the inescapable legacy of Ignatieff’s first session as leader is that Harper is governing as he pleases.
Opposition critics say the latest move was a deliberate attempt to muzzle a parliamentary committee’s probe into the treatment of Afghan detainees.
But Layton said today that the three opposition parties have agreed to continue their investigation unofficially with hearings scheduled to resume Feb. 3.
On Friday, the Liberal Party of Canada threw down the gauntlet and submitted a vote of no confidence in the minority government led by Conservative PM Stephen Harper. Many progressives might think "why not?" Harper is, after all, a wolf in wolf’s clothing, managing to run a neoconservative, neoliberal government with voter support of his party in the mid-30 percent range, and all the rest of Canada to his left.
Unfortunately, Harper’s challenger, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff, is just as much a wolf, but poses a much greater danger to the Left because he dresses as our shepherd.
Until Friday, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals had supported the Conservative government in 79 consecutive confidence votes since 2007. That wouldn’t be so concerning if the Liberals had been winning major concessions for progressives, but no such luck.
At a basic level, Ignatieff has acted in ideological accord with the Conservatives. Ignatieff is short on details of how he would have behaved any differently than Harper, even when agitating for an election. If he is a progressive at all, it is in hindsight only: whether in the States or in Parliament, Ignatieff goes along when policy is being made, denies problems as they occur and complains unconvincingly about the consequences.
Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals can’t have it both ways. They
can’t say they are opposed to Harper’s agenda and do nothing to stop
it. Instead the Ignatieff’s Liberals are giving Harper a de facto
majority by voting confidence in him, time and time again, while
offering no alternative program of their own.
With the support of Ignatieff’s Liberals, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have:
(Read on...)
First, the depression promises to be worse than most analysts have
been predicting. It hasn't yet hit Canada full-bore. It will. The fact
that the U.S. appears to be re-embracing trade protection only
underscores the point.Second, neither the governing
...
Conservatives nor the opposition Liberals seem to understand the
seriousness of this crisis. Rhetoric notwithstanding, both parties
appear to think they are dealing with a problem that will go away in
two years and allow the world to return to business as usual.
Yet the government remains grudging. Much of the $12 billion in planned infrastructure spending is contingent upon dollar-for-dollar matching by provinces and municipalities. If they can't come up with their deemed share, it's not clear whether the federal money will be spent.
The unemployed got enough in the budget to win Harper Liberal support, but not enough to help the 58 per cent of jobless Canadians who don't qualify for employment insurance.
...Yet for Ignatieff's party, the fixation on deficits is driven less
by ideological commitment than desperation. During their last 13 years
in government, the Liberals shredded most of the social safety net they
had once helped to construct.Their only significant achievements
over this time were their decision not to go to war against Iraq and
the elimination of the federal deficit.In fact, even the
latter may be an exaggeration. It's arguable that the deficit problem
was solved less by good government than by the worldwide reduction in
interest rates and a renewed global appetite for Canadian raw materials.
... voters are now less likely to support the government because of the budget.
... 69 per cent say they still blame Mr. Harper for causing an unnecessary
political crisis late last year when he should have been focusing on
the economy.
...When asked to name the top three beneficiaries of the budget, large
corporations showed up most often. Poor Canadians and older/retired
Canadians were seen as those benefiting the least.
If Ignatieff's idea of leadership is to provide confidence for the Harper government as his first act, he could be dooming himself to a short and unhappy career at the helm.
The Liberals would then wear the Harper record on the economy as their record. And while the Conservatives are bound to include some stimulus measures in the budget, there is no way that Harper and Flaherty are going to propose the overhaul of the Canadian economy based on very extensive public investments. And that is what the country needs.
Much though Ignatieff may wish to avoid it, he faces a clear choice. If he keeps Harper in power, it will be Harper who will hold the strong hand. He will determine the date of the next election, and he could well go on to win it. Meanwhile, the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens will feel deeply betrayed if Ignatieff dumps the coalition and allows Harper to remain in power.
At a date, not of his choosing, Ignatieff would go on to face the electorate, squeezed between the Conservative base vote on the one hand and the one third of the electorate already inclined to support parties other than the Liberals and the Conservatives on the other.
For Ignatieff, the WLMK option is a chimera. "A friend to all is a friend to none," Ignatieff could say if he comes to his senses, that is if Aristotle hadn't already said it.
To date, Bob Rae is showing a much clearer understanding of the lay of the political land than is his former roommate.
Click the link above - read the whole post
