Modeling Journey

The coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Demcrats in the UK contains this undertaking:

We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of backbench business. A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament.

The public are sullen, some even mutinous.

(Sir Robert Worcester, June 2009)

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Michael Ignatieff received some advice recently from Andrew Coyne to add a strong electoral and political reform package to the Liberal Party policies for the coming election, which Harper (giving his dismissive attitude towards parliament in general) would find difficult to steal and run on.

One element which Ignatieff's Liberals might consider is giving backbenchers a much greater chance to play more meaningful roles by instituting a parallel chamber similar to the Westminster Hall one which Britain has had since 1999.

Sittings in Westminster Hall – which is actually in the room up the staircase in the north-west corner of Westminster Hall - constitute sittings of the House (effectively a parallel Chamber). Any MP can take part in the debates which are held on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Within a week two centuries of British politics might be radically changed, due to the position of kingmaker that the UK Liberal leader Nick Clegg might assume after the election. The odds are high that whoever forms the next minority government (Tories or Labour), they will need the support of the Liberals to govern, and this support will come with a price: electoral reform.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Spent a few minutes listening to CBC interviewing Coyne and Herbert and the topic of what advice they would give to Michael Ignatieff came up.

Both opined that Ignatieff should back off his 'death wish' (as Herbert called it) of trying to force an election, and spend some time (months, perhaps years) fixing the Liberal Party, raising funds for an election, and coming out with a policy or two.

Both seemed to key in on recent polls which have shown a resurgence of support for Harper's Tories (especially in BC and in Ontario), and which seem to indicate that the Tories will regain power in an election, most likely as another minority government.

The advice given by these two commentators is dead wrong, and totally ignores a fact of political life.

Consider this:

"Before entering the Commons to introduce his motion, Ignatieff told reporters his party had done "much soul-searching" before coming to the conclusion it could no longer support the Tories.

Liberal support - or Liberal abstentions on confidence votes - has kept the Harper government in power for more than three years. But the corrosive impact of that begrudging support was hollowing out internal Liberal party morale."

Ignatieff's speech tabling the vote of non confidence in the Harper government is worth reading very carefully. It was not just the usual opposition speech, railing against the government in power. It was a seminal speech, outlining a sea change in Liberal Party attitudes, and committing the party to defeating the Tories at every opportunity that arises.

There is no going back on the Liberal Party declaration of war on Harper's incompetent and untrustworthy government. The Liberals will vote against the Tories in each and every confidence vote in the coming weeks and months, until the government falls and an election is called.

The only thing that will change that is a palace coup, replacing Michael Ignatieff as leader of the party, with the new leader disavowing the Liberal change of heart.
And the Liberal Party is nowhere near a palace coup right now, despite the negative polls.

The Cat agrees with Andrew Coyne's view regarding the Harper-Mulroney-Schreiber letter and what was behind it:

"Here’s the relevant section of his testimony, as best I could transcribe it. What did Mulroney promise he would do with the letter, he was asked. To take it to Harper, Schreiber answered.

And what was the outcome of that exchange? “The outcome was the message was very well received.”

There were no guarantees, he was told, and the courts would have to deal with the matter first, but after that the justice minister, Vic Toews, would look into it and “do the right thing.” It was, he said, “a shock” to hear Harper deny on television that he and Mulroney had discussed Schreiber at the meeting.

It could all be a lie, of course: Schreiber lying to the committee, Mulroney lying to him.

It could even be that Harper lied to Mulroney.

But if in fact there were such a deal -- Schreiber’s liberty in exchange for his compliance -- we would have a serious problem on our hands.

That Mulroney was anxious to obtain such a letter is suggested by the reported involvement of Elmer MacKay, the former solicitor general and friend to both Mulroney and Schreiber, in its drafting.

Schreiber claims that Mulroney put MacKay up to it: “he would never have been able to help me if this was not resolved.”

That Harper might wish to be reassured that Schreiber had patched things up with Mulroney is also plausible: we already knew by then about the $300,000 in cash, and it wouldn’t do to have Schreiber making fresh accusations against the former Prime Minister. But that he would offer that the minister of justice would stay his extradition? This cannot be."

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071129_182431_4620