Dear CTV

Cheeky.

I was in agony yesterday watching a clip somewhere of Jane Taber nattering away at Michael Ignatieff over the coalition and how unfair it is because Canadians elected Stephen Harper and a Conservative government, and ... Well, you know the drill. It is hard to believe that some people got out of high school in this country.

The worst part was that Taber wouldn't quit -- she kept making that airhead argument over and over, no matter how Iggy tried to turn her aside. I ended up feeling some sympathy for Iggy, and you know what it takes for me to say that. He actually looked and sounded better to me than he used to, although his answers to Taber weren't quite a full-on defence of the coalition -- he kept coming back to Harper as the cause of the confrontation, and then to the urgency of the economic crisis, which I suppose we defend as staying on message.

I do wonder whether he is undermining the coalition, though.

I'd prefer it if Barney Fife would get on the air and say that because Harper has lost the confidence of the house this government is now illegitimate.

Ah, but "technically" Harper has not lost the confidence of the HoC, which may be part of the technical logic the GG was running on yesterday.

He hasn't lost the confidence of the Commons because he rigged the system -- iow, he's profiting from his wrong-doing. There's a principle in law that that is not allowed, but the GG allowed it.

So "technically" we still have a technical PM and a technical government. H/t Jim Flaherty.

Ah, but "technically" Harper has not lost the confidence of the HoC, which may be part of the technical logic the GG was running on yesterday.

So if I heard that the boss was coming to fire me today, technically I wouldn't be fired if I grabbed my coat and ducked out of the office before it happened.

Cheeky.

Sometimes I'm not sure what to do except to make fun of them.

Fife was the first person that Robertson went to on Wednesday night for reaction to, and analysis of, Harper's remarks. And Fife offered no challenge whatsoever to Harper's misrepresentation of the legitimacy of bringing his government down. The Ottawa Bureau Chief of a national television network couldn't be bothered to say "BTW, the prime minister just lied to you on a rather critical aspect of the way your government works." If he's not challenging something as fundamental as that, is it because he doesn't understand it? I'm reluctant to say it's just bias in favour of the Conservatives but I'm also reluctant to assume that someone who's been in the game as long he has doesn't understand both how government works and what his role in the process is supposed to be.

I liked Bob Rae's analogy yesterday: Harpie is like a schoolkid who pulls the fire alarm because he doesn't want to write an exam he knows he's going to fail.

So if I heard that the boss was coming to fire me today, technically I wouldn't be fired if I grabbed my coat and ducked out of the office before it happened.

That would be the George Costanza method. Didn't work out too well for him in the end.

If he's not challenging something as fundamental as that, is it because he doesn't understand it?

Never underestimate the laziness and stupidity of the punditocracy.

To answer your question, skdadl, my sense in 2006 and (originally to a lesser extent this time) the more centrist wing of the party took it for granted that Ignatieff was their fellow, and this put him in a bit of a bind since you don't throw support away. I sure didn't get into the Lib leadership race looking to back the Sharpe-Turner-Martin guy, not to suggest that they were reactionaries or something, but not my natural habitat in the party either.

It is reasonable to suppose that the Liberals targeted by the Tories - and by CTV apparently - for signs of weakness are the centrist liberals, thus Ignatieff-supporting liberals. And dedicated Tory flaks have been amping the "Ignatieff doesn't want this" angle since the weekend at the latest, simply because it's a great way to stir shit in a party you hate.

The upside of the seeming runaway Ignatieff candidacy in the last few weeks was that it wasn't hemming him in as a centrist candidate in the way 2006 did. Now there's a risk of that not only coming back with a vengeance but also bringing Liberal politics into the coalition and coalition politics into the Liberal race. Obviously the latter might seem less important to everyone outside of the party, but if we all kill each other it'll be a bit of a sticky wicket for everyone else.

Myself, I'd say we need to ramp up national vote for leader, quick, rather than a delegated convention. The party was very much into the idea that a delegated convention allowed for groups (the party's women's caucus and many others) to play a special role, but a delegated 3 ring circus is not of any benefit or in the cards in such a short period of time. A caucus vote would be seen as an Ignatieff coronation by party fiat.

In terms of Ignatieff's politics I guess the question for Liberals today might simply be "Keynes?" Or perhaps, "Krugman?" Something that would have been a lot easier to find out prior to this crisis erupting.

Karma. Steve is meeting his, but I have to admit, that seems to mean that I am meeting mine.

PM Iggy. Oh, God: what did I ever do to deserve that?

(I know you like him more than I do, Jason. I will admit that I dislike him a little less than I dislike Harper.)

This was posted on my Facebook wall from a friend from the US:

You also know I rarely ask, but WTF is up with this Harper thing and the dissolution of Parliament? The Queen of feckin' England has this authority!? Have mercy.

Was this some arcane detail that few people knew or cared about, and hadn't got around to correcting (wouldna want to hurt the old grrl's feelings; she's been thru a lot lately, eh?), that everybody knew would never be used, until this numnutz PM (at least according to all that makes it South) or maybe it just got lost until PM N. was thrashin about looking for an escape?

I cop to admiring Canadian respect for tradition, but the fact that a) he did it, and b) SO DID SHE! is shocking and a little unsettling to your Southern neighbors. We were counting on y'all to stay sane while we had this bout of complete depravity, and the recovery therefrom.

So, how's this playing?

Whooee! Yessirree, BY, the Yanks can't believe we're still bowin' an' scrapin' to the Limey bluebloods an' their minions among us. The ol' gal's pitcher's on our money, my Merkan friends.

When new Canajuns is sworn in as citizens, they gotta swear allegiance to Elizabeth, Queen of Canada, and to her heirs and successors. I ain't kiddin'. I wish I was.

JB

I've been doing my best to follow this in the states (Massachusetts, USA). I've got to tell you guys that if it weren't for you (and others like you) keeping the internet community aware of what's going on, we'd (the general u.s. population) wouldn't know anything!

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, even right down to our local news outlets, are silent on what you guys are going through. And that scares me.

I want to say keep up the good work, but we (in the U.S.) don't even know that your government has been, effectively, suspended.

Good luck to you - all.

BY, I can't tell you how deeply that crap from Americans angers me. The queen of England? You have to be a Merkin to fall for that, or a Canadian who knows next to nothing of parliamentary democracy and how it works.

I don't have the patience to write all this out again (I did it already in response to Rachel Maddow), but people who get fixed on the constitutional monarchy are allowing themselves to be distracted by a bright shiny object and are thereby missing the deeper problem, which is Harper and his failures.

The GG (or the queen of CANADA) is severely constrained in these situations. She had only two options that I can see, and she and her advisers picked the more conservative one, although it's pretty obvious she must have attached conditions. But she's not the reason that Parliament is prorogued -- Harper is.

Keep your eyes on the prize, folks.