EXACTLY! Applies To Bloggers As Well!
Silver: Questions for the Liberal caucus To any and all Liberal MPs - leadership candidate or otherwise - I have the following questions for you: 1. A week ago Thursday, the fiscal update was presented. To a man (and woman), every single one of you said "we must oppose it." What form did you want that opposition to take? An election? A coalition? Loud rhetoric, but a bunch of you sick on voting day? I presume a coalition is the answer - but maybe not. I didn't hear any Liberal MPs calling for a new election or another abstention when push came to shove - but things were moving so quickly, I may have missed it.
2. The following Monday (i.e. five days ago, but these are dog days so it feels like six months), the coalition "deal" was presented to caucus. There was, by public accounts of the meeting, a unanimous standing ovation given to those presenting the deal to caucus. If any of you were opposed to it, did you speak out at caucus? Did you speak out in public? Again - I may have missed ANY dissent, but it sure seemed like caucus was united behind the deal five days ago.
3. At that same meeting, the issue of whether Stephane Dion should remain as leader of the coalition until May was, by public accounts of the meeting, raised. Again, based on what has been told to the media, not a single caucus member spoke out against Dion remaining as leader. All three current candidates for leader spoke out publicly supporting Dion as leader until May. If any caucus members were opposed to Dion heading up the coalition, why didn't you speak at caucus? Why didn't you speak out in public? I'm pretty sure I didn't miss that.
4. On Thursday, hours before the Prime Minister was to go and visit the GG, a petition was circulated for all Liberal MPs to sign expressing their support for the defeat of the government AND the coalition. Again - this was Thursday morning, after the video disaster. Every single one of the MPs in caucus (save one) signed the petition. Did you mean it when you signed? If you didn't mean it - if you signed the petition only because it was the path of least resistance - how can you remain as a Member of Parliament? Seriously, if you are willing to sign a petition to the Governor-General asking her to change governments, and it was only because you were "chicken" to say no or didn't want to rock the boat, then you should resign as a Member of Parliament because you have proven yourself unworthy of serving as a representative of your community and as a law-maker. Otherwise, I think it is fair to assume that your signature was meaningful and your support for the coalition was sincere; by your signature, you wanted the GG to act upon the petition.
So either:
(a) The Liberal caucus was UNANIMOUS in supporting both the coalition and Dion as leader until May; or
(b) There are a bunch of MPs in the Liberal caucus who are both cowardly and whose word means little (or whose opinions change with the wind).
Really, this is a binary situation - make your choice.
2. The following Monday (i.e. five days ago, but these are dog days so it feels like six months), the coalition "deal" was presented to caucus. There was, by public accounts of the meeting, a unanimous standing ovation given to those presenting the deal to caucus. If any of you were opposed to it, did you speak out at caucus? Did you speak out in public? Again - I may have missed ANY dissent, but it sure seemed like caucus was united behind the deal five days ago.
3. At that same meeting, the issue of whether Stephane Dion should remain as leader of the coalition until May was, by public accounts of the meeting, raised. Again, based on what has been told to the media, not a single caucus member spoke out against Dion remaining as leader. All three current candidates for leader spoke out publicly supporting Dion as leader until May. If any caucus members were opposed to Dion heading up the coalition, why didn't you speak at caucus? Why didn't you speak out in public? I'm pretty sure I didn't miss that.
4. On Thursday, hours before the Prime Minister was to go and visit the GG, a petition was circulated for all Liberal MPs to sign expressing their support for the defeat of the government AND the coalition. Again - this was Thursday morning, after the video disaster. Every single one of the MPs in caucus (save one) signed the petition. Did you mean it when you signed? If you didn't mean it - if you signed the petition only because it was the path of least resistance - how can you remain as a Member of Parliament? Seriously, if you are willing to sign a petition to the Governor-General asking her to change governments, and it was only because you were "chicken" to say no or didn't want to rock the boat, then you should resign as a Member of Parliament because you have proven yourself unworthy of serving as a representative of your community and as a law-maker. Otherwise, I think it is fair to assume that your signature was meaningful and your support for the coalition was sincere; by your signature, you wanted the GG to act upon the petition.
So either:
(a) The Liberal caucus was UNANIMOUS in supporting both the coalition and Dion as leader until May; or
(b) There are a bunch of MPs in the Liberal caucus who are both cowardly and whose word means little (or whose opinions change with the wind).
Really, this is a binary situation - make your choice.
posted by Eugene Forsey Liberal @ 11:59 PM
10 Comments:
At 12:23 AM,
thescottross.blogspot.com said…
That's sort of a false dichotomy. As if time can't influence someone's decision, or that MPs thought something but found out it was false information etc.
-scott
thescottross
At 12:37 AM,
Anonymous said…
I think the point is that it was unanimous, hence the CAPS.
Sure some people may have changed their minds within a one week period, but I think the onus should be on them to explain why they changed their minds so quickly. If it's only "oh the polls looked" bad then the dichotomy is correct and it's:
b) their opinions change with the wind
At 12:42 AM,
Anonymous said…
Saying Dion can't lead the party or the coaition anymore solely bc his staff screwing up the tape and a few initial bad polls does reek of opportunism and the entire caucus (and a lot of bloggers) words meaning little given the unanimous support the week prior.
Will the next leader face similar calls to resign if they face similar poll numbers?
What's the point of Dion stepping down if Ignatieff and company want us to support the budget anyway? If we're gonna prop Harper up till May why do we need a full time leader sooner?
At 11:26 AM,
Ted Betts said…
Missing many significant points.
In opposition, there is a significant importance to unity. Without unity, without the impression of an ability to form a cohesive opposition, there is no opposition. Especially with such a "leader" as Dion who commands the respect now of very few in caucus, if any, and few in the country. So it is possible for caucus to say it is important to support the coalition even as it is falling apart and until it has completely fallen apart.
But more importantly, it is staggeringly stupid to back a coalition that is pushing Harper's popularity UP. And not just into majority territory, but OVER 50%.
That can certainly come down and certainly will once Dion is gone, but there is a very very negative reaction, much more emotional and strong than the pro-coalition, in the country against the idea of this coalition. Even before the Con propaganda machine got going full-time, Canadians opposed the coalition by OVER TWO-THIRDS, at about 68%.
There is a lot of support for a coalition but ALL conservatives and I would say ALL non-partisans and MANY Liberal supporters are VERY strongly opposed to merging with the NDP and getting into bed with the Bloc.
They should have come up with a list of 10 things they would do together and promised to have an election within a year, instead of throwing away over a hundred years of Liberal history to merge with the NDP. That probably wouldn't have gotten the support of Canadians either, but at least it would have shown a modicum of political instincts.
There is a political reality that we have to face. And to support a coalition is one thing, but to be making the hill we will die on is ensuring it is the hill we as a party will die on.
At 12:51 PM,
Anonymous said…
Alert - a new Coalition - a Coalition of the Bi-Partisan is in the works.
Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are forming a coalition, hopefully, to bring the country back together.
Harper and Rae are dividing the country and it has to stop.
At 1:24 PM,
Anonymous said…
LOL Ted, you are a solid Ignatieff supporter. I see you also solidly oppose the coalition, so if you want your guy to come around to your view, how in the hell do you expect him to do that without being pasted as Canada's John Kerry?
See this article from just YESTERDAY:
http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/cityregion/article/503626
"But Ignatieff said nothing will save Harper from that fate. He said a coalition of opposing parties will ultimately topple the Conservatives"
"Canadians can have confidence in a coalition"
Sounds no different than Bob Rae now, only difference is that Iggy has his surrogates going around portraying him as being all over the map. What a mess for him.
Who do you defend this, what's Iggy's way out without looking like a fool?
At 1:33 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
"I would say ALL non-partisans and MANY Liberal supporters are VERY strongly opposed": Grit Backers Support Coalition
"False information": What false information? Please enlighten the rest of us.
The argument reminds of Nixon's line: "It's not illegal if the President does it". In this case, it seems to be "It's not incoherent self-ridiculising cowardice aimed more at advancing someone's leadership prospects than defending parliamentary democracy when Liberals do it". Good luck with that.
At 1:56 PM,
RuralSandi said…
Hello - where is LeBlanc in all this - in hiding?
Not a peep out of him in the last few days. Why?
He's a candidate - shouldn't he be making a stand?
At 3:08 PM,
Ted Betts said…
I am an Ignatieff supporter, without a doubt. And his calm and statesman like approach has re-affirmed my view that he is by far the better of the three. And I do agree that the "coalition" will bring Harper down but no more so than three separate parties all voting against Harper on a vote of non-confidence would.
I'm not speaking for Iggy here. I'm speaking as a Liberal who does not want to "unite the left" and who does not want to merge with the NDP, does not want to campaign on an NDP or Bloc vetted platform. Bring the government down together, sure, but if we head into an election as a coalition, we will guarantee a Conservative majority and the destruction of the Liberal Party, let alone the Liberal brand.
If that puts me further out than my preferred candidate than so be it. I know it puts me a lot closer to where Canadians are on this coalition. Even if the poll numbers are off or can be moved, Canadians do not like this coalition.
What the polls are also showing is that Canadians are angry at and no longer like Harper. So we are squandering a lot of goodwill and support in the country because Canadians like an unelected coalition government even less than they like Harper.
At 6:01 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
Ted: Leaving aside your first two sentences, reasonable points, though I disagree. One thing I would like all to face up to is that you can't knowingly vote down the government & not plan for one (or both) of two eventualities: present another possible to GG, hence coalition, esp. shortly after last election, or agree to PM's request for another election.
Caucus was "icewater" clear, had to vote down statement. OK, so then had to prepare to form government, unless ready for immediate election. OK, so that only possible if can present GG with evidence of stable majority support. OK, so that needs support from NDP & Bloc. And negotiations led to accord, with very advantageous conditions re. Bloc, in my view (no further "nation" concessions & support on confidence motions for 18 months. Bloc much attacked in QC for it.).
Given this was unanimous caucus position, twice expressed and then all signed petition, what does it say if change tack? Only other option is election. Even supposing whoever's favourite candidate was leader, what would be Liberal prospects in Jan-Feb?
Would Cons have offered any concessions without coalition? But coalition must be credible. Thus, unanimous support. It may well be a game of chicken, but to win, have to pretend it isn't. Which may lead to "accidental" election. But all was done at urging of caucus & support of Liberals across country. We're here now. Repudiate ourselves? Use Dion as the fall guy? Whenever he leaves, it won't be because he "forced" caucus to do this.
So let's have some consistency & courage or we'll lose all credibility, in immediate showdown & beyond.
Post a Comment
<< Home