That will accomplish…what, precisely?
- The half-dozen most prominent Liberals will run up ruinous personal debts.
- The party will spend a lot of money on things that have nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the business of Parliament or the nation.
- Those abstentions on division that my colleague Chantal Hébert says are so embarrassing to the Liberals? I’m a little surprised this isn’t obvious: they will still have to abstain if they want to avoid an election, whether they’re looking for a new leader or keeping the one they already have.
Division, dissent, debt and delay among the Liberals are a primary strategic objective of the Conservatives. It’s in my book. It’s in Flanagan’s book. It’s in Harper’s interview in the Sun papers on Sunday, saying the loser of the next election would have to give up his party’s leadership. Do the Liberals really think that was any different from another fake Doug Finley Secret Memo?
The Liberals’ share of the popular vote is two points lower than in 2006. (UPDATE, 11:43 p.m.: three points lower. A significant difference, perhaps, because it’s lower than Turner’s 1984 result by a point.) It’s a wretched showing. It’s higher than most of the polls during this campaign said the Liberals would get.
Now the Liberals get to decide whether they’re going to do what Stephen Harper wants them to do. Again.