Paul Wells on Ignatieff’s double dare

He’s promising to take down the Tories. Now the hard part: winning.

by Paul Wells on Friday, September 4, 2009 9:00am - 197 Comments

Ignatieff’s double dareIn the end, Michael Ignatieff had a decision to make. Do words and actions have consequences, or did he return to Canada to deliver empty threats every few months? Apparently it took him some time to pick an answer to that question, but by the time the Liberal caucus gathered in Sudbury this week, Ignatieff had chosen to give his behaviour a little consistency. In so doing he gave Canadian politics, at last, a little drama. And he seems to have put the country on a fast track to a fall election, barely a year after the last one.

“After four years of drift, four years of denial, four years of division and discord—Mr. Harper, your time is up,” Ignatieff told his caucus. “The Liberal party cannot support this government any further. We will hold it to account. We will oppose it in Parliament.”

This could wind up meaning any number of things. It could be a wet firecracker if the NDP or the Bloc Québécois take Ignatieff’s new assertiveness as their cue to reverse a solid trend of voting against the government at every chance. But if they don’t—if every opposition party votes against the government on a money bill or an explicit confidence motion—then sometime soon after the House of Commons reconvenes on Sept. 14, this miserable backbiting cliffhanging Parliament will come skidding to a halt and its various inhabitants will head back home to their ridings to ask us for another chance.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his trusty adjutant, John Baird, were quick to denounce any thought of an election as irresponsible. There’s an economic crisis on, they said, and no politician’s attention should be anywhere else.

The argument will be persuasive to some voters. It’s true that there was an election only last year, but that one followed nearly three years of more-or-less productive activity, whereas a fall election this year would come after a much shorter break from the hustings.

Ignatieff, however, must have calculated he had no choice. He has been delivering a succession of I-Really-Mean-It-Now ultimatums to Harper ever since he fell into the Liberal leadership from which the party had unceremoniously ejected Stéphane Dion in, approximately, January. The moment was fast approaching when his constant warnings to Harper would be revealed to mean either (a) nothing or (b) something.

First there was the On Probation thing, in which Ignatieff agreed to support Harper’s January budget in exchange for quarterly reports on the budget’s implementation. March’s report was, the Liberals said, unacceptable, but Ignatieff said it was June’s that would tell. In June he accepted the second report, in which the Conservatives claimed 80 per cent of the budgeted fiscal stimulus was now committed to specific projects, with ill grace. He announced he had four conditions to forgoing a summer election. He wanted to know precisely, to the dollar, how much money Harper had actually spent on stimulus. He wanted a detailed plan for getting Canada’s budget out of the deficit into which Harper had dug it at the opposition parties’ urging. He wanted a plan to replace the medical isotopes the benighted Chalk River reactor can no longer make. And he wanted Employment Insurance eligibility rules relaxed markedly.

Harper met with him, spotted a fellow with the look of an easy mark, and rejected three of the conditions out of hand. He agreed only to a bipartisan panel that would spend the summer working on EI reform.

The panel’s summertime meetings were, it’s an open secret, a risible ritual of barely sublimated mutual aggression. Ignatieff came to Sudbury with nothing to show for all his huffing and puffing, and Conservative MPs, watching from a distance, were increasingly confident that if this guy was calling the shots they would make it to Christmas without trouble. After that it was only weeks to the Whistler Olympics in February, and then it would be almost summer. Suddenly it would be near the end of 2010 and, you know, why stop there? Because that’s the thing, Conservatives said privately, about drawing a line in the sand: the line’s made of sand too.

Bookmark and Share
  • Will

    Great article, Paul. I don't think Ignatieff has much of a choice but to seek an election soon rather than endure anther multi-million dollar barrage of attack ads by the Prime Minister. We know how Mr. Harper works, if Ignatieff waits, Harper will just call an election when his poll numbers are high enough. This is what he did just last year with Dion.

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

    It is not true that the Conservative party needs another political party for support in order to stay in government. In fact, the conservative minority government needs only 12 additional mp's to carry them over the 155 bench mark. That cannot be said for any of the other parties at this moment. All other parties need at least one complete other party and then some to carry them over the 155 benchmark. Of course, all minority governments need additional support from other parties to govern. The Conservatives have implemented many of the demands of all three opposition parties, yet not 12 mp's on the opposition benches can find the courage to acknowlegde that much. Sad, sad indeed!

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

      154 seats would still not be majority government. 154 would be a hang up in the balance.

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

        You see, here's the thing: almost daily we are bombarded by pundit's opinions how Harper muzzles his mp's, how Harper won't let his mp's speak their mind. Yet, now that only 12 opposition votes are needed to agree with the Conservative plan of action, the libs, ndp and bq members seem to be muzzled 'extraoridair'. Will we read about them being muzzled? Not a chance!

        First things first: let's get things straight!

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

          Are you shouting all this out loud as you type?

          Don't know why, but that image comes to mind.

          • knick

            LOL!

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

            and so, SeanStok, do you think there would be any lib mp's or ndp mp's or BQ mp's who could support the government. There only need to be 12. Last go around some to the libs were free to vote against the wishes of Ignatieff. Why the difference now?

            (I don't shout, I sing the lines out loud)

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

            Sure.

            There's also the chance all MPs will show up wearing gorilla suits to the first sitting of the house.

            Why are you belabouring a hypothetical point? Presumably MPs could start crossing the floor at any time.

            And your initial assertion, about a Liberal-NDP coalition was wrong. At the time, those two parties would have formed the government, with the understanding that the Bloc would have supported them for a limited time. Even as the government, they would have been free to court Conservative support on a bill-by-bill basis. Which is how minority governments work.

            ).

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

            Sure.

            There's also the chance all MPs will show up wearing gorilla suits to the first sitting of the house.

            Why are you belabouring a hypothetical point? Presumably MPs could start crossing the floor at any time.

            And your initial assertion, about a Liberal-NDP coalition was wrong. At the time, those two parties would have formed the government, with the understanding that the Bloc would have supported them for a limited time. Even as the government, they would have been free to court Conservative support on a bill-by-bill basis. Which is how minority governments work.

            As for the case of the Atlantic MPs – that came down to their very survival in the face of regional pressure. There is no currently pressing regional issue that so threatens any MP from the opposition who follows their party line.

            Which gets us back to your hypothetical rambling. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a history of acting like confrontational jerks, with little more vision than pissing on their foes at every opportunity, has made the Conservatives an unappealing option for floor crossers these days. And that party loyalty still counts (everyone's free to run as an independent).

  • Kevin Lafayette

    Yeah, I don't think we will see an election. Before any coalition talk, each party has to see themselves making gains to want an election. I just do not see, right now, a situation where the Block, NDP, and Liberals all stand to gain. The Bloc in particular is looking shaky right now.

    • voice of reason

      In quebec the only possible gains are for the liberals. Conservatives will be lucky to hang on to one seat and the NDP seat is decidedly shaky. A liberal gain of 20 seats in Quebec is possible or even likely based on current polling numbers.

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

        Do you have riding by riding Polling Data to back that up? The Liberals have not been a FACTOR in Quebec for a Very long time.

        Take a long since 1993 the Liberal held ridings in Quebec. The Bloc are not going away. Every year pundits talk about the collapse of Bloc votes.

        http://punditsguide.ca/elections_e.php

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

        Do you have riding by riding Polling Data to back that up? The Liberals have not been a FACTOR in Quebec for a Very long time.

        Take a long since 1993 the Liberal held ridings in Quebec. The Bloc are not going away. Every year pundits talk about the collapse of Bloc votes.

        http://punditsguide.ca/elections_e.php

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

        Do you have riding by riding Polling Data to back that up? The Liberals have not been a FACTOR in Quebec for a Very long time.

        Take a long since 1993 the Liberal held ridings in Quebec. The Bloc are not going away. Every year pundits talk about the collapse of Bloc votes.

        http://punditsguide.ca/elections_e.php

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

        Do you have riding by riding Polling Data to back that up? The Liberals have not been a FACTOR in Quebec for a Very long time.

        Take a long since 1993 the Liberal held ridings in Quebec. The Bloc are not going away. Every year pundits talk about the collapse of Bloc votes.

        http://punditsguide.ca/elections_e.php

        • orval

          Agreed. The fight is between Ignatieff and Duceppe, not Ignatieff and Harper. Harper won a significant majority in 2008 outside of Quebec. That won't change much. Ignatieff is unlikely to win many new seats in ROC. The Liberals are nowhere in the West, and are not very competetive in Ont outside of GTA. For Ignatieff to make any significant headway nationally, he has to destroy Duceppe in Quebec. Ain't going to happen.

          As for Harper, he has everything to gain and nothing to lose by emphasizing the "scary" Coalition. I would not be surprised that the TV debates will be between the Prime Minister and the wannabe PM, the leader of the Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Green coalition. No pesky Jack Layton, No annoying Elizabeth May. Just Harper and Ignatieff. If Ignatieff disagrees, fair enough, no debate then. Harper has nothing to lose if there are no debates.

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

            The CPC will have several "frames"

            Economy is weak election is a distraction Liberals are talking down the economy and Canada.

            Coalition regarding the opposition to steal Power

            Adscam Trials, Trust = Renovation Tax Credit

            Liberal leader elitist, arrogant,

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

            The CPC will have several "frames"

            Economy is weak election is a distraction Liberals are talking down the economy and Canada.

            Coalition regarding the opposition to steal Power

            Adscam Trials, Trust = Renovation Tax Credit

            Liberal leader elitist, arrogant, selfish

            I think that how the opposition parties are going to frame the Liberals and their leader.

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

    If the Liberals were to win a slim minority, should the Conservatives be forbidden from forming a coalition with the other parties? Why not just remove this option from our system and be done with it – if you win the most seats, whether a minority or majority, then you are in the driver's seat – case closed?
    A sharp reporter should be asking Stephen Harper if he is open to a coalition if he loses? Would he answer? Would he stand by his answer? Hmm….

  • Ferguson-Miller

    Can anyone explain Bob Rae? You need to visit the URL and listen to his outrageous comments.

    http://stevejanke.com/archives/291752.php

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

      Wow. Bob Rae is really getting sloppy.

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

      Sorry. My mouse turns into a hooded cobra when I hover on that link.

    • http://www.am770chqr.com/Blogs/RobBreakenridge/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10049428 mpdman

      I heard the same thing yesterday and thought my mind was about to explode.
      I would have had the same reaction as the interviewer. First he seems dumbfounded. Then he gradually becomes concerned that Mr. Rae may actually be insane beyond rehabilitation. Sad really…. but still fun….

      • Blues Clair

        Bob Rae is correct, no coalition with ze Bloc… next.

        • AT1

          What was the signing ceremony with Dion-Layton-Duceppe all about, then?

          You should actually read the agreement between the 3 leaders.True, the signed agreement refers to the Bloc only in regard to a special consultation mechanism, not ministers in cabinet. However, this would have provided the Bloc with ample control over legislation without the actual responsibility of having to defending it.

          Also rather hazy at the time, was what the Bloc had been promised in return for their support . Do you seriously think that the Bloc offer a guarantee of support for a limited time unconditionally.

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

    I'm still trying to get my head around Mr. Ignatieff's assertion that the isotope crisis is a creation of the Harper government and that the failure to solve it overnight after the reactor unexpectedly breaks down is has something to do with the Coonservative Party and therefore one of four reasons to vote Liberal. This is a simplistic approach to a complex issue and makes one wonder if Ignatieff understands the complexities of running a government.____Sure, Gary Lunn's handling of the original crisis left something to be desired, but Lunn was demoted by Harper.____Perhaps Ignatieff could explain what his party intends to do differently from the Tory government on this issue?____

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

    I'm still trying to get my head around Mr. Ignatieff's assertion that the isotope crisis is a creation of the Harper government and that the failure to solve it overnight after the reactor unexpectedly breaks down has something to do with the Conservative Party and therefore one of four reasons to vote Liberal. This is a simplistic approach to a complex issue and makes one wonder if Ignatieff understands the complexities of running a government. Sure, Gary Lunn's handling of the original crisis left something to be desired, but Lunn was demoted by Harper. Perhaps Ignatieff could explain what his party intends to do differently from the Tory government on this issue?

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

    I'm still trying to get my head around Mr. Ignatieff's assertion that the isotope crisis is a creation of the Harper government and that the failure to solve it overnight after the reactor unexpectedly breaks down has something to do with the Conservative Party and is therefore one of four reasons to vote Liberal. This is a simplistic approach to a complex issue and makes one wonder if Ignatieff understands the complexities of running a government. Sure, Gary Lunn's handling of the original crisis left something to be desired, but Lunn was demoted by Harper. Perhaps Ignatieff could explain what his party intends to do differently from the Tory government on this issue?

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

      According to the punditry their is a disconnect with the "Rosedale Gang" and the Campaign Team, unnamed Senior Liberals.

      Dion's own team did not listen to the wisdom of those "nervous nellies". It appears the Rosedale Gang is confident the other opposition parties will not show up to defeat the government.

      Try as the Liberals might to articulate some high-falutin' ballot box question, any fall election will be a referendum on recession economic management, setting it up as a showdown between Conservative optimism at the budding recovery versus Liberal negativity that the worst is yet to come.

      A delusional Ignatieff seems to think the economy won't drive the campaign as he wraps himself in a visionary flag.

      - Don Martin Ignatieff seeks your vote to remake 2017 Posted: September 01, 2009

  • Ferguson-Miller

    Is Layton telling a private joke about some A+ anatomy?

  • Steve V

    Good read.

  • http://www.suzieorman.info/ Suzie Orman

    Yes, I don't think we will see an election. Before any coalition talk, each party has to see themselves making gains to want an election. I just do not see, right now, a situation where the Block, NDP, and Liberals all stand to gain. The Bloc in particular is looking shaky right now.

  • mpdman

    Mr. Wells. I have some respect for you as a national columnist (you must have please someone to get this gig…).
    The only issue I have with this article is the following statement: “Never mind that Ignatieff has shown no interest in forming such a coalition (between Liberal-NDP-Bloc)”.
    Just what did he sign last November? Just what did he mean when he incessantly repeated, “coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition”?
    Please fill us all in….

  • pubic mullet

    good to see you're engaged in the political theatre…..you were getting boring in the summer.

    I predict Harper majority in the next elections. Libs still keep underestimating him. hehehehe

    Former Ottawa Public Servant in Oil Patch Now.

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

    I just watched the Liberal ads. They're pretty lame, although the two French ones were better than the English. Is this what they mean by "we can do better"? They'll need more than that to justify an election.

  • Maggie

    Michael is so intelligent and handsome …he has my vote.

    • CTM

      HANDSOME, Yikes!!! I am afraid not… But besides the point I sure hope people vote on the persons qualifications, not their looks!

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

    Post-coalition the choice is now crystal clear. Whether Iggy chooses to call it a "coalition" or and "arrangement" with the NDP (with or without the Bloc), Canadians will sooner or later have to CHOOSE whether they want a Canada governed by a "Blunderal" Coalition led by Iggy, or to stay the course the Conservatives. The choice is simple really.

  • Michael

    Ignatieff exposes his arrogance when he insults Canadians by labelling Canada as a small,mean and petty country under Harper but if we choose the Narcissist that somehow presto magico he will make us big ,smart ,healthy?open minded.
    This guy is really full of himself to think Politicians can influence what Canadians are.

    • CTM

      You are right! And by the way the rest of the world think very highly of Canada!

  • http://www.andreworwell.blogspot.com Andrew Orwell

    Liberals and conservatives are both power hungry. Niether will do anything that actually makes a difference in our country. Let's stop messing around. We need some NDP action.

  • Stan

    Good post. As for Iggy's chances…he's only visiting!

  • Avenger

    Soldiers marching in Canadian cities—With Guns!!! Let's expose that Harper/ Bush Secret agenda this time .No more beating around the G.W. Bush.

  • Chris

    Harper is playing chicken with an election by forcing bills down the opposition's throat with the threat of an election with every bill, its about time the libs said enough is enough. i totally agree with the doubling down theory, Harper needs to walk out of this election with a majority or he is dead in the water.

    • CTM

      Canadians are going to give him the majority and it is to show the other 3 parties, that we wont play their silly games anymore, no theats to the governing party and no more waste of taxpayers money just because they have take in so personal that they can see what's best for the country!

  • Avenger

    Soldiers-with guns-in Canadian cities. Iggy should have the guts to run that ad this time. CBC exposes Harpo's Secret Agenda: A Majority Gov't! Who knew ? Thank God we've got the CBC digging around for such diamonds in the rough.

  • wml

    Well dah……you can't expect anyone to win a fight without stepping into the ring.

From Macleans