Categories: Need to know

Liberals say cooperation, Conservatives say victory

PM, Ignatieff reach tentative agreement on EI reform

by macleans.ca on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:55pm - 30 Comments

It looks like the Conservative government will survive the summer after all. After a two hour meeting at Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s residence on Tuesday night—followed by another talk Wednesday morning—Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff decided not to vote against the government on Friday, as he originally threatened to do. It seems as through Harper and Ignatieff have reached a truce—on the issue of employment insurance and other Liberal issues. Their pact includes a plan to set up a blue ribbon panel—half of whose members are to be appointment by the Liberals—to examine potential employment insurance reforms.

Ignatieff says the agreement holds the government to account and paves the way for better bipartisan cooperation: “We have found a way to make progress for Canadians on EI and we’ve found a way to make this government accountable and I feel that this is a good day for our country.” But an internal memo circulated within Tory ranks suggests that the Prime Minister’s Office is claiming victory over Ignatieff. “The Liberals have reversed themselves on EI reform (their 360-hour demand has been abandoned) and withdrawn the threat to force an unnecessary summer election,” the memo says.

Winnipeg Free Press

Toronto Star

The Canadian Press

Tags: Canada

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It's a victory for cooperation! Iggy and Harper both made mistakes that led to this short-lived crisis, but in the end both men applied reason, and both made the right decision.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Namely to do nothing — sorry, to appoint a panel. A blue-ribbon panel, no less. Will they have Louis XV wigs? Anyway, at the very least Canadians are spared the indignity of having an election, i.e. walking three blocks to the nearest community centre sometime in a four-week period — oh, and having their favourite shows interrupted by political ads instead of Mazda commercials — can't forget that appalling possibility. Worst, the election might actually involve ideas — not very likely, but possible — and then Canadians would have to decide about something. God, the horror! Thankfully it all turned out to be posturing and we can all go back to sleep.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I like elections that are about ideas. That's why I'm so glad we were spared an election this summer, because the summer election would have been about anything but ideas. It would have been about the "narcissism of minor differences", as Iggy once wrote.

It's quite clear that Iggy was bluffing all the way and was not really prepared for the possibility of a summer election.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I like elections that are about ideas. That's why I'm so glad we were spared an election this summer, because the summer election would have been about anything but ideas. It would have been about the "narcissism of minor differences" (as Iggy once wrote).

It's quite clear that Iggy was bluffing all the way and was not really prepared for the possibility of a summer election.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I agree that, politically, there is nothing worse than an election devoid of ideas; but Canadians would be against an idea-filled election as much as an idea-free election.

I must confess this is a wrinkle I did not foresee when the Era of Minority Governments was inaugurated in 2004. I just presumed we'd be having an election every year, given the total inability of our political parties to cooperate in a positive manner. (I'm pleased to see they can cooperate in doing nothing.) Instead of creating a permanent election cycle, however, the gridlock has produced a kind of permafrost of empty rhetoric. This, in my view, is even worse than a permanent election cycle, as it prevents the Government from governing while also preventing the fierce debate of an election campaign.

I must say it again: what's so astounding about the current setup is that Canadians apparently do not care that their federal government has essentially ceased to function, at least on the Parliamentary level. They actively do not care</i.>.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I agree that, politically, there is nothing worse than an election devoid of ideas; but Canadians would be against an idea-filled election as much as an idea-free election.

I must confess this is a wrinkle I did not foresee when the Era of Minority Governments was inaugurated in 2004. I just presumed we'd be having an election every year, given the total inability of our political parties to cooperate in a positive manner. (They are better at doing nothing together.) Instead of creating a permanent election cycle, however, the gridlock has produced a kind of permafrost of empty rhetoric. This, in my view, is even worse than a permanent election cycle, as it prevents the Government from governing while also preventing the fierce debate of an election campaign.

I must say it again: what's so astounding about the current setup is that Canadians apparently do not care that their federal government has essentially ceased to function, at least on the Parliamentary level. They actively do not care</i.>.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I agree that, politically, there is nothing worse than an election devoid of ideas; but Canadians would be against an idea-filled election as much as an idea-free election.

I must confess this is a wrinkle I did not foresee when the Era of Minority Governments was inaugurated in 2004. I just presumed we'd be having an election every year, given the total inability of our political parties to cooperate in a positive manner. (They are better at doing nothing together.) Instead of creating a permanent election cycle, however, the gridlock has produced a kind of permafrost of empty rhetoric. This, in my view, is even worse than a permanent election cycle, as it prevents the Government from governing while also preventing the fierce debate of an election campaign.

I must say it again: what's so astounding about the current setup is that Canadians apparently do not care that their federal government has essentially ceased to function, at least on the Parliamentary level. They actively do not care.

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

Remind me again why it's been called a crisis. A minority government falling is part of the Westminster system, not a crisis situation.

Was it Wherry that said 'the term has been used so much it doesn't mean anything anymore'?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I agree, tdotlib. I actually meant to put quotation marks around the word "crisis".

http://intensedebate.com/people/Watchman854 Watchman854

Regrettably, in an adversarial system, it's inevitable to think like this–so here goes. The Prime Minister clearly wins this one, for a number of reasons. Ignatieff is now being "Dionized" by his rivals in Quebec and elsewhere–this will certainly weaken his chances in the next election and thus strengthen Harper's. Also, if the economy improves or shows clear signs of improving over the next 3 months, this will further weaken Ignatieff's chances. Finally, it will reassure swing voters about Harper's personality, by showing his capacity for compromise.

The Liberals were not ready for an election, the public didn't want one, but Ignatieff should have listened to the Hawks in the party if he wanted to be Prime Minster any time soon. The conditions for replacing the government were about as good as they are going to be for a while. I'm glad he waited: it may prove fatal.

Stephen

"Finally, it will reassure swing voters about Harper's personality, by showing his capacity for compromise."

Two things.
1. Harper and personality are words that are like oil and water
2. What exactly is his capacity for compromise? The only times I have ever seen Harper compromise, is when the opposition has gone to the extent of threatening motions of non-confidence. Parliament has become dysfunctional under this prime minister's capacity for compromise.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bazoo bazoo

By Harper's own account, the 'best deals' are those where 'both sides win'. Though it isn't necessary to therefor conclude that the best deals are one's where no compromise is made, where no side gives up anything significant, etc, I think in the case of Harper this is exactly what he means. This week's drama has led to no significant compromises on policy whatsoever. Rather, the two men agreed to compromise on politics and it seems to me the most significant agreement made was to avoid an election at this time.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/bazoo bazoo

By Harper's own account, the 'best deals' are those where 'both sides win'. Though it isn't necessary to therefor conclude that the best deals are ones where no compromise is made, where no side gives up anything significant, etc, I think in the case of Harper this is exactly what he means. This week's drama has led to no significant compromises on policy whatsoever. Rather, the two men agreed to compromise on politics and it seems to me the most significant agreement made was to avoid an election at this time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bazoo bazoo

afterthought: maybe this IS a Conservative victory precisely because Harper managed to reduce a policy discussion to a political one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/somethoughts somethoughts

ignatieff will never be prime minister. He blew it today. As a Liberal I take solace in the fact that Harper will not get a majority but he has ensured his survival well into 1011. That is the probable date of the next liberal leadership race. Now that it is one member one vote we may actually be able to choose someone who can win.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

Justin Whatshisname?
Gaunilon

Is that 1011 BC, or AD 1011?
The Liberal Party; always looking to the future.

Wayne

Both win however there is a matter of degree involved – it's too soon to really discern the impact … Harper is clearly ahead on points but it's a temporary reprieve and Iggy will take a major hit with his base right now as can be clearly proven by all the web forums going crazy with upset Lib's right now – however most of these must be young people as what we see happening right now is a very old story in canada and come this fall or maybe next spring the real result will play out!

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

Not necessarily young people. I have been a liberal since 1970 and I am disgusted by this new coalition. I have already stopped my financial support for the party and if Harper's latest stooge is still leader at the next election I will park my vote with the greens. I urge other liberals to do the same. we must be able to find a leader worthy of the name somewhere. To bad Chretien retired.

Wayne

I agree about Chretien and he didn't retire as I left the party right after he left.

Will

Both Harper and Ignatieff won. Both of them started this week saying they didn't want an election and they worked that out. Now everyone can enjoy the summer while our politicians prepare for a fall election.
wml

How much longer can the stupidity last? Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal party continually telling us how incompetent, and directionless the current Government is, yet they gutlessly continue to keep them in power?? I mean, isn't their something odd about this? What sense can anyone make of this? Goodbye Mr. Ignatieff, goodbye Liberals, it really hasn't been nice knowing you. All I can say is kluck kluck kluck in response to Mr. Ignatiff…….that's chicken lingo for "chicken shit"

Harper wins hands down…
wml

Supplementary to above………Good time now to put your ear to the rails Mr. Ignatieff, you will hear all that klucking coming right at you from every part of the country…
Gaunilon

Actually I think what happened was pretty simple: the NDP and Bloq both said they were going to vote down the budget. Ig was thinking they'd prop up the government since their standing in the polls is terrible.
He made the mistake of thinking everyone is as unprincipled as he is. Oops. Turns out the NDP actually believe the stuff they say. So he had to find a way out of an election.

As for Harper, I think he was just deathly afraid of being painted as the guy who caused two 'crises' in less than 8 months by being too unwilling to compromise.

Andrew (not P or C)

The NDP are babblingly incoherent:

"Me no want election. Me only vote against government."
Will

If he's so unprincipled, why didn't he vote against the government when he was well ahead in the polls? They showed the Liberals would be the only party gaining seats. The poll ITQ posted showed that the best thing for him politically would be to force an election.

Will

It's funny. This guy has been the Leader of the Liberal Party for only a few months now and the media have such huge expectation of him being a better tactician than Harper. For his first real test, Ignatieff came out of this above water. He didn't do like Dion and support the government without getting Harper to compromise. If I remember correctly, it was only a few months ago that the other 'brilliant' tactician Harper almost lost his government over a budget bill. The media were screaming that Harper wasn't the brilliant guy they thought he was. Mistakes are made, especially from the new guys in opposition. He could have simply voted against the government and with the current polling numbers, he could have got a slim minority. He's patient. He wants more…If I were him, I'd wait until the fall too…
Paul

Igy won't win in an election no matter how low steven harpers polls are because if Igy continues to compromise how is he going to attack harper's record.

when your in opposition your sopposed to be a tough and make life hard for the guy in charge. Which is something Igy hasn't done very much of let.

But it is something that Steven Harper had been doing when Paul Martin had been in charge

Will

The reason why Harper could stand up to the Paul Martin back then was because he could not make the government fall. Think about it. the NDP, Bloc and Liberals are all left of the spectrum. They usually will vote together on things because their values are similar. When Harper would 'stand up for Canada', it was easy for him to do because Harper knew the other parties would keep Paul Martin in power. It was much easier for Harper to act tough.

Ignatieff has a much bigger responsibility to the Liberal Party and to Canadians. Both the NDP and Bloc always vote against Harper. They will never be the government so they don't have as much to worry about. The Liberals are the alternative so they have to pick the right moment. If they vote against a confidence motion at the wrong time (if they did so Friday for example), they may have gotten a minority government but the risks are too high and I don't think Liberals or the majority of Canadians would be pleased at Ignatieff having caused a $300 million dollar election for another minority government which wouldn't even be assured yet.

wml

Who says Canadians don't want an election? The politicians do….why? They want to use their dog nut clean BBQ this summer, not fight an election. As for the 300 million….spend it today or spend it tomorrow, what's the difference. Anyways, the way they talk about billions and trillions like it was peanuts, what's 300 million? How can the opposition make statements like "directionless government, incompetent, in some cases "dangerous to the Canadian fabric" yet maintain and support them to remain in power. Senseless…fight for what you think is right for the Canadian people, why should a time frame stand in the way of doing the right thing? If the people think the Conservatives are doing ok then they will vote them back in, if not the Liberals and their statements turn out to be true. Simple as that.
Find some spine, or quit wasting our time with drivel.