Angry in the Great White North

Angelo Persichilli has Canadian political observers agog, having authored a column in The Toronto Star that states, in no uncertain terms, that a revolt is brewing within the Liberal Party.  Names are named:

Contrary to the superficial unity Liberals show in the House, a revolt is brewing underneath.

It all started after a gathering to mark the retirement of Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein from the Hill. Among those present were Ignatieff and Rae.

After they had all feted the popular senator with great words of love and affection, some MPs - invited by Rae for a drink - moved "100 yards away from the Hill" into the Château Laurier.

Glen Pearson, an MP from London and one of those present for the nightcap with Rae, said that in his opinion Ignatieff was losing the loyalty of the party and Rae was "the only one the party trusts." Carolyn Bennet, also present at the meeting, said that David McGuinty, Justin Trudeau and others are already planning their leadership runs and it was time for Rae to do something.

Then the conversation shifted to some concrete proposals. In particular, they told Rae that many MPs believe he should become "the deputy leader with authority to manage all the files in the House of Commons," basically a kind of CEO. They also said that Ignatieff shouldn't be asking questions in the House but travelling throughout Canada "attending functions."

Some also said that Ralph Goodale should be removed from his House responsibilities because, they said, he brings no added value to the party, no expertise, no financial wherewithal and doesn't deliver seats in his own province.

This was not an isolated meeting between a few MPs - it's the dominant theme of discussion among almost all Liberal MPs uncertain about their future.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ignatieff were to reconsider his political future and go back to his beloved academic world before the end of the year.

Glen Pearson says this is all nonsense:

For the record, let me state that Carolyn Bennett, Bob Rae, Ruby Dhalla and I did meet on the night mentioned. This often happens in the evenings following parliamentary sessions as politicians and senators seek to wind down following hectic days.

Our discussion about Mr. Ignatieff did cover his trouble in the polls and how we trust he'll do better, but the rest of the talk was about how we could help him in the House and how we could take on more of the load. Mr. Rae, Ignatieff's competitor for past leadership bouts, called no such meeting and I feel the sorriest for him because he neither led the discussion (no one did) and he affirmed that Michael Ignatieff has the loyalty of caucus and that was a good thing.

Here is why I tend to think Angelo Persichilli is on the right of this, and why Glen Pearson is trying to protect the plotters.

First of all, The Toronto Star has always been a Liberal-friendly newspaper.  In the last election, when every major and minor paper abandoned Stephane Dion and the Liberals when it came to giving editorial endorsements, The Toronto Star managed somehow to come up with tepid excuses for people to vote Liberal.

That is a paper that defines party loyalty like no other.  To publish an article like this suggests that they believe that they have a solid story.  A very solid story.  In other words, I think The Toronto Star would demand more third-party verification than any other paper before publishing this piece.

Second, the bit about Ralph Goodale is interesting.  If this was a fake story designed to cause trouble (and by this I mean that Angelo Persichilli was misled by someone else concocting this story), it would just be about Michael Ignatieff.  But going off on a tangent by targeting Ralph Goodale?  That would be part of a serious discussion among Liberal insiders who are acutely aware of all the challenges facing the Liberal Party.  Your average outside would focus on Michael Ignatieff exclusively just because that's where the exclusive media focus is.

Third, it just makes sense.  We know from Peter Donolo as the new Chief of Staff that the plan is to play the long game.  The Liberals will take a year, maybe two, to retool and reorganize.  An election is simply not on.  The time has been conceded to the Conservatives.

If we take that as credible, and most of us do, then the question is whether it makes sense to rehabilitate Michael Ignatieff over that time.  But then that is time wasted, isn't it?  I mean, put in a leader who is not damaged like Michael Ignatieff, and the Liberals can spend that year or two building up a new leader to new heights, instead of just repairing a broken leader so that he seems barely presentable, assuming that's even possible.

A coup would be damaging for the Liberals.  No one could deny that.  But a coup followed by a legitimate leadership campaign?  The damage could be ameliorated by the excitement of a campaign.  It certainly would focus media attention on the Liberals.  A leadership convention could see the Liberals turning their momentum around.

I'm not saying it would, or even that's it's likely, but it certainly is possible.  Holding on to Ignatieff has no intrinsic momentum-altering value.

As for the damage of a coup, in a year's time, it will have largely faded away.  Certainly Michael Ignatieff's leadership win at a fake non-convention against no competitors continues to dog him a year later.

In other words, given the time frames involved, it makes sense for the Liberals to be seriously thinking of using this long stretch until the next election to reboot things at the top.

As for Glen Pearson and his denial?  Well, let's assume he's telling the truth.  My question to him is simply this:  Why the heck aren't you thinking about replacing Ignatieff?  It only makes sense.