Ignatieff leadership gain of LeBlanc and the scuttling of the Liberal-NDP coalition?

News that is late-breaking tonight suggests that Liberal MP Dominic Leblanc will drop out…

by Stephen Taylor on Sunday, December 7, 2008 11:53pm - 70 Comments

News that is late-breaking tonight suggests that Liberal MP Dominic Leblanc will drop out of the Liberal leadership race and endorse Michael Ignatieff.  It is rumoured that Leblanc will provide Ignatieff with an additional nine members of the Liberal caucus in what is shaping up to be a backroom leadership election by caucus.  Leblanc’s move over to the Ignatieff camp should be smooth for Leblanc supporters as some senior east-coast Liberal organizers who were initially eyeing Frank McKenna for the top job of that party chose Leblanc instead.  New Brunswicker Steve McKinnon, who would have backed McKenna has charted the waters for martime Liberals to sail over to Ignatieff.

This late development means that Bob Rae, who is beating a path coast-to-coast promoting the coalition concept, finds himself further behind now that Ignatieff enjoys an even more comfortable lead among caucus colleagues.  Somewhat ironic is the fact that the coalition deal was struck out of a sense of urgency (or opportunity) to topple the Harper government and that this sense of urgency is also driving the Liberal party to select a leader via caucus selection.  Strategically, Rae should now advocate for a period of Liberal introspection, an abandonment of the push to a coalition with the Bloc and to have a real (yet delegated) full-blown leadership election.  As it stands, Rae would fare worse under the urgent scenario than that which allows the Prime Minister to stay in power for now.

And why not? Some time for the Liberal party to heal might do them some good.  Joining up with the NDP erodes the brand of both parties and upsets each ideological base.  True, those that seek power despite principle would rather see Stephen Harper evicted from 24 Sussex tomorrow.  However, for the longterm livelihood of the Liberal party they ought to take some time out to rebuild, to fundraise and to craft an original policy platform – one without the word “shift”.

If Michael Ignatieff does assume the helm of the Liberal Party via caucus selection, the January throne speech/budget combo should pass through Liberal abstention.  Poll numbers are showing poor support for a Liberal-NDP coalition and Ignatieff himself has never been warm to the idea.  Besides, don’t you get the sense that Iggy is the sort who plays the long game rather than leaps before he looks? A number of Liberals in caucus have privately expressed concerns over the coalition proposal and most scenarios of how a coalition would play out are unknown and therefore should be somewhat worrisome to most.

For Mr. Dion, the coalition concoction was to be his magical elixir which promised new life.  Realistically, his leadership prospects have been long dead.  For Mr. Rae to avoid a quick demise, he should insist upon a delegated leadership election as planned meaning that the coalition ought to be on hold for now or done like Dion.

Stephen Taylor is a conservative commentator and a fellow at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

Bookmark and Share
  • Ryan

    Yeah, are you sure about that Jeff? Sounded to me like a lot of Conservatives were furious with Harper’s actions while also being anti-Coalition.

  • Austin So

    @Stephen Taylor
    Can you think of what it means to be a Liberal partisan vs. an adherent to the liberal movement?
    What moves people to be Liberal?

    Claims of “partisan” aside, seems that people have more or less given my answer to these questions.

    Did you appreciate the distinction made between “Conservatives” and “Conservatives under Harper”?

    According to you:
    1. all Conservatives should be conservative
    2. all conservatives need not be Conservative.

    Can you tell me in what way a small-c conservative (as currently defined) could identify with the fiscal actions of the Conservative party under Harper (posit #1…which I assume is the basis for your self-identification as a “classical liberal”)?

    I frankly do not see it, so I’d be interested in your take.

    Austin

  • http://canadianmalcontent.net/ Blair

    Mr. Taylor:

    Perhaps as a Conservative blogger you can fill us in on what’s going on inside your party. The mainstream press seems to have abdicated its responsibility to keep us informed about both sides of the story.

  • Jeff.J

    Bob Fife to Leblanc,

    … you cooked up one backroom deal (the Coalition) that has offended Canadians and now aren’t you proposing another one by asking Ignatieff to be appointed by the Liberal Party National Council? Aren’t you out of touch with Canadians?

    Leblanc switches channels back to Stephen Harper.

  • Jeff.J

    These knuckleheads are too stupid to see the answer is to dump the coalition and allow the Vancouver leader selection to go ahead as scheduled. Harper’s going to be in power for at least 18 months anyway.

    Rae’s on now claiming the Ignatieff way is undemocratic and digging the hole deeper.

    The last few days have been fun, and the Liberal circus continues.

  • http://mrsinistergreg.blogspot.com Greg

    True, those that seek power despite principle would rather see Stephen Harper evicted from 24 Sussex tomorrow.

    It isn’t just people who want power who want to see Harper gone. Some of us just want Harper gone.

  • Jeff.J

    Open warfare has now broken out in public.

    Leblanc as a proxy for Ignatieff. Now Rae it’s lobbing grenades with help from Kennedy.

    It’s laughable that Rae is pleading for democracy within the Liberal Party after being the chief Liberal cheerleader for the most undemocratic attempt to seize power in Canadian history.

    Will Ignatieff going to continue to remain silent?

  • Ryan

    @ Jeff.J: I’m by no means a supporter of the coalition, but calling it ‘undemocratic’ belies an ignorance of how our democracy works.

  • Ryan

    I agree with Ryan (he’s not me). I am tired of the Conservatives and their supporters repeating the line that this isn’t “democratic.” Either they’re all idiots, or just willfully ignorant. Or I suppose they believe that if you just keep repeating a lie over and over it’ll make it true.

    Regardless, it’s shameless. The coalition is purely democratic.

  • http://unambig.blogspot.com Raphael Alexander

    I can’t fathom the objection to someone who belongs to a partisan aggregate of bloggers sharing his opinions on Macleans. Stephen Taylor is well connected to the Conservative Party and offers insights that few others are availed.

    I also object to the characterization of the Blogging Tories. I’ve blogged there for a year and a half with numerous critical articles about the Conservative party and I’ve never been asked to leave or change my writing. There’s plenty of anti-Harper bias out there, and anti-conservative bias, and diversity of opinion merely levels the playing field.

  • http://csriess@shaw.ca C. Riess

    Zoe, how open-minded and tolerant you are! Stepen is writing for Macleans because he is popular and has wide spread appeal. If Macleans should can anybody it is the nakedly partisan Aaron Wherry and Scott Feschuk (former Liberal strategist).

  • Tim Johnson

    Why does Macleans allow Taylor to post here? Why not just post the Tories daily talking points? His opinion is not his own, he is a tool of the PMO and CPC comms team.

  • Ti-Guy

    Fair enough… but short on inspiring for people looking for new ideas.

    I’m trying to figure what new ideas have sprung from “movement conservatism” these days that aren’t simply old ideas that were rejected as unpopular in the past..

    The one I can think of is the thrill of being part of a “movement” for people who don’t have much else going on in their lives that is truly inspiring.

    The whole notion of “movements” is probably want Liberals are find unappealing.

  • Ti-Guy

    Yeesh…that last sentence was badly mangled.

    s.b. “The whole notion of “movements” is probably what Liberals find unappealing.”

  • Mike T.

    As long as the disclaimer is kept up and Mr. Taylor is paid by the Conservative Party rather than the government or MacLeans, I think it is an excellent idea to run it here. Welcome Mr. Taylor.

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    I am not paid by the Conservative Party.

  • Dennis

    For the record, I most strenuously object to Macleans parachuting Stephen Taylor into this mix, especially in light of Taylor’s most obvious hyper partisan bias, demonstrated prior to his joining Macleans.

  • Steve Wart

    Okay Dennis. Meanwhile I just clicked on the “get 4 issues free alongside this swell bonus gift” thereby monetizing the efforts of management to bring Stephen on board.

    YMMV

  • seaandthemountains

    Perhaps this conversation would be aided by you, making clear exactly what your relationship with the CPC, and all its tentacles and affiliates (e.g., the Manning Centre). BTW, I would say the key issue is not pay. There are much greater ways that influence can be achieved beyond strictly direct monetary inducements.

    Regardless, It makes no apparent sense to me why Macleans as a reputable journalistic organization is providing a forum for the musings of an unabashed government partisan, especially when it is not extending that same platform to any other party.

  • Big Daddy

    it has nothing to do with the article – why are YOU, HERE? Journalists dont organize rallies.

    If Macleans is opening the journalism door to political hacks, it should just say so.

    You are not paid by the Conservative Party. You are paid to promote and help them.

From Macleans