Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Off probation

by Paul Wells on Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:28pm - 101 Comments

Off probation Wow, does Michael Ignatieff ever talk a lot when he has nothing to say. There he is on the TV as I type, taking his tenth or 15th question in a scrum in Montreal, jousting with reporters, a strained smile on his face because they keep asking him the same thing and how many different ways can he say he hasn’t made a decision yet? Not a lot of different ways, it turns out, and yet he won’t back away from the microphone. So he’s having to say them again and again. And it’s making him testy. But he won’t stop. So he repeats himself. And then the reporters do. And still he won’t walk away.

There. He finally stopped. He’s gonna read the thing tonight and make a decision. Except all week I’ve been hearing from Liberals about their vacation plans. Those plans don’t involve door-knocking and debate prep. So if this whole election thing is still a live option, somebody forgot to tell the party.

Let us strain past the limits of this town’s attention span to recall a few simple things. The reason Stephen Harper was in Cambridge today was to update the country on the status of budget implementation. Excellent idea! Whose was it? Michael Ignatieff’s. The Prime Minister didn’t mention that, and yet it was really not long ago — the end of January — that Ignatieff cooked up this whole “probation” scheme. He’d vote for the budget, but he didn’t have to like it. In return the feds would have to report in March and June and December. There’s even a website. So you know it was a serious deal.

Now here’s the thing about probation. It is a daily state of binary possibility: Pass-fail. If I’m the opposition leader and I have Put The Government On Probation, then every day I do not announce the government’s failure is an endorsement. Tomorrow Michael Ignatieff will find a microphone somewhere and announce, at extravagant length, that he is endorsing the government again. The NDP and Bloc will announce they were ready to vote yet again to bring this government down, but yet again the Liberals have chickened out. It’ll all work out precisely as Ignatieff designed it to.

I now believe the opposition parties will not get their act together to vote the government down until after it delivers its next full budget. Of course that’s the worst possible time from the opposition’s point of view, because a budget is a chance to spend $200 billion: it’s the moment of maximum strength for any government.

But there’s always a reason not to make a decision. Was it 10 days ago the opposition parties, led by the Liberals, were demanding the finance minister be fired because he’d dug a $50 billion deficit? Stephen Harper ignored them. They did nothing in response. Paper tigers. Now they will wait until the recovery is in full swing and force an election on a good-news budget. That’s how Michael Ignatieff messes with you until he’s done.

Tags: Budget, Michael Ignatieff

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

When your opponent is charging off a cliff, best to stand aside. This recession isn't done, we're just past the descent (and some will even argue that) The conservatives have no idea how to manage an economy as opposed to a household budget (and I tend to think I'm giving them some credit there) and past history has shown that rather than 'fess up to problems, they'll try to bury and hide them.

So let them run til December, give them their rope while people get angrier as it becomes more obvious that their good news projections are so much smoke, then, once in power, find the hidey-holes and corruption, show what deficit Jim has truly cost us..

..and bury them.

With any luck, they'll dissolve and a real Progressive Conservative party can re-emerge from the CRAP.
ARX

I would have thought Ignatieff had more to lose backing down than trying to provoke a vote of non-confidence that he may not even succeed at, but at the very least would give him the principled high ground, and would put the other opposition parties in the uncomfortable position of having to prop up the Tories to avoid an election. If he declares himself satisfied, I think he's committed himself to the same path Dion was stuck on, and we all know how great that turned out for the Liberals.

john g

But he's not backing down.

The problem with Dion is that he actually would promise to defeat the government over some piece of legislation that he didn't like, then had to tuck his tail between his legs when he realized that he really didn't want to defeat the government. And then he made it worse for himself by repeating the same mistake about 22 times.

Ignatieff has not stated what he will do either way, so he's given himself the option of passing on an election without losing face.

ARX

Indeed, john g, Ignatieff hasn't made a decision yet, but my argument is that Ignatieff's on probation move worked once, he was able to prop up the Tories without looking weak, but to do so now, after all that's been going on these last few months since then, would be infinitely more difficult, and I believe, to be impossible. If he backs down now, no matter how clever and guarded the withdrawal, he'll be ceding all the ground he gained to the possibility of being taken back by the Tories. One of Dion's biggest errors was waiting too long to strike, the opportunity was never perfect. Problem is, it's not likely to get much better than now, and the risks of not moving now far outweigh at least the effort of trying to bring down the government next week.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

When your opponent is charging off a cliff, best to stand aside. This recession isn't done, we're just past the descent (and some will even argue that) The conservatives have no idea how to manage an economy as opposed to a household budget (and I tend to think I'm giving them some credit there) and past history has shown that rather than 'fess up to problems, they'll try to hide them and gloss over the real details.

So let them run til December, give them their rope while people get angrier as it becomes more obvious that their good news projections are so much smoke, then, once in power, find the hidey-holes and corruption, show what deficit Jim has truly cost us..

..and bury them.

With any luck, they'll dissolve and a real Progressive Conservative party can re-emerge from the CRAP.

AT1

Interesting take, considering the CPC is certainly the most solvent of the federal parties, has the most members, greatest number of donors, highest fundraising…yeah, I can see where you'r going with this. They can't possibly know how manage finances and are about to crumble with unprofessionalism.

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

Knowing how to bilk the rubes out of their hard earned cash does not mean they know how to manage finances. In fact, when you look at how the Cons have pissed away much of that panhandled largesse it more than adequately demonstrates they aren't capable financial managers.

brother darrell

Cons bilk the rubes while Liberals steal from them. It's a genetic thing

http://intensedebate.com/people/surecure4109 Surecure

And the socialists think that they own the rubes. It's a lobotomy thing.

sbt

Wasn't it supposed to be obvious to everyone by now that their good news projections were smoke? I mean, they've been downward revising their projections since last fall. How much more evidence do Liberals need to hit the hustings with that as an issue? Wouldn't it be better to get out there while people remember the malaise of the past winter?

Maybe you're right and economic conditions will continue to deteriorate between now and December and the voters will get in an even worse mood, but it's definitely a gamble to wait when the conditions the Liberals are waiting for exist today, they're up in every poll, the government hasn't had a good week in months, and there doesn't seem to be a day that goes by that some cabinet minister isn't inserting their foot in their mouth. How much better can it realistically get?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Given that it's Harper's party in power, I don't think that it's much of a gamble to wait. If you accept that premise, then each additional month the Liberals wait only adds to their strength, both in the disillusionment of the public at large, and in the increased fundraising ability of their own party.

Also, given that premise, getting in now allows Harper's party the out of claiming that it only didn't work because they got interrupted. I think the best thing for the Liberals, (and Canada in general) is to fully expose Harper's party so that actual progressive conservatives can step forward as the alternative to the left. Harper's hypocrite party benefits nobody.. not conservatives, and not Canadians. It needs to be put down.

sbt

I'll accept the premise that the Liberals would be better organized for a later election but I don't necessarily buy that the public will become increasingly disillusioned with Harper between now and December. You're still assuming that the economy is going to get increasingly worse between now and the end of the year and there are numerous private sector forecasters suggesting Canada will already be on the road to recovery at that point (although they debate to what extent). Even if the unemployment figure is still relatively high, people will feel better once the recovery has started which is more to Harper's advantage than Ignatieff's and if Canada is one of the first developed countries to recover (like the OECD is projecting), he risks making Harper look like a star.

http://unambig.wordpress.com Raphael Alexander

Wasn't it in the infamous Lisa Raitt tape that she indicated the banks wouldn't bankroll another election so soon, particularly during economic recovery mode?

So yes, the entire on probation thing is bluster, a joke, a paper tiger. This opposition is only slightly less impotent than the previous one, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what it is opposing. Is the government not spending deficits fast enough for their liking? The release of stimulus is a parliamentary procedural problem. We've had 2 updates, and only 5% of the stimulus has even been released into the economy.

And we're already showing signs of recovery without the massive spending, so really, what's the point?

Orson Bean

You're on to something there. Even the most apathetic, apolitical member of the Candian voting public can grasp the fundamental confusion at the heart of the Liberals' central message: should the government spend more? Or spend less? I realize that economics and budget-making are more complex than that simple dichotomy suggests, but until the Liberals get their story/messaging straight on this, despite the Tories' obvious problems and flaws, the Liberals don't really pack a knockout punch on the issue of the economy and the deficit.

I have yet to hear any authoritative spokesperson for the federal Liberal party answer this key, fundamental question: just what exactly is it that you would do differently from the Tories?

Ironically, I remember that P. Wells Himself was constantly upbraiding the Tories for a similar lack of substance when they were in opposition. Then 2006 came along, and Harper and Co. came up with an election platform that actually contained substance and a plan for governing that you could explain to a truck driver in the lineup at Tim Horton's. And look what happened.

Stephen

Agreed. Oddly enough it will come back to policy.

So the question is have the Liberals developed enough policy to go to market with. The tastes great/less filling message on governement spending indicates a "not yet".

matt

I love that. "Tastes great/less filling." Miller Lite governance.

Moebius

Yep, if the money hasn't yet been shoveled out to the voting masses, maybe it's time to slow it down a bit. We apparently are plenty stimulated with only promised money.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

They know how to manage fear-mongering, this I'll grant.
That's not an economy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/surecure4109 Surecure

Fear mongering, eh? Like suggesting a "hidden agenda" at every turn?

I don't think they have taken the Canadian political championship belt for fear mongering just yet.

Wayne

I don't why he doesn't give a big push and follow up the big talking with a yank on the tight leash he was talking about earlier and thenyelling fail fail fail and then whip his mMP's into voting against the gov't which in turn would put the pressure on the NDP and the BLOC – why does he do a NDP and vote against the gov't before reading the so called report card that seems to be a bit moot right now – sorry I don't get what his problem is hmmm!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

That's because you prefer politicking to actual governing, Wayne.. or as you say, "bastards to boneheads"

Wayne

In our westminister system If you do not understand politicking you do not govern – you are just occupying space funtil the next confidence motion ask Sheila, John and Paul

jarrid

It's too early for an election. The only people interested in an election are power-hungry Liberal operatives and bored media types. Cripes, we had an election less than 8 months ago.

AT1

Governments manage the ecomony? Not really. They may be able to trim the edges, but sorry, the economy is largely, and thankfully, out of government hands.

Numbers to note: Total federal budget ~$200B, CDN GDP ~$1.5T, extra spending this year $35B
Stimulus spending as a percentage of the economy: 2.3%
http://www.drudgereport.com Chip

Wells, you are an impossible man to please.

If he talked tough and said he would take down the government, you would be on here writing three thousand words on how Canada doesnt need an election in the middle of the summer.

How about you talk about the 400 pound Senator that pretended to be a journalist and lob softball questions at the Prime Minister? One would think that this would be the story of the day.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Mike Duffy is the story of the day? Talk about being easily distracted.

john g

if I’m the opposition leader and I have Put The Government On Probation, then every day I do not announce the government’s failure is an endorsement.

I disagree with the binary nature of this assertion, that the Ignatieff position must be full endorsement vs The Election Nobody Wants. If you are on probation, the probator might simply be reserving judgement until a later date (like most people who are hired for a new job that has a 6 month probation).

The "Probation" thing was partisan rhetoric, and everybody knows it, and leaves plenty of wiggle room for Ignatieff to do what he wants.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I agree. I think the whole point of probation was to enhance the narrative that Iggy is the Daddy in this whole relationship. It's not like Harper can go around referencing it that much, and I don't see keeping him on probation as praise, per se.

But as I try to keep reminding myself, those of us who haunt these blogs ain't your average voters, so maybe our interpretation is too coloured by obsessive examination of this stuff.
Bec

Ya if you want a Daddy as the PM. It's laughable that he stands there and acts like the big scary ruler of the household. The more he talks, the scarier he gets. It's like having the GRUMPIEST teacher in school, walk by you when you are the only kid in the hall. He's 62, and these are characteristics that you can't change. He earned an income, creating this person and so he must really like that side of him. Caution, anyone 26 and under……

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Meh, other than a tendency to look like a decent bowel movement would do him well, I don't think Iggy comes off as all that scary. Maybe you had nice teachers at your school. We had a few that would toss misbehaving kids up against the lockers to get the message across, among other things. Also, with the exception of Justin Trudeau, I don't think anyone on the Hill is all that worried about the under 26 crowd. :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Tidewaters Chrystal Ocean

As Paul Wells summed it up is pretty much my take too. The Official Opposition presents no opposition at all. 'Tis business as usual. The oppo rubber-stamps Harper's minority-majority government while he flushes this country down the crapper.

PolJunkie

The difference is that I seriously doubt that we will wake up to a long line of pundits denouncing Iggy as a coward like they did Dion.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

Wells, I'm confused. Would you rather Ignatieff not answer questions? He might not have the answer they are looking for right now, yet he still stood his ground and took 15+ questions. Would we rather he refused to answer entirely, or better yet only take scripted questions? Don't we rag on Harper for that?
Gabby in QC

1. "He’s gonna read the thing tonight and make a decision."
«IF I have a minute.»
Michael Ignatieff.
I firmly believe I heard him say that.

2. "… jousting with reporters, a strained smile on his face because they keep asking him the same thing and how many different ways can he say he hasn’t made a decision yet?"
Don't reporters listen to each other's questions? Are the questions THAT complicated?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Wells is spot on about Iggy's "probation" tactic. Iggy talks a good game, but seems reluctant to actually make good on his tough talk with, you know, actions and stuff. I can't blame him for avoiding a summer election, but Iggy is taking a big risk by delaying the election until the next budget, when the economy may well be showing signs of recovery.
Smith

Why so surprised. He's always been a paper tiger. We would have known this if he actually had to run againt Rae. SOOO many of us said it was a mistake to rush and crown him – all based on thinking that the Libs could come back to power quickly.

FORGET THE POLLS. They do not reflect what would happen if we were in an actual election.
Aging Hipster

I'd love to see Iggy call the BlocHeads and the Ever-Goofy NDP's bluff. They are, as always, all bluster about how "the Liberals prop up the government", knowing full well of course that they (NDP) are in a position to vote against everything. I'd love to see Iggy and the Libs vote against it, and would pay $100 to see the look on the faces of the BlocHeads and the Goofy NDP then.
john g

I'm amazed by the number of commenters here who equate "Providing an effective opposition" with "Forcing an election every few months until my team wins".
http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

One looks forward to the day when Paul Wells runs for office so he can show us all how to do it right.

No? Not going to happen? Ah well, continue with the snarkage.
http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

Paul
Another excellent post.
If you make the mistake of coming out of the gate with such tough guy talk, you CANNOT maintain that level of anger. Because if this government really makes you that mad every day, you have to turn down the lights. The only alternative is to turn down the talk. Having it both ways is what Dion did.
As the last honest man in Ottawa, please shut out the lights. I'll be watching from my perch on Camp Fortune.
What did we do to deserve these leaders? I know, I know, but this is as close to a proof of God's existence as we're ever likely to get.
Please also continue to find ways to use that "mess with till I'm done" line, I love that.
http://liberalvideo.blogspot.com Ted

A gentle question Paul: if Iggy has to denounce Harper every day or else you consider it an endorsement, how does this jive with your well thought out piece on trying to make Parliament work better and get away from the ridiculousness of QP?

I'm certainly partisan, but it does seem to me that that has been one of the improvements with Ignatieff: that Liberal QP questions and actions have been more focused on substance and we haven't had 6 months of jumping up and down hyperventilation about how bad the government is each and every day.
Observant

Ignatieff knows he cannot win a Liberal majority in any next election, so he must make a deal with Jack & Gilles to survive with an unworkable minority government scenario.

Since Iggy can't win on his own, he must compromise himself and try to cobble together a new and improved Coalition Junta government, which the GG will most likely approve to avoid an unwanted election after a no confidence vote in the HoCs this June 19th.

If Harper survives over the summer recess, the Liberal lefty knives may just come out and send Iggy back to Harvard in time for the September fall semester.
Mulletaur

The government's job is to govern, the opposition's is to oppose. Not voting down the government at any particular moment is not endorsement, any more than silence equals consent. The opposition continues to oppose the government and hold it to account. Or should elections only be called when journalists decide it's time for an election ?
billg

I think the point Mr Wells was making was, why in the hell does Ignatief keep huffing and puffing and pretending he's going to blow the house down when we all know he cant and wont. Ignatief was supposed to be different, less bluster more brains. We have not seen that yet. He may grow into his role in time, but, I doubt very much the LPC will give him that kind of time. Oh well….there's always Bob Rae.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

As much as I would like to see this government fall, I don't feel it best to just throw them down for no reason. Is something wrong with looking at this report in detail? Is there something wrong with holding the government to account on actual transgressions? I don't care how partisan you are, it is not in the LPC best interest (nor the country's) to jump blindfolded into another election. Lets go to battle with facts in hand shall we?

Mulletaur

Totally agreed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

Hear hear.
PolJunkie

"As much as I would like to see this government fall, I don't feel it best to just throw them down for no reason. Is something wrong with looking at this report in detail? Is there something wrong with holding the government to account on actual transgressions? I don't care how partisan you are, it is not in the LPC best interest (nor the country's) to jump blindfolded into another election. Lets go to battle with facts in hand shall we? "

Agreed, Douglass. But then what was the point of this whole "you're on probation" with X number of report cards charade? Holding the govt to account is what Iggy is indeed supposed to do but you have to admit that he does end up looking toothless by then backing away from making good on his probation threats.

Mulletaur

That depends on whether the government is doing what it promised it would do regarding stimulus. That judgement has not been made yet by the federal Liberal caucus, so this discussion is premature.

Mulletaur

"I think the point Mr Wells was making was, why in the hell does Ignatief keep huffing and puffing and pretending he's going to blow the house down when we all know he can't and won't."

Even people who don't follow politics understand instinctually that it's in no party's interest to have another general election unless and until that party has an advantage that might lead to improved standing, and in the case of the two major parties, a majority government. Ignatieff is the Leader of the Official Opposition. He is holding the government to account. You can't do so if you have said in advance that you won't vote down the government in any situation.
http://michaeltripper.com Michael T

I think he liberals want to depose the Cons right now, but are bowing to the wishes of the electorate and if that means more donations, members, etc. then all the better.

It is always a risk because right now the CPC look really bad, but if events change in the other direction then an advantage evaporates while a more critical eye is focused on it's own leadership.

We shall see what we see.
paulsstuff

If I'm not mistaken the election issue Ignatieff has been promoting for the last month was EI changes, most notably a 360 hour qualifying standard. The PM, Flaherty, Findley, and just about every other Conservative I have talked about has said those changes won't happen.

So has Iggy now thrown those unemployed without qualifying hours under the bus?