Liberal Gut(lessnes)sWatch: An ITQ poll!

by kadyomalley on Friday, June 12, 2009 10:16am - 50 Comments

At the risk of having her gallery membership revoked, ITQ has a confession to make: Unlike pretty much every other person on or around the Hill, she really, truly doesn’t know what the Liberals are going to do, as far as this whole looming confidence vote/blinking contest/chicken game.

It’s hard — in fact, it’s downright impossible — to come up with a way for Ignatieff to retreat from his own ultimatum with anything approaching gracefulness, at this point — really, think “Siamese cat trying to pretend it hasn’t the slightest bit of interest in climbing down from that tree”, only with less dignity — but that’s what everyone seems to think he’s going to do. Then again, we all thought that’s what would happen last fall; instead, we ended up looking vaguely silly when The Madness ensued, although since the silliness was pretty much universal, we all just pretended that we’d  been right all along, which is probably what will happen if it turns out that the Liberals — and for “Liberals”, you should probably read “The Only Liberal Whose Opinion Matters On This One” — actually do realize how ridiculous they’d look if they do give the government a passing grade on the basis of yesterday’s update, which didn’t come anywhere close to providing the hard numbers and detailed reports that Liberals – including TOLWOMOTO, have repeatedly demanded.

Even the columnist quoted by the prime minister yesterday as having “marvelled” over the speed at which those stimu-dollars were apparently being shovelled into the ground is now grumbling that, despite the central claim that 80% of the package has — or “is being” — implemented (and yes, he takes issue with the wording too), “by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as being “out of the door.” (Somehow, ITQ is guessing that line won’t make it into the next speech.)

And yet, we are certain that Ignatieff will wave the government on through to enjoy a leisurely summer of lazy, hazy oversized-novelty-cheque presentations.  Of course, a few irritatingly attentive readers might point out that as recently as earlier this week, we were similarly certain that the Bloc Quebecois would never let the government fall, since it could cost some younger MPs their parliamentary pensions; we were also, ITQ  can dimly recall, certain that the NDP would do anything – even prop up the Conservatives – to avoid going to the polls now, given their lacklustre numbers and dwindling party coffers, but this time, we’re not just certain, but hypercertain that we know what’s going to happen, and it doesn’t involve a  sudden show of spine by the Liberals, a dramatic late night confidence vote, a subsequent jaunt to Rideau Hall or a summer election.  Anything else would be unthinkable – probably.

Bookmark and Share
  • Kat

    The NDP and the Bloc came out and said they wouldn't support the government leaving the Liberals with no choice because you are right, no one wants a summer election.

    So if Ignatieff now comes out and says he won't support the government, the game of chicken commences…will the Bloc or NDP change their minds? Will the Liberals take that chance in order to not look like the Dion Liberals?

    Oh, the suspense!

    • Bazoo

      I don't mind the suspense, but the serenity is getting to me.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tdotlib tdotlib

      They won't look like the Dion-era Liberals because Michael will frame his decision appropriately and let the country know what he's doing is in their best interest and that he is deferring to the general populace's current mood. Yes, a politician that may actually respond to his constituents desires – amazing.

      Plus – 'we' still have a lot of fund raising and membership work to do before this government is flushed. All the better to make a real push for a majority next time around (even though the probable outcome is a Lib minority, in all reality).

      • jarrid

        Michael Ignatieff and his inner circle will decide to go to the polls when they think it it will be in the best interests of the Liberal Party of Canada. Full stop. I also beleive that they think the time is now. Warren Kinsella thinks so and has said to. Most Liberals think the time is now also. Is an election good for the country right now. Irrelevant question. The question is whether it appears to be good for the Liberal Party of Canada.

  • Riley Hennessey

    Does anybody in Ottawa (pundits, politicians, government, opposition, etc) understand that the rest of Canada wants them to shut up and actually get to work?

    In the last few weeks, we've had auto-bailouts, carbon market announcements, an initiative by the Premiers and PM to create a new trade agreement with the U.S., nuclear tests by North Korea, unemployment continuing to rise, and I'm sure plenty more.

    Yet Macleans, Globe and Mail, et al, have chosen to cover whether or not Lisa Raitt thinks cancer is sexy, whether or not Ignatieff feels courage, and which staffer was fired because she left a binder behind.

    Honestly, the amount of attention paid to this garbage is unreal. Even the economic statement coverage has been about Ignatieff's reaction, less than about what was actually in the documents and whether or not the government is actually spending what it pretends it is.

    Way to go journalists!

    • swhh

      ya, when the North Koreans start testing Nukes. We Canadian's really should "stay the course" and stick with the status quo.
      I mean if we call an election now, it will make us look weak. The only winners will be the leaders in NK.

    • john g

      Exaclty! Way to go journalists, for continuing to ignore stuff like this:

      [In] politics, as in war, you attack when your opponent is weak, not strong. … Right now – due to the recession, due to a stumblebum Tory team, due to their leader who nobody likes – we know the other side is really, really weak. In a few months – due to a economy rebounding, mainly – they could be strong. Go with what you know is the reality, not what you hope may be the reality.

      That's a Liberal strategist admitting that the economy is getting better under the watch of the Conservatives, so we'd better take the Conservatives down right now to stop that from happening.

      Classic Liberal politics. Ignored by the media. Again.

      • Jim Beil

        That's not classic Liberal politics, that's just plain old politics. For example didn't Stephen Harper break his own fixed election date law to call an election before the effects of the slowing economy started to really cost Canadians their jobs? A recession that publicly denied was going to happen until two days after the election was over?

    • PolJunkie

      "In the last few weeks, we've had auto-bailouts, carbon market announcements, an initiative by the Premiers and PM to create a new trade agreement with the U.S., nuclear tests by North Korea, unemployment continuing to rise, and I'm sure plenty more.

      Yet Macleans, Globe and Mail, et al, have chosen to cover whether or not Lisa Raitt thinks cancer is sexy, whether or not Ignatieff feels courage, and which staffer was fired because she left a binder behind. "

      Uh… but… all of those issues received a fair amount of coverage. So what is your point exactly?

  • knick

    Layton and Duceppe once again jumped to the front of the parade and, without even a quick read of the update booklet, declared that they give the government a failing grade and will vote for an election, claiming at the same time that they don't want an election because public opinion says they don't want one. If Ignatieff hopes to retain any credibility, he will seal the deal. There's more to be lost than gained by giving Harper and Co. any more time to screw things up.

  • Eva

    I want an election!!!

  • catherine

    Sounds like you will have all weekend to collect polling data on this, as Ignatieff will not decide until Monday.

  • Mannt

    Harper said that he has not heard from anyone who wants an election. Well, I do and i am sure that there are many others who cannot wait to get rid of the Cons. and Harper. Unfortunately, Iggy is going to back down, again. At least the BQ and NDP appear to be willing to back up their rhetoric with action.

  • Kat

    Hey ITQ,

    Your poll allowed me to vote twice.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/motor motor

    There's still lots screw ups that will continue to spew from the conservatives throughout the summer.

    If I was the one to make the call, I would realize that a government that has been just 'winging it' throughout it's entire administration, will not change in the near future.

    I would give time for the economy to finish tanking and call a fall election to take over government just prior to an economic upswing.

    Of course, there are always risks in waiting but , as I said, I don't expect these conservatives to change their train wreck style of governing anytime soon.

  • SisyphusThis

    It must be run off a site in Nova Scotia.

    • Richard

      Classic

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

    So if the conservatives are responsible for the economy improving, were they similarly responsible for the economy tanking?

  • john g

    It's not the point and you know it.

    It's great fun to take Lisa Raitt down because her ambition was apparently more important than solving the isotope crisis. The media scour the nation for cancer survivors ready to express their shock and outrage over the use of the term "sexy". But when a Liberal strategist's ambition for winning an election is more important that the recovery of the economy…crickets chirp.

    Will the media go out of their way to find unemployed people who are "shocked and appalled" that the Liberals would force an election rather than let the economy continue to recover under a plan their chief strategist acknowledges is beginning to work?

    • cwe

      "But when a Liberal strategist's ambition for winning an election is more important that the recovery of the economy…crickets chirp."

      So… if the point isn't that the Conservatives are or aren't responsible for the economy's performance, is it that if the Liberals go for a summer election, the economy won't recover?

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

      Sorry, did I read this sentence wrong?

      "That's a Liberal strategist admitting that the economy is getting better under the watch of the Conservatives, so we'd better take the Conservatives down right now to stop that from happening."

      Are you not implying that the reason that the economy is getting better is because of the Conservatives (as they follow what can only be called liberal economic policies)? As such, shouldn't it then follow that the reason it got worse was because of them as well (as they followed conservative economic policies)

      And in fact you reaffirm this by suggesting if the Liberals changed course than the economy would no longer recover. As such, you are claiming that the Harper party's liberal economic policies are improving our economy, with the natural extension that their conservative economic policies worsened it.

      And of course the other problem is, it is only *your* assessment that the Liberal leadership would halt the recovery of the economy. The difference between the economy and Chalk River.. Raitt is directly responsible, and had significant power over, what would happen with the Chalk River situation. She chose to frame that as a positive campaigning issue rather than as a threat to Canadians. The Liberal strategist is neither responsible for, nor has significant power over, the recovery of the economy.

      • john g

        If they do, and win, they will presumably implement a different plan, to replace the one they acknowledge is working, wouldn't they? Or else why bother? Oh yeah, that whole ambition thing that we don't talk about unless it's Lisa Raitt…

        Would their new plan work? I don't know, they haven't provided a coherent one…but if the one we have is working, and if Kinsella is terrified that in 3 months the economy will have recovered so much that it will be too late to capitalize on the downturn anymore, does replacing that plan with something unknown sound like a remotely responsible thing to do?

        To paraphrase a certain Liberal, the cheapest politics there is is to risk an economic recovery that is underway, that could get unemployed people working again, just to satisfy the Liberals lust for power.

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

          Okay, let's go with your assumption that the Harper party tanked the economy to begin with, which is why we should credit their plan with the signs of recovery we see now. Given that, the Kinsellian thought is, "Sure, Harper's party is starting to bring the economy forward a little bit using liberal economic policies.. but it could be a helluva lot better if we were in power so that these policies could be implemented correctly, instead of in the partisan manner going on now. Unfortunately, some Canadians might feel that if things start to improve it's because of the Harper party rather than because of the Liberal-esque policies he's enacting"

          Truthfully, I don't think it's as black and white as all that however. I think our economy would have had trouble anyway, but those troubles would have been considerably lessened were it not for the conservative type of economic policies enacted by the Harper government, which left us much more vulnerable. So now I note that the signs of recovery now are no doubt aided by Harper being "forced" as you con folks like to say, to enact some serious Liberal type of economic policies. People have taken confidence that the government is actually doing something.. even though to date not much has been done, as evidenced by the hard numbers provided by Mr. Polliviere today.

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

          Okay, let's go with your assumption that the Harper party tanked the economy to begin with, which is why we should credit their plan with the signs of recovery we see now. Given that, the Kinsellian thought is, "Sure, Harper's party is starting to bring the economy forward a little bit using liberal economic policies.. but it could be a helluva lot better if we were in power so that these policies could be implemented correctly, instead of in the partisan manner going on now. Unfortunately, some Canadians might feel that if things start to improve it's because of the Harper party rather than because of the Liberal-esque policies he's enacting"

          Truthfully, I don't think it's as black and white as all that however. I think our economy would have had trouble anyway, but those troubles would have been considerably lessened were it not for the conservative type of economic policies enacted by the Harper government, which left us much more vulnerable. So now I note that the signs of recovery now are no doubt aided by Harper being "forced" as you con folks like to say, to enact some serious Liberal type of economic policies. People have taken confidence that the government is trying to do something.. even though to date not much has actually been done, as evidenced by the hard numbers provided by Mr. Polliviere today.

  • farmer fred

    Ignatieff needs to either grow a backbone or just admit he really is part of a coalition government – a Conservative- Liberal coalition.

    Frankly I think the nation is growing tired of his Mr Dithers imitation.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tdotlib tdotlib

      C'mon Farmer Fred, Iggy used to spend the summers on his uncles farm, don't you know? You should be his buddy!

      Seriously though – put yourself in his shoes – damned if you do, damned if you don't.

      No one wants to go to the polls right now, the Libs need some more time to raise funds and increase the membership and the Cons probably have a few more feet of their hole to dig. The fall is more likely but next Spring is pretty definite for the election.

      • farmer fred

        I guess it is too much to hope that the Liberals and Iggy might have some actual principles by which they stand eh?

        It the Liberal-Conservative coalition in government, and to think Iggy said he wouldn't join one.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    This is abslolutely a ridiculous poll – If Iggy backs down – he's weak and if he calls an election opportunisitic.

    So, which is it media folks? Make up you minds

    • A reader

      It's actually both, because Ignatieff allowed himself to be forked (a chess term) by his opponents.

    • Wayne

      oops my reply is the one below regarding Iggy's weakness and opportunism.

  • Marg Bedore

    If 80% of the stimulus is really out the door then why worry about an election. The projects will keep going and construction won't stop. It is only if the 80% is a lie that there is a problem.

    • Wayne

      one doesn't necessary preclude the other after I think Iggy is weak and opportunistic.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/austinso austinso

    I think the best thing for Ignatieff to do is to ask to see the books, or an independent audit of the books.

    If Harper's infotainment was to show that they've got 80% of the stimulus out the door, then they should be able to provide hard evidence (costed analysis) that this is indeed the case, rather than the creative accounting for which Flaherty is renowned.

    Although the way the Harper government has painted and repackaged everything as brand new should have given everyone pause, what people need to know and understand and what we need unambiguous proof of and must be hammered home is the extent of the Harper government's incompetence on the economic file, and I personally think we are only scratching the surface.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/austinso austinso

    I think the best thing for Ignatieff to do is to ask to see the books, or an independent audit of the books.

    If Harper's infotainment was to show that they've got 80% of the stimulus out the door, then they should be able to provide hard evidence (costed analysis) that this is indeed the case, rather than the creative accounting for which Flaherty is renowned.

    Although the way the Harper government has painted and repackaged everything as brand new should have given everyone pause, what people need to know and understand and what we need unambiguous proof of and what must be hammered home is the extent of the Harper government's incompetence on the economic file, and I personally think we are only scratching the surface.

  • OttawaRick

    ignatieff has nothing to gain by waiting. If things get worse, he will be blamed for propping up the Tories. If things get better, their support will grow. I would far rather be pounding in lawn signs in July or August, than in February!

    How come all these people who are bellowing for "parliament to work" don't convince the PM that he has to compromise with a minority government? They always blame the Opposition, which is only doing its job.

  • jarrid

    So the consensus is in: the Liberal establishment and the left/leaning Liberal media cheerleaders want Iggy to pull the plug now.

    My gut tells me Iggy will go for it.

    • scf

      And how will he convince the NDP and Bloq to do the same?

      • jarrid

        They said so this morning is my understanding.

  • KRB

    Ignatieff is going to pull the plug, and if the NDP and Bloc don't blink, his name will go up alongside that of David Peterson circa 1990.

    Only two times has a snap return to the polls initiated by the opposition ever worked out well for the opposition … 1963 and 1980. But there were extraordinary circumstances there that aren't present now. In 1963, there was cabinet in-fighting with some ministers trying to unseat the PM; in 1980, there was a looming secession referendum in Quebec, with a bumbler and non-francophone as PM at the time.

    At this time, we're in the midst of the worst recession in nearly 8 decades, and people are talking election? In a sane world, it would never happen. But this is Ottawa we're talkin' about. Whomever triggers an election is going to reap the whirlwind.

    While I don't care for a summer election, I would like the likely result.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/thedingo8 thedingo8

    there are too many MP pensions on the line … full pension .. or zip if not re elected.. all the first timers.. never never ever going to be an election until the pensions are secured.. why else are they there?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    I see $elf-interest playing quite the role in Ignatieff's thinking:

    (A) The Liberals are doing better financially, but not great. You think they really want to bankrupt themselves on another campaign so soon? I don't think they're that dumb.

    (B) Even if the Liberals call their bluff, a lot of MPs (I think L. Ian MacDonald pointed out they are heavily represented in Bloc ranks) have a lot riding on sticking around for (a little over?) another year: the fat juicy MP pensions. So an attempt to pull the pluc might not succeed anyways.

    And you know what`s sad? I don`t believe for a minute that "what`s best for Canada now and in the future" figures all that highly on the list of considerations.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

      Hey, welcome back, MYL.

      I'm surprised that the Bloc includes a lot of almost-pensioned MP's; hasn't most of their caucus been around since the 1990's?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        Jack, here is the opening grapf in MacDonald's column entitled "Bloc pensions stand in the way of election"

        There are 16 reasons why there won’t be an election this summer, and probably won’t be one before next summer. Sixteen is the number of Bloc Québécois MPs first elected with the class of 2004, who will qualify for their parliamentary pensions six years to the day later. On June 28, 2010.

        I have taken the liberty of accepting that assertion (16 MPs) as fact. It would be hard to selflessly vote against such a juicy self-interest. And yet. What does it say about this country, but I wonder whether MPs in the Bloc caucus might be the MOST likely to do so on principle than those of any other party…

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        Jack, here is the opening graf in MacDonald's column entitled "Bloc pensions stand in the way of election"

        There are 16 reasons why there won’t be an election this summer, and probably won’t be one before next summer. Sixteen is the number of Bloc Québécois MPs first elected with the class of 2004, who will qualify for their parliamentary pensions six years to the day later. On June 28, 2010.

        I have taken the liberty of accepting that assertion (16 MPs) as fact. It would be hard to selflessly vote against such a juicy self-interest. And yet. What does it say about this country, but I wonder whether MPs in the Bloc caucus might be the MOST likely to do so on principle than those of any other party…

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

          Thanks, MYL. I believe it. Staggeringly, there may have been lots of voluntary retirements from the Bloc in 2004 . . . would that mean that, like Nestor, Duceppe is now ruling over the third generation of pensionable diehard Ottawan separatisses? Friggin' hell. I think there is not a snowball's chance in hell of those MP's voluntarily voting to bring down the government; but they are just 16 in a caucus of, what, 49?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/Mai…

            If I counted right, it's 48. I am not so sure that their party solidarity falters, though. I just don't see one third of Bloquistes breaking from the ranks to vote for such a glaringly obvious self(ish)-interest. I suspect the other two-thirds would instead find a way to walk down from the ledge (if Iggy really gets serious himself) to point out that, well, of course Harper is the most evil anti-Quebec arts-thug there is, but Quebecers really don't want an election this summer and…

  • kenneth colombo

    Headlines from a BYGONE ERA of Professional Criminals' Party failures in Ontario — extracted from auditors' reports. Harper / O'Flairity's mismanagement are merely a continuation of the terrible lack of "due diligence from that era.

    "No denying Tory fiscal flim-flam—Mon, Dec 1, 2003

    The bottom line here is that, if they had won the election, the Tories could not have legitimately eliminated the deficit without savage spending cuts or tax hikes. In other words, the Tories left a fiscal mess in their wake.

    Claiming they would sell assets to balance the budget.

    Eves broke the silence last week and said the Tories had planned, among other things, to sell the Mattagami River dams ($870 million) and lease the Pickering nuclear plant (for as much as $1.5 billion).

    Now we know why he kept his plans secret:

    There would have been an uproar if he had announced them during the election campaign."

  • JSarato

    Ignateff!go back to your country!(UK or US-take your pick)

  • DQC

    Do the journalists at Macleans have some especially potent hormone enhancement cocktail to drink and rod up? If so, where do you get it?

    • anonlinereader

      Will the P.B.O. take a sip of your hormone cocktail ? Would be nice if Iggy 's bunch gets to consult the PBO before Monday report card .

From Macleans