Angry in the Great White North

The Angelo Persichilli column concerning the plotting against Michael Ignatieff continues to dominate the news.  One of the problems for the Liberal Party is that whispers of a coup seem very credible, if only because everyone "knows" that Michael Ignatieff's grip on the leadership of the Liberal Party is tenuous.

Liberal MP Glen Pearson is alleged to have said as much:

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."

Maybe that's where Michael Ignatieff needs to attack this problem.  If he could prove that he has the trust of the party, despite the accepted wisdom that he does not, then reporters would be less inclined to listen to the rumours.  Now Michael Ignatieff has tried to simple claim that he has the support, but that seems a bit lame:

I think it starts by not taking Angelo Persichilli too seriously. Look, this is a tempest in a teacup. This is not serious business. There's journalism -- and you're all reputable and thoughtful journalists -- and then there's gossip. And this is gossip. I'm continuing to do my job. We've made some tough decisions, the caucus has held together through those decisions, I'm proud of the decisions that  we've been taking, sometimes they're not popular but they're in the national interest. I've made them. The caucus has stuck with me.

Reporters want proof, and Michael Ignatieff could deliver that proof, with an extraordinary convention and a leadership endorsement ballot.

The rules for a convention are simple enough.  The National Board of Directors can call an extraordinary party convention at any time (except within six months of a biennial convention) 61(3):

At any time except within six months of a biennial convention of the Party, the Party may hold an extraordinary convention to deal with any issues of extraordinary importance.

They could declare this convention to be solely on the matter of endorsing Michael Ignatieff as leader.

Is this possible?  First of all, the rule for holding an endorsement ballot states that the votes are cast "at the meeting of every EDA held for the purpose of selecting delegates to attend the first biennial convention of the Party held after each general election in which the Leader does not become the Prime Minister." 64(1)

But it doesn't say that the endorsement vote can only be held at this time.  It says only that it must be held at this time.  My reading doesn't suggest that an endorsement vote must exclusively happen after a failed election bid.  If the National Board of Directors declare an endorsement of Michael Ignatieff to be of "extraordinary importance", then the rules suggest that the vote would be legal and the results binding.

But to host a whole convention just for this?  It would be ridiculously expensive, right?  Actually, it wouldn't be expensive at all, and that's the beauty of the idea.  If this extraordinary convention was solely about an endorsement, then there would be no convention in the conventional sense.  A Leadership Endorsement vote happens locally, at the EDA level, by individual members voting, and not at a central convention hall by delegates.  Since there are no delegates required, there is no travelling and no convention hall to rent.  Not much cost at all, really.

At each riding association, members meet and vote in a secret ballot.  The fraction of votes in favour of Michael Ignatieff as leader is expressed as a number out of 100.  These values are added up to something called the "national count".  The leader is deposed if he fails to earn a national count of at least 50 times the number of electoral districts (in other words, 50% of the votes cast).

Working in Michael Ignatieff's favour is the fact that if only three members show up at a particular EDA, and two vote for him, he earns 67 points.  So as long as the Liberals who are in favour of Michael Ignatieff are more motivated by those who want to see him go, he'll survive.

Working against Michael Ignatieff is the fact that surviving can't be enough.  Sure, 55% would mean he could hold on to his job, but really, a score so low would certainly result in calls that he resign on his own, especially given that he earned 97% of the votes by delegates at the May convention when he was selected as leader.

At this "convention", which would be at a news conference, given that there are no delegates, the auditor would announced the results based on his count of the ballots (the ballots are not counted at the ridings, but collected, sealed, and delivered to the auditor).

One way or another, the problem would be settled.  At the convention in May, 97% of the delegates votes for Michael Ignatieff to be the party's leader.  Of course, Michael Ignatieff wasn't running against anyone.  Still, that's a pretty solid vote.  If he couldn't replicate that number, or something close to it, essentially posing the same question (again) on an uncontested field (again) to the party membership, then all the rumour and innuendo would go away, to be replaced with the stark numbers, and the clear conclusion that Michael Ignatieff had indeed lost the trust of a large portion of the party.

On the other hand, if Michael Ignatieff manages to win (again) in an uncontested race (again), and does so resoundingly (again), then the sniping and ankle-biting would fade away.  At least the media would be less likely to listen to it.

I think the Liberals ought to seriously consider the idea.  The question of Michael Ignatieff's control of the party is getting away from their ability to manage it.  That Michael Ignatieff has lost control risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.