Election 2011

[GR66]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is, I suspect, written, largely, with tongue in cheek, but it does point out the dilemma that can arise when Canadians vote:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/want-a-coalition-scenario-try-duceppe-as-pm/article1987578/

Want a coalition scenario? Try Duceppe as PM

NEIL REYNOLDS

From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Apr. 18, 2011

Here’s another coalition scenario the four party leaders didn’t fully explore during their televised debates last week: Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe...

[note: balance of quoted article removed - please see original post for author's full context http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97490/post-1037586.html#msg1037586]

...If Mr. Duceppe were the leader of the Official Opposition, the Governor-General would be obliged to turn to him as the “second try” party in the House. On what grounds could he not? Mr. Duceppe might well decline the invitation. But the prospect of accepting it would be enormously tempting – if only for the historic irony.

Granted, this may have been written tongue-in-cheek but it's still just about the biggest load of horse hooey I've read in a long time.

The GG is NOT "obliged" to turn to the 2nd place party to form a goverment if the leading party does not have the confidence of the House.  A potential 2nd place party leader must show that he/she has enough support in the House to offer an alternative to the leading party.  This is why the Harper/Layton/Duceppe letter was prepared when PM Martin had his minority. 

The Liberals (if they came in 2nd and defeated a Conservative budget) would have to either provide the GG with a signed coalition agreement with the NDP (and Bloc if necessary) or at least a signed Accord agreement (a la Peterson/Rae) indicating that the NDP (and again the Bloc of necessary) would agree NOT to defeat a Liberal government for a minimum period of time even in the absence of an actual coalition government.

IF the Bloc were the 2nd place party it would be a reasonable assumption by the GG that they would NOT be able to count on the support of the other parties in order to make Duceppe the Prime Minister.  IF Duceppe DID claim that he had that support he would be required to provide a signed agreement from the Liberals and NDP supporting that claim.  No Liberal or NDP leader would sign off on making the leader of the seperatist Bloc the Prime Minister of Canada.  Not only would it be their own political suicide but the end of their party.  Even if in your wildest imagination you could picture either Layton or Ignatieff signing such a document in a fit of total insanity their parties would dump them long before the ink dried on the paper.


GR66: Edited to correct formatting error which did not properly insert quotations from original post.

 

[GR66]

But I do share his general view: we do go through periods of “visionaries” and “plodders” and Harper, like Chrétien, is a plodder. (I suspect That Paul Martin might have been a visionary and some of us had high hopes for Ignatieff, but ...) I'm also not so sure the visionaries have been all that successful.

I think any nation (or any organization really) needs BOTH visionaries and plodders.  Visionaries can often inspire a country or group toward lofty goals but often fail at actually making their visions come true.  That is often left to the "Plodders". 

I personally think we're overdue for a new "Visionary" to unite the nation behind a worthy path for the country...likely to be followed shortly thereafter by a "Plodder" to actually make that dream become a reality.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The projections, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com, continue to be good for the Liberals and NDP and bad for the Conservatives:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS

April 19, 2011 Projection - Conservative Minority Government

TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2011
Liberals and NDP continue to make gains

Five new national polls, from Nanos Research, Abacus Data,Environics, Harris-Decima, and EKOS, were added to the projection this morning. Three riding polls conducted by CROP were also added to the projection. Remarkably, all of this new data changed little in the national vote projection, but it did wreak some havoc at the regional level. 

Nationally, both the Conservatives and Liberals are unchanged at 38.7% and 28%, respectively. However, the Conservatives have dropped two seats to 147, while the Liberals have gained two seats and now stand at 80. This is both a low and high watermark for the two parties in this campaign. Overall, and considering that two of the vacancies at the dissolution of the House of Commons were safe Conservative seats, this is still a gain of two seats for the Conservatives over their standing when the government fell. For the Liberals, it is a gain of three.

The New Democrats are up 0.2 points to 17.8% and one seat to 35, still a net loss of one seat but a high watermark for them as well. The Bloc Québécois, meanwhile, is unchanged at 8.6% nationally but has dropped two seats to 45, their lowest point of the campaign. As the third vacancy was a Bloc-held seat, this means the Bloc is actually down three seats compared to where they were before the election.

The Greens are steady at 5.8%, while an independent is now projected to be elected.

Aside from a small uptick in British Columbia, the Conservatives are down in every part of the country. But this should not be overstated, as all losses (with the exception of Alberta, where little is at stake for the party) were of 0.2 or fewer points.

But another drop in Ontario is problematic, as it coincided with a 0.1 point gain for the Liberals and New Democrats. This has caused a couple seats to flip.

This is not an entirely good update for the Liberals, despite the seat gains. They dropped 0.3 points in British Columbia and the Prairies, and they are now third behind the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They also dropped 0.4 points in Atlantic Canada. The small gain in Ontario is positive, of course, and with the Bloc and Tories dropping in Quebec a steady number is not bad news for Michael Ignatieff.

For Jack Layton, however, things are looking up. Aside from a loss in Alberta (which does not put Linda Duncan in danger, yet) the NDP is up everywhere, with decent 0.3 to 0.4 point gains in British Columbia, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. Though the party needs to gain a lot more in the two eastern regions to pick-up more seats, the gain in British Columbia could be reflected in seat gains soon - if it continues.

Things continue to look bad for the Bloc Québécois. They are down another 0.4 points while the Liberals and NDP are gaining or holding firm. The consolation of the Tories dropping might not be enough, as the party isn't poised to take any Conservative seats just yet. Even today's CROP poll for Portneuf - Jacques-Cartier put the Bloc behind the independent incumbent André Arthur.

And in some degree because of that poll, the riding is now projected to be won by Mr. Arthur rather than the Bloc. The other seat change in Quebec is to the benefit of the Liberals at the expense, again, of the Bloc. Nancy Charest, who ran a good campaign in 2008, is now the projected winner in Haute-Gaspésie - La Mitis - Matane - Matapédia. That is a gain, as it was held by the Bloc prior to this election. If this seat is won by the Liberals on May 2, it would be quite a coup considering it is a francophone rural riding well outside of Montreal (it's almost as far away as you can get from Montreal in Quebec!).

Two seats in Ontario have also changed hands. Andrew Telegdi, the former Liberal MP in Kitchener - Waterloo, is now projected to win over the Conservative incumbent Peter Braid. In the north, the NDP incumbent Tony Martin is once again the projected winner in Sault Ste. Marie, meaning the Tories have lost two seats in the province in the projection.

If things continue along this path, the Conservatives and Bloc - the two parties everyone expected would come out of the election stronger than they entered it - will be the net losers of the 2011 election.

We are now less than two weeks from election day. While there is still plenty of time for both Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe to turn their ships around, there may also be enough time for Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton to make some real inroads and threaten the Conservatives' minority.

The last paragraph is key - there is time for either:

• Harper to find his “groove” and win a convincing minority or even a slim majority; or
  
• Ignatieff and Layton to continue to make gains – enough gains, if BQ support continues to decline, to form a coalition.

 

[Journeyman]

Here's a burning question as yet unanswered during the campaign...

Where's Bob? His silence speaks volumes.

...while the Liberals and Dippers are running, essentially, national and leader-focused campaigns.

It is the latter aspect that puzzles me about the Liberals: prince Michael Ignatieff is, still, far and away the least popular 'leader' - running well below the low levels of popularity his weakened party enjoys. Why base the campaign on him? Why is he front and centre all the time, reminding Canadians that they really don't like (trust?) him?

I think there's your answer. Bob Rae is also aware of the Ignatieff's unpopularity; once he crashes and burns, Rae can come out with clean hands, disavowing any involvement with the debacle. I feel that Rae remaining in the shadows when the Liberals have thawed previous leaders to shore up the campaign merely reaffirms his desire to avoid the limelight.

Mind you, he also comes across as pretty weak in the "team player" category, but I guess that's the inevitable nature of political factions.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think there's your answer. Bob Rae is also aware of the Ignatieff's unpopularity; once he crashes and burns, Rae can come out with clean hands, disavowing any involvement with the debacle. I feel that Rae remaining in the shadows when the Liberals have thawed previous leaders to shore up the campaign merely reaffirms his desire to avoid the limelight.

Mind you, he also comes across as pretty weak in the "team player" category, but I guess that's the inevitable nature of political factions.

Rae has to cope with the Liberal tradition of alternating between English and French leaders. If, and it is still a Big IF, Ignatieff cannot lead the Liberals back to power, and it is still a very uphill struggle, even if the Dippers are game for a coalition - and they might not be, then these fellows, and probably a few others, too, will contest the leadership:

 

Dominic Leblanc, Beauséjour (NB)                                                                                                      Denis Coderre, Bourassa (QC)

 

Martin Cochon, Outremont (QC)                                                                                                        Justin Trudeau, Papineau (QC)

If the Liberals are smart they'll pick Leblanc, but ...

 

[wannabe SF member]

A letter posted by Lester B. Pearson's granddaughter. Quite entertaining to read I might add.

http://www.pearsonspost.com/wp/?p=249#comments


This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Pearson Post

Dear Olivia Chow,
(Or, campaign staffer who is screening the emails she gets),
Thank you for calling me tonight at home in the riding of Trinity-Spadina to ask if you could count on my volunteer help.
As I said at the time: “No, you may not.” I do apologize if I sounded a little testy, but I was watching a new episode of “Family Guy,” and you guys have already called me approximately 7,000 times, as well as appearing at my door. We’ve talked. You haven’t listened.
I’m angry at the NDP. Why? The system is broken, and you’re not fixing it, and you’re asking me to behave as if it doesn’t matter that you’re not trying to fix it.
By system, I mean that a vote for you translates, once again, into a vote for Stephen Harper, the most odious and manipulative politician I have ever seen operate in Canada.
You know this, that he’s relying on a split centre-left vote, and yet you’re not offering any solution. On the contrary, the NDP is bolstering Harper’s credibility by going after the Liberals. Tripping up Ignatieff every which way, whenever you can find dirt, or suitable rhetoric.
You are putting ego, and traditional party ideology, ahead of the good of our nation. You know that you can’t win as a party, yet you are ensuring that the Liberals cannot win either. Even though you surely know that a Harper majority would spell disaster for everything that you – and I – hold dear.
Let me be clear. Harper is not a folksy man who may disagree with other parties, but is willing to compromise. You know that. My grandfather, Lester B. Pearson, was actually that kind of man. He held a minority government, but his skill at negotiation and pragmatic collaboration enabled the country to realize huge and lasting benefits from his brief tenure in office. Our flag. Our healthcare system. Global peacekeeping. Great, optimistic initiatives that continue to bear fruit nearly fifty years later.
Harper is the chilling opposite of my grandfather. He has no vision for a compassionate and caring society based on deep respect for democracy. He would rather fling university students out of rallies and muzzle scientists and silence journalists than lose a single vote. Why? Because he’ll stop at nothing to win a majority that will enable him to roll out a radical, right-wing Christian agenda that very few Canadians buy into, and even fewer appear to be aware of.
He has figured out how to pitch himself into power with safe, controlled messaging so that he can gain “the mandate” to wreak havoc on Canadian values.
A stacked Senate.
A (soon-to-be) stacked Supreme Court.
A silenced civil service.
A discredited media.
A systematically de-funded system of governmental opposition. Good bye Human Rights Commissions, and women’s agencies, and immigrant groups.
This couldn’t be more calculated if it were fascism.
The Governor of Wisconsin was recently ‘punked’ by a journalist pretending to be one of the billionaire Koch brothers, giving him telephone advice on how to handle dissent against his union-busting measures. You don’t think Harper’s not getting similar advice?
Stop being naïve.
We are in a new century, where global corporations are accumulating massive amounts of power and are underwriting “grassroots” movements for Manchurian ends.
If you want me to volunteer for Olivia, give me a reason that takes all of the above factors into account.

 

[Dissident]

Why do I keep reading that PM Harper's vision will destroy Canada? As far as I am concerned his vision is, from what I can tell, very close to mine. Much closer than anything put forth by the NDP or Liberals at any rate. And I am Canadian, last time I checked.  I do also recognize that my vision is not shared by many (the majority?) and that is why we have the NDP and Liberals. Does the left wing, however, not recognize that a significant portion of Canadians not share their leftish vision?

 

[ModlrMike]

Why do I keep reading that PM Harper's vision will destroy Canada?

Because "he's just like the rest of us" doesn't create the same amount of fear as "he's the devil incarnate".

Does the left wing, however, not recognize that a significant portion of Canadians do not share their leftish vision?

Without getting into another numbers game/argument... no.

 

[Dissident]

It was more of a rethorical question...

 

[Journeyman]

Dear Olivia Chow.....

So Lester Pearson's grand-daughter is Chicken Little? I hadn't realized that the sky was falling.  :


.....mind you, I didn't know that the media being discredited was Harper's fault either.

 

[vonGarvin]

Tongue-in-cheek or not, that letter was inflammatory and baseless.  The only thing that Mr. Harper appears not to do according to that letter is dine on aborted foetuses.


I especially loved this little gem:

He held a minority government, but his skill at negotiation and pragmatic collaboration enabled the country to realize huge and lasting benefits from his brief tenure in office. Our flag. Our healthcare system. Global peacekeeping.

One item at a time:

The flag.  I think that our flag is amazing.  It is simple in its design, and is instantly recognisable.  But if that is the highest achievement of a government, well.....

Our Healthcare System.  Yes, so great, you get to go stand on line for hours on end for mediocre service.  Unless you're a politician or sports star, and off to the front of the line you go.

Global Peacekeeping.  Yes, his efforts were noteworthy.  But let us not forget the back story.  The USA, UK and the USSR were on the brink of war when he offered them all an "out".  This "tradition" carried on into the 1960's when UN forces deployed to Cyprus (they are still there today).  The aim wasn't nobility, or peace, but to keep two NATO allies from going to war.  And throughout this all, the majority of our forces were in Europe, ready to oppose a Soviet invasion of the Federal Republic of Germany.  And for most of its tenure, those forces in Europe were armed with nuclear weapons (either as Canadian Weapons, or US weapons to be delivered by Canadian forces upon stacks of Motor Rifle and Tank Regiments). 

Sorry, I don't buy her fear mongering.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Prince Michael Ignatieff appears to have put paid to the coalition issue, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1958015/

Ignatieff rules out coalition

JANE TABER
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update

Published Saturday, Mar. 26, 2011

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff launched his campaign for the May 2 election Saturday by ruling out forming a coalition government _ an issue that had threatened to dog him during the campaign.

In a statement, Mr. Ignatieff noted the party that wins the most seats on election day will form the government. He says he will not ask the NDP or the Bloc to serve in his government, if he is asked to form one.

“We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election,” he said in a statement issued Saturday morning. “What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government.

He added: “We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Québécois.”

Mr. Ignatieff fumbled Friday _ just after the government was defeated _ when asked about the coalition issue when he attempted to dodge the coalition question.

The Conservatives attacked him for his evasive answers. And, in announcing May 2 as the election date, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper continued to push the issue, accusing the Liberals of harbouring "a hidden agenda." Mr. Harper said that the Liberals have tried to form a coalition before.

The Liberals tried to get ahead of the issue, releasing the statement even before the writ was dropped:

“Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament. If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge. That is our Constitution. It is the law of the land.”

He also described coalitions as "a legitimate constitutional option," but vowed to work with other parties on an issue-by-issue basis.

He then tried to turn the tables on Stephen Harper, asking him why he insists on “fabricating lies about an impending coalition, something he knows is false?”

I say “appears” because I expect the Conservatives to do whatever they can to tell Canadians that a Liberal/BQ/NDP alliance is only a step away. Plus, of course, after a Conservative minority government is installed and has had a few weeks to fumble function there is nothing in that bare statement to say that the coalition idea cannot be reborn.

Despite his start of campaign statement, the coalition of the losers issue still dogs Ignatieff. He is still trying to deal with the issue, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-clears-the-air-grits-could-govern-if-tories-win-minority/article1991584/

Ignatieff clears the air: Grits could govern if Tories win minority

BILL CURRY
MISSISSAUGA, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Michael Ignatieff is saying clearly for the first time that he could defeat a minority Conservative government and make a case to the Governor-General that his party could govern with the support of others – and without another trip to the polls.

Until now, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has only said the party that wins the most seats on May 2 can “try” to win the confidence of the House of Commons. While the comment carried an obvious implication, he spelled it out for the first time Tuesday.

“Let’s run it right out so we’re all clear,” Mr. Ignatieff said in a live interview with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge.
“If [Conservative Leader Stephen] Harper wins the most seats and forms a government but does not secure the confidence of the House, and I’m assuming Parliament comes back, then it goes to the Governor-General. That’s what happens. That’s how the rules work.

“And then, if the Governor-General wants to call on other parties – or myself, for example – to try and form a government, then we try and form a government. That’s exactly how the rules work and what I’m trying to say to Canadians is I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I’ll follow them to the letter and I’m not going to form a coalition,” he said.

Mr. Harper began the campaign by stating that another Conservative minority is no longer an option; that only a majority mandate will keep him as prime minister. His original line of attack was that the other parties would form a coalition. Mr. Ignatieff continues to rule out a formal coalition – which would involve inviting members of another party to sit in cabinet – but he is clearly open to convincing the Governor-General that he can provide stable government with the support of other parties in the House.

‘What I’m prepared to do is talk to [NDP Leader Jack] Layton, or [Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles] Duceppe, or even Mr. Harper and say: ‘Look, we’ve got an issue here. How do we solve it? Here’s the plan I want to put before Parliament. This is the budget I would bring in.’ Then we take it from there.”

While Mr. Ignatieff is right to say that the rules of Parliament allow a party that failed to win the most seats to govern with the support of others, the scenario also raises a political dynamic.

When last year’s British elections failed to produce a minority government, for several days the second-place Labour Party debated forming a coalition with the third-place Liberal Democrats. The idea prompted strong negative reaction and was derided as a “coalition of losers.”

In the end, the Liberal Democrats rejected that offer and entered a formal coalition with the first-place Conservatives.

On Monday, Mr. Layton offered specific scenarios in an interview with Mr. Mansbridge in which a second-place party could govern.

While avoiding predictions of which party will finish first overall, Mr. Layton outlined options in which the party with the most seats is immediately defeated in Parliament and the party with the second most seats works out a governing arrangement with the remaining parties.

“Some other party gets a shot at it. We shouldn't immediately go back to an election; that would be ridiculous,” he said, describing what should happen if the party with the most seats is quickly defeated in the House of Commons.

Mr. Layton said those other parties could then craft a common agenda based on compromise.

“Let's see how much we can get done together. It could be informal; it could be case by case; it could be agreement on a speech from the Throne, or maybe agreement on the budget, or maybe agreement on a certain number of pieces of legislation, on a vote-by-vote basis; it could be some other kind of arrangement. There have been many different types of arrangements used, both in Canada and in different provinces as well, and around the world. But my goal would always be to try to get the things done that we told Canadians we would get done.”

That is a constitutionally valid programme. Layton is describing the 1985 “Accord” between David Peterson and Bob Rae which produced a Liberal government despite the fact that the PCs won more seats (52 to 48).

If the Conservatives come back with the most, but fewer, seats and if the Liberals + NDP have enough seats (combined) for a majority then I suspect that, despite Conservative howls of outrage, such a programme would satisfy most Canadians. But, the problem for Ignatieff is that we have four parties and even if the Conservatives have fewer seats IF he requires BQ support then the optics will be much different and most Canadians might well disapprove.

The other problem is that the Conservatives might come back with an increased minority – and the Liberals and NDP will, likely, come back with fewer seats. In that circumstance Stephen Harper will say that Ignatieff and Layton have no moral right to defeat his government and form a coalition of the losers, who have just been rejected by Canadians, and that will, I think resonate with Canadians.

 

[Jed]

Is it just my personal perception or has CBC and other journalists of a feather stepped it up a notch in their very biased approach to writing and in selecting articles to discredit the Conservatives? I swear it appears to me like they have made it a personal mission to influence the Canadian public to their personal points of view.

For the record, I am not a card carrying Conservative, I switch my party as a see fit. It is my belief that all parties sucumb to the power and they need to be changed every decade or so or after doing something monumentally stupid, like Adscam for instance.

 

[Old Sweat]

I hate to pee on Ms Pearson's parade, but as I recall the sixties, Pearson was considered to be a bumbler who could not keep control of his caucus. It was fairly normal for both caucus discussions and cabinet deliberations to be leaked almost immediately, and he was not ruthless enough to stamp out the practice. His administration also had its share of scandals, although to be fair Diefenbaker and his crowd were not prime candidates for sainthood either. Lester also caved re the adoption of the CF Reorganization Act, when Hellyer threatened to resign if the PM did not allow the plan to go forward.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

That's funny, I always thought Grampa Pearson to be a retard who hated all things Canadian.  What did Pearson do?  He armed Canadian troops in the field with nukes.  No Conservative has done that.  He destroyed our Army, Navy, and Airforce, something the Kaiser and Fuhrer couldn't do.

Universal hospital care in Canada was provided by the Conservative Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act  Act of 1957 which was adopted by all provinces by 1961.  Pearson expanded it to include free sniffles in 1966.  Social Credit (Liberals insert Fascist) Alberta had hospital coverage in 1950, 4 years after Saskatchewan and 15 years after the first legislation in Alberta in 1935 which was never implemented.  The Liberals weren't even the big force behind national health care.  They were part of a transition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Canada%29

 

[ModlrMike]

It was more of a rethorical question...

Yea, I know, but I couldn't resist.

 

[larry Strong]

Here's a burning question as yet unanswered during the campaign...

Where's Bob? His silence speaks volumes.

 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/dailyupdate/view/rae_crisscrossing_country_04-19-2011

Rae positioning himself 'if Iggy falls on his sword,' says York University professor Drache
With Harper heading for another minority government—and some say perhaps, just maybe, a slim majority—it might not be long before Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff heads back to the halls of higher learning.

By Tim Naumetz
Published Apr 19, 2011 7:30 PM  View story  Email Comments To the Editor
         

   
The Hill Times Photograph by Jake WrightRoad trip: Since April 6, Liberal incumbent Bob Rae has traveled to West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, B.C., Kelowna, B.C., Calgary, Alta., Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont., Mississauga, Ont., Ajax-Pickering, Ont., and Cornwall, Ont., on Tuesday night, following a news conference in Ottawa.PARLIAMENT HILL—Bob Rae is criss-crossing the country to help low-profile candidates raise their campaign money and profiles but—even though ticket prices in out-of-the way places can be as low as $20 for a breakfast compared to the $500 each Liberals paid to see Justin Trudeau in Brampton this week—political observers say Rae is also putting something in the bank for the future.

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the moment heading for another minority government—and some say perhaps, just maybe, a slim majority—it might not be long before Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff heads back to the halls of higher learning.

It’s a two-sided coin though, political scientists say, with Mr. Rae, who is running for re-election in Toronto Centre, Ont., likely not just thinking about the future but, perhaps first and foremost, the dire circumstances the Liberals face as polls put Mr. Harper’s Conservatives comfortably ahead in the campaign’s home stretch, if not quite in majority territory. As well, Jack Layton and his NDP are nipping at the Liberal Party’s heels in new territory, particularly Quebec.

"The Liberals are fighting for their life,” said York University professor Daniel Drache. "[Rae] is positioning himself, if Iggy fell on his sword. But he’s a team player, he wants to boost the Liberal Party, he knows if they can’t claw back four percentage points, they’ve got big problems.”

Mr. Rae has been flying under the radar of the national campaign news media since at least April 6, when he appeared in Saskatoon to boost local Liberal fortunes and, later the same day, in Montreal.

Since then, he’s been to West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country riding in B.C., Kelowna, B.C., Calgary, Alta., the hard-fought territory of Kitchener-Waterloo in southwestern Ontario, Mississauga, Ont., the key riding of Ajax-Pickering, Ont., one of the final frontiers in the Greater Toronto Area, and to Cornwall, Ont., on Tuesday night, following a news conference in Ottawa where Mr. Rae delivered one of his trademark biting attacks against Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

At that appearance, Mr. Rae challenged Mr. Harper’s claim in this campaign that he supports the Canada Health Act and the Conservative promise to inject new money into provincial healthcare systems by six per-cent a year once the current funding agreement expires at the end of 2013. He argued that with Mr. Harper’s past term as president of the National Citizens Coalition, founded 40 years ago by an insurance company executive who wanted to destroy medicare, Mr. Harper’s claim that he supports the public health system and wants it to survive without a parallel private tier might be difficult for voters to believe.

“Mr. Harper is a right-wing guy, and right-wing guys don’t believe in the Canadian healthcare system, they never have and they never will,” Mr. Rae told a crowd of reporters in the National Press Theatre, acknowledging a Hill Times report that Mr. Harper publicly endorsed a U.S.-style private health-insurance model in 1999 when he led the NCC and also called concern about a two-tier health system a “bogeyman.”

“They fought [medicare] tooth and nail in the 1950s, they fought it tooth and nail in the 1960s, they fought it right through the '70s and '80s. [Former Ontario Progressive Conservative premier Mike] was there,” said Mr. Rae, who was with Ottawa-area Liberal candidates—retired air force Col. Karen McCrimmon running in Carleton-Mississippi Mills and Steve MacKinnon running in Gatineau. “I know these guys, Mr. Harper doesn’t believe in the Canadian healthcare system, doesn’t believe in it for a minute. Who’s he kidding? He’s just not prepared to touch it because he knows that the Canadian people like it, so he’s not prepared to do anything.”

The Press Theatre attack on Mr. Harper was like a campaign pit stop for Mr. Rae, who also highlighted Conservative plans to spend billions of dollars on new fighter jets. The news event was on his way to the Cornwall appearance, followed later by a 7:15 a.m. $20-a-ticket breakfast on Thursday in Barrie Ont., to support Liberal Colin Wilson in his challenge against Conservative incumbent Patrick Brown, and a $150-a-ticket “Intimate evening with Bob Rae” at the establishment Torys law office in downtown Toronto Thursday evening.

Before he left for Cornwall, Mr. Rae added yet another stopover on his hectic schedule, stopping off at the new right-wing Sun News Network studio in Ottawa, satirizing Mr. Harper with a keyboard performance himself, admittedly slightly off key on the vocal side, during a stand-up head-to-head interview with Krista Erickson and a taped interview with Sun News bureau chief David Akin.

The Torys event in Toronto offered the $150 entry price to members of the party’s Victory Fund, launched nearly three years ago under former leader Stéphane Dion.

But, though even the $250 ticket price for non-members of the special membership fund was nowhere near the $500 entry fee to see Mr. Trudeau at a fundraiser Tuesday night for Liberal incumbent Ruby Dhalla in the riding of Brampton Springdale she is battling to win again, University of Toronto political scientist Nelson Wiseman agreed Mr. Rae’s efforts in this campaign may have payback after the election, depending on the outcome and Mr. Rae’s personal goals.

“I think they intended to have Rae travel around, or he offered, right at the beginning,” Prof. Wiseman said.

“But there’s another calculation,” he added. “If Harper wins, and he’s going to win the election, we just don’t know how big it’s going to be, if he wins a majority, Ignatieff might decide to check out in short order, and then the heir apparent is Rae.”

Howard Brown, a lifelong Liberal and co-founder of the Victory Fund, though, told The Hill Times it is the smaller fundraising events, in areas across Canada where Liberals have sometimes not won a seat for years, that are also crucial as the party attempts to stuff its war chest for this campaign, as well as the future.

“Most people are trying to help across the country,” he said. “There are active Liberals that I speak to on a regular basis who are working their hearts out in Alberta to try to improve that Liberal vote in every election.”

tnaumetz@hilltimes.com

 

[a_majoor]

Sounds like the setup to a civil war inside the Liberal Party.

Mr Ignatieff has every incentive to trigger a coalition (become Prime Minister, fend off a hostile leadership review, reward/punish members of the caucus).
Bob Rae hasn't really concealed his ambitions to become leader of the Liberal party
Tradition says the leadership should pass to someone from Quebec
Many Liberals seem to believe that all they really need to lead again is the Young Dauphin's name
The people who are funding the Liberal Party and the "brain trust" who actually run things (the so called Toronto Party) are thrashing about now looking for a way to stop the bleeding and may not be very amused by either Mr Ignatieff overstaying his welcome or various other potential leadership candidates (regardless of origin) who are either not team players or don't seem to have the "x" factor to lead the LPC back to victory. They may still hold the various levers of power but the years of exile and their inability to raise the level of public support for the party will certainly reduce their ability to shape the battlespace.

The best might yet come after the election results are in....

 

[Journeyman]

Tradition says the leadership should pass to someone from Quebec

I had read that in an earlier thread. Having given it some thought, I suspect the combination of how the Liberals fare in Quebec, and the Bloc results overall, may negate that 'tradition.'

Quite simply, Bob Rae is the biggest 'name' they have right now; yes, yes, Trudeau is more recognizable, but he's still too young (and prone to political mistakes) to command national attention.

 

[a_majoor]

I agree to a certain extent (if everyone looks at this rationally), but since this is the Party of being "entitled to their entitlements" I doubt any of the contenders from Quebec will step aside quietly regardless of how the election results turn out in Quebec.