Memories of Outremont-induced Liberal meltdowns past …

by kadyomalley on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 12:15pm - 94 Comments

Dear Liberals,

Okay, the parallels may not be exact, but ITQ’s unsolicited advice from the last outbreak of Quebec-related stark, staring bonkers-going still stands, as far as she can see.

In case you haven’t figured it out by now, the one thing we Hill journalists love more than an imminent parliamentary crisis, or free sandwiches at committee meetings,  is, and will always be, a Liberal family feud. No matter how eerily familiar the plot twists and surprise cameo appearances may be, we can’t help but be mesmerized to watch it unfold.

That said, we’re a sporting bunch, and we do enjoy a challenge, which is why we spend so much time trying to beguile Conservative MPs into saying something even remotely critical of the government or the prime minister, not that it ever works. Well, not nearly often enough, at least.

Given all that, it’s just no fun when you make it too easy to declare your leader and his advisors — who are unfailingly written off as too clandestine/wildly indiscreet/authoritarian/incapable of imposing discipline/inexperienced/past their prime/unproven/serial losers –  as a dead campaign team walking.

Abandon hope, forget 24 Sussex and start saving the furniture: most of us could write your obituary in our sleep at this point. And the more you freak out, the more material — unsourced and otherwise — you give us, which means more full-page special sections on the imminent caucus apocalypse, which subsequently sends even more anonymous senior strategists scurrying to Hy’s to pour out their hearts to the first columnist they see.

If, on the other hand, you don’t — freak out, that is — but attempt to assess the damage in something approaching a calm and clinical fashion, and actually try to, you know, repair it, instead of burying your head in the sand or a knife in the back of the first available scapegoat, we’re going to have to work a lot harder to find a new angle on the story. Eventually, some of us will get so bored with the sound of our own speculation that we’ll move on to something else — maybe even something that doesn’t involve drawing up lists of your potential successors.

None of the above, incidentally, should be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of your leader’s performance, or, for that matter, that of your party since his election appointment as such: long stretches of ineffectualness punctuated by brief moments of baffling incoherence. Apparently, though, it only counts when it happens in Quebec, so if there’s a silver lining to what went down yesterday,  it would be that this may finally force you to admit to, and then, ideally, try to solve, what you can euphemistically describe as “staffing challenges” within OLO.

It may be too late, of course. There is also a growing chorus of suddenly-self-identifying Cassandras who claim that they’ve been saying all along that this particular leader is, to put it plainly, a dud. As a friend of the non-Liberal persuasion pointed out to ITQ last night, if you charted the last few months of Liberal poll numbers alongside Ignatieff’s disappearance from the political landscape, you could rightly conclude that his best strategy for the next election will be to spend it holed up in an underground silo somewhere in Narnia. Still, you’re stuck with him for the moment, so you may as well make the best of it — and leave the preemptive post-mortem performing to us professionals.

Not quite crepe-hanging, but ready to get out her measuring tape-ly yours,

ITQ

Bookmark and Share
  • Political Junkey

    Ok folks. I am over 50, sadly, and was born and raised in far eastern Liberal Canada. I have always voted on the combined merits of the leader and their party platform. I remember voting twice for PET, once for BM, twice for JC and now thrice for SH. Could not bring myself to vote for BM twice, or KC, Joe who, JT, PM, SD or JC a third time. In fact I have not been able to vote Liberal since Gomery and adscam. I consider my self a rational person, am an academic working at a Canadian university (PhD U of T). My question to all you Liberal supporters out there is simple. Give me one rational reason, beside the 'hidden agenda right wing PC's' theory, why I should vote Liberal again given Iggy and the total lack of vision in the LPC? Please don't focus on the Conservatives in your reply. Give me a positive reason to vote Liberal again? …You cant!

    • wayne moores

      I too have voted a variety of ways over the years, depending on personalities involved and issues at the time. (just couldn't stomach Lyin' Brian the first time I ever layed eyes on him. Guess I was proved right in the long run). However currently, no matter what side of the fence you are on, I can't see any rational person(guess that excludes the Harper Haters), imagining that Iggie is not done like dinner. This latest fiasco just amplifies his meager political skill sets. Even with half the population disliking "Mean ole' Principal Harper", Iggie just couldn't seem to get any traction with the voters. Missing in action all summer(he was in France? Is that true?), when he should have been on the barbie circuit stumping. Instead he was thinking deep thoughts and navel gazing. Next.

      • http://coyne kc

        Much as it pains me i think you and PJ are right. I’ve been a perhaps too loyal liberal since i was wowed by PET as a young man [ oddly i didn't go for him at first] but the libs need to come up with some good reasons why we should vote for them – Iggy provides precious few. I’m no fan of Harper, but the ongoing decline of a once great liberal party is sad to behold – for me anyway.

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

      "Give me one rational reason, beside the 'hidden agenda right wing PC's' theory, why I should vote Liberal again given Iggy and the total lack of vision in the LPC? Please don't focus on the Conservatives in your reply."

      Good point. But, as one rational person to another, let me ask you this: why is the burden of proof on the Liberals? The Conservatives would be hard pressed to answer your question too. There is a "total lack of vision" on all sides. Given that, my own preference is determined by who can actually manage the government better, and IMO the Conservatives do no not have a competent Cabinet. That matters. We're about to find out how much it matters when the Auditor General gets around to investigating all this stimulus, aka Adscam II: the Revenge.

  • knick

    It seems somewhat odd that so much time and effort is being spent on what happens in the party of the Official Opposition when it's the party in power that should be the focus of attention.

    In the present political scenario, do the Liberals need a 'strong(er) leader' or just one who is more ruthless and controlling than the current leader of the party in power?

From Macleans