Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'She was not a clerk'

by Aaron Wherry on Saturday, October 2, 2010 10:44am - 0 Comments

Peter Russell, a constitutional advisor to Michaelle Jean, says that before she agreed to prorogue Parliament, the Prime Minister committed to return to the House in short order and to do so with a budget that could pass.

This is perhaps the second bit of significant insight to come from one of Ms. Jean’s advisors since that day in December 2008. Last January, Peter Hogg reportedly observed that the coalition’s quick collapse demonstrated that the Governor General had made the correct decision.

To those dots, of course, you can add what the Governor General herself added this week.

Tags: coalition, coalition government, Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, Parliament, peter hogg, Peter Russell, prorogation, Prorogue, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

John D

I'm glad constitutional predents gan be bargained for like bricabrac at the market.

John D

Precedents. D'oh.

NorthernPoV

Citing the collapse of the coalition as justification for the decision that caused the coaliton to collapse.

circular logic anyone

and these guys are called experts??

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

There's nothing circular about it. There was nothing preventing the coalition from continuing its grab for power after prorogation, was there? However, what prorogation did do was expose the coalition for the unpopular monstrosity it was, and saved us all from being enforced to endure it as a government, didn't it?
Mike T.

I admit i find myself in the rare and uncomfortable position of disagreeing with Peter Hogg.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

On what grounds?

Mike T.

the obvious ones.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I thought so, such as not liking the fact that both the GG and Hogg thwarted your coalition agenda.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how some on here are completely incapable of answering even the simplest of questions. Oh, they can holler and shout with the best of them. Come up with facts and reason? Not so much.
Mike T.

Frankly, I think you're a partisan disingenuous troll who generally isn't worth replying to. It's a waste of my time.
…

Bingo
DPT

your time haS NO VALUE. Given your comment history

bergkamp

"Citing the collapse of the coalition …… circular logic anyone and these guys are called experts??"

I rarely agree with experts but that's not what Hogg is doing. GGs advisers don't say publicly – which is really irritating – what they told her privately during crisis. All Hogg said was GG made correct decision and one example of why this is so was how quickly coalition collapsed. If coalition was serious about taking power and governing, they have had plenty of other opportunities to do so.

"Hogg said Jean had the option to refuse Harper's request, name Dion prime minister and allow him to form a new government. But in hindsight she made the right decision since the coalition fell apart soon after, said the professor." Daily Gleaner

Mike T.

I rarely agree with experts

***

I am not surprised.

Holly Stick

What about the second prorogation which lasted over two months and which was a way for the Government of Harper to avoid questions about detainees in Afghanistan? Harper just phoned that one in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_Parlia…

Emily

Well she clearly knew what her job was, and the powers she had…she just refused to do it, or to use them.

Epic Fail.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Yes, how dare she not do whatever the heck Harper bashers want done.

Emily

How dare she not do her job

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

She doesn't answer to you. Thank God.
Emily

Actually she answers to all Canadians, so yes she does.

And she failed.
Bob

She doesn't answer to anyone. She's a representative of the sovereign. (Which is why we should abolish the monarchy).
Emily

Yes, she's the Queens representative in Canada, and just as obligated to the Canadian people as the Queen is.

And we can't abolish the monarchy unless we have something to put in it's place.

Mike T.

Since the opposition wasn't planning a coalition ready to bring a non-confidence vote at the time (as they are not now, or planning to for the next election), there was little Ms. Jean could do. It was craven and cowardly and ugly on the part of Harper, but the GG performed her role in a manner which can't realistically be questioned.

Emily

That's exactly what they were doing, and that's why the question arose.

Blacktop

She did the right thing. I posted that at the time.

Emily

No, she did the convenient thing for Harper.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Or the infuriating thing for left-wingers who don't seem to give two bits about what voters actually want.

Emily

It doesn't matter what party the PM is….the job is clear and straightforward
TJCook

Last I checked, "left-wingers" hadn't lost their right to vote and therefore qualify as voters.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Of course not, but who says they have the right to demand the GG do their bidding, like Emily keeps cackling on about here?
TJCook

Where are you going with this? "Left-wingers" should just shut up?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

When it comes to the usual suspects not being able to engage in the topics raised, I think this thread takes the cake.
TJCook

That doesn't make any sense at all.

I'll try again, just for kicks. You said: "who says they have the right to demand the GG do their bidding?"

That would be free speech, which is protected even for "left-wingers" in Canada. I can demand that Stephen Harper cut my lawn. He doesn't have to, but I'm free to argue that he ought to. Likewise, Emily is free to give her impression of the GG's decision.
DPT

cackling being the key

Gayle

I agree. By caving in to Harper's demand to prorogue, she exposed him as someone who had something to hide, and who was not afraid to abuse his position in order to hide it.

Holly Stick

And the coward Harper won't ever allow ordinary Canadians to ask him questions about the issues that concern them, even in areas where he may not have anything to cover up.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

if you're right, which I think is highly doubtful, then who's the bigger coward? Harper for being this way, or any opposition leader who has allowed him to be this way for four years and counting?

What I find fascinating is that Chretien could do anything he wanted, but he had a majority that allowed him to do it. Harper is getting his way despite the fact that he's had the constraints that are supposed to come with minority governance.

Who knows? Maybe minority governments are good for Harper. He governs as though he has a majority, but has to be disciplined and run a tight ship. And the opposition is certainly in no hurry to provide people who can challenge him in any significant way.

Holly Stick

Typical rightwinger: "Waah, waah! I only behaved badly because you forced me to! I'm not responsible for what I do, because I'm not grown up enough to make my own decisions yet! Waah!"
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

In other words, you refuse to address my point about who's apparently more cowardly, and would rather resort to calling me a whiner in a knee-jerk fashion yet again. You know, resentment and ignorance is no way to go through life, or politics.
Holly Stick

Whiners tend to be cowards amd vice versa. Harper is a coward.
DPT

and you are a knee jerk pathetic misandrist cow
MostlyCivil

"and you are a knee jerk pathetic misandrist cow"

And Mr. Inadvertantly Ironic arrives on the scene.
Gayle

"or any opposition leader who has allowed him to be this way for four years and counting? "

I was not aware that Harper had to ask the opposition leaders for permission before he refused to take questions from the public.

You can blame the opposition for allowing him to rule as though he has a majority, though I think the manipulative use of confidence votes in order to force an unwanted election had a lot to do with that, however you cannot blame the opposition because Harper refuses to take questions from the public. They have been pointing that out for years.

Holly is right – you are just trying to find excuses rather than hold Harper accountable.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I asked a simple question of who is more cowardly: Harper for doing what you bashers accuse him of, or the opposition who lets him get away with it? If he was nearly as bad as some of you say, then the opposition would have been right to vote him down and have an election over it. Right?

How can you have it both ways?
Gayle

The opposition have no control over whether Harper takes unscripted questions from the public. They are not "letting him get away with it". You are creating a false scenario.

Unless you are actually suggesting the opposition should force an election over Harper's unwillingness to take questions from the public, in which case I say that Harper is more cowardly because if the opposition forced an election over that it would be the stupidest reason for an election in the history of this country.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Of course they have control. They can boot him out in a minority Parliament, especially if he's even a fraction as bad as you bashers say.
Gayle

So you think there should be an election over whether Harper takes unscripted questions.

Yeah. That is totally worth 300 million dollars…
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

No, I don't. You're the one who's suggesting he's a coward and unaccountable because he exerts control over his own press conferences. If he's that bad, the opposition can take control. Instead, they chose not to. So, again, who's the one that's being a coward?
Gayle

Well he is, because he is refusing to take unscripted questions. But, of course, I have already said that, and since you agree it would be stupid to bring down his government over this issue, I am not sure why we are still discussing it.
Holly Stick

Dennis, you're a Harper supporter. Why do you let him get away with being a coward?

chet

Ah yes, that's the real "scandal" in all of this.

Not, you know, trying to form a government with seperatists intent of breaking up the country and socialists intent on creating a statist "utopia",

after just promising voters before the election they would not do that…

All of this being so much richer with the Liberal indignation at suggesting the Libs would form a coalition this go 'round.

Gayle

No one tried to form a government with separatists.

Stop making stuff up.

madeyoulook

It remains hard to decide which is worse: trying to assert the coalition included the separatists, or trying to have anyone believe that the Lib-NDP would have lasted for any reasonable length of time with *cough* guaranteed *cough* support of the separatists.

Neither scenario is terribly helpful to the coalition's legitimacy.

Gayle

I do not know what you are talking about. The fact is that the Lib/NDP coalition very clearly had the support of the Bloc. Are you suggesting the Bloc would not have actually supported them? If so, that is an interesting theory, but pure speculation.

madeyoulook

That is exactly what I am suggesting. The Bloc would have supported only if it suited them, not because of anything they might have signed. The moment the Bloc would have seen an opportunity to strike: BAM!
Jenn_

But how would that have been any worse off than what we got? Plus, you know the Conservatives aren't REQUIRED to vote against a coalition government on every single issue. The fact that we all naturally assume they would without even knowing what the issue is, says a lot about our take on the Conservative commitment to the country, wouldn't you say?
Cats

Um no its actually our system of government.

As the official opposition it would be the job of the CPC to vote against the government and provide an alternative vision of Canada.

We have an adversarial system for a reason. When the opposition votes with the government something is WRONG. Canadians have no CHOICES.

Cats! Cats taking Jenn_ to task! Way to turn our system into a petty slam against the CPC!!

Cats is disappointed in your ultra-partisan ignorance!

chet

And even richer still, the media's tut tutting the CPC daring to remind voters of this all too real recent stunt.

Then again, this is the same media that suggests reducing in size a forced government questionaire that is FORTY pages long, is nothing short of scandalous.

Emily

Except none of that is true.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Why not address a point specifically instead of crapping on it like this?

Emily

Since none of it is true, there is no point TO address.
chet

It's called the broad stroke smear.

Emily dares not get specific about what she says is untrue. And she most certainly doesn't dare to enter into a debate on this issue. No, Emily will stay safely off the playing field, hurling smears from the sidelines.

Emily

No, it's called the difference between lying and the truth.
Cats

"The Conservatives don't lead in any polls" – Emily

There's truth, lying, and being stupid.

Don't forget the being stupid part.

Cats away!

Gayle

There is no need to address a "point" when that point is simply creative writing.

You don't get to just make stuff up and then complain when no one treats the fiction seriously.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

NAME ONE INSTANCE OF A LIE FROM CHET, for crying loud.

Never ceases to amaze me how some people are far more interested in simply bashing political opponents rather than engaging them in debate. They then have the gall to accuse their opponents of lacking civility and tolerance. It's like some bizarro world, or Cuba. Take your pick.
Gayle

Look, I understand that the whine about media bias has been repeated by you guys so much it is as true for you as the existence of God is for Christians. However, the fact you repeat it endlessly does not make it magically come true.

Do you really believe that the media are "tut tutting", and that the issue with the census is really only about a 40 page questionnaire? Because if you do then you better educate yourself before you demand others take you seriously.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

So, you CAN'T name one instance of a lie from Chet. My God.
Gayle

Actually, it is apparent the problem is you cannot read. The issue is NOT about shortening a 40 page questionnaire. Chet's characterizing it as such is a lie.

The suggestion the media is "tut tutting" is what one would call an opinion. It cannot be proven or dis-proven, however in order to convince people it should be based on facts. Chet offers none. Neither do you.

I hope this clears things up for you.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

So, not like his characterization of the census, or his opinion of the media, are examples of LIES to you, are they? It's as though some of you want to make this into a communist state. No one is allowed to challenge the left-wing without getting smeared in a vicious and knee-jerk fashion. Why is that? And then you have the gall to accuse others of not being open and civil. Unbelievable.
Gayle

You know Dennis, it is kind of obvious that you are talking in circles. You believe it is ok to assert something, no matter how baseless, and to question said assertion is some major partisan offence. You think that we have to prove you are wrong instead of you proving yourself to be correct. You complain about people "simply bashing political opponents", and then you suggest I am trying to make this into a communist state.

Your comment does not address mine. All it does is mischaracterize it.

I think we are done here.
Jenn_

Keep that last thought. Forever. For your sanity.
Cats

Yeah! Way to jump into this conversation and yet add nothing!

YOU GO GIRL

(that was your contribution. It was the intellectual equivalent of being on Jerry Springer)

As an impartial observer i'm going to side with Chet and Dennis. Gayle is widely known as an unreasonable, ultra-partisan lefty who likes to pick fights with thoughtful Conservatives.
Gayle

"Yeah! Way to jump into this conversation and yet add nothing!"

You need to look up the term "hypocrite".

Though I particularly love your conclusion. You don't like me so the others are correct. Way to be "impartial". I love it when someone contradicts himself in 2 sentences. Saves me time in pointing out how fundamentally flawed your argument is.

Well done cats. You lived up to my very low expectations of your powers of persuasive argument!

Ha ha ha ha ha
Jenn_

(that was your contribution. It was the intellectual equivalent of being on Jerry Springer)

Your point is well taken, and plus that was funny. You should have stopped there.

Because then you go on to call Chet and Dennis F "thoughtful Conservatives" which doesn't do your credibility any good–or that of the Conservative Party of Canada. We do have thoughtful Conservatives on these boards, but those two aren't them.
guest

they do seem to be a lot more polite than the liberals on these boards though. too bad its such an easy standard to beat.
Jenn_

I have to assume you mean me, since I am a Liberal (unlike Emily, who isn't). And, I admit to using snark on at least three separate occasions, but I'm willing to put that record up against anyone since I believe I have one of the lower records in that regard.

And I've never libelled someone.

So, can you define what you mean by 'polite'?
guest

how about not insulting people? that would be a start (for you). you boast about your record but you've just sanctimoniously insulted chet and dennisf without provocation.
Jenn_

I actually think they'd be more insulted by your comment, because Chet and Dennis F are on a provocative mission here at Maclean's.

I called Chet and Dennis F less than thoughtful.

Here's just some of what Dennis F had to say this week: "You are more than welcome to do more than fart on them . . . You're just proving your own ignorance" "He's had a hard-on for the Harper government for years now." "I called you a zombie . . . I basically called you a liar" "you zombies" " Wherry might be a knee-jerk leftist, but"

But nicely worded comment about how I'm the one always insulting people around here. Too bad facts get in the way.
Gayle

What never ceases to amaze me is how some people can simply declare something to be true, and then complain that people are not treating them with respect when they claim this declaration has no validity. That is not how respectful debate works. If you want to declare something to be true it might help if you, oh I don't know, back it up with evidence maybe? You don't get to simply declare a truth and then demand people prove you wrong – at least not if you want to be taken seriously.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Why is it so hard for some of you to BACK UP VICIOUS ACCUSATIONS YOU MAKE OF OTHERS? Chet was accused of lying. BACK IT UP.

What, no speakey English?
Gayle

Calm down Dennis. I am sorry you are having trouble understanding plain English, but there is no need to lose your cool.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Sorry for not wanting to tolerate these intolerant and uneducated tactics. You consider everything that Chet has to say as a lie. Brilliant. Next.
Cats

Condescending much ?

The more a man blusters, the less ammo he's packing.

Mister, you're shooting blanks. Gayle, just chill out dude.

Cats away!
Gayle

Condescending much ?

Quite often actually.
Gall!!!!

Gall!!!! I'm keeping track…

chet

The Libs were so desperate to get back in power they formed this motley coalition,

but they knew voters wouldn't want it,

so they told the voters before hand they wouldn't do it and went ahead and did it with voters' implied refusal.

Harper called their bluff with prorogation and suddenly prorogation was some new evil…the previous 104 prorogations being pretty standard stuff really.

And now? How dare the CPC suggest Iggy would form a coalition.

Iggy who you ask? Why Iggy the man who signed in writing his solomn declaration in support of….drumroll please….the coalition.

Emily

Again, none of that is true.

chet

I'll pick one:

Iggy didn't put his signature in support of the coalition?

Do you simply willfully ignore basic historical facts when you make these statements or do you simply speak without knowing?

I'm not sure which one is worse.

chet

And so, good Macleans readers,

one way of assuring that a statement made by a commenter on this blog is true,

is for Emily to describe it as "a lie".

Well done Emily, well done.
Emily

You are the only one discussing red herrings. I never do.

The question here is about the GG's decision, and at that point Dion was leader, the coalition existed, and Harper didn't command the confidence of the House.

chet

"I never do" (discuss red herrings).

How noble of you. You only accuse people of telling lies when you know or ought to know that they are stating basic facts that are true.

Now…if you'll excuse me, I won't waste another keystroke on you, now that you've been exposed (if it wasn't evident already) for what you truly are.
Emily

Is that a promise? Please?

Because so far you've dragged a whole basket of red herrings into this….I was expecting Trudeau to show up again any minute. LOL
Cats

Calling a coalition a red herring = coalition is a GO.

Only ruling a coalition out in all circumstances means there is no coalition.

Ignatieff hasn't done that.

Coalition Cats!
MostlyCivil

I notice that our Prime Minister hasn't absolutely ruled out bringing back the same sex marriage debate in all circumstances.

Why does he hat the married people?

Gayle

"the previous 104 prorogations being pretty standard stuff really."

Actually, they were. Most of them happened at a time when the only way to end a session of Parliament for any reason (summer break Christmas break) was to prorogue parliament. Those clever researchers for the conservatives who dug up these stats for the conservative MP's should have known that.
John D

I hope Harper is sending you a nice christmas ham.

Mike T.

Quite frankly, the stability of a government should be demonstrated by its ability to pass votes in the house of commons, not the idle speculation of the governor general.

Emily

And Harper could not meet that test, so it wasn't 'idle speculation'

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

What test? The opposition had its chance to vote non-confidence after prorogation. After listening to the people, it chose not to.

Crapping on everyone you resent in politics is not debating, dear.

Emily

It was too late then for a coalition, the country would have gone to an election

Don't debate with me dear, you're not up to it.

Cats

It was too late the first time they tried.

They had already granted confidence by accepting the speech from the throne. The speech from the throne contained no mention of stimulus.

Their demands violated their own acceptance of the speech. The opposition had no mandate and no chance of becoming government.

A fresh election would have been the right thing to do.

Coalition Cats.

chet

Emily's form of "debating":

Commenter: The Sun rose in the East today.

Emily: That's a lie.

Emily

So far, you're running your usual fishmarket.
M_A_D_world

Close but as likely she'd blame the "CONS" for stealing the sun from East and burying it in the West. If it isn't an LPC supported attack point she can't agree with it.

Jenn_

In spite of the fact that it goes against my own partisan interests, I think our GGs decision was bang on with the first prorogation decision. I've often thought she put some 'conditions' to the first granting of prorogation, and am very pleased to see that thought supported (but not proven).

I also think she did the right thing in granting the second prorogation; however, I do think she erred in not demanding Harper meet with her in person. Just absolutely refuse to consider a request made over the phone. That, I think, diminished the office of Governor General, and is the only thing I fault her on.

Gayle

The issue really is with Harper, not with the GG. Therefore I do not fault her for granting the requests, however the fact Harper asked was a great abuse of his authority.

Cats

A great abuse of authority that ever leader has done repeatedly such as Chretien and Bob Rae ??

Prorogation is the absolute right of the PM.

The law says that parliament must meet for only one day a year.

Cats away!

Gayle

See the comment you are responding to? See how no one said prorogation was not the absolute right of the PM? See how my position is that he was ABUSING that right?

I am not going to repeat myself so see my comment above about why there were so many prorogations in our history.

Now be a good little kitty and try addressing what I actually said.

Not Stephen Colbert

I do think she erred in not demanding Harper meet with her in person. Just absolutely refuse to consider a request made over the phone.

Maybe she could have legitimately insisted on something like that, though frankly I doubt it. Even if she could have, though, she was ultimately constitutionally bound to act on Harper's advice. Once he'd made that advice known to her, what would the point have been in insisting on some sort of formality? I guess it would have shown up the arrogant PM a little, but while that's generally an awesome thing for most people to do, it's probably less so for the GG.

Jenn_

I only say so because it is SHE who was the acting head of state, not HE. He was her First Minister, the deference is from him to her, not from her to him. It would have made absolutely no difference to the outcome of the request, I agree with you there, but not allowing a First Minister to treat his acting head of state so flippantly was within her rights. Of course, Harper wears it for treating our acting head of state so flippantly, but he would have anyway, and perhaps more so if she'd objected.

Not Stephen Colbert

Fair enough. I just think it would have been beneath the office of the Governor General to say, in effect, "You're going to have to say that again because I don't like the way you said it." I'm glad the GG acted with more thought to the constitution than to protocol. And I think that any disrespect shown by the PM toward the GG stands much clearer if it's not reciprocated.

Mike T.

She wasn't constitutionally bound the second tim (or either time, for that matter). But the second time there was really only one realistic option.

Not Stephen Colbert

Dudes. Seriously.

I hate Harper's government as much as the next reasonable person who's at all familiar with Harper's government, and the two prorogation requests are right at the top of the list of evidence that he's a terrible PM who really needs to be booted from office as soon as possible, even given that the plausible alternatives ain't exactly awesome themselves. But this GG-bashing is ridiculous and has got to stop.

For starters, at the time of the second prorogation the Prime Minister unambiguously enjoyed the confidence of the House (in the constitutional sense of the term "confidence", which I specify in the doomed hope of cutting off any equivocation fallacies). The Governor General was thus unambiguously bound by convention to act on his advice, full stop. No one who knows anything worth speaking of about Canadian constitutional law believes otherwise. Yes, it was a massive dick move on Harper's part, but, constitutionally speaking, the question of whether a PM enjoys the confidence of the House is not affected by dickishness.

The first prorogation was not so unambiguous and thus, unlike the second, is open to actual, informed controversy. It can be argued reasonably (not that I've seen much of that around here) that the GG did not make an ideal decision, but I think we should be able to debate that without calling her competence into question. She was put into a very difficult position (this first request, like the second, being a huge dick move), and none of the options were especially appealing.

It has to be said, though–because a lot of people don't seem to understand this–that granting the prorogation was not some sort of magic get-out-of-confidence-vote-free card for Harper. Indeed, prorogations are always for specified time periods (less than two months, in this case), and are immediately followed by a new Throne Speech, which must be approved by the House–in a confidence vote. All the coalition had to do was stick together for a couple months, then they could have defeated the government and presented the GG with a much simpler decision. I wish it had. Instead, it quickly fell apart, and we've been stuck with Harper ever since. Believe me, I understand how frustrating that can be, but the blame should fall to Ignatieff, not Jean.

Mike T.

at the time of the second prorogation the Prime Minister unambiguously enjoyed the confidence of the House (in the constitutional sense of the term "confidence", which I specify in the doomed hope of cutting off any equivocation fallacies). The Governor General was thus unambiguously bound by convention to act on his advice, full stop. No one who knows anything worth speaking of about Canadian constitutional law believes otherwise

***

No, no, and no again. She was neither a) bound, nor b? bound unambigously. NOw she made the only realistic choice, but that doesn't mean it was the only thing she was allowed to do.

Not Stephen Colbert

If you have some evidence that I was previously unaware of that the PM had lost the confidence of the House as of the time of the second prorogation request, I will be happy to consider it.

Mike T.

I have looked into the matter and I withdraw the particular objection above.

Cats

You know there's actually an official briefing manual on constitutional conventions they give out that says unequivocally that the GG must always accept prorogation from a sitting PM right ??

Right ?

Best fishes!

danby

I think that Michael Ignatieff signed onto the coalition as a loyal member of the Liberal party, but did not personally favour the move.
While it's very true that he abandoned the coalition after the unpopular public response, he did walk away from a near certain crack at the reins. You might even say he showed some backbone on principle. I would think that if he was just visiting or trying to polish up his CV as many contend, that he would have jumped at the chance to be PM, no matter how odious.

Not Stephen Colbert

That's reasonable. I don't mean to imply that he should be "blamed" in a moral sense, just that it was his actions, more than anyone else's and in particular more than Jean's, that caused the dissolution of the coalition. That, of course, can be viewed as either good or bad, depending on one's perspective.

Cats

Ignatieff becoming leader was no sure thing.

In fact its possible there would have been an election that could have killed his career.

Being cautious is not the same thing as acting on principle and showing backbone.

Mice day!

danby

Granted, Mr Ignatieff was no sure thing, but I would think that the leadership landscape was readable, and the outcome more predictable after the problems with Dion's leadership.
It would seem that Michael had an eye on the long game, again, not the logical course for a guy just visiting
IMHO, I think the Conservatives were more worried about Bob Rae becoming leader than MI. While Mr Rae had electability issues in Ontario, he is a far more skilled politician and would been (and would still be) a much bigger thorn in Mr Harper's side.
Style

The coalition was contrary to Michael Ignatieff's personal ambitions. He's backed by conservative, blue Liberals who, given the opportunity to share Cabinet with New Democrats, preferred to leave Cabinet exclusively to Conservatives. If the leadership race had continued while a the Liberals led a coalition government, I think Mr. Ignatieff's chances would have plummeted. Either the coalition would have succeeded, strengthening the left wing of the Liberal party, or it would have failed, sending the Liberals into a tailspin that would have warped the leadership race unpredictably.

http://bestindianapolislocksmith.com/ Anderson

Honestly, are there any politicians who are not able to be bought and sold almost immediately. Where is the intellectual honesty? The commitment. So sad to see this.
Cats

Yeah! Girl power!!

And that time Harper gave her a phone call to tell her that he was proroguing parliament !!

Oh wait.

Exactly Cats.