Rumours swirl that Israel was considering a 48-hour humanitarian ceasefire in the Gaza strip though in the end the government seems to have rejected it at least for the time being. But does anyone think if the situation were reversed Hamas would consider such a thing? Which does not settle the question whether Israel should, although those who proposed it ought to realize more clearly than they seem to that Hamas would not use a lull in fighting (or anything else) for humanitarian purposes. But Israel's willingness to entertain the notion does underline the stark moral difference between the two sides.

Caroline Kennedy's dynastic shoe-in candidacy for the New York Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton took a dramatic turn for the worse when she gave a bumbling interview that started (in, says the Ottawa Citizen, "a dull monotone"):

Um, this is a fairly unique moment both in our, you know, in our country’s history, and, and in, in, you know, my own life, and um, you know, we are facing, you know, unbelievable challenges, our economy, you know, health care, people are losing their jobs here in New York obviously um, arh, you know ...

Hey, bring back that, you know, um, witty, eloquent lady from, um, ahr, Alaska.

Media outlets are starting to produce their lists of historically significant incidents and people in 2008, man/woman of the year etc. These are useful exercises although I fear that when (if) history pauses to look back at them many will prove to have been trendy rather than tremendous. But I value these forays into postnostication anyway because they do remind us of something I wish the people taking part in current events manifested some sense of, namely that their deeds will one day be part of history and they should try to act and speak in a manner worthy of being remembered even if there's no guarantee that they will be anyway. Uh, when I say "remembered" I should probably add that I mean without contempt.

It seems more peaceful when the politicians are away, doesn't it? Except of course they never really are. Just in time for Christmas a cabinet minister attempts to drag Santa into squabbles over polar sovereignty by declaring him a Canadian citizen. I suppose we should be glad they didn't try to appoint him to the Senate.

Prime Minister Harper now says the $4 billion the Canadian and Ontario governments have offered GM and Chrysler is probably just the beginning of the ill-considered dumping of public money into companies with bleak long-term prospects. If you've been enjoying the scintillating level of debate on this proposal you'll also enjoy this video: In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into.............. A Giant Hole?

So George Bush has decided to go ahead and dump a preliminary $17.4 billion in public money into the two least successful "Big 3" North American auto makers. It's not obvious where that is in the Constitution but the President explained that "These are not ordinary circumstances." So apparently the idea is that something that would be unaffordable folly if you had money is indispensibly prudent conduct if you don't. I somehow missed that in economic class too.

So that was a pretty good week in politics. We got rid of Stéphane Dion and Mario Dumont. True, we also got Michael Ignatieff ... but we shall see. The departure of Mario Dumont is welcome because he was a walking, talking satire of contemporary politics, including his prolonged masquerade as an alternative to it. Handsome, smooth, politically obsessed since childhood, head of his own breakaway party since age 24, he believed in nothing, passionately. He didn't even know if he was a separatist, let alone where he stood on market economics, social issues or anything else.

He almost won the 2007 election on a wave of popular willingness to try free market reforms in a drastically over-governed province. But at the last minute he found the courage of his lack of convictions, backed off, and tumbled. Now he's gone, squeaking comically about how "there has to be a life after politics." Well, yes, and ideally before it as well.

Mr. Ignatieff got that part right. After a successful career as an annoying student activist, he became a public intellectual, and only returned to politics, and Canada, in his late 50s. The question, though, is what desirable qualities he brings to the job.

Supposedly he is sexy. And one Citizen commentator praised his eyebrows, saying they'd be effective in Question Period. But at the risk of appearing picky, I'm hoping for something a bit more substantial.

Here's the question I want to ask him: Your party has not won a majority with an Anglophone leader since William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1945. I wasn't born then and neither were you. It also hasn't won a majority of seats in Quebec since 1981, which you maybe missed because it was during your nearly three decades abroad. But what, exactly, is it that you've got that will reverse this pattern? Other than cool, ironic brows?

My question does not reflect standard media obsession with political tactics. Rather, to the considerable annoyance of many of us, the Liberal party long defined itself, and won elections, as the party that knew how to keep Quebec happy within Confederation. But the days are long gone when it was enough to get you labelled a statesman if people in English Canada believed, however implausibly, that you appealed to Quebec (or, in Joe Clark's case, if you believed it all by yourself).

For that reason it is disquieting that Mr. Ignatieff doesn't even seem very clear on whether he supports the coalition Mr. Dion foisted upon his hapless party. It's bad enough not to know what he thinks about socialist economics. But surely he has an opinion on separatism.

His hesitation and silence are touted by his supporters as proof of his depth. But they might instead reflect timidity or malleability, especially given that on other important questions like "Is he for or against the Iraq war?" the answer is yes. (Ditto whether or not Israel is guilty of war crimes.) When, indeed, has Mr. Ignatieff ever taken a strong stand against prevailing opinion, or stuck to one when the popular mood changed? Aren't real intellectuals eager to challenge conventional wisdom rather than channel it? Even Pierre Trudeau, hardly the iconoclast the herd of independent minds took him for, staunchly and courageously opposed ethnic nationalism when it was trendy.

So where does Mr. Ignatieff stand on Quebec's place in Canada? It's the core issue raised by this coalition, whose partisans manifestly consider Quebec separatists more legitimate political players than people who despise Quebec separatists. Does Mr. Ignatieff agree, disagree, or need more time to answer the question?

I said months ago that a real Social Democratic Party would be good for our politics. But while such a thing would resemble this coalition in many important ways it would differ in three essentials: a) it would not contain people who want to destroy Canada b) it would be one party with policies, not a coalition with attitudes and c) citizens would be told about it during an election, not afterwards.

Is Mr. Ignatieff prepared to approach his coalition partners including the Bloc to discuss forming such a party? And if they refuse, is he willing to govern with them anyway? The question is not simply a partisan jibe about what happened to the Liberals as the party of national unity. It is a way of seeing whether Mr. Ignatieff is a man of ideas, or just enjoys the reputation.

At least Mr. Dion had his Green Shift. After two years we do not know why Mr. Ignatieff wants to be prime minister. Does he know? Or is he just an older Mario Dumont?

Don't raise an eyebrow at me, sir. It's a fair question, and yours need plucking.

[First published in the Ottawa Citizen]

Stephen Harper's cunning trap is closing on the hapless opposition parties. The Governor General's decision to prorogue Parliament until the January budget gives them more time to squirm. But no outcome now favours them.

I know, I know. Early commentary said the prime minister had set his own head on fire. But it is increasingly clear that his adversaries are the ones in a nasty spot. I'm not even sure what to call this bizarre combination of the Bloc, NDP and Liberals? Bl... ND... ral... The Blunderals? The Blendables? But with doubtful constitutional legitimacy and no popular mandate, it is unlikely even to serve the shallow ambitions of its key members no matter what happens next.

If the coalition dissolves in unseemly squabbling between now and late January, or backs down ignominiously on the budget vote, its members end up looking both weak and stupid. If instead they go ahead and vote the government down over the budget, they give the Governor General a constitutional problem that does nothing to alleviate their own political headaches.

The constitutional problem is not what it appears. This is no undemocratic coup attempt by a cabal. The prime minister babbled on Tuesday that "The highest principle of Canadian democracy is that if one wants to be prime minister, one gets one's mandate from the Canadian people and not from Quebec separatists." But in this country we do not elect governments or prime ministers. No such choice appeared on your ballot.

Under parliamentary self-government we elect individual members of Parliament. And a ministry holds office as long, and only as long, as it commands the confidence of the House of Commons that results. That's why I don't think the Governor General should have agreed to prorogue. Given genuine doubts about the ability of Her Majesty's first minister to face the House, she should simply have insisted that he make the attempt. In January he will have to anyway.

The problem is that if he loses that vote it would not be appropriate for Madame Jean to invite Stéphane Dion to form a government.

She should dissolve Parliament and call a new election.

I'm not even sure the Blunderal coalition could win a confidence vote in January either; some Liberal and NDP MPs must be finding this deal repellent or at least very ill-advised. But we could settle that question on the floor of the House.

The real reason we would need an election if the Harper government falls is much deeper. It is the fundamental constitutional principle that while a ministry must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, the House must enjoy the confidence of the populace. And there is precedent here. On two occasions, in 1784 and 1834, a monarch dismissed a British ministry supported by the Commons then dissolved Parliament and put the question to the public. In the first case the new Parliament sustained the King's action and in the second reversed it. Both times the result was conclusive.

Now consider Canada in 2008. No sane person cast a ballot in the last federal election unaware that Conservative members would favour the Harper ministry while Liberal, NDP and BQ members would not. But no one knew this coalition was even a possibility, while its hastily-cobbled-together program lacks key planks from each of its members' election platforms (the Green Shift for the Liberals, a corporate tax hike for the NDP and sovereignty for the Bloc). I respectfully submit that a House thus chosen has a mandate to bring down the Harper ministry if it chooses, but not to install the Blendable Blunderals. For that an appeal to the country is necessary. And it seems most unlikely this coalition could survive one.

Of course the Governor General might disagree and invite Mr. Dion to form a government. It wouldn't help. Even if the coalition somehow holds together for a year or two, its members must still one day face the electorate to defend a backroom deal deeply offensive to the West and many non-Tory Canadians' sense of fair play, headed by a bumbler who led his own party to its worst ever popular vote (26.2 per cent), allied to another party that has never reached 21 per cent of the popular vote and a third that wants to destroy Canada. Do you suppose Michael Ignatieff wants to face the nation in 2010 wearing this soiled garment? But leading a revolt to keep the hated Tories in power sounds ugly too.

If Mr. Harper didn't have most of this worked out in advance he's amazingly lucky. With no other way to get a majority, and unable to govern without one, he tricked his foes into a greedy, shameless lunge for power, baffling and offensive to the public.

Game set and match to Mr. Harper. Oh, and nice trap. Subtle, elegant and lethal.

[First published in the Ottawa Citizen]