This has been a week full of ironies. I had coffee with a national journalist who lamented the possibility of a summer election because he was just looking for a couple of months “escape” from the endless battling of this place. ”But,” he admitted, “an election now that Liberals are key contenders would have been great to cover.”
On Tuesday I spoke with a woman applying for EI who admitted this summer would be difficult for her and her daughter if things didn’t work out. Then as we parted she said (in French), “Please, Mr. Pearson, no election. I want some quiet time with my daughter.”
As Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff held their first meeting this week, MPs in Question Period appeared to have lost their collective mind, spending the first 20 minutes in over-the-top catcalling that prompted me to leave the House for a few minutes to deal with my anger. Upon returning, I received a note from a Conservative MP who said he felt like doing the same thing. ”What’s going on here?” he opined. ”None of us want to go.” Another sad irony.
Mr. Ignatieff took something of a drubbing in the media this week and it shows. He never did desire an election, yet there were many advisors around him constantly explaining the key strategic advantage for bringing the Harper government down. He has aged years in a week. He is not like many here, never having fed on meals of political machinations. The media accused him of “electioneering,” but there isn’t an opposition MP in the House who honestly believed anything could be negotiated out of Stephen Harper. The PM’s way is hardball, 24-7, and he would crush you if you flinched. And so Michael Ignatieff attempted to stay in the game, believing he had the cards in his hand to finally make Harper himself back down. It seems to me he did, and that he got concessions that no one thought he would. Many question the substance of those concessions, but the truth is that at the beginning of the week nobody gave him much chance. Now he is older, wiser and, I fear, wearied for his efforts. But he has always said to me that Canadian citizens didn’t want an election. Judging from the emails coming in, they did right by him and he can take some comfort in that.
And then there’s Layton and Duceppe. Both have been on record as stating that Harper doesn’t negotiate, and in the main they have be right. But because he held some trump cards, Ignatieff got something out of his meeting with the PM. Not able to contain himself, Jack Layton said he was able to negotiate far more from the Martin government in 2005. Media friends of mine burst out laughing at that because that was a Liberal prime minister, one that attempted to cooperate with the NDP in a minority government. Jack was talking apples and oranges. The reality that he ran down another Liberal leader who was attempting to wrestle concessions out of Stephen Harper shows the shallowness of Jack’s morality. Both the NDP and the Bloc know that the reins of government will unlikely come their way any time soon and so they preach from the stands because they don’t have to govern and manage numerous interests. So they can be white hot in their condemnations. Layton’s statement about 1995 only reveals that having the luxury of being pseudo-pure doesn’t necessarily make you very smart.
In the end, Stephen Harper showed the kind of cooperative nature the entire country has been calling for, and he should get credit for that. No one will trust it, but this is politics and you take what you can get. The group that really won are the people of Canada, who felt another $300 million for a summer election was as dumb as a bag of hammers. They have prevailed. Ignatieff has been hardened in battle and Harper has been softened in it, only for the moment. But this time the people have won and the two key parties showed some responsibility. Not a bad outcome. Happy summer!
It’s hard to believe what you are saying. You are saying Ignatieff got something from the Prime Minster, but you never say what it is.
Despite going on about wanting 360 hours across Canada to qualify for unemployment insurance, he didn’t ask for that. Instead he asked for next to nothing and got next to nothing. Seats on a commission is nothing. The Conservatives probably would have made the change if the Liberals ever insisted. They don’t want to go into an election on the basis of denying needy people their EI that they paid for.
I don’t know what you are saying about Layton. Are you saying that, unlike Harper and Layton, Liberals capitulate in government and in opposition, or are you saying that being in government forces you to compromise and if you where in government you’d have no intention making EI easier to qualify for?
Mr. Pearson,
Well stated. Thank you. Enjoy your summer.
D. O’C:
Please reread Glen’s post; my reading is so different from your comment that I’m certain you’ve read it incorrectly. If not, you are exhibiting the very dysfunction that now characterizes the H of C.
May your summer be warm in every way, folks, a time for dispelling the anger and bitterness this government arouses.
And may MPs return in September with renewed vigour and messages from their constituents to find further ways to cooperate.
EM:
“my reading is so different from your comment that I’m certain you’ve read it incorrectly.”
Actually Mr. Pearson wrote it incorrectly. He seems to imply that Ignatieff got something from Harper. He doesn’t mention what it is, probably because it amounts to nothing.
I’m all for cooperation. The coalition was a brilliant example of cooperation. I suspect even the Conservatives would cooperate if put under some pressure. However all the Liberals have done is capitulate.
If Ignatieff wanted to avoid dysfunction he could have just said he would unconditionally support the government for the until the summer break, and all the drama would have been avoided.
Well said, Mr. Pearson. Very honest and you hit it, dead on.