff was his potential appeal in the province, I'm good with that development :)

UPDATE

I may have erred, in assuming that all of the bounce was in Quebec, it appears that the Liberals are also up in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, but this is offset by Conservative gains in the "west":

According to the survey, Liberals expanded their lead in Atlantic Canada (44 per cent to the Tories' 28) and regained a narrow lead in Ontario (39 per cent to the Tories' 35 and the NDP's 16).

The Conservatives continued to dominate western Canada, with 44 per cent to the Liberals' 24 per cent and the NDP's 23 per cent.

Nanos last had a 36-36% tie in Ontario, NDP at 19%, so not much movement, although the small gain seems to come at the expense of the NDP. A big difference in Atlantic Canada (high margin of error), what was a 3% lead is now 16%. In the "west", an 11% Conservative lead is now 20%. Taking all the regionals in totality, this poll gives the Liberals a minority.

Another Coalition Perspective

During the Green Shift debate, I cited a column by Jared Milne in the Edmonton Journal, which gave a rare balanced perspective, that I found refreshing. I've had a few email exchanges with Jared, and the following is an essay he's written on the coalition, which I've agreed to post here on my site. It provides an interesting perspective on the coalition, and while it doesn't reflect my point of view, it is an opinion worth consideration:

An open letter to my fellow Canadians:

This letter is not meant to criticize or condemn any single political party or political movement. It is meant to urge Canadians to think about the opposing point of view in the current parliamentary crisis, to build understanding by summarizing the arguments both in favour of and against the coalition government. At the present time, we as Canadians have been set against one another, when we must come together from all regions, all languages and all races to resolve the terrible problems that confront us. I am equally dismayed and disappointed by all our current federal political leaders and the missteps they have all made, which have all deepened a crisis and harmed our national unity, putting their personal pride and petty goals before the national interest.

Consider first what provoked this political crisis-Stephen Harper’s proposal to end public subsidies to political parties based on their electoral performance in his recent economic update. How can Harper justify an action that the opposition parties were sure to oppose, when the election results made it quite clear that Canadians wanted the parties to all cooperate with one another? Was he simply short-sighted, or deliberately trying to goad his opponents? Either response is extremely irresponsible, particularly when the $30 million that would be “saved” from such a move is a tiny fraction of the overall federal budget. Also, in comparing the actual vote counts for the 2006 and 2008 federal elections, Harper actually lost 168,737 fewer votes-hardly a ringing endorsement and a clear signal that Canadians wanted all the parties to cooperate, not play partisan games with one another.

The move is also suspicious by itself. If Harper is opposed to taxpayer subsidies for political parties, then why did he seek to abolish only one type of subsidy, which just happens to be the one his opposition is most reliant on? Why doesn’t Harper eliminate the reimbursement of electoral expenses, the tax subsidies given for political donations, or other forms of subsidy that all, in one way or another, come out of taxpayers’ pockets? It should be remembered, after all, that we have had public subsidies in one form or another in Canada since 1974, and that Harper’s fellow conservative John McCain had no problem accepting such subsidies in the American presidential election, subsidies that were essential to ensure a fair shake on both sides of the contest.

Some may argue that they do not want to see their tax dollars going to support political parties they oppose, but this argument cuts both ways. Many progressives do not like seeing their tax dollars going to support such things as the war in Afghanistan, our military buildup, tax incentives for corporations, the prison system, and other causes that right-wing conservatives are more inclined to support, and yet their tax money goes to support these institutions and causes anyway. Similarly, many single mothers, working poor, and others who would be more inclined to support the NDP’s left-wing policies, cannot afford to make the same kinds of regular donations that wealthier businesspeople, who might benefit more from the Conservatives’ pro-business policies, can make to their parties of choice.

Finally, it should be remembered that in 2004, after the exposure of Adscam, Stephen Harper wrote a letter to the Governor General, co-signed by Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, advising the Governor General of her “constitutional options” and informing her of the consultations being made by the opposition parties. Harper was, in effect, proposing the exact same thing with the Bloc and the NDP that the Liberals are proposing now. Would Conservative supporters be as angry about a coalition government if their party had been the one to head it?

Some may see these arguments as sufficient reason for a coalition government. However, the coalition government as proposed by the Liberals under Stéphane Dion brings very serious problems of its own, not the least of which are the national unity ramifications. How can Dion, whose criticisms of the sovereignist movement were what brought him into federal politics, justify working with the Bloc Québécois now? It creates an extremely negative perception in the rest of the country, particularly among those who may not realize that not all Bloc supporters are sovereignists. Any coalition with a political party whose stated goal is the separation of one of Canada’s provinces will provoke a negative reaction in the rest of the country by itself…and who is to say what demands the Bloc will make in exchange for its support? Don’t forget, too, that Dion claimed during the election he would never form a coalition, and that Layton attacked him for not knowing how to handle the economy.

Arguably even worse for Canadian unity is the backlash this has already provoked in Western Canada. While not everyone in Alberta or the West in general supports Harper, the Conservative party has its strongest base of support in this part of the country, and is seen by many as the West finally having a strong voice in government after years of alienation. The coalition is seen by these Westerners as an illegitimate way of taking power away from the rightfully elected government, and as a slap in the face to their part of the country. While it was never intended this way, Albertans in particular would see this as an attempt to shut them out of the democratic process after overwhelmingly supporting the current prime minister. All this has done is refuel Western alienation and provoke a backlash against other parts of the country, and against the federal Liberal and NDP parties in general.

The question has been raised too about the constitutional workings of government, and it’s been argued that the coalition is in fact perfectly legal and in keeping with parliamentary tradition. Indeed it is, but another part of our parliamentary tradition is the idea of constitutional convention-that set of unwritten rules and expectations that dictate how political actors use their powers in practice. It is why the federal government no longer uses its powers to reserve or disallow provincial legislation, why the federal government can set national standards for social policy with legislation such as the Canada Health Act, and why the Trudeau government was forced to negotiate with the provinces in the constitutional patriation of the early 1980s.

It appears to me that the modern convention that has arisen is, that if a government loses the confidence of the House, an election must be called immediately. This is what happened after the Paul Martin minority collapsed in 2005, when Harper felt that he could win the resulting election. Now, it seems, whichever party receives the most seats in the House of Commons is automatically declared the winner, and called on to form a government. It is true that more than 62% of the population voted against Harper, but all of the other party leaders received even less support than he did. Going to a coalition was quite unnecessary, given that the opposition forced Harper to back off on the funding issue. What the opposition parties should be doing is working with the Conservative government, the way the people wanted them to! Both sides should remember that, in order to avoid the collapse of the Harper government and avoid an election that Canadians absolutely do not want, they must cooperate and compromise, which what they were elected to do in the first place.

With no party receiving a clear mandate of support from the voters, and with nearly 40% of the population staying home on election day, to me it seems clear what Canadians want, for their politicians to not play partisan games and cooperate with one another in dealing with our economic, environmental, and social issues. Harper does not have all the answers in dealing with the economy, nor do Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe or May. Their infighting does nothing to rebuild the trust and unity we need to get through this crisis.

This applies more broadly to supporters and opponents of the coalition as well. Our insults and fighting is only making the problem worse-both sides of the argument have equally strong and legitimate reasons for their stances, and condemning one another is only reopening old wounds and grudges that we can’t afford to waste our energy on right now.

That is why, above all else, it is critically important for both supporters and opponents of the coalition to set aside their differences and cooperate. This crisis is larger than any single group or party, and the needs of the country must come before individual partisan desires. Try and see the other side’s point of view, and above all, please try and ease off the rhetoric on both sides-it’s not getting us anywhere.

Canada deserves no less.

Not Good Enough

I guess this will be my first critical post of Ignatieff, since he took the helm, but I think he blew it with his comments on Gaza today. Nothing Ignatieff said wasn't true, or didn't accurately present some core Liberal tenets regarding Israel. But, on a day where we've seen outrageous actions that seriously challenge international law and basic human rights, I found the lack of balance very disappointing.

What Ignatieff completely missed in stating the case for Israel, it really isn't about Hamas anymore, it's a human tragedy that's completely morphed into something else, well beyond positions, policy or ideology. The fact that Ignatieff, who has championed human rights, an impressive pedigree, can't articulate some nuance here and argue a forceful case for the immediate concern, is simply not good enough. All the comments read like a robotic script, borne of misguided political correctness. In trying to put of the message that Liberals support Israel, Ignatieff ends up sounding as rigid as Harper. And yes, when we finally get a whiff, that the new American administration will return to a more balanced perspective, to hear Ignatieff is even more bothersome.

Part of me completely understands, and really Ignatieff doesn't gain much politically from singing off key, in fact he loses, so... That said, it's one of those important moments, when I want to get the sense of some leadership, rather than safe answers which fail to acknowledge some other truths, that don't quite jive with all the justifications. Saying the rockets must stop before the kids stop bleeding (and let's please dispense with any credible argument that it's "surgical" or "measured" now, the theatre doesn't even entertain the possibility) is pretty much acres away from my little section of the BIG tent. Not a highlight moment, today.

Find The Contradiction

In the span of one minute, Harper's sedate mouthpiece Kory Teneycke offered a glaring contradiction, when asked why the government hasn't spoken with the opposition recently, to cobble together a budget.

First:

"I anticipate their will be opportunities to discuss prior to the budget. But, there's nothing to stop the opposition, from simply coming out in public as well, and putting their suggestions for the budget on the public record. That would be another effective way of getting their input into the budget also"

It's an absurd idea really, the prospects of parties negotiating publicly. It's such a silly concept, that Kory actually acknowledged that, answering the followup question:

Susan Bonner

"There is an economic crisis, don't you have to talk to each other and work something out?"

Kory Teneycke

"There is the potential to have conversations, as I've already stated. But, I would say that going into the details of all those discussions on television, on programs such as yours, is probably not the most productive way of handling those."

So, is the official government postion that it's counter-productive to discuss details of the budget in public, but the opposition should release details for the budget in public as a means of discussion? Alright then.

Future And Former

Hat tip to RT for linking to a series of videos, with a younger Ignatieff interviewing a seasoned Trudeau. I highlighted this portion, because it provided an interesting exchange on their 1968 connection, but some of the other parts are fascinating too:

Harper's New Calculus

There are a few different ways to look at the Harper government's move away from confidence motions, their signature tactic to push through legislation since first elected.

A reaction to a strengthened Liberal Party, the new approach could be a seen as a recognition that the Conservatives understand they are now dealing with a different animal, one that is better placed to replace them. Ignatieff is already on record, saying the Liberals won't tolerate continual confidence motions, so there is some logic in believing Harper is merely responding to a new landscape. There is probably some merit in that view, although I think the changing tactics are indicative of something else.

The government may have calculated, that their best hope with the Canadian people is too look conciliatory and non-confrontational. Dumping confidence motions at every turn, is a way to denote a serious agenda, that doesn't voluntarily seek conflict, but wishes to govern by finding common ground. A healthy dose of cynicism, any epiphany on this score is surely a political survival tactic, rather than genuine want. Whatever, moving away from constant conflict, would probably help Harper reshape his badly damaged image. Again, I see some merit in this particular impetus for the new approach, but it's only part of the story.

I believe, the most credible rationale for the changed approach, the Harper government merely wants to wait out the economy. Harper's latest interview on the economy offers some clues, as the Prime Minister sees a relatively strong position, that should result in a less protracted downturn. In other words, Harper sees a light at the end of the tunnel, which is politically advantageous. Avoid confrontation in the short term, don't allow election justification, and then when things start to turn around, revert back to previous form. At this point, the government would have a compelling argument, they could take credit for any perceived turnaround, a sense that the worst is behind us, their policies having helped the situation. A risky assumption, because nobody really knows the depth and length of this downturn, but clearly Harper is counting on some rebound in the not to distant future. Whatever the odds, it's probably the government's best hope, so operating within that scenario, does make sense politically.

This government will avoid non-confidence motions because it fears going to the polls in the present circumstance. In essence, Harper will try to ride out the economy, dance with the opposition, until he sees a future opportunity. I don't buy a "different approach", in the sense that it has nothing to do with good government, but what is good for the government, entirely motivated by self interest. Harper will look the "team" player, because that is what he needs, until the economy gives rise to reasonable optimism. "We made it through the worst of this crisis under this government, and our sound management deserves partial credit for our ability to come through it". To my mind, that is the preferred slogan for the next election, and everything will be done in the intermediary to ensure avoidance, until the time is right when the desired sales job finds empirical backing.

The Ignatieff Team

Relating to the story today on Ignatieff's inner circle, a general sense of approval, with one caveat. It's pretty normal fare to surround yourself with people who have been loyal, people you trust and know well. In that sense, no big surprise that Ignatieff has surrounded himself with many who were part of his leadership team. That said, I believe the party is best served with total inclusion, regionally representative, reaching out to the best and the brightest from all camps, so I would hope, eventually, the team moves outside of the inner circle:

Now that he's started pulling his inner circle together, some Liberals are privately worried that Ignatieff is simply importing his leadership team into the Opposition leader's office - much as former leader Paul Martin did, with disastrous results. Leadership campaign organizers aren't necessarily best suited to policy development and preparing to govern.

Moreover, some Liberals are grumbling that Ignatieff has made little effort thus far to include supporters of his former leadership rivals, Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc, in his inner circle.

Early days, so it's hard to say anything conclusive, but hopefully we'll see more "reaching out".

During the election campaign, I was quite critical of Warren Kinsella, because from my point of view, too much effort was wasted rehashing ancient history, entirely counter-productive. I suppose it's easy for an outsider to be critical, I didn't live the "camps" reality, nor do I have intimate knowledge of what actually occured, whether bitterness is entirely warranted. That aside, if Kinsella has moved on, that's good enough for me, and I'll support his "war room" guru status entirely. Kinsella will be an great asset, there's no doubting his skill and shrewd political instincts. I have a feeling the Liberals will be far more assertive and aggressive, proactive instead of reactive, with Kinsella leading the charge.

One appointment, which looks promising:

Rocco Rossi, CEO of Ontario's Heart and Stroke Foundation, is expected to assume the party's top administrative job, replacing Greg Fergus. Fergus, who was appointed national director by former leader Stephane Dion, tendered his resignation Monday.

Rossi's expertise as an innovative fundraiser could be a huge asset for the cash-strapped Liberals, who've been struggling to adapt to the ban on corporate donations imposed in 2004.

"Expertise as an innovative fundraiser" is music to my ears, because the capacity to counter the Conservatives is entirely contingent on cold, hard cash. I certainly get the sense from Ignatieff, that fundraising will be a central thrust and I'm entirely confident that the coming months will show we've started to turn the corner.

Forget Diplomacy, Try Dictation

When hell (if you can get through that without welling up, you have a heart of stone) subsides, we will hear the predictable next phase in the cycle, renewed calls for diplomacy and an aggressive "peace" plan. Envoys will work the corridors, people will fly around the region, maybe even a summit. Nothing will come of any initiative, because nothing every does, always some unravelling or line in the sand to dampen prospects. I suppose one could argue a new American administration leaves some room for optimism, but really we all know better by now. Instead of diplomacy, wherein two parties meet to discuss terms, then never reach any agreement, clearly the time has come to forget about the "two parties".

The rest of the world knows well the points of contention, and they know that no lasting peace will every be achieved unless these issues are dealt with in a substantive way. Under all the rhetoric, there really is a common sense solution, that can be achieved, if the "two parties" aren't part of the settlement. It is time for the world, more correctly, the Americans, to dictate the terms of a peace agreement, and use it's leverage to demand compliance. Israel refuses to accept new borders, then American support is off the table. The Palestinian people refuse to abandon Hamas, any entity which doesn't accept Israel's existence, forget about aid, forget about enforcing the dictated settlement.

There is one simple fact here, Israel must make real concessions for a lasting peace to exist. It isn't unreasonable to stop settlements, return land, allow Palestinians the right of return. Additionally, the idea of a shared Jerusalem, that becomes a symbol for joint existence, essentially the property of collective peace, is a essential concession, that is entirely valid. In return, the world community will exert maximum pressure on any entity or rogue nation that threatens Israel.

You can't expect any "side" to not act in it's self interest, which in this situation equates to eternal stalemate. Rather than the world community cobbling together temporary declarations, maybe it's time to abandon the notion of signing ceremonies and shuttle diplomacy that will invariably come in the aftermath. People already know what has to happen for a lasting peace to take hold, rather than mediating any negotiations, we need a judge that will enforce the new laws. The next time the "two sides" sit at a table, they should be presented with their peace agreement, because quite frankly they've lost the ability or the moral authority to find a solution. Anyways, back to the insanity of tank shells firing at shadows, thinking that represents security and everybody rationalizing who's "right".