Frank Graves Jumps On The Merger Bandwagon

From the Globe:

Frank Graves has come up with a provocative merger scenario based on his latest numbers – a coalition between the Harper Conservatives and the Ignatieff Liberals.

“Oscillating Conservative and Liberal majorities may have been the rule of the last century, but it appears we have entered a strange new political world,” says the EKOS pollster.

Inevitably, the dismal poll results are provoking serious thinking about coalitions and mergers. And the political chatter of late has been about a merger on the left as a way of breaking the political gridlock that has no party being able to form a majority government.

But Mr. Graves is thinking outside of the box, noting that the arithmetic in his poll shows that the Conservative and Liberal support – 56.8 per cent – is the same as that of the so-called traffic-light coalition of the red (Liberals), green (Green Party) and orange (NDP) – 56 per cent.

“For those who see this as preposterous, the current coalition in the U.K. looks more ideologically congruent with this mixture (Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) than the more oft-discussed centre-left coalitions.”

More and more of the ruling class is pushing for the True Blue Coalition to embrace publicly. Will the blue Liberals and the Conservatives consummate the love that dare not speak its name? Stay tune.

Recommend this Post

Wherry Explains It All

Just as I thought:

After conferring with both sides (or at least two of the three sides) of the detainee document agreement, it would seem that this much is agreed upon.

If, in the process of producing documents, the government believes that all or part of a document may be covered by solicitor-client privilege or cabinet confidence, that document will be sent directly to the panel of arbiters. The panel of arbiters will then decide what from those documents can be disclosed to the ad hoc committee of MPs. If the panel of arbiters does decide that the document is subject to privilege, they must explain their decision to the ad hoc committee of MPs.

So, far from MP's (even those few on this special committee) "seeing everything", they will only get what the government and the panel of experts let them see. The Bloc has been had. I suspect Iggy was fully aware of what he was signing, on the other hand.

Recommend this Post

The Deal Has Another Review

This one from a Liberal-friendly paper:

Four years after Colvin began telling his superiors what they didn’t want to hear, the cover-up is complete. Conservatives can now be confident that Canadians won’t learn much more than they already know and that civil servants will think at least twice before speaking tiresome truths to powe

Talk of NDP/Liberal mergers sounds even more ridiculous today than it did yesterday. The Liberal hierarchy has found its true parliamentary partner and it isn't the NDP.

Recommend this Post

Peace In Our Time Watch. The Reviewers Speak

From this afternoon's Globe web site:

University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran, an advocate for greater disclosure on detainees, calls the deal a failure.

"It is an own-goal for the opposition if they sign this agreement, surpassing any fumble seen in the World Cup," Professor Attaran said.

Prof. Attaran laid out six criticisms which are his beefs with the deal:

"1. It pretends that Cabinet confidences are impenetrable by Parliament. There is no law to say that this need be the case, and it was not something that the Speaker said was the case. On the contrary, the Speaker said that the power of Parliament to require documents is absolute.

2. It also pretends that solicitor-client privileged opinions of government lawyers are impenetrable by Parliament. This is wrong, for the reason already stated, but it also gravely misapprehends the entire notion of “solicitor-client privilege” in a simpleminded way that I am surprised duped the opposition. Pause to think, “Who is the client of a Government of Canada lawyer?” and you can only conclude that the client is the Government of Canada. ... There is no legitimate solicitor-client privilege claim.

3. The agreement at para 6 allows any member of the review committee—any ONE member—to refer a disputed document to the panel of arbiters. With 20,000+ pages of documents expected, that could be abused to refer all the pages—every single one—totally swamping the review committee.

4. The review committee, further, is quite at variance with the terms of the Speaker’s order, which said that it was up to the members of the House to decide what documents would be released: if, when, and how. Yet now the proposed agreement puts that decision in the hands of a review committee of retired judges, who are not Parliamentarians. One hopes the Speaker rejects the agreement on this basis.

5. The referral of documents to a review committee of ex-judges is also worse than referring the same to sitting judge. At least sitting judges, in a real court, have rules that they follow, and there is a (mostly) open process where submissions can be made — by the public, by the press, and so forth. Nothing of the kind exists here, so actually, it would be better if this agreement not be signed. We don’t even know who the ex-judges are ...

6.This draft agreement shows nothing if not that the opposition parties in the House failed to bring the same quality of thinking to the problem that the Speaker did. It’s an own-goal. One might think they agreed because they don’t want an election now, but there are various ways they could have solved this conundrum without provoking an election."

No wonder Ralph Goodale's only response is to talk REALLY LOUD! Hat tip to Scott, who has the grace to be troubled by this betrayal of Parliament.

Update: Steve V declares the deal "A Dud".

Recommend this Post

The Affair Is In The Open

Another pundit dares to speak of the love that dares not speak its name. Look, it just makes sense. I would hate it, naturally, but at least Liberal self-delusion and hypocrisy would be at an end. Let's just call a spade a spade. In the end, blue Liberals share a vision of the country not that much different from the Conservatives. Since the blues are running the party and have done so for most of the last 30 years, it is natural that the Conservative Party should be the default coalition partner of the modern Liberal Party. Trudeau is dead. This is the party of Martin and Manley.

Recommend this Post

He's Just Saying What I Have Been Thinking

Walkom finally speaks of the love that dares not say its name. Jeff Jedras will be furious, since he is in deep denial.

Recommend this Post

You Say You Want A Coalition

It already exists, my friends. Shhh, no one is supposed to know about it.

Recommend this Post

Liberals Suicidal Or Colluding With Conservatives

Warren does not provide a link, so I am not sure where this is coming from. But, if it is from Liberal HQ, I would say it either means the Liberals are delusional about their chances to form a majority government, or the faction in charge of the party likes things as they are, with the Conservatives in charge (my preferred theory). Such a strategy confirms my suspicions that the blue Liberals have a defacto coalition with the Conservatives, but want to pretend otherwise so as to protect their own positions with their party and ward off civil war with the reds.

Recommend this Post

Of Coalitions

I know Liberals will reject this, with extreme prejudice, but this is how coalition government is supposed to work. Myself, I shudder to think what a coalition of the Conservatives and the business wing of the Liberal Party would come up with on EI, but at least they are working semi-openly together. That in itself is an improvement over the chaos we have seen lately. Now, if only they would get out of denial and embrace the love that dares not speak its name.

Update: If the Liberals embraced a real coalition with the Tories, they would at least, avoid criticism like this.

Update 2: From Kady:

By the time that word of a second summit between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff had come out, most of us ParliamentaryCrisisWatchers had already downgraded the election threat-o-meter from red to yellow, and were just waiting for official confirmation that the Liberal leader’s perfect record of backing away from any position that could ever potentially be described as “courageous” remained intact. We were not disappointed, although ITQ will admit that the blue ribbon threw us for a loop. Offering your grudging support for a government you’ve only just finished condemning for its “flagrant incompetence” is one thing — but doing it in exchange for a few vague promises to get back to you with more information, and an advisory panel? Somehow, that seems even more embarrassing than forcing your caucus to hide behind the curtains during votes, although that could be because you’re now forced to paste a fake smile on your face and pretend it’s a victory.

Ouch. A bit harsh there, Kady.

Final Update: I am wondering, despite the fact that the panel studying changes to EI is "blue ribbon", don't we have MP's and don't they have committees which could handle such a study? Why do we have a government at all? Why not just farm everything out to blue ribbon panels and drop the messy business of elections altogether?

Recommend this Post

Dear Impolitical

Thank you for your prompt reply. I know that you yourself are a progressive with impeccable street cred. That is not in question. I do however question your party, which has supported and sadly, looks to continue to support, the right wing agenda of the Harper government.

Are you proud that your leader did not move an amendment calling for the end on the attack on pay equity? Are you proud that your party did nothing to change the problems in EI? Are you happy that your party is supporting a budget with permanent tax cuts, something your leader said he wouldn't do, only a couple of weeks ago? You don't have to answer these questions. I know you are not happy with any of these stands. Yet you continue to support the party that has absolutely no problem with any of these policies. Oh, I know they say they do, but they are not going to actually do anything to change them, are they?

Finally, thank you for your spelling corrections. I do suffer from a mild form of dyslexia and your help is most appreciated. I depend on smart people like yourself to point out my errors (because as everybody with dyslexia knows, good spelling equals smart). I will look into a better spell checker. That will help me out too. If only your party's troubles could be fixed as easily.

Recommend this Post

Dear Impolitical

I appreciate the fact that you appear to be sincere in your explanation of your party's amazing turn today, but forgive me if I don't believe a word of it. I wish your party would just come out and openly support the government. Stop feeling so guilty. You have voted with the Tories for the last couple of years, so why pretend you oppose them? Embrace your coalition with the Tories. It is a natural fit after all. I think the root of all your party's problems over the last number of years is your false embrace of all things "progressive". It isn't where your party is and pretending that it is has only caused you grief and a loss of more than half of your seats. So, I say, revel in your new role as the junior partner of the new small "c" conservative government. It suits you, down to a "t". Be loud, be proud, be blue.

Update: Edited to correct spelling errors, kindly pointed out by Impolitical.

Recommend this Post