New Parliament, New Leaders?

[Edward Campbell]

Well, given this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s CTV News web site, I’d say that: the coalition is dead and buried and we’re due for another general election in the spring:

--------------------​

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081210/iggy_leader_081210/20081210?hub=TopStories
Tories will be defeated at first chance: Ignatieff

Updated Wed. Dec. 10 2008 12:18 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Liberals will defeat the Tories at the first viable opportunity but will support next month's federal budget if it's acceptable, Michael Ignatieff told the party's caucus on Wednesday.

The caucus meeting ended shortly before noon, set up to endorse Ignatieff as interim party leader.

In the meeting, Bob Rae, who withdrew from the Liberal leadership race Tuesday, nominated Ignatieff for the position.

The nomination was then seconded by another former leadership contender, Dominic LeBlanc.

After the nomination, Ignatieff delivered a speech saying the Liberals would respect the coalition but that voting down the Jan. 27 budget was not absolute, CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Wednesday.

"He said that if the Conservatives listen to the Liberals and bring in a budget that they can accept it would defy logic for the Liberals to defeat the Harper government on a budget if it's not necessary," Fife said.

"He's leaving all options open for himself."

Fife also said senior Liberals have told him that they may not need a coalition to form a new government.

"If they do defeat the Conservative government... Ignatieff will go to the Governor General and say 'We think we can form the government but we don't have to do it with a coalition,'" Fife said.

"In other words we don't have to give the NDP any seats in a Liberal government."

He said the NDP and Block would have to support the Liberals because they already have expressed their hatred towards the Conservative government.

In early January, the Liberal caucus will again come together for a three-day strategy meeting.

Then Ignatieff will travel across Canada to try and raise money to help fund the cash-strapped party.

Ignatieff will be named as permanent leader at the Liberal convention in Vancouver next May.

Fife said Ignatieff is a real "game-changer" and the Tories are worried about him.

"He's an international scholar, international well-known journalist, he's smart and he has around him hard-nosed political operatives who know how to play the game of politics," Fife said.

--------------------​

If the budget passes in early Feb, with Liberal support, then Harper will not give the Liberals much to work with until he is absolutely certain that the GG will not refuse a general election – which she will be advised that she cannot do if he stays in power until about May 09.

Harper’s budget has to provide some stimulus – partly through infrastructure spending in Québec, which it sorely needs it thanks to decades of inept, corrupt provincial and municipal administration.

Harper’s campaign will be:

• A repeat of: “slow and steady (economics) wins the (turnaround) race;”

• Ignatieff is an American who supported Bush and the war in Iraq;

• Duceppe gambled and lost; and

• Layton betrayed the NDP’s values in a crass grab for power.

Iggy and Duceppe will, likely, reduce Tory seats in Québec to five, maybe fewer.

The Tories should be able to gain one or two in Atlantic Canada, one or two more in the West (there aren’t many left to win) and quite a few more in Ontario – maybe even enough for a slim majority.

If, however, Harper goes to the polls again and gets another minority then I think he’ll be out on his ear.

 

[Old Sweat]

Has anyone pondered how this might have turned out were it not for the influence of the blogosphere? In the old world the MSM would have reported the emergence of the coalition, the usual friendly academics would have droned on about the Westminster tradition, the Bloc would have lurked in the background unnoticed by the press gallery and one or two voices would try to get their cries of protest heard.

It is quite possible that the PM may not have dared advise the GG to call a time out and his government would have fallen on Monday. Today Dion would have emerged from a combined Liberal-NDP caucus to unveil his new cabinet.

Instead many widely read conservatives blogs provided a rallying point for the grass roots and an alternate point of view to the MSM. Much of the organization of the anti-coalition rallies originated on stephentaylor.ca, a popular blog site and it soon spread through the net. All at once, the isolated voices crying in the wilderness found they were not alone. It may or may not have influenced the polling companies to test public opinion, but the results could not have been welcome by the coalition and the Liberal caucus.

Just a thought.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Quite right!

Blogs, and the Internet in general, have brought us (back) to a situation reminiscent of England and the Netherlands in the late 17th century when William of Orange, amongst many others, used pamphlets and broadsheets to wage his campaign against James II.

There is a chapter plus on it in this excellent book by Michael Barone.

Information, with its potential for opinion making, is a powerful weapon in the political wars – even when there is little truth in the information being traded in the free market of ideas.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have trouble believing that the GG would allow Iggy to be PM. He's unelected by Canadians, unelected by his own grassroots and is to be acclaimed at the national convention. He would be appointed PM without having to work for a single vote. If he's so sure he should govern, send us to the polls and WE'LL decide.

BTW, I watched him on TV today saying his piece. Side by side with Harper, he'll definitely come of as the more arrogant, wooden and aloof of the two. He also has a habit of using words an english professor, let alone normal Canadians, would have trouble understanding.

The libs are going to play up his huge, supposed, intellect but I think that'll backfire with the normal man on the street.

 

[dapaterson]

The Liberals have had good luck with a pseudo-intellectual dilettante before; maybe they're hoping it will work out again.


But what about the inevitable TV movie?  I'd cast Sam Waterston as Mr Ignatieff - if only to watch the squirming of the Liberal Party when they realize an American (Horrors!) was cast as their saviour  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Quite right!

Blogs, and the Internet in general, have brought us (back) to a situation reminiscent of England and the Netherlands in the late 17th century when William of Orange, amongst many others, used pamphlets and broadsheets to wage his campaign against James II.

There is a chapter plus on it in this excellent book by Michael Barone.

Information, with its potential for opinion making, is a powerful weapon in the political wars – even when there is little truth in the information being traded in the free market of ideas.

So would that make this site, and similar meeting places, the equivalent of Jonathan's, Garraway's, Lloyd's and "The Lodges"?

Interesting - and we have our own printing presses.

I hadn't really looked at it that way.


One thing all those clubs did was allow Britain to peacefully (generally speaking) manage radical political change while still making a lot of money.  Vice our continental counterparts who stifled the conversation and ended up with unmanageable radical change, deposed crowns and huge debts.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Liberals have had good luck with a pseudo-intellectual dilettante before; maybe they're hoping it will work out again.


But what about the inevitable TV movie?  I'd cast Sam Waterston as Mr Ignatieff - if only to watch the squirming of the Liberal Party when they realize an American (Horrors!) was cast as their saviour  ;D

Once again, standing them side by side, I can't help remembering the Kennedy\ Nixon television debate of the '60's, for the way it made the physical appearance of the candidates look. Nixon had been running the most popular until his sweat and five o clock shadow showed up under the TV lights, then he tanked. Iggy reminds me of Nixon.

 

[armyvern]

Once again, standing them side by side, I can't help remembering the Kennedy\ Nixon television debate of the '60's, for the way it made the physical appearance of the candidates look. Nixon had been running the most popular until his sweat and five o clock shadow showed up under the TV lights, then he tanked. Iggy reminds me of Nixon.

Thanks for making me feel so young today. You rock!!

;D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My pleasure Vern 

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Once again, standing them side by side, I can't help remembering the Kennedy\ Nixon television debate of the '60's, for the way it made the physical appearance of the candidates look. Nixon had been running the most popular until his sweat and five o clock shadow showed up under the TV lights, then he tanked. Iggy reminds me of Nixon.

I was listening to Glenn Beck last week (or maybe it was Rush) and he mentioned that people who listened to the Kennedy\ Nixon debate on the radio overwhelming choose Nixon as the winner. Just a little tidbit I thought I would throw in.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail web site, is a bit old but still useful:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081211.WBSteele20081211110020/WBStory/WBSteele/

Who will replace Stephen Harper?

Andrew Steele

December 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM EST

With a critical vote in January, whispers are turning to open conversation among Conservatives about who will replace Stephen Harper if the Prime Minister falls.

Here is a look at the potential candidates.

Jim Prentice

The first name on everyone's lips for a potential successor to Harper is the current environment minister and de facto Deputy Prime Minister.

Prentice has an attractive biography. Born in Northern Ontario and raised in Alberta, he worked seven summers in a coal mine to pay for university. A lawyer by training, he is a leader in his local Presbyterian church.

He can also claim a history of uniting the party. While a candidate for the PC Party leadership in 2003, Prentice drew support from both the social conservative and Red Tory factions, and ran calling for a merger with the Canadian Alliance.

Prentice may be too far outside the Conservative Party mainstream on social issues, however. He voted in favour of same sex marriages and is pro-choice.

A capable political administrator, Prentice won applause for his handling of the difficult Indian and Northern Affairs file, before being moved to Industry and then Environment.

If the Conservatives want someone who can easily step into Stephen Harper's shoes, Prentice is the obvious choice. As chair of the Operations committee, he is in effect the COO of the government and would be able to smoothly step into the CEO job as PM. He could be marketed as a friendlier version of Harper, without the rough edges that prevented the PM from getting a majority.

However, Prentice may prove divisive among the grassroots for his PC party origin and his social liberalism. He also is clearly tied to Harper, and if the "Harper team"; is rejected, Prentice may be a casualty as well.

Jean Charest

Ten years ago, Charest was the great right hope, the guy who would bring the PC Party back to prominence. Then he was drafted by public opinion to go to Quebec City to fight the separatists. But he has always kept an eye on Ottawa and the advice of Brian Mulroney that he was a future PM rings in his ears still.

Coming off the heels of a third election victory in Quebec, Charest is a formidable candidate for the Conservative leadership.

He could instantly revive the Tory fortunes in Quebec, without sacrificing much of the party's base in the West. Perhaps more importantly, he would likely be more adept at navigating the shoals of Quebec nationalism than the Liberals, supplanting them as the party of national unity and removing the trump card from the Liberal deck.

Charest's social liberalism and championing of Quebec's interests would likely turn off a wide swath of the Tory base in the West. But the leadership is decided by 308 ridings, and what Charest would lose in Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan, he would make up with complete dominance in Quebec, New Brunswick and Northern and Eastern Ontario.

The real question is the transition from Premier to Prime Minister, running a leadership while in office. The last sitting Premiers to run for a party leadership were Stanfield and Fulton in 1967, and no Premier has ever moved directly to the job of Prime Minister of Canada.

Charest may be tempted by a draft movement, and would certainly be a formidable opponent and the best bet for the Conservatives to form a majority government.

Stockwell Day

For a guy who used to be a punchline, Stock Day has done a remarkable job of rebuilding his credibility.

Day was a solid Minister of Public Safety, a portfolio known for chewing up past Ministers.

While he is not likely to win, Day could be a standard bearer for the social conservative wing of the party.

However, it is more likely that Day will choose discretion as the better part of valour and allow someone else to lead that campaign.

Peter MacKay

The former leader of the PC Party, MacKay has a solid record in two difficult senior portfolios: Foreign Affairs and Defence.

He is young, attractive and well known among Canadians.

However, his controversial pact with David Orchard at the 2003 PC leadership, and the tensions from the Conservative Party merger that follow may have put too many Conservatives' noses out of joint for MacKay to win this round.

With years in politics ahead of him, MacKay might remain tomorrow's candidate if a leadership is held in 2009.

Tony Clement

The Industry Minister is the only former leadership candidate from 2004, giving him a head start organizing against the others.

As a former provincial minister, Clement has a strong organization in his home province of Ontario, and has had time to lay down roots across the country. Clement's new portfolio of Industry also gives him a potent ability to fundraiser.

Clement is an able administrator, solid organizer and good public speaker.

However, he does carry baggage from the Ontario Conservatives, including the hidden $5.6-billion deficit under Ernie Eves.

James Moore or Lisa Raitt

If the Conservatives decide to completely change the face of their party, they could hardly do better than James Moore or Lisa Raitt.

Moore is young, bilingual, British Columbian and smart. Raitt is young, bilingual, Ontarian and smart.

While both are low profile in the party, either one could prove the dark horse victor in a multi-candidate leadership contest.
--------------------

Prentice was my first choice last time, when Harper won, and he remains my choice today. Charest might be a good second choice but there are, likely, also a few good names not on Andrew Steele’s list.

 

[Old Sweat]

I am a little disappointed at the lack of depth of the analysis, but maybe I am just in a snarky mood this morning. How is Charest going to improve Tory fortunes in Eastern Ontario for example, when the CPC holds all but four or five seats in the 613 area code? Prentice would be my choice and as we elect our MPs in a general election, voters will choose from their available candidates. He may cause a few voters in a number of ridings to stay home, but his pluses outweigh his minuses. Certainly he is unlikely to make many Tories support Iggy or Layton or May. As for the MacKay and Orchard bit, the latter out-ratted the former by a wide margin by switching to the Liberals and then pulling his loose cannon trick there.

 

[dapaterson]

Prentice was my first choice last time, when Harper won, and he remains my choice today. Charest might be a good second choice but there are, likely, also a few good names not on Andrew Steele’s list.

If this whole Liberal Party thing doesn't work out, there's always Michael Ignatieff...

 

[Kirkhill]

A week or so back I said that I thought that Harper had reached his market potential.  I also offered that I thought Jim Prentice might be a good front man for the Conservative Party, offering a face that might be perceived as a kinder, gentler persona.  I still think that Prentice would make a good replacement for Harper.

BUT ;D

I was surprised to see the vehemence of the reaction to the Coalition and the impact that had on Tory numbers.  I don't think Canadians like Harper any more than they did but apparently they are quite willing to overlook that given their disdain for everybody else.

That gets Harper a stay of execution and another shot at a majority. 

With the majority then Harper could have a very long career indeed.

 

[a_majoor]

Well some new leaders are apparently collecting old baggage:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/scoop-ignatieff-aide-improperl.html

Scoop: Ignatieff aide improperly ordered crown corp to switch to Liberal ad agency
By Ezra Levant on December 15, 2008 1:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (26) | Trackback

One week after Jean Chretien and the Liberals took power in 1993, Warren Kinsella, now Michael Ignatieff's campaign aide, was already pressuring a crown corporation to fire their ad agency and replace them with a Liberal-friendly firm.

Back then, Kinsella was the executive assistant to the public works minister. And according to sworn testimony by Georges Clermont, the president of Canada Post at the time, Kinsella telephoned and ordered him to switch ad agencies to BCP – a Quebec ad agency run by Liberal strategist and donor John Parisella.

Here’s Clermont’s sworn testimony, with particularly appalling passages in bold text:

MR. CLERMONT: … a week after the arrival of the government -- it was during Mr. Dingwall’s time, he was the Minister in charge -- his assistant, Kinsella, telephoned me to say “We have to change agencies”.

MR. ROY: Agencies ---

MR. CLERMONT: Advertising agencies. We have to give it to BCP.

During Chretien’s tenure as prime minister, BCP was one of the top three firms to handle the Canadian government’s $1.1 billion in ad spending. Not coincidentally, from 1993 to 2003, BCP contributed more than $97,000 to the federal Liberals alone, according to this audit.

Firing perfectly good ad agencies to replace them with a Liberal favourite wasn’t Kinsella’s only demand of Canada Post -- supposedly an independent agency, supposedly run on sound business principles, not patronage and nepotism. Kinsella also ordered them to fire a labour lawyer – right in the middle of a labour dispute he was handling – because the lawyer's political pedigree wasn’t Liberal enough. Again, the sworn testimony:

MR. CLERMONT: We had to provide them with a list of legal firms that specialized in advice on all sorts of -- to be sure they were the right ones. So we had to change a lot of -- but I objected on several occasions, because we were being well served by the firms in question or the consultants, et cetera.

MR. ROY: And how did you react to the instructions you were given?

MR. CLERMONT: …I did object on a number of occasions. For example, during the labour dispute, I was asked to retain the services of a lawyer other than the one who was doing it on the pretext that that lawyer’s father was a conservative, but he had been appointed by vote, and I refused. I said “You don’t change horses in the middle of the race”, and the result was a lot of headaches for me with the stakeholder.

I love that -- "the stakeholder". That's how Canada Post refers to the public works minister -- and his assistant at the time, Kinsella. Needless to say, that kind of brazen political interference was a shock to Canada Post, an independent crown agency that was used to operating at arms length from politics:

MR. ROY: At the time that you received that call from Mr. Kinsella, was BCP the agency -- what we call Agency of Record, was the Agency of Record for the Canada Post Corporation?

MR. CLERMONT: If I recall correctly, we had at least two, if not three agencies, Agencies of Record, to which we would go depending on the subject. We had… I think it was Vickers & Benson, but an agency that had a greater presence in Canada than, say, BCP, which seemed to us to be focused more on Quebec. So I think that during the Lander years and the first years of my mandate, we mainly dealt with Vickers & Benson and very little, if at all, with BCP.

BCP wasn’t used by Canada Post because it was a provincial Quebec firm, not a national firm. Who cares – a Liberal’s a Liberal, and that was what mattered to Kinsella!

Clermont was shocked. But it would be the first of “a lot” of similar patronage requests, where loyalty to the Liberals was put ahead of the interests of the taxpayer (or Canada Post's customers).

MR. DORAY: …Were you able to check whether this was standard practice in the past, or was it a surprise to you, the fact that you had been asked to change agencies in light of the change in government?

MR. CLERMONT: Listen, I wasn’t born yesterday. This was my first such experience, but I wasn't born yesterday. I ---

MR. DORAY: And, this time, you didn’t complain to Mr. Ouellet, as you did in other situations?

MR. CLERMONT: No, no, this was the first intervention… I don’t remember exactly, but later on there were a lot of requests such as this.

Clermont knew he was being hustled. He tried to find someone in the government who could fend off Kinsella – so he pulled rank, and started complaining to another cabinet minister, more senior than Kinsella’s own boss.

MR. FOURNIER: …you had a number of reasons for complaining about Mr. Kinsella’s work?

MR. CLERMONT: Yes. Well, requests, not his work. His work may be excellent, but his requests. 

MR. FOURNIER: His requests. Which, in your opinion, went beyond what a minister’s political advisor should be doing?

MR. CLERMONT: Look, I may be naive, but we were accustomed to not having this type of call, and, as I told you, as I said this morning, all of sudden these calls start coming. It was new to me.

As I say above, this is a scoop. As far as I can tell, it has never been reported. I have searched both Google and the private news database Infomart, and no English-language media outlet comes up -- just some blogs.

That’s amazing, considering it was testimony before the Gomery Commission, on January 24, 2005. And the transcripts have been available on the Internet ever since. You can see the full transcripts of Clermont’s testimony – and his cross-examination – here.

For some reason – perhaps there were just too many juicy revelations flying around then, and this one slipped through the cracks – this stunning story was ignored.

By the way, Clermont is impeccably non-partisan; after a stellar career in the private sector, he was head-hunted into Canada Post, where he soon rose to the top. That last appointment was under the Conservatives, but he continued in that capacity under the Chretien Liberals. If anything, he was one of them – as he pointed out at page 10725 of his testimony:

…since 1966, I believe, my wife and I -- especially my wife -- had worked very closely with The Honourable Pierre Trudeau… So, I was more associated with the Liberal Party, if you like. My wife was the official agent in Montreal of Mr. Trudeau during his entire political career…

There are dozens of other fascinating details in his testimony of how Canada Post’s business culture was assaulted by Chretien’s government. Here’s another example of the petty, Tammany Hall-style politics that oozed into Canada Post by the Liberals:

MR. ROY: Did you have frequent contact yourself, when you were president and CEO, with the minister in charge of the Canada Post Corporation, Mr. Gagliano?

MR. CLERMONT: … With the previous Minister, under the previous government, I mean, we would go present service quality results, financial results, et cetera, et cetera, and after that, it became more about what we were doing. It was always what we were doing that could promote such-and-such an idea or such-and- such a policy.

MR. ROY: What does that mean?

MR. CLERMONT: It means promoting the federal government or the Liberal Party or whatever in such-and-such a place.

MR. ROY: Where? I don’t understand.

MR. CLERMONT: In such-and-such a province, such-and- such a part of the country. It was particularly focused on Quebec… It was such simple ideas… -- when you come into Montreal on the Trans Canada, there is the Saint-Laurent sorting centre on the right, just before going up Metropolitan Boulevard. So, we had a sign there with the Corporation’s logo, its corporate image. It had a red background. The Minister was insulted because -- it was on a blue background -- because it had to be on a red background. I had marked Canada there. So we had to change all our signs, that sort of thing.

Can you imagine a cabinet minister in a G8 democracy ordering a particular post office sorting plant to change its logo from blue to red, because those were the Liberal colours?

Alas, if only all of the Liberal interventions were so banal.

Kinsella’s weren’t. Switching ad agencies without notice or cause is worse than an indulgence. It’s worse than patronage. It’s exactly what was wrong with the Liberal Party’s culture – a culture of political entitlement, that treated public assets like private chattels, to be handed out as spoils of battle. And demanding that a lawyer be fired because his father was a Tory? What a buffoon.

Until now, Michael Ignatieff didn’t know about Kinsella’s improper interference in this crown agency. In January, 2005, when this testimony was sworn, Ignatieff was still teaching at Harvard. Even if he had been in Canada, he wouldn’t have known about it, because of the media's omission of Clermont’s testimony.

But that’s changed now. Ignatieff can’t plead ignorance anymore about Kinsella’s inappropriate conduct. He can see it in black and white, testified under oath, uncontradicted, right here.

Is Warren Kinsella’s improper political interference in Canada Post’s affairs acceptable to Ignatieff? If not, why is Kinsella still on Ignatieff's campaign team?

 

[OldSolduer]

I think part of the PMs current problem is that he is a bit of a cold fish. He's not all that charismatic,  but he is competent. We seem to hang on to "charisma" over "competence" when we choose politicians. Or is that just me?

 

[Greymatters]

I think part of the PMs current problem is that he is a bit of a cold fish. He's not all that charismatic,  but he is competent. We seem to hang on to "charisma" over "competence" when we choose politicians. Or is that just me?

I dont think he's a cold fish so much as having been advised to be a cold fish.  Too many US political advisors up here advising our elected officials to 'say nothing unless you really have to', as part of the strategy that a leader cant be criticized if they havent said anything to criticize...

 

[a_majoor]

Elizabeth May certainly knows how to get people's attention, a bit less about raising support:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/279900.php

Elizabeth May: Friends and Enemies
Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Comments: 7

On March 17, 2007, Green Party leader Elizabeth May announced her intention to run in the riding of Central Nova in Nova Scotia.  Of course, there was no election then, and Liberal leader Stephane Dion would lead the Liberals in abstention after abstention in order to avoid an election, until Stephen Harper finally got fed up and forced an election this past fall.

But while we waited for Stephane Dion to find some backbone, the question of Elizabeth May going up against Defence Minister Peter MacKay gave political observers something to chew on throughout 2007.

I just went through some old data, and it's interesting how Elizabeth May turned Central Nova into a proxy fight between groups of people who couldn't find Central Nova on a map.

I looked at the donation patterns reported by the riding associations for the Conservative Party and the Green Party in Central Nova for 2007.

Here's what I found.

First, just as Elizabeth May parachuted herself into the riding, so did her support.  Of the nearly $16,000 in donations that came into the Green Party riding association in that year, nearly $12,000 came from out of province. Two-thirds of that out-of-province money came from southern Ontario (mostly from the Toronto core), and the rest from the lower mainland area of British Columbia.

In other words, areas of traditional Green Party support.  People from these places threw money into Central Nova in an effort to convince Nova Scotians in Central Nova to elect Elizabeth May.

The Conservative Party returns for the riding association show an even more striking pattern, though.  Being a high-profile cabinet minister, you would expect Peter MacKay's riding association would get support from across the country, and there are small donations coming in from coast to coast.  But there is a huge cluster of donations from four London-area ridings, totaling two-thirds of the $16,000 in donations.

Why London?  Recall that Elizabeth May ran in the 2006 by-election in London North Centre, and came in second, behind Glen Pearson of the Liberals.  It would seem that he relentless anti-Conservative message motivated a lot of people - against her.  These people sent thousands of dollars into Central Nova.

Conversely, of the thousands that came into Central Nova from Ontario in support of Elizabeth May, only one was from the London area.  Virtually all the rest were from the Toronto core.

I find that interesting.  We are told that Elizabeth May is the best thing about the Green Party, and that her personal popularity is the Green Party's greatest asset.  We are told this by no less than Elizabeth May herself.  And yet, despite her good showing in the London North Centre by-election, the people who voted for her did not see fit to continue supporting Elizabeth May in the much tougher fight in Central Nova.

The flow of money from the London area into Central Nova went virtually entirely to the Conservatives, against Elizabeth May.

Perhaps Green Party supporters in London felt abandoned by Elizabeth May.  No matter.  It looks like Elizabeth May can depend on affluent guilt-ridden upper-middle class consumers to soothe their consciences by sending her money from their affluent Toronto and Vancouver neighbourhoods to whatever economically depressed riding she wants to run in.

And it would be a good plan too.  I mean, some out-of-the-way Conservative riding association on the edge of nowhere is not going to be able to raise the sort of money that would be needed to counter Elizabeth May's rich Toronto- and Vancouver-based supporters, right?

Except that the flip side of Elizabeth May's popularity is her notoriety.  It would also seem, from the numbers reported, that for all of the support she can call on from affluent guilt-ridden upper-middle class consumers in Toronto and Vancouver, there is an equally motivated and well-organized group of people who are working hard to make certain she does not get a free ride.  A group of people who had to put up with Elizabeth May through a by-election, and feel it is really important that Elizabeth May not win elected office.

No wonder Elizabeth May is so desperate to get a Senate appointment.  This election stuff is really hard.  Better to have political power handed to you on a silver platter than earning it.  Am I right?

 

[dapaterson]

Money to Peter MacKay from London?  Likely the old GM Diesel/General Dynamics types who know to support their sugar daddy.

 

[a_majoor]

The tea leaves are not looking too good for the Liberals in the short to medium term:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/557582

Liberal tactics need a rethink

Dec 23, 2008 04:30 AM
Rob Mitchell

It's appropriate, given the season, that recent events should bring peace to the land, at least in the short term. The Harper government has acquiesced to opposition demands and committed to a stimulus package, likely in the neighbourhood of $30 billion, to be delivered in a budget on Jan. 27.

The Liberals are claiming victory. It will mean a significant deficit, but necessary for the Canadian economy and the survival of the governing Tories. In addition, the feds have aligned with the McGuinty Liberals to assist the auto sector with $4 billion. This should put an end to the parliamentary crisis that has gripped the nation.

It may also give the federal Liberals pause to do some soul searching. Fundamental to this parliamentary crisis has been a crisis within the Liberal party itself. The instability of five leaders in as many years has been ruinous to its finances, policy development and general morale. Stephen Harper has been both clever and ruthless in exploiting this divide.

Parliament has become a nasty place, seething with anger and disdain, driven by the Liberals' continued impotence to thwart the government's agenda. The last session proved the final straw, over before it started, establishing a historic precedent and forcing a standoff yet to be resolved.

It's easy to blame the Prime Minister for the temerity to suggest political parties actually pay their own freight. Masked in all the hyperbole is the Liberals' inability to adjust to their fall from power and the lingering internecine warfare that began with the Martin-Chrétien rivalry. The proposed Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition is evidence of what extremes they will go to in order to regain power. It was a reckless caprice that is sure to return to haunt them in the next election.

What black farce then, that Stéphane Dion's Blair Witch Project video was the impetus for the Liberals to finally get their act together. Overnight, a former tourist named Michael Ignatieff was installed as the new leader. Grassroots Liberals may not be happy with that turn of events, but the caucus and Bob Rae understood. Since democracy, such as it is in delegated conventions, delivered Dion, it was time for the Grit old guard to take charge.

Ignatieff still holds the sword of Damocles above Stephen Harper's head. If the coalition is unhappy with the coming budget, it will request the Governor General allow it to form a government. Failing that, it's off to the polls. However, Greek mythology redux, like Icarus, Ignatieff may find himself circling too close to the sun if he continues with taunts to bring down the government.

Conservative operatives were stunned to find they smashed all previous fundraising records in the days following the announcement of the coalition. To their surprise, the majority of donations came from Ontario. The results of the telephone solicitations were staggering, particularly the night of the Harper-Dion national television address.

Recent polls should be disturbing to the Liberals. Ignatieff enjoyed a modest bounce in popularity following his coronation, but there's no evidence Canadians want him to lead a coalition government. The same polls confirm an election could be equally calamitous to his fortunes.

The churlish antics of the Liberal caucus had their roots in the Harper threat to their electoral subsidy. That's off the table and the Prime Minister has delivered on their coveted stimulus package.

The Tories were able to rebuild from a decimating defeat in 1993 that reduced them to two seats. Putting petulance aside, there's no reason the Liberals can't return to power honestly.

Rob Mitchell was a senior aide to former premier Ernie Eves. His column appears every other week.