52

Oh hello, the grown-ups have showed up at last


 

The news in John Manley’s piece in the Globe and Mail today is not that he’s calling for Stephane Dion’s resignation — everybody’s onside for that — but that he has come out firmly and publicly against the coalition — the first leading Liberal to do so. To wit:

As a Liberal, I believe the first step for my party is to replace Stéphane Dion as leader with someone whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal Party, rather than leading a coalition with the NDP.

There’s more in that vein (“the notion that the public would accept Stephane Dion as prime minister, after having resoundingly rejected that possibility a few weeks earlier, was delusional at best “), but it is best seen not as an attack on Dion, but as a shot across the bows of the current declared candidates to replace him, all of whom have publicly endorsed this “delusional” notion — and continue to do so.

That would obviously include Bob Rae — who is gearing up to campaign across the country in favour of the coalition — but also Michael Ignatieff, whose opposition to the deal has been confined to leaks from subordinates to the effect that he was the last person to sign the caucus letter calling on the Governor General to ask the coalition to form a government.

Manley’s intervention has sent shock waves through the party, where there is deep disatisfaction with the deal. If Ignatieff, the acknowledged frontrunner, does not forcefully dissociate himself from the coalition, a Draft Manley movement is inevitable. In fact, given the damage the coalition has already done to the party — 20% in the polls, anyone? — one may be under way as we speak.


 

Oh hello, the grown-ups have showed up at last

  1. Andrew,

    There was something even more revealing in at least one of this week’s poll’s and it exposes the damaging role of the media when they all get it wrong. All this week we were told that the events in Ottawa have caused a backlash in Quebec, yet the Compas poll shows Conservatives up by 8% since the election and the Bloc down by 6%.

    The only backlash that’s unequivocal is the one that the knuckleheads leading the coalition caused in Western Canada. It’s that one that the central Canada-centric media has missed completely.

    While fingers are being pointed by the media over incompetence in Ottawa, the media needs to look a little more closely at their own competence.

  2. a Draft Manley movement is inevitable.

    Sure, he’d make an excellent leader of the Conservative Party. Wake up, Coyne, nobody cares what Canada’s Joe Lieberman has to say.

  3. Stephen Harper stated there was no Canadian flag at the Coalition news conference, and implied this was the price the Coalition payed for getting Bloc support. This was a complete and utter lie, but as his Republican mentors have taught him, you don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story. I am sure this calumny is being passed from Tory to Tory as God’s own truth, and will live on for years. I don’t understand how we can permit this unscrupulous individual to remain Prime Minister, even for a day.

  4. Still carrying water for the neoconservatives, just like Manley, eh Coyne?

    Hack.

    Until you start denouncing the childishness of a greater spectrum of our elite, you should be the last person to be using the word “adult.”

  5. One of the grown-ups who helped author a manifestly incomplete analysis and unrealistic plan for Canada’s role in Afghanistan?

    Yeah, let’s follow his mature and sage advice.

  6. Just what is so bad about Manley leading the libs back to the big tent sort of party i used to support [ still do but wondering if i’m not delusional] Are they finished as a natinal party. If so , it’s aloss for my Canada.

  7. Wake up, Coyne, nobody cares what Canada’s Joe Lieberman has to say.

    Well, it seems like this country is filled with a lot of nobodies, then, Bob.

    Not being a Liberal, I can only imagine the sighs of relief in Lib circles that a voice of reason has appeared to inject itself into the ranks. I can also imagine the Liberal anthill has been disrupted by Manley’s well-placed jab with a stick. A necessary regrouping is in order. Why there wasn’y ALREADY an open “draft Manley” movement within the Liberals is beyond me.

  8. I like John Manley – as soon as the Liberals throw away their ridiculous and brand-destroying ambitions to galvanize the left behind them, they can start working with the Conservatives to fix our broken democracy. I think John Manley is the guy to do that. In a Harper-Manley election, regardless of the outcome, Canada could finally get, at least in practice, the grand coalition we need between the two serious parties in Canadian politics.

    Finance reforms coupled with some modicum of electoral reform can help restore this country to a competitive two and a half party system.

    Random musing – Italy has sought to increase stability by giving the party with the most seats in the house an extra 100 members of parliament (however they have a senate that lacks those rules, hence the collapse of the Prodi government). Since Canadians largely reject the idea of coalition government, perhaps we need something similar, to ensure that our governments can actually govern. It would also give us MP’s that are not tied down to the interests of a particular riding, but the nation as a whole. Parties can get superstar candidates as cabinet ministers with greater ease, and a more representative parliament.

    Essentially the party getting the most seats in the election would gain an extra 40 seats. Alternately you could go by region, where the party with the most seats in Ontario gets 10, Quebec gets 10, the Atlantic gets 5, Saskitoba gets 5 and BC+AB gets 10. Doing this would almost guarantee majority governments and end the gridlock of the present.

  9. I agree the grown-ups have shown up but how much influence will they have? The Libs are at war with themselves and I have no idea how they will declare a truce. They are about to start the next fight in their civil war with Rae going one, Iggy going another and Manley calling for calm. And For every grown up within the Libs, there seems to be at least two Ti-Guy, Robert Mc and Stephen’s.

    I was saying to a friend earlier today that I thought the grown ups have left the building, as far as the Lib party is concerned. I see no reason yet to change my opinion.

  10. Well, it seems like this country is filled with a lot of nobodies, then, Bob.

    Ekos Dec. 4th
    CP: 44.0

    Ekos Dec. 5th
    CP: 42.2

  11. Andrew, how many and which Liberals, exactly, did you interview with for this piece? Seriously? Or did you know that “Manley’s intervention has sent shock waves through the party” via telepathy or some or version of the sixth sense? Or do journos just get to say anything?

    Seriously Andrew. Please return to writing less emotive more substantial pieces that don’t reek of your cause du jour.

  12. “a Draft Manley movement is inevitable.

    Sure, he’d make an excellent leader of the Conservative Party. Wake up, Coyne, nobody cares what Canada’s Joe Lieberman has to say.”

    That you can say that with some accuracy reflects how incredibly far the Liberal party has fallen. In 2000 they won 41% of the vote. In 2008 they won 26%. John Manley never abandoned his party, his party abandoned centrist and centre-right voters. The Liberals have become a left-leaning party by subtraction, not addition.

  13. John Manley never abandoned his party, his party abandoned centrist and centre-right voters.

    Well, “centrism” (a meaningless American concept) hasn’t always been the key appeal for Liberal voters. In fact, I don’t even remember hearing the term all that much before 2000.. As for abandoning rightist voters, well…they’ve all gone crazy. Let the Conservatives have them until the sensible ones come out their fugue state.

    Manley forever sealed his fate with the Liberal rank-and-file with exactly what Stephen mentions above. That ridiculous Afghanistan report.

  14. As long as the Liberals subscribe to your theory that a sizable segment of the population has “all gone crazy” and can be shunned and ignored until they come to their senses, they’ll never form another government, Ti-Guy.

  15. Who will come to Harper’s rescue again? Why Manely, what a couragous Liberal. And when Harper is in the position to Bankrupt the party again, we can all cheer Manely’s sage advise. By the way how many recommendations of the Manely report to Harper ignore?

  16. horsertohoosier
    For me you nailed it . The party left Manley and if it doesn’t take care it will leave behind all of us centralists who could never find a home in the conservative party [at least not Harpers] What was it Trudeau said about being in the radical centre or extreme middie. Maybe it’s passe now, but it caught me then, obviously it doesn’t resonant within large parts of the liberal party anymore. If i want an ndp option i’ll join them.

  17. As long as the Liberals subscribe to your theory that a sizable segment of the population has “all gone crazy” and can be shunned and ignored until they come to their senses, they’ll never form another government,

    I used to believe that Stephen Harper’s statements (viciously anti-Canadian, if you remember) would forever prevent his party from forming a government, but that turned to be wrong as well.

    Never say never. The “craziness” I’m alluding to is precisely what we saw last week, from the highest reaches of the Conservative elite. A more covert, understated craziness is the one manifesting itself in the economy.

  18. The Liberals are badly split; Dion is leading rallies in support of the coalition while other Liberals are wondering if they can wait until May to replace him.

    Had they backed down when Harper caved in to opposition demands, the Liberals would have been in an excellent position until the May leadership convention. A threat of a coalition or non-confidence would keep the Conservatives at bay and the opposition parties would have reaped huge numbers for making Harper both look bad and having him back down.

    The liberal leadership candidates are big losers here; the coalition itself was the poison chalice that all have sipped from; maybe other like Manley will realize that the party needs more candidates.

  19. Mr. Coyne casts his fly upon the waters ………

    Quiet weekend, eh.

  20. I would prefer Manley over Igantieff any day of the week.

    I am not against the Liberal party. I support the party which has the most common sense to present.

    But for common sense to appear, the Liberal party needs to do some internal soul searching. They have been warned about that for years, but they would not listen.

    With this coalition attempt, again the party had tried to come out on top without doing the internal clean sweep. But do we need to blame Harper for that? I think not. Harper has taken great advantage of the Liberal party’s prolonged sickness, and I think he was well within his rights. Completely.

  21. RE: Afghanistan

    Every Liberal leader since 2001, Chretien, Martin, and Dion have been in favour of the intervention in Afghanistan. Chretien put us there, and Martin and Dion have both voted to keep us there. Ignatieff’s certainly on board, and I’ve yet to see anything that convinces me that Rae isn’t.

    In other words, how is Manley’s opinion of the Afghanistan situation at odds with the view of the party?

    I’m a westerner, but I liked the Chretien Liberals policies for the most part, and when Chretien tried to create an opponent for MAtrin, he didn’t turn to his other prominent cabinet ministers (Tobin, Rock, Copps, etc.). He turned to a guy who had done a quietly effective job in Industry for nearly a decade. John Manley was an excellent foreign affairs minister (far better than others of Chretien’s cabinets, incl. Axworthy) and right now, he’s the man best positioned to bring the Liberal party back to where Chretien had it – centre left.

  22. “Oh hello, the grown-ups have showed up at last”

    I’m not the Editor of a magazine. But shouldn’t it be “grown-ups have shown up at last”?

  23. hosertohoosier,

    absolutely ! Canada needs election reforms. (it also needs senate reform and perhaps its own homegrown head of state…..and …ok, easy, easy, one step at a time)

    But AC has been in favour of election reforms for years. He has written much about the topic. So have the Greens. and so forth. It could be seriously looked at by all parties if the will is there. In fact much can be accomplished within the House if members are allowed to speak in a frank and reasonable manner.

    I think as a nation we need to grown up. Sometimes I think it’s funny how always the old time Prime Ministers are brought into the picture whenever an obstacle rears its ugly head. But that was then, and this is now. The country has changed, the world has changed, human behaviour is changing. We need to overcome this paranoid obsession with the past.

  24. I recall reading “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” back in 2005. Here is a quote from Wikipedia about the book (emphasis mine):

    “…Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called far right in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans’ overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite his belief that the economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the extremely wealthy. Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the “moral” issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place — deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.”

    I think Ti-Guy might be suggesting the “craziness” he alludes to is the same as that displayed by Kansans — voting against their own best interests.

    Although his many right wing critics found fault with his conclusions, Frank has proven to be somewhat prophetic, because he suggested far right policies might lead to the kinds of travails America is enduring now. Are Canadian Conservatives all that much different than U.S. Republicans? I don’t think so.

  25. It’s a slow afternoon here, as you may soon be able to tell

    :)

    Seriously, this debate about left and right is a good one to have, but the underlying thoughts to that also need to happen.

    The left and right do not differ within their goals. The goal is always, as it is for every party around the world of politics, of how to combine the individual with the collective in a constructive manner.

    The left approaches this mostly by going in from the collective toward the individual, wheras the political right basically approaches this by going from the individual toward the collective.

    And yes, the Liberal party, for a long time, has found that balance between individual and the collective somewhere in the middle. Centre, as we mostly refer to it. The centre position can be a very good position to be in as long as the proper balance can be struck. But the danger of trying to hang in the centre position for too long, is that the notion that one can be everything to everyone starts to unravel the position.
    Being at centre position, the push and pull forces can always be felt strongest. That will pull things toward but also brings with it a sudden dispersal going the other way.

    I think that is what happened to the Liberal party. It had already occurred while Chretien had been in power, but Chretien was not really a policy wonk. Chretien was always more about keeping the Liberal party together. Which is important too, for parties to be able to do their work properly, and having Martin to do his job, and both men understanding that their positions favoured the well being of the Liberal party, the sailing could continue. But after Chretien, that balance could not be maintained.

  26. C’mon Andrew.. he couldn’t get any support the last 2 leadership races.. and he wasn’t able to this time around either when Dion originally announced his resignation. a piece in the Globe that he’s anti-coalition isnt going to give him any wave of mass Liberal support this time around either.

    He has no Liberal grassroots support (check the liberal blogs today.. there is no wave of “Draft Manley!” blogposts.. there are several that condemn him)…. and he certainly won’t be getting any endorsements from the “liberal wing of the Liberal Party”.

    The Joe Lieberman comparison is very close, in this case. He has a better chance of winning the Conservative Party leadership at this point then he ever will the Liberal one.

  27. archangel,,

    but we must never forget that the ones who sign the cheques on the front, make it possible for the others to sign them on the back.

    The abortion and gay rights issues, btw, are not just issues concerning the Conservatives. There are many ‘crazies’ to be found on either side. It is just that we have grown into believeing that one group of ‘crazies’ can be acceptable. Did I say ‘just’?

  28. Francien
    I hope the kind of change you advocate isn’t just H vision. He’s perfectly entitled to push his agenda – it’s the tone, the means t the ends and t he utter ruthlessness that i object to. I’ll hold on to my paranoid obssesion until something better comes along – like maybe PR.

  29. Can you believe it’s raining here? December and its raining. I like that. I like rain a lot.

    (for intermezzo purposes only)

  30. But kc

    sometimes change of tone and ruthless are needed to push through the bulge.

    I mean, for how long has the Liberal party been ill now?

  31. Francien,

    I am not a Kansan or an autoworker. If I were an autoworker, I would owe my check more to the person who bought one of the cars I made than to the person who signed the front of my cheque. And if the cars I made weren’t selling, I wouldn’t blame potential buyers or my union, I would blame the people who sign my cheques.

    Also, as a rational thinker, I should be able to figure out if my vote benefits me, on balance. I can look at evidence before I vote to find out how likely it is I will prosper under the promises and policies of a particular candidate. If the candidate (and by extension, the party) does not deliver, I should change my vote next time around.

    A lot of Americans didn’t do that after the first Bush term because they were hoodwinked into fearing terrorist attacks and hating liberals, gays, intellectuals and who knows what other bogeymen. The “Rovian” tactics of Republicans worked well to change their focus from a rational consideration of Bush’s record to all the things they feared and hated.

    My argument is that Harper and his conservatives are using similar tactics on Canadians, and it’s dangerous.

  32. Francien
    you may be right as far as the Liberal party is concerned. My worry is much more the country. The lasting damage that H may be doing. I’m a westerner , i think some of their historical grievances can be bette addressed by, say PR , than by H bulldoser tactics. Imagine cons ekected downtown Toronto and conversely libs in Calgary [i’m delussional ]. i say their grievances because many of them are as lovingly nurtured as any in belle provence.

  33. Archangel,

    ” am not a Kansan or an autoworker. If I were an autoworker, I would owe my check more to the person who bought one of the cars I made than to the person who signed the front of my cheque. And if the cars I made weren’t selling, I wouldn’t blame potential buyers or my union, I would blame the people who sign my cheques.”

    Absolutely, the ‘big three’ should not come cap in hand and expect a bail-out. Running a business risk includes the up and down side, the smart decisions and the not so smart decisions can make or break the man, hence the rich and the poor. And people who decide working for a company should also be aware of that fact going in.

    But still, the autoworker would not be able to ‘pretend’ to sell any cars if the business man had not set up the plant, the crew of sales people, the agreements with banks……and so forth. Making the cars is merely a (small) part in all of that line-up.

    Of course, for the autoworker himself, his particular world is mostly considered from the point of view of assembling the car, but his so-called world picture is not a complete picture.

  34. Right now we have a Tory leader who’s really a Reformer, and a Liberal leader who’s really a Dipper: neither of whom do anything for sane centrist voters.

    A Tory disguised as a Liberal (Manley) is exactly what the doctor ordered.

  35. Archangel,

    “A lot of Americans didn’t do that after the first Bush term because they were hoodwinked into fearing terrorist attacks and hating liberals, gays, intellectuals and who knows what other bogeymen. The “Rovian” tactics of Republicans worked well to change their focus from a rational consideration of Bush’s record to all the things they feared and hated.

    My argument is that Harper and his conservatives are using similar tactics on Canadians, and it’s dangerous.”

    Hold on there. No one, absolutely no one can claim to know why people vote for someone. Never ever must we assume that we can lump them all into one to fit into our personal way of thinking.

    I do not believe in ssm, for instance, and yet I consider myself to be intelligent. As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that the lower intellect amongst the masses could be able to secure ssm to go ahead.
    Ouch!

  36. “A Tory disguised as a Liberal (Manley) is exactly what the doctor ordered.”

    I won’t buy into that theory. I think the voter is looking for something else. Perhaps some open debate?

  37. Francien
    Just reread your earlier post. you mention that a different tone and ruthlessness may be necessary. Isee no mention of the third objection: the means to the ends.i assume it was simply an oversight but it still bothers me. i guess i’m an old absolutist or maybe just a moralist but the means do effect the ends. Yes i’m aware that lib means have not always been pretty and i didn’t like that either.

  38. I think it’s clear where the mainstream of Canadian politics lies: fiscally to the right, socially to the left (dunno whether you’d call that ‘third way’ or ‘radical centrist’ or ‘small-L-liberal’).

    Unfortunately, since Martin sold out to the NDP, there’s been no such option available. The Conservatives have done better than the Liberals, since most would consider fiscal policy to be more important than social, but it’s ridiculous that the country has to make this false choice.

  39. regionalism has always been what has ailed canadian politics and paradoxically been it’s greatest strength. We can’t change that, nor should we. If we cannot return to big tent politics then i say bring on PR or even preferential ballots. It will undoubtably create other problems, at least it would cut the ground out from under both Harper and just as importently the bloc.

  40. kc

    “you may be right as far as the Liberal party is concerned. My worry is much more the country. The lasting damage that H may be doing. I’m a westerner , i think some of their historical grievances can be bette addressed by, say PR , than by H bulldoser tactics.”

    and

    “Just reread your earlier post. you mention that a different tone and ruthlessness may be necessary.”

    But kc, remember, I also mentioned the ‘bulge’. The different tone and ruthlessness may be necessary because of the bulge. The bulge that has been hanging, is perhaps still largely hanging, within Canadian politics.

    Perhaps a bottleneck would be a better description instead of ‘bulge’ Over the past years, decades really, so much within Canadian politics has been shrouded under a blanket of secrecy. By that I do not mean only backroom deals going on continuously, but secrecy in that the Canadian public never really got a chance to let the debates come in the open. For years and years, one was not supposed to say this or say that lest one offend some group or one part of the country.

    But when this so-called secrecy reigns for too long, the voter gets tired of being pushed around by not just the politicians but by all those who wish for pretending to know better.

    Now, the downside of everyone getting involved is that when one picks up something in the news, all of a sudden everyone is an expert. And everyone then wants to have a voice. That too is a danger, but the danger is only real if the voter is not informed enough. If we start to see an upswell now of people shouting left and right that everyone should have a say, is scary too, unless they are well-prepared and well informed. Reading one article does not a knowledgable person make.

    The voter needs to be just as responsible as the politician needs to be. Democracy works when all parts of a society are equally engaged.

    I believe that Harper is a well informed man. You may not agree with his stand, and I accept that. But please, do not buy into the lure that it is Harper who is trying to stirr this country into a renewed separation crisis. I believe he had to make his points somehow. According to some, the timing wasn’t right, but I believe it was.

    When you look at it this way: the Liberal party is in trouble and has been for quite some time. We all know that, the whole country knows it and has known it for some time, well before Dion had come onto the scene as party leader. Any such party which is not in control of themselves should not be handed the power to govern, as the Canadian public had agreed to in the past election. Even the Green shift had caused major, major problems for the Liberal party internally. We are supposed to foget about that, just like that, but they are all signs of a party not being ready to govern.

    Harper exposed the Liberal unreadyness to govern when coming down hard on Dion (something the Liberals themselves could have done but did not do) and when coming down hard on certain positions. He has every right to find out where his party’s inroads might be for the well being of this country. That the Liberals had no substantial come-back to his ‘springing up’ of ideas, proves the point, namely that it isn’t for Harper to set the Liberal party in order but that such task befalls the Liberal party internally.

    I believe Layton had seenthe troubles of the Liberal Party equally, but had played it differently. I think the way Jack played it all of this is quite underhanded actually. He is willing to do away with most of his election promises made, was able to sucker the Liberal members into his scheme, and let Harper come out on top of the mess. But the last word hasn’t been said on that one. Not yet.

    But if you start thinking in other directions, it could very well be said that Layton had plans of his own, and played his cards differently from Harper. Yet, Jack has played it, and is still playing it as mostly pretending, whereas Harper has been mostly upfront. He delivered what he had delivered and withdrew when he noticed that the Liberal response (to the party funding cutbacks) would be largely supported by the media, so he withdrew that particular item immediately. But really, it had been the Liberals without the media’s help on the topic, who could not have pulled off an appropriate response on their own. Ask a Liberal even today what they think of party subsidies and see if you will get a reasonable reply. See if they are even willing to reply at all.

    I was standing beside an anti-Harper supporter at the rally today, and even he said quite openly that the cut-back on party subsidies was not a bad thing, he favoured it in fact, but he did not stand behind Harper asking for prorogation. And he has the right to see it his way, of course. But he could also back up his argument.

  41. The bottom line is that most people reject the coalition because it is new and different and they have never seen anything like it before. Canadians, including Mr. Manley and most of the mainstream media commentators, tend to be conservative (not Conservative) about our political structures and institutions, and so have rejected the coalition not on its merits but just because it is different. The Conservatives, unsurprisingly, instinctively understand that conservatism and seek to exploit it to preserve their political skins.

    However, the coalition will take office in late January or early February. I expect that they will do a good enough job that by the time election rolls around in a couple of years, nobody except the hard core Conservative rump will remember why they were worried.

  42. Stewicide
    If the Chretien/ Marten goverments had not collapsed under the weight of their own corruption/ inertia, we still wouldn’t have to make that choice. this i suppose was inevitable with very little opposition. The lesson for me is that no opposition or even a very weak one is in nobodies interest. If the prsent crop of conservatives are celebrating now, they may well repent at their leisure later. Although Harper thinks repentance like rules are only for others.

  43. Francien,

    “Hold on there. No one, absolutely no one can claim to know why people vote for someone. Never ever must we assume that we can lump them all into one to fit into our personal way of thinking.”

    You got me there. No supporting data.

    So far, my reading of Franks’ critics dispute mainly his claims of geographic polarization, but in criticizing him seem to reinforce Tversky and Kahneman’s (1974) heuristic, to wit (again from Wikipedia):

    The availability heuristic is a phenomenon (which can result in a cognitive bias) in which people base their prediction of the frequency of an event or the proportion within a population based on how easily an example can be brought to mind.

    Simply stated, where an anecdote (“I know a Chinese guy who…”) is used to “prove” an entire proposition or to support a bias, the availability heuristic is in play.

    In these instances the ease of imagining an example or the vividness and emotional impact of that example becomes more credible than actual statistical probability. Because an example is easily brought to mind or mentally “available,” the single example is considered as representative of the whole rather than as just a single example in a range of data.”

    So, to reiterate, I still think skillful and unchallenged propaganda is dangerous.

    But I’m just ruminating, and stand to be corrected.

    And can you help me out? What is SSM?

  44. John Manley is a Liberal?

    In the same way that Joe Lieberman is a Democrat I suppose. Both men are more appealing to the opposing party than to their own.

  45. The question, “is Manley a Liberal?” is a good one considering how far left Dion, and this week Rae, have taken the Liberals.

    It must be a great affront to many Liberals to see Jack Layton appearing at rallies for the coalition organized by union labour with Dion and Rae in tow. And then there’s Dion’s secret deal to appoint Elizabeth May to one of the far left seats in the Senate.

    The Liberals continue on the path to self-destruction. John Manley took the first step today to lead them back from the brink, since it appears Michael Ignatieff doesn’t have the starch to do it.

    As a conservative, the end of a morally and financially bankrupt Liberal Party is OK by me.

  46. Francien
    my rply disappeared into the whatever, fuck computers. In a nutshell.
    your analysis mostly self serving
    secrecy wrong then ,wrong now
    your’e talking tactics, i’m morality
    llibs don’t know who are, unlike Trudeau time
    Trudeau would’ve hated being current orthordoxy, need something new
    Transparent subsidy better than hidden private funding, scandals to follow
    Not H sole right to end.

    h

  47. KC writes “your’e talking tactics, i’m morality”. The evidence is that Harper doesn’t know there is a difference.

  48. jeff j
    Thend of the libs may be alright by you but be careful wht you wish for. the last time we had ineffective opposition was in the chretien period; that turned out well for the libs, didn’t it. It could happen to cons too. Absolute power corrupts everyone. not suggesting anyones job but libs to fix things.

  49. cameron
    Harper knows there’s a difference alright. He just doesn’t see why it should apply to hm; kind of like getting GG to bend rules for him. If the reverse wer true he’d be howling. Politicians are a pitiful bunch, kinda like us.

  50. It’s funny when Conservatives get all worked up about they’re going to destroy the Liberal party. It’s a strange obsession.

    The simple fact is that the Liberal ideology (or lack of ideology, perhaps) best reflects Canadians’ own perspectives. Peace, order, and good government? That’s generally what the Liberals have provided, and is why the country has been lead by them most of the time.

    Even someone like Dion can’t change that – Canadians will turn to the party again when they represent the more stable of the two. Whether that happens this year, or 5 years from now, it’s all but inevitable.

  51. Manley would be a decided improvement. I found Ignatieff signing on to this thing most off-putting.

  52. Comparing Manley to Lieberman is the most stupid thing I have read this morning. PM Chretien put us into Afghan, PM Martin sent combat troops and somehow Manley is a traitor for supporting his own party’s policy. Lieberman, a Democrat, supported a Republican’s effort to bring democracy to Iraq but the policy wasn’t widely embraced within his own caucus.

Sign in to comment.