Stuck in neutral

Michael Ignatieff's attempt to put a Harper-style muzzle on his party has already received plenty of attention - and at least some Libs are agitating for that theoretical silencing of other voices to be paired with a party-based publicity campaign to build up its interim leader. But as I noted in the comments to BCer in TO's post, there may be a severe limitation on how much Ignatieff is able to control his party's message.

After all, while the Libs' convention in May is largely expected to merely acclaim Ignatieff as the party's leader, there may still be a chance of somebody else launching a competing bid. And that possibility figures to place some strict limits on what Ignatieff can reasonably do in his current interim role.

To the extent there's even a slight possibility of any more candidates joining the race, it could hardly be fair for the party to use any of its resources in support of one candidate in its own leadership race - which presumably explains the lack of any ad campaigns to date. And indeed Ignatieff's caucus communications strategy might have to be toned down as well, since an edict barring any potential competitors from spreading their leadership message publicly would be highly problematic.

Now, there are some conflicting stories as to what deadlines might apply to the leadership race. As best I can tell, the only formal deadline for leadership contestants comes into play 62 days before the leadership vote - or around the end of February.

If that's right, it would leave a substantial amount of time before the Libs know whether or not they'll have to maintain some pretense of impartiality. And if somebody aside from Ignatieff does decide to mount a bid, then the Libs could be effectively hamstrung until May in trying to define Ignatieff publicly.

Mind you, the race may be effectively decided earlier, as Ignatieff will have a huge advantage if he can sign up enough delegates before a February 6 membership deadline to effectively predetermine the outcome of any convention vote. But even if another bid is seen as no more likely to succeed than Sheila Copps' challenge to Paul Martin, one would expect the party to at least try to stay neutral until the outcome is finalized. And indeed there would seem to be no more sure way to start developing a new set of internal fissures than for the Ignatieff wing to use the party's general funds and Ignatieff's interim leadership role to set up an even steeper hill for any competitors to climb.

So the Libs probably don't have much choice but to stay relatively quiet in defining Ignatieff. And that makes it all the more likely that whatever bounce he's managed to achieve since taking over the party will end up being drowned out by competing messages long before Ignatieff is in any position to start responding in kind.