First one to call this his "walk in the snow" has to go out and shovel it

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:42am - 79 Comments

090128_iggy

ITQ will be liveblogging the Liberal leader’s press conference this morning. She has absolutely no idea what he’s going to say, although she’s hoping for a Yeats quote; apparently, he’ll fill us in on whether or not his party is leaning towards supporting the budget, bringing down the government or introducing some sort of amendment that would provide the PM with the perfect opportunity to demonstrate his newfound appreciation for nonpartisan cooperative collaboration.

Check back at 11am to find out!

(An aside: You guys, this is so exciting! Don’t you love those days on the Hill when our journalistic unified theory of the immediate short term everything can be summed up thusly: “Wait, what? Did we miss something? What’s going on?” And how infuriating must it be for the Prime Minister that the day after his government delivered the most extraordinary-est budget in the history of modern Canadian political ever, all eyes are not on him or his government, but on Michael Ignatieff? Unless this is all part of that craftily designed time-release communications strategy, of course. [Insert hoary chess/checkers cliche here.])

10:41:19 AM
Ahh, that’s more like it – You’ve no idea how much I missed my trusty berry during yesterday’s lockup. Liveblogging on a laptop just isn’t the same – you can’t get up and wander around, for one thing. Not that I’m doing much wandering at the moment, of course: I am stationed in my usual just-past-the-pillar seat in the National Press Theatre, listening to the room fill up with my slightly snow-encrusted colleagues, wondering – as is our lot in life – what on earth will happen next, and what about after *that*?

Team Ignatieff is already here – well, the Team, not sure about the Ignatieff – but they’re not letting anything slip as far as what their boss is going to say. What ITQ *can* report, however, is that he won’t be saying it from behind a desk; the middle leaf of the trademark NPT table has just been hauled off the stage and replaced with a lectern that I’m fairly sure is actually taller than me.

11:01:17 AM
Well, he’s now officially late, although that *may* be due to the last minute addition of the lectern, which forces the assembled camera crews to shuffle around until they’re satisfied that the angle will make any looming by the star of the show sufficiently ominous.

An Ignationaut I don’t recognize is surveying the scene from the back, and looks almost too smugly and self-satisfied, although to be fair, ITQ has a very low threshhold for public displays of self satisfaction.

11:07:27 AM
You know, if this was a Dion press conference starting this late, we’d be writing his political obituary.

11:10:12 AM
Update! Reader Scott very helpfully passes along the news that the press conference has been officially delayed until 11:15, according to CBC. Nobody actually in the room, however, seems to have had a clue before ITQ shared the news with the rest of the class.

11:13:23 AM
Well, at least we’re not shivering outside Rideau Hall, or sweltering in a closet at the Government Conference Centre, right?

I do wonder if this delay is due to some sort of last minute political crisis, or like – lighting issues.

11:20:02 AM
Alright, so we’ve got the statement – which is short if not particularly sweet, and the upshot of which is that the Liberals will introduce an amendment to ensure that the government is “held accountable for its promises” – and adds, “We are putting this government on probation.” Yes, your guess is as good as mine as far as what that means, but here’s the nugget of ooh, that may actually be clever: regular reports to Parliament – in March, June and December – any of which will be a confidence motion.

11:24:21 AM
So – does that mean no amendments on the substance of the issues with which he says they have with the current budget – even though he praises some measures as the result of concessions “forced on Stephen Harper” by the force of a united opposition.

And does this mean more work for the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

11:27:31 AM
Looking around the room, I see lots of furrowed brows and hands under chins. Ignatieff, on the other hand, looks positively gleeful – he is waggling the eyebrows in delight.

11:28:37 AM
Question from Reuters – Any word from the government on whether they’ll support these amendments? He doesn’t have to get permission from the PM, Ignatieff points out somewhat cooly.

11:32:05 AM
Susan Bonner has a question “on behalf of Newfoundlanders” – will Ignatieff allow Newfoundland Liberal MPs – many of whom were elected in part due to Danny Williams’ anti-Conservative campaigning – to vote against the budget, should they choose to do so? Ignatieff dodges the specific question, but notes that he has already spoken with Charest, and will do the same with Danny Williams later today. As for voting against the budget – no answer.

11:35:52 AM
Someone asks the question ITQ can’t shake: If there are weaknesses in the budget, why not propose amendments that would, you know, fix it? Ignatieff seems to suggest that it wouldn’t be worth going to an election right now over the budget – by voting against it, that is – and once again stresses the importance of accountability. Oh, and yesterday’s tax cuts ran “right up against his red line” as far as what would or wouldn’t be acceptable.

11:39:38 AM
Colleague Coyne is the picture of inscrutability. Meanwhile, Julie Van Dusen wonders again if he gave the PM an early warning that he might do this if the budget didn’t meet his expectations – no, he didn’t – and then wonders how much these amendments will cost, which confuses everyone, including Ignatieff, since the amendments he seems to be proposing aren’t about money. He says as much, and once again stresses the importance of accountability.

So – if this amendment *doesn’t* pass, and he doesn’t get the quarterly confidence votes, will the Liberals support the budget?

11:43:33 AM
In response to the obligatory, “Is the coalition dead?” question, Ignatieff points out that this. budget is, in fact, the result of the best efforts of the coalition – although he switches back and forth between calling it the coalition, and simply the opposition – and refuses to kill off the possibility once and for all that it may return “to serve the national interest.” Like Godzilla!

11:47:34 AM
According to Ignatieff, there has been constant communication between his party and the NDP, although he hasn’t talked to Layton personally yet today. So does that mean the NDP will support the amendment? He needs all three, remember. Oh, and as for the coalition, the idea thereof, he suggests, has changed Canadian politics for the good. Make no mistake, though, he is “fiercely” proud of the Liberal Party.

11:49:39 AM
One more question – from Juliet O’Neil – about the mechanics of these confidence votes: How can the opposition just declare these reports to be matters of confidence? Ignatieff assures her that these reports will be “robust” – they won’t be satisfied by press releases; they’ll want evidence! Data! Numbers!

11:55:42 AM
And that’s it for the Count. Now, off to find out whether the NDP will support this, which I genuinely do not know, but when I do, you’ll be the first.

12:05:21 PM
We join this Jack Layton scrum already in process, and somewhat crankily at that, as we are still stuck in our coat and boots, as well as, apparently, third person plural.

Jack, meanwhile, is suffering from no such discomfort, and having wrapped up the French portion of his statement, is grumbling in English about how very inadequate this budget was, in so many ways.

12:09:13 PM
Okay, so the upshot is: No, he won’t support this amendment, and it is a ‘sad day’ what with Ignatieff providing a ‘fig leaf’ to the government. “Is the coalition dead? Is the coalition dead?” yells a reporter to my right, and is soon joined by another. “We have a new coalition on Parliament Hill”, says Jack, between Ignatieff and Harper. “So is your coalition dead?” shrieks an increasingly desperate reporter. Just *say the words*, Jack!

12:18:07 PM
Sorry about that – my berry took a sudden tumble onto the marble floor in mid-update. Honestly, though, you’ve not missed much other than a lot more grumbling from Layton, who accuses Ignatieff of “propping up” the government, and doesn’t this remind anyone else of the NDP of, say, seven months ago?

12:24:32 PM
Okay, that’s it from the foyer – Jack has stalked off, leaving a scattering of NDP aides to drive the point home, in case we missed the nuance: Jack? Mad! Liberals? Bad! I’ll sign off for now, but will be back later, I’m sure, although not in this post.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    And how infuriating must it be for the Prime Minister that the day after his government delivered the most extraordinary-est budget in the history of modern Canadian political ever, all eyes are not on him or his government, but on Michael Ignatieff?

    I have to admit that’s a pretty good strategic move by the Liberals. I hope they follow it up with an equally good move by announcing they’re going to flush this turd of a budget down the toilet.

    • Sophie

      Don’t worry- I think the municipalities have a shovel.

      • madeyoulook

        Someone asks the question ITQ can’t shake: If there are weaknesses in the budget, why not propose amendments that would, you know, fix it? Ignatieff seems to suggest that it wouldn’t be worth going to an election right now over the budget – by voting against it, that is – and once again stresses the importance of accountability. Oh, and yesterday’s tax cuts ran “right up against his red line” as far as what would or wouldn’t be acceptable.

        Bonjour, Dion-Deux.

    • Shenping

      How rude!!

      Everyone’s been throwing the phrase “shovel ready” around, but I suggest we use “shovel worthy”.

  • knick

    “Wait, what? Did we miss something? What’s going on?” Yeah, like, what IS going on? Since when does anyone, let alone the Leader of the Opposition, keep His Harperness waiting for approval of his budget.

  • John D

    I’ll believe that there are “votes” on things in this “House of Commons” when I see ‘em.

  • john g

    or introducing some sort of amendment that would provide the PM with the perfect opportunity to demonstrate his newfound appreciation for nonpartisan cooperative collaboration.

    For Chrissakes…how much more “nonpartisan cooperative collaboration” do you need? He solicited input from 680 groups, including the Liberals and just produced basically a Liberal budget with everything they asked for…but in the world of O’Malley, Wherry, etc. “nonpartisan cooperative collaboration” means that Harper has to roll over and let Ignatieff FURTHER dictate what is in this budget?

    What planet do you live on? That isn’t “nonpartisan cooperative collaboration”. It’s bending over and spreading your cheeks.

    • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

      I understand your frustration, johng, but if the Prime Minister cannot win a budget in the House of Commons, he can’t claim to have the confidence of the House, so it seems as though the wisest strategy would be to ensure that he doesn’t end up in the unenviable position of having his budget amended against his will. (That, of course, is assuming that the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois back any such amendment.)

      • john g

        I understand your frustration, johng

        I don’t think you do.

        You seem to equate “nonpartisan cooperative collaboration” with “do whatever the hell the Liberals tell you to do if you want to survive”. In your mind, it would seem that the PM can only be “nonpartisan, cooperative and collaborative” by doing whatever King Iggy tells him to. But then again you are a Liberal so I guess that’s to be expected.

        Ignatieff doesn’t care about further changes; he’s only looking to try and humiliate Harper further. That isn’t “nonpartisan, cooperative, or collaborative”. It’s everything you claim to hate about Harper.

        He’s cooperated and collaborated enough with this budget (in fact as a “c”onservative I would say far more than enough). This is a Liberal budget in everything but name. I think this budget stinks, but if Ignatieff wants to defeat or try to amend the budget Harper proposed, I say he can go fill his boots. I double-dog-dare Ignatieff to defeat the government on this budget and then try to run an election campaign on it.

        • catherine

          Obviously, Harper is not doing everything the Liberals tell him to do. They told him he should not cause structural deficits and should have a plan for getting out of deficit. He doesn’t.

          This is not a Liberal budget – a Liberal budget would have a plan for getting out of deficit and would be more focussed and effective. This is Harper’s junk budget with enough goodies thrown around to fight an election if he has to. It would be politically unwise for the Liberals to force on election on this goodie-strewn junk budget, but they could try to at least patch up a few obvious holes.

          • MJH

            Catherine, you clearly did not read the entire budget document. It takes awhile and not many put their head down and read the contents before pontificating about its pluses and minuses.

            Take time like Michael Ignatieff and then speak!

          • Shenping

            That would be a 21st century Liberal budget, Catherine. Not a 20th century one. But other than that quibble I agree with you.

            Harper knows another election would financially kill the Liberals right now, unless they win a majority and allow Bay Street to shower them with money again.

      • john g

        By the way, “Eyebrowbeating the government into submission” is an instant classic of a tag. I tip my hat.

        • http://macleans.ca kc

          John, if you think Harper’s being unfairly humiliated then try and cast yr mind back to all the humiliations he has heaped on the libs for the last 2-3yrs. If this guy had built up even a modicum of trust with the opposition he wouldn’t be where he is now. This guy is a disaster for us all, but most of all for conservatives such as yrself.

          • john g

            kc, Harper is admittedly no teddy bear but a significant portion of the humiliation that was heaped on the Liberals over the Dion years was self inflicted. Dion would rant on and on about how awful Tory legislation was before ducking his head and chickening out at vote time. I can’t blame Harper for Dion’s complete lack of political acumen. Fortunately Ignatieff appears to have more of a spine, which I would say is a prerequisite for dealing with Harper.

            There is an all too familiar pattern here. Conservatives do something LIberals don’t like, Liberal cheerleaders here complain about how nasty Harper is, Conservative cheerleaders here justify it by (usually correctly) saying that the Liberals did it too. Liberal Cheerleaders here complain that is no justification.

            So I’ll follow the inverse of the pattern. If being nasty and partisan is what you hate about Harper, don’t cheer Ignatieff for doing it.

          • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

            Harper did his best Lib impersonation yesterday and now Iggy is going to do his version of Harper by being late to his press conference. CBC saying Iggy will now talk at 11:15.

            Does anyone out there believe Iggy/Libs will vote against this budget outright or will they try to tinker with it at committee level or will they leave it alone entirely?

          • Wayne

            They will add amendments that will cost a 10 more billion then Stevie will counter with an offer of 2 billion and they will settle on 5 billion

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            John
            Agreed the libs under Dion were a disaster as an opposition. I have learned not to blame harper for being a political animal. But my pt was that by not building any trust at all he’s shot himself in the head, and for no particular reason other than he seems to like chaos. Mulrony would have had a majority wrapped up long ago. In a nutshell SH is incompetent.
            You make a good pt about inconsistency in criticisims of Harper. Cognitive dissonance effects us all i guess. I would expect libs to cry if cons are being cons but however unfair you can’t really expect libs to cheer him for being liberal light. If he were being a better lib i would like to think i would find that amusing and cheer him on.

          • john g

            I would suggest kc that until Iggy came along Harper has not had an opposition worthy of trust. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the dialog between the Libs and Conservatives has improved 100% since Ignatieff took over. Everyone always wants to blame Harper for the state of affairs, but it seems that replacing Dion was the trigger for improving things.

    • Alan

      I recall the Conservatives talking about nonpartison cooperation in the fall, and then they delivered the most partisan fiscal update I could imagine. Surely you can see how some people might be sceptical that they are now be cooperative? Oh, and soliciting input and using that input are not the same thing.

    • John D

      Soliciting input from 680 groups has nothing to do with “nonpartisan cooperative collaboration.” They were talking to a billion different groups for 2 reasons:

      1. If you talk to that many groups you’re bound to find support for whatever you were going to do in the first place. You just fill in the “as recommended by _____” lines after.

      2. If there’s something (or everything) people don’t like you can spread the credit around. “Don’t blame us, we ‘solicited input’ from the Liberals.”

      • http://macleans.ca kc

        i would consider this pure cynicism if not for the track record of this govt. If there’s no longer any trust out there for these guys, who’s fault is that?

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Are we permitted to suggest that Mr. Ignatieff will have a lot of “ruminification” to do?
    A ponderitious path to proceed on in the crystalline
    A frosty fricassee of finance to filter
    flakes from the flakey Flaherty to fling into the firment

    • Wascally Wabbit

      Oops – I meant firmament…I’m sure you all knew that

      • Shenping

        Iggy’s a ruminant? Frozen stew references? This sounds a little like one of those conbot unintentional poetic postings.

        • Geiseric the Lame

          great title, Kady.

          not an allusion to “On the Occasion of Wet Snow”, is it?

  • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

    She has absolutely no idea what he’s going to say, although she’s hoping for a Yeats quote

    If he decides for the budget:

    “The dews drop slowly and dreams gather; unknown spears
    Suddenly hurtle before my dream-awakened eyes,
    And then the clash of fallen horsemen and the cries
    Of unknown perishing armies beat about my ears.
    We who still labour by the cromlech on the shore,
    The grey cairn on the hill, when day sinks drowned in dew,
    Being weary of the world’s empires, bow down to you,
    Master of the still stars and of the flaming door.”

    – The Valley of the Black Pig

    BUT, if he decides against it:

    “While I wrought out these fitful Danaan rhymes,
    My heart would brim with dreams about the times
    When we bent down above the fading coals
    And talked of the dark folk who live in souls
    Of passionate men, like bats in the dead trees;
    And of the wayward twilight companies
    Who sigh with mingled sorrow and content,
    Because their blossoming dreams have never bent
    Under the fruit of evil and of good:
    And of the embattled flaming multitude
    Who rise, wing above wing, flame above flame,
    And, like a storm, cry the Ineffable Name,
    And with the clashing of their sword-blades make
    A rapturous music, till the morning break
    And the white hush end all but the loud beat
    Of their long wings, the flash of their white feet.”

    – To Some I have Talked with by the Fire

    • Shawn

      Hehe…wow, that didn’t take long. Good Googling. ;-)

      • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

        What, you think I ain’t got reams of Yeats memorised? : )

        • Critical Reasoning

          Is that a picture of Orwell? Sweet.

          • Critical Reasoning

            Hey, you changed it back again! No fair.

          • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

            I’m trying for Orwell, but wordpress is messing with my head. Big Orwell fan. He will return, at least as a gravatar.

          • http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

            Hey, I can post as Jack Mitchell (and not J@ck M!tchell) again! OK, now we’re getting somewhere.

  • William

    I can only hope this news conference is every thing you dream it will be—you are a great cheerleader—-I know I`m excited—-Yippee

  • Wascally Wabbit

    To take your chess / checkers analogy and hore (sic? smirk) it some…
    The King can move in any direction that is open – but can only move one square at a time.
    Other pieces may move in their prescribed patterns into open squares – with the objective of limiting or checking the movement of the King – to the point where the King is limited and has no moves left that will leave him unchecked – thus checkmate.
    Long live King Steve – until we have King Mikey!

    • Shenping

      Chess my finely sculpted posterior. They’re playing tiddlywinks.

      If this was chess, a deep heavenly voice would say “checkmate”, and a giant finger would descend down from the sky & topple Harper onto his side. Although being shaped like a Weeble, the end result might be unpredictable.

  • Sophie

    Whats with the picture? He looks like hes in pain.

    • catherine

      He’s seen the budget. What do you expect?

      • MJH

        Take the time and read the budget Catherine.

        • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

          So far, Iggy is slamming budget. Is he going to have Libs vote against or do a Dion?

          • John D

            Silly jwl, Iggy is brave and bipartisan by putting the government on probation and supporting the budget.

            Dion was a cowardly weakling who did nothing but put the government on notice and support its bills…

          • SAB

            name one opposition party IN HISTORY who voted for the budget but didn’t cite every flaw they could think of….

  • bobfrombob

    That wasn’t a reference to “Not For The Season” was it? I couldn’t imagine loving you more than I already do…..

  • Ryan

    If this takes any longer I may have to resort to twiddling my thumbs

    • John D

      So they’re all busy going “doot de doot de doo”

      • Ryan

        Exactly, and I’ll be taking the bridge out of town!

  • Ryan

    Sounds like Iggy’s gonna slam the budget, make amendments, and that’ll be that.

  • yyc

    Actually he won’t be speaking live. They’re rushing over the youtube video even as we speak. It will be there a minutes after the networks drop off.

  • Shenping

    My prediction is that Iggy will suggest amendments, in particular with regards to EI. The Liberal party has a bigger deficit than the government at the moment.

    Iggy isn’t Paul Martin or Stephen Harper. He knows when it’s a bad time to be Prime Minister. The challenge will be for both sides to capitulate without looking like they’re capitulating.

    Odd, though, isn’t it? You’ve got two groups of elite fighting over personal gain, and it could result in a borderline non-horrible budget.

    My other prediction is that it isn’t going to start getting any easier to get money from the federal government. The Liberals were just as good at not fulfilling one-time campaign promises (we’re still waiting for uncle Jean’s promise of money to finish the new lab building at the U of R), but when the project was in Ralph Goodale’s riding and not an NDP-held riding like the one the university was in, money came pretty quickly. Getting a cheque under this government is slow and painful under all circumstances. Which leads me to wonder: is the PMO trying to micromanage things at such a level that the timely issue of cheques is compromised, or is the money that’s supposed to be sitting in dedicated funds not actually there, and they’re constantly having to shift money around to make payments?

    I admit I only have one course in government finance, and enough reading on my own to make up perhaps another class or two, but Flaherty’s pre-budget press release really didn’t make any sense. I’m not sure how you can have a status-quo deficit and a structural surplus, since the structural budget balance should have less revenue but the same expenses.

    I have a strong suspicion that the government has lost track of a seriously large amount of money, probably due to bad record-keeping, or that they’ve grossly underestimated the amount of revenue that’s come in so far for 2008, and are borrowing money from different designated funds to cover it, hoping the final-quarter revenues will make up for it. If the 08-09 deficit turns out much higher than expected, it will further re-enforce this suspicion.

    Unfrotunately, I think it would be a really bad long-term strategy for the Liberals to take over the reins any time in the next six months. It would be better for them to force the CPC to amend the budget and let the Cons keep running things. Any budget at this point will involve too much guesswork, and it would be possible (although perhaps not very easy) to convince voters down the road that it was better to cooperate with a bad government during a crisis and try to influence things for the better than to have an election or the uncertainty of a coalition. Iggy seems to have a better understanding of public narrative than other leaders, although it could just be serendipity. He’s achieved leadership, Liberal poll numbers are up, and major changes were forced on this budget, all seemingly without any effort on his part.

    Chess master? Probably not, but checkers master counts for something when everyone else is playing tiddlywinks

  • yyc

    (wasn’t getting anything new on page loads. Thought you might still be waiting)

  • Ryan

    I’m on the NP’s liveblog, they’re just quoting what he says.

    Ignatieff will require reports on the delivery of the stimulus three times this year, three times in which they will require the support of Liberals to extend the support of the government.

    Iggy’s letting the budget pass, but with strings.

  • seaandthemountains

    are there substantive amendments or is the only amendment the reporting requirement.?

    Also am I wrong or did Iggy say the reporting requirements was all about the flow and implementation, i.e., not about effects of implementation?

  • Ryan

    “But the budget also contains important concessions—concessions forced on Stephen Harper by the force of a united Opposition.

    Affordable housing.

    Skills development.

    Expansions of the Working Income Tax Benefit and the Child Tax Benefit.

    Measures to make credit available to business.

    Investments in colleges and universities: the incubators of the jobs of tomorrow.”

  • seaandthemountains

    i wish someone in that presser would ask him some substantive questions about why if 1) all his conditions of support pre-budget were substantive about helping the most vulnerable, 2) this budget has been criticized in aiding the most vulnerable, and, 3) he layed out a eight point critique (somewhat) in that regard ….then how is condition of support a process-based reporting requirement that he could have achieved in any committee?

    • seaandthemountains

      whoops Kady missed your same point. sorry. someone please ask!

  • bobfrombob

    So onwards to the Neorhino press conference then?

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    “…they’ll want evidence, data, numbers…” “Yes, i”l get Jumbo onto it right away…”

    • MJH

      It will be the civil servants who will face accountability in getting the “money out”. It won’t be easy with bureacracy and regulations. I would not want to be a Dep, Minister or Assnt Dep Ministers.

  • MJH

    Iggy outlines, and rails against, at least 8 items he does not like in the budget, but —OPPS we’re going to support it!

    I wonder why voters are skeptical about politicans?

    • http://macleans.ca kc

      Does this mean minority govt is really good or really bad, or maybe both. I’m starting to not like them. Anyone for a round of majority dictatorship?

      • seaandthemountains

        I still think the issue is less minority and more the quality of our political leadership across parties. in a word, dismissal.

        • http://macleans.ca kc

          Maybe we could sub the job out to Obama, although he is kinda busy right now!

          • MJH

            Obama is a raw rookie, completely untested. People can hope however.

  • anon

    “So does that mean the NDP will support the amendment? He needs all three, remember”

    Actually not. You are forgetting the party with the most seats in the House.

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    We now have two world class obfuscators, a little guy with mustaches who never saw a proposal he almost but not quite couldn’t support, and a French Canadian ex- moaist [ who's grandmere may be a tractor ] who wants to help run a country he has vowed to break-up, as our leaders. It doesn’t get much better than this. That is if some fool doesn’t open the constitution. Oops! Mustn’t use the C word at a time like this.

  • Neeta Kumar-Britten

    Homework for the PM with the corresponding grades and/or report cards … I love it! Gives the Liberals some time to do some prep work, too. I love that the Liberals demanded and got some attention.

From Macleans