Michael Ignatieff's retreat from his election threat has put him on a path that is likely to mean a very difficult autumn.
Or that's what I think.
Michael Ignatieff doesn't have what it takes to deliver a credible and meaningful threat. Instead, he just yaks on and on, expressing doubt that his people can achieve results, and then threatening to do...well...nothing in particular.
It looks like Elections Canada is checking into the mandatory riding services package bought by every candidate during the last election. Elections Canada is concerned that this package of buttons and posters isn't worth the $2,500 charged by the party, and that this is a scam designed to hide the transfer of money from the ridings to the party.
I don't know about that, but I want to point out that whatever was in that bag, it was pure magic. It seems like the candidate could use to contents to do anything -- from decorate the office to running surveys.
That is one magical bag of electoral tricks.
There is a choice people are making that will doom Michael Ignatieff's leadership of the Liberal Party. It is a choice of what story to believe.
The Liberal Party announced that they had purchased the software package from Voter Activation Network to run their next campaign.
A judicious use of party funds, or so the Liberals are hoping.
But then, as it turns out, only six weeks earlier, the Liberal Senate Caucus had applied for parliamentary funds to buy the same software package, under a licensing agreement that does not seem to preclude the use of the software by MPs for electioneering.
So I have to ask myself the obvious question. Did the Liberals buy their nice new shiny database package using taxpayer funds?
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but Michael Ignatieff will trigger an election unless he gets answers on four questions.
Not action on those issues. Just answers.
Does Michael Ignatieff really think the real world is just a classroom and he's the professor?
Every once in a while, a media outlet has to pull a story when they realize they got ahead of the facts.
In this case, though, CityTV out of Toronto seems to have been fooled by someone into thinking that Ruby Dhalla, who is in trouble over allegations of mistreating illegally hired live-in caregivers, was exonerated by a parliamentary committee examining those allegations.
The truth is that the Liberal minority on the committee issued a report dismissing this as a witch hunt, while the majority has recommended multiple formal investigations.
How did CityTV get this so wrong? I am speculating that Liberals tricked CityTV ahead of the report being issued by the committee.
After trumpeting an exclusive, CityTV had to pull the story once they realized the story was wrong. I wonder if the people in the CityTV newsroom feel that they've been burned by Ruby Dhalla and the Liberals.
I have no particular insight into the what is happening in the Liberal Party leadership, but the signs continue to point to the Liberals backing down and holding off attempting to force an election until at least the fall, and possibly beyond.
Ralph Goodale's interview today continues in that trend.
At eHealth, the scandal continues to grow over the consultancy fees and bonus payments being lavished while regular folks worry about their jobs.
Though much of the criticism seems well-founded, I did take issue with the complaint that the $2,700 per day charged by a consultant was excessive.
My defense was conditional, and it looks like those conditions weren't met, so I have to agree with the critics on this one.
Is it just me, or are the signs pointing to Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff painting himself into a corner in the same way his predecessor Stephane Dion did, over and over again?
The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff are thinking about whether to trigger an election (assuming they can get the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois on board) based on a "report card" delivered by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
Of course, the Liberals will be looking at the polls and the party bank accounts. The report card? It's not a factor. Not one bit.
But for those Canadians who aren't in this for personal power, economic progress does matter. So ahead of the report card announcement to happen (here in Cambridge!), I'd like to give a very simple status report.
Jasmine MacDonnell, the former communications director for Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, is responsible for the grief Raitt has been suffering this week.
Jasmine MacDonnell is the daughter of Liberal fundraiser Ralston MacDonnell, with close ties to party leader Michael Ignatieff.
For some people, the connection is extremely interesting.
Let me be clear. It is not interesting, except inasmuch as it shows Ralston to be a dad who has been successful in raising a daughter who decided to have a career in public service.
Good for him. I know he's having a tough week watching as his daughter finds herself is in the eye of a storm. He's struggling to be strong for his daughter.
I get it. It's a dad thing. Politics has nothing to do with it, and it never did.
At first I winced. Then I paused. Then I thought about it some more, and I realized that the Lisa Raitt tape was just so much nonsense.
Except for the bit about Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff being shoved around by bankers. That was interesting.
That was worth listening to the rest of this inconsequential stuff.
People are concerned that the right to abortion might be misused. Frankly, these people are morons. Either abortion is a grave evil (that's a Roman Catholic term) and is, by definition, a misuse of medical knowledge every time it is done, or it is an absolute right of all women, and so no one has any business passing judgment on the reason an abortion is performed.
So what exactly are these people worried about? They are worried that new in-home off-the-shelf gender testing means an increase in girls to be aborted. Apparently when it was a crapshoot whether a boy or girl would die, it didn't matter.
I haven't written much about the eHealth scandal in Ontario, but in reading some of the news on the weekend, I need to point out that some of the numbers don't seem so out of whack. It really depends on the nature of the consultancy firm.
Liberals don't like what Michael Ignatieff is doing, or so say some Liberal bloggers. A revolt? Hardly, I say.
Now I'm saying that Michael Ignatieff is in control of the party and that the grumbling amounts to nothing.
So what do these Liberals do? The try to convince me that Liberals really are mad at Michael Ignatieff, and reveal confidential information to make their point.
This is nuts.
An exciting headline rolled by: "Liberal Revolt"!
The lead goes on to say that Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff is facing "serious trouble" from the grassroots for his support of bill C-15 which introduces mandatory prison sentences for drug crimes.
I rub my hands in glee, then I suffer a deep disappointment when I see that the "grassroots" in revolt is just a bunch of bloggers.
There are extensive archives arranged by month and by category.