Liberals

Prime Minister,

Well, that didn’t go as well as planned now did it? I’ll avoid the “What were you thinking?” speech. We’re here now, and despite our differences you are the Prime Minister for at least a few more days. Canadians depend on their Prime Minister to do the right thing, so I hope you’ll take some advice on this issue.

It’s clear now that the opposition parities are going to vote non-confidence in your government. It’s also clear that the Liberals and the NDP have an official coalition and are going to ask the Governor General to invite them to form the government. What should you do?

A few days ago, I had an unsettling realization: Michael Ignatieff may be the best candidate to lead the Liberal Party.

Like many, I’m uncomfortable with Iggy’s views on Iraq, torture, and, perhaps most of all, the recognition of Quebec as a “nation”. But, the central issue of this leadership campaign should be federalism — the division of power between the federal and provincial governments. This issue comes before the economy because without clearly defined responsibilities, Canada’s governments won’t be able to respond effectively to the recession. And, on that score, Ignatieff seems to be the only candidate ready to abandon the old “Ottawa-knows-best” mentality that has hampered the political and policy success of the Party for too long.

As was widely expected, Michael Ignatieff recently announced his intention to enter the leadership race to replace Stéphane Dion. That the race will feature a renewed battle between the Rae and Ignatieff camps, means that Canadians will likely see Liberal knives out a little while longer before they see them sheathed away. 

The Liberal party, its leadership candidates and their supporters are rightly examining the Democrats’ recent victory for clues on how to not only energize their increasingly disillusioned base, but to again appear relevant to an increasingly skeptical Canadian public. While a lot of focus has been on Barack Obama, I think there’s a more fundamental lesson on party solidarity to be learned from Hillary Clinton.  

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the Democratic Party managed to shatter the coalition that Karl Rove had hoped would create a permanent Republican majority in Washington. Rove’s strategy was to energize the Christian Conservative base while fracturing the opposition with “wedge issues” such as gun control, gay marriage, and abortion.

Stephen Harper has ambitions of creating a permanent Conservative majority in Ottawa. His strategy is very different from Rove’s. He essentially hopes to recreate the Mulroney coalition by holding grassroots Western support, winning over Québecois soft nationalists, and splitting Ontario and the Atlantic region with the Liberals and NDP. What lessons can the Liberal Party learn from the Democratic victory that might help them return to power?

New rule: Liberal MPs are prohibited from saying the words “Barack Obama,” at least in reference to their upcoming leadership campaign and the broader renewal of their fledgling party.

Just a few days after Barack Obama rode into the White House on the shoulders of the largest grassroots campaign in the history of democracy, elected Liberals emerged from a caucus meeting proposing to restrict participation in the process to choose their next leader.

Even more upsetting is that while some Liberals were busy spouting their very un-Obamaesque ideas, their Leader was suggesting the Party emulate the legendary figure’s grassroots approach. The Liberals just don’t get it.

Last week, Stéphane Dion resigned as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. A leadership convention to choose Mr. Dion’s successor will likely be held in 2009. This is a important opportunity to talk about what the priorities of the next Liberal leader should be. That’s why PSB is adding a new section: Agenda.

Agenda will feature posts advocating policies on various issues that contributors believe should be central to the next Liberal leader’s platform. Canada’s natural governing party needs to change, both philosophically and organizationally. 

Another election, another debate (in each official language), several million dollars, and we’re right where we started. The cynics among us may ask, what was the point of all this? 

Looking at the seat totals will tell you that not much has changed in the House of Commons. The tories and NDP are a little stronger, the grits and the Bloc are a little weaker, the Greens are still absent. We still have a Conservative minority government. But in many ways the “status quo” (more or less) tells us a great deal about each party and how voters feel about them.

Am I the only one who thinks the federal election campaign is about nothing? While nothing makes for hilarious sitcoms, it’s horrifying during an election campaign, particularly for progressives. With the prospect of a Conservative majority, we desperately need a meaningful and vigorous debate about the future of our country. But, as I found out, some progressive parties aren’t interested in talking about the issues.

In a desperate attempt to prove that this campaign is about something, I analyzed each of the parties’ news releases posted since the beginning of the campaign.