News

"What an unpalatable choice now beckons Canadians," The Globe's Jeffrey Simpson laments today in his column Harper bulldozes his way to the brink

"[It's either] a government led by a Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, whose approach has disappointed so many or a government led by Stéphane Dion, the Liberal Leader Canadians resoundingly rejected six weeks ago.

"That the winner should become the loser, and the loser the winner is a script no one would have imagined possible last week.

"The author of this improbable scenario was Mr. Harper, whose miscalculations produced a coalition deal yesterday signed by Mr. Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton, backed by the separatist leader Gilles Duceppe, to govern for 2½ years.

"Mr. Dion would become prime minister under this coalition deal until May, when the Liberal Party will select his successor.

"If this coalition takes power, therefore, Canada would be led by a temporary prime minister who almost every Liberal MP wishes were not the leader. Not having been successful in leading his own party, it would be fascinating to watch him run a coalition government . . .

"Mr. Harper, who bulldozed his way toward this cliff and who will be judged harshly and perhaps fatally by his party if the government goes over the cliff, has tried unsuccessfully to show belated flexibility by backing down (temporarily) from plans to eliminate party subsidies and ending the right to strike."

Mr. Simpson argued that Mr. Harper still has a few options but added:

"His fate depends, it would appear, on the Governor-General's decision to grant prorogation or an election. Otherwise, he will have done a Joe Clark, miscalculating his way out of office."

Whether you agree with Mr. Simpson or not, he has made some interesting points for debate, so we at globeandmail.com are pleased that he was online earlier today to take your questions on Harper government's future, the Liberal-NDP coalition plans, and federal politics in general.

Your questions and Mr. Simpson's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

On Monday, Mr. Simpson wrote: "Conservative MPs, plus plenty of rank-and-file Conservatives, are angry and confused about the mess their government created in the past few days."

"Their fingers are pointing at two men: Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his chief of staff, Guy Giorno," he added in his column Spectre of defeat, hasty retreat put party in disarray

"Since Mr. Harper makes all the important decisions in this government, the manifold miscalculations of Thursday's economic statement were his, aided by his chief of staff, a partisan brawler imported from the old Mike Harris government in Ontario.

"Somebody, later rather than sooner, is going to pay the price for these miscalculations, because angry Conservatives and a vengeful Prime Minister are a toxic combination.

"Perhaps Mr. Harper will take the fall, if indeed the Conservatives lose the government. Or Mr. Giorno, for giving such lousy advice. Or Mr. Flaherty, for pushing such limp policies. Even a few senior civil servants could have their careers stunted by these events."

Mr. Simpson has won all three of Canada's leading literary prizes — the Governor-General's award for non-fiction book writing, the National Magazine Award for political writing, and the National Newspaper Award for column writing (twice). He has also won the Hyman Solomon Award for excellence in public policy journalism. In January 2000, he became an Officer of the Order of Canada.

He joined The Globe and Mail in 1974. His career with the newspaper began at City Hall in Toronto and with coverage of Quebec politics. In 1977, he became a member of the paper's Ottawa bureau, and eighteen months later he was named The Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau chief. From 1981-1983, Mr. Simpson served as The Globe's European correspondent based in London, England. He began writing his national affairs column in January, 1984.

Mr. Simpson has published six books — Discipline of Power (1980); Spoils of Power (1988); Faultlines, Struggling for a Canadian Vision (1993); The Anxious Years (1996) and Star-Spangled Canadians (2000). His most recent book, The Friendly Dictatorship: Reflections on Canadian Democracy (2001), was nominated for the Donner Prize as the best book on public policy.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, Jeffrey, and thanks for joining us again today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com. Let's start by getting a little historical perspective here.

While we're not sure yet what will happen in the end, how would you rate the potential of the Harper government's miscalculation in last week's fiscal update and related measures, compared to past major government errors, including the fall of the Joe Clark government in 1979?

Jeffrey Simpson: Jim, I happened to not only be around for the defeat of the Clark government, but to have covered it in detail and, may I say so, written a book about it, Discipline of Power.

The similarities are eerie: A minority government completely misreading the country and Parliament. On both occasions, the Liberals had leaders who had announced they were leaving, Messrs Trudeau and Dion.

There was no pact, of course, among the opposition parties then, as there is now.

There is one difference that will now unfold: Mr. Harper will not allow his government to be defeated now. There will be a prorogation, the Conservative Party machine will swing into action, watch for paid ads on television or a television address by the prime minister, and a budget that will be a Speech from the Throne that will contain half the measures contained in the coalition.

Mr. Clark wanted defeat. Mr. Harper does not.

John Danylchuk: Mr. Simpson, first, thanks for your insightful, vigorous and non-partisan commentary on this and other national issues.

My questions are: Can Stephen Harper continue as leader of the Conservative Party. [Editor's Note: The Globe editorial board today called on Harper to resign.] If he can't, who are the most likely successors?

Jeffrey Simpson: John, Mr. Harper will remain leader as long as the party retains power.

If it loses power, he will eventually be tossed overboard — not just for this monumental miscalculation but for the character and the thinking of the man who made them.

Robert MacDougall, Meductic, N.B.: As an active and disillusioned Conservative, what are the chances of Harper doing the honourable thing, now that he has blown both a chance for us to govern with either a majority government or a minority government.

Who will lead the charge for his departure and who will line up to replace him (apart from possibly David Orchard)?

Jeffrey Simpson: Robert, There is one golden, unshakeable rule in politics: Protect The King. The Conservatives will do anything and everything to protect Mr. Harper up to and including prorogation.

But if after this drama plays itself out, the Conservatives wind up in opposition, he will be gone if he doesn't resign.

Parties do not forgot such things.

Bob S., The GTA: Do you believe that any of the MPs running for the leadership of the Liberal Party would decline a position in the cabinet of the coalition government? If so, why?

Jeffrey Simpson: Bob, well, they should decline because their focus will hardly be on being ministers but on advancing their chances at becoming leader.

But if they were to decline, it would obviously weaken the coalition's effectiveness.

Jonathan Culp, Toronto: Mr. Simpson, however distasteful you may find the emerging coalition, one wonders just what else they might have done?

I mean the fiscal update was clearly insulting to just about everyone, flaunting power Harper did not actually have in an ugly and transparent way.

In the wake of this spectacle, would you still put money on this man morphing into a mature, consensus-building minority parliamentarian?

Do you really consider it in the best interest of party or country for the Liberals to revive their recent wilting routine? I just can not see it.

Jeffrey Simpson: Jonathan, I have to admit to being shocked by what happened, and I am not easily shocked.

Shocked, because last summer our excellent bureau chief, Brian Laghi, and I conducted dozens of interviews with people who knew and know Mr. Harper to gather material for a long profile of him that ran in the paper during the election campaign.

We thought that he retained, yes, a vengeful and highly partisan side but that he had matured and understood better that ideology does not well serve the Conservative Party in a fundamentally moderate country.

But he lost his bearings with this economic statement and the petty, mean little things it contained.

Now, I do not think that even if he survives, he will ever lead the Conservatives to a majority, because too many people will now distrust him.

Jasper McWilly, York University: What's your advice to Harper and to Dion?

Jeffrey Simpson: Jasper, I'm going to take this question to mean if I were the right-hand adviser to each.

For Dion: you've played your cards. Stick to it. Keep talking exclusively about the economy, stupid.

For Harper: Convince the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament (not a sure thing, by the way), and then advance on two fronts, playing for time all the way.

The offensive front would entail using the money and machinery of the Conservative Party — its members, MPs and ministers — to blast away at the obvious weaknesses of this coalition, which are, Stéphane Dion (whom almost nobody really wants as prime minister), the NDP (whom most Canadians do not want in power) and the separatists. Use television to run ads. Buy time for the PM to make his case directly to Canadians (shades of Nixon's Checkers speech.)

Defensively, Harper should admit straight up: I misjudged the public mood, am deeply sorry for it, have already introduced certain measures, and will advance the budget date with a new Minister of Finance (Jim Prentice) that would contain about half the measures contained in the coalition document, and then dare the opposition to defeat me.

The Conservatives have to win the battle for public opinion to have any chance to survive in the House. Their strongest card, I think, will be the separatists supporting a coalition government. I tried to write about this Bloc Québécois danger after the election.

Ken Johnson, Ottawa: Since approximately 63% of Canadians did not vote for Mr. Harper and his Conservative type of agenda in the last election just two months ago, why would anyone outside of Alberta be surprised that the rest of the country would only be too happy to see him go?

He is the most duplicitous person I have ever known and the fact that his mischievous engineering should do him in only makes it sweeter for me.

Jeffrey Simpson: Ken, since you didn't ask a question but expressed an opinion, you'll forgive me if I don't answer a non-question.

Martha K.: Hello, Mr. Simpson. Would you agree that the following may happen if this coalition takes place?

(1) markets will decline because they hate uncertainty and there is certainly to be 2.5 years of bickering between three parties.

(2) concessions made/promised on this backroom deal, will have to be met. Mr. Duceppe's support will be contingent on his forestry industry in Quebec getting at least $1 billion. Mr. Layton's support will be contingent on a $2-3 billion bailout for the auto sector and the Liberals will have demands into the billions of their own. As usual, the West will get nothing (I'm from the East).

(3) Taxes will rise to meet these demands and GST will be raised again.

Jeffrey Simpson: Martha, the GST will not be raised, nor will taxes. That would be crazy in a recession.

If indeed Quebec's forestry industry is assisted, it would be part of a nationwide package that would assist the hard-pressed industry in B.C., Ontario and Alberta.

Be careful how one "assists" this industry. If you start subsidizing it, the U.S. will tear up the fragile softwood lumber deal, and will slap on actions against the industry.

As for the auto industry, nobody yet knows what to do, because the industry itself has not put forward any detailed plans. There will be aid, but it would be foolish to write them a check tomorrow or any time very soon.

As for markets, who knows what they will do, since very few people can figure out what they have been doing.

Obviously, markets won't like the NDP anywhere near power, but at least the crazy NDP idea of raising corporate taxes has been dropped.

Ken Lafayette, Saskatoon: Why do you assume that Conservative supporters are angry? Contrary to what seems to be your hastily formed opinion, this kerfuffle actually has me thinking about being an active supporter of the Conservative party again.

Another question: Is this a coup, or would it more properly be termed a putsch?

Jeffrey Simpson: Ken, I spent some time on the weekend with Conservative MPs, mostly from Western Canada. Believe me, they were shocked, angry (at their leader), confused (about how this happened), and they were hearing it from their constituents.

Joe C., Kitchener, Ont.: The Liberals and NDP by themselves do not have a majority.

Does the BQ have to be formally in the coalition for it to work? I shudder to think of the political sweeteners they would have to send Quebec's way to get BQ co-operation.

Jeffrey Simpson: Joe, you're right to shudder, because the BQ judges everything through one lens: What is good for Quebec. Period. End of story.

This won't bother the NDP much, because it has usually preferred, at least nominally when trying to woo Quebec nationalists, a variation on a two-state, deeply asymmetrical federalism and because the party so desperately wants to exercise a little power.

But for Liberals, especially those outside Quebec, who think their party actually stands for something by way of national policies, this kowtowing to the Bloc will be painful.

Politics makes strange (and sometimes uncomfortable) bedfellows. So we have gone from a government that would do almost anything to appease and appeal to Quebec nationalists, to one dependent on separatists' support.

Josiah Smith, Japan: Mr. Simpson, thank you for giving us your time once again.

First, I am just sick to my stomach that all this is happening. The Prime Minister's scorched-earth tactics make me even more ashamed of my government.

A lot of people have been saying a coalition government would be illegitimate. Legally and constitutionally, it is not, though I can understand the sentiment.

Just look at Japan. It's on its third unelected PM in a row.

However, if we did have another election, can you really see us in a different situation from the one we are in now?

There is no way Mr. Harper could win a majority now. Mr. Dion and the Liberal Party are in no position to win a majority either. I believe we have more or less the same situation as a month ago.

Mr. Harper's latest gambit is appalling, but at the same time it is not new. Before the previous election, every vote had to be a confidence measure, with the Conservatives daring the opposition to bring the government down. The first major vote after the election? Force another election or tie a rope around the neck of your party's future.

How do we get out of this mess? Will a (mostly likely unstable and dysfunctional) coalition be able to govern?

Jeffrey Simpson: Josiah, you're sick to your stomach? Spare a tear for those of us up close.

Yesterday, while working in my office and following this little drama, I was watching President-elect Barack Obama introduce his national security team — and what a team of competent people it is. The contrast could not be greater.

For eight years, I thanked my lucky starts not to have to live in a country governed by George W. Bush, but yesterday I wanted to rush for the border, even though their problems are heaps worse than ours.

How do we get out of this?

Either the coalition gets its chance, and tries to hang together for 2½years led by a prime minister for the moment that almost no one wants and then by a prime minister (almost certainly Michael Ignatieff) who has never run a department or anything but would now run a country. [He's an intelligent man, don't get me wrong, but lacking experience.]

Or, the coalition falls apart before a January confidence vote.

Or, the Governor-General grants a dissolution of Parliament (unlikely) and an election ensues. And, no, I don't think the result would be much the same. Something major by way of a shift away from or towards the Conservatives would happen this time.

B.K. Mitchell, New Brunswick: It is almost certainly true that the vast majority of Canadians loathe partisan politics. It is also true that we will not be able to rid ourselves of this curse.

However, as with all socially dangerous practices, why not try to ameliorate it, regulate it, contain it, even bend it to the greater good instead of allowing it to hold us hostage in a thousand different ways?

Why can't the Liberal/NDP coalition be just the beginning? The next step could be to require, by law, that the head of the party with the most seats in the House lead a coalition with ministers selected from all parties in proportion to seats won.

Does anyone think there is any hope of such an arrangement emerging?

Jeffrey Simpson: B.K., get proportional representation and your dream would be answered — a government that perfectly reflects the share of votes casts.

And then wait for the parties to negotiate, in their own self-interest, such arrangements as suits them.

Dan Portz: Although a Conservative supporter, I feel that Mr. Harper and/or the Conservative caucus made a major blunder in attempting to eliminate the party subsidies without a majority.

However, I cannot see that a coalition government will work between three divergent parties for any time.

Can the Governor-General refuse the proposal and force another election?

Jeffrey Simpson: Dan, normally, changes to laws and rules governing political financing are done with the agreement of all parties, or at least after consultation with them all, even if unanimity is not found.

To have tried this trick was wrong, and you will have seen how quickly the Conservatives backed away.

Mr. Harper, as his friend Prof. Tom Flanagan has written, sees the permanent weakening of the Liberal Party as one of his long-term objectives. Take away their public subsidies, and the Liberals would be most wounded of all.

That was what lay behind Mr. Harper's (mis) calculations. He assumed that the Liberals, divided and coming off their worst defeat ever, would continue to backpeddle.

They did not, to his surprise.

Lynn Goodayle, Toronto: If the Governor-General determines that the coalition is not representative of the country as a whole, and the people's wishes based on the recent election results, can she determine that the Conservative party must govern the country as a minority, and request the party to appoint a new leader to function until the next election is called?

The objective is to take Harper out of the mix so he functions as an MP only, keep the various cabinet ministers in their roles to ensure continuity in governance for the country, and attempt to appoint a leader who will have more credibility and a less arrogant and partisan approach to leadership.

Jeffrey Simpson: Lynn, sorry but the Governor-General has none of those powers.

She takes her advice from her First Minister who occupies that post by virtue of commanding the confidence of the House of Commons, so that the Queen's business, as it were, can be done.

If the First Minister loses that confidence, he can properly ask for an election to seek that confidence after an election.

In almost every case the sovereign's representative will take that advice.

If, however, the sovereign's representative believes that the Queen's business can truly be done by another group, she has the constitutional authority to ask that group to seek the confidence of the House and, if successful, she has a new First Minister to carry on her (the nation's) business.

Trying to judge the shifting winds of public opinion is not her job, although she cannot be immune from considering the context within which she must make a decision.

Michael Cooper: The folks in Parliament are about to go home for their extended Christmas-based holiday.

Could not the GG delay a decision until the New Year?

Jeffrey Simpson: Michael, I have spoken to people whom I respect who argue that the Governor-General should refuse prorogation on the grounds that (a) Parliament has just gone into session three weeks ago, (b) there is no national emergency, although there might be a political one for the government, (c) no legislation has been passed and few bills presented.

If she were to decide in this way, there would be confidence votes next week, and the government would fall.

If she decides the other way, then the government lives to fight another day.

My guess is that she will grant prorogation because (a) the government has won one confidence vote — on the Speech from the Throne — and therefore she must listen to her First Minister who has not yet lost the confidence of the House, and (b) a Governor-General, to the best of my knowledge, has never failed to grant prorogation when asked.

Daniel Amin, Moncton: Mr. Simpson, given that Canada appears to have entered a period of perpetual minority governance, is it not inevitable that parties begin to work together in some capacity, as occurs in similar situations in Europe and elsewhere?

For all its potential flaws, it appears the coalition may at least limit the partisan rancour in Ottawa and usher in an era of collaboration among Canadian parties.

Jeffrey Simpson: Daniel, that's an interesting point.

I wrote a column during the election campaign speculating on just this point — namely that, if the electorate is now so permanently fractured that enveloping national parties and consequent majority governments will now be the exception to the rule, then the institution of Parliament and the parties within it might have to change the way they do business.

We are perhaps seeing the first evidence of parliamentary reality catching up to electoral facts.

And it is perhaps significant that the BQ will be binding this together, since their capturing of the largest number of seats election after election has, more than any other factor, produced that state of affairs.

So a party that does not believe in Canada will now uphold a coalition to govern it?

Who's writing these scripts?

R. Provan, Whitehorse: Mr. Simpson, I believe that a single party — one that earned the most seats during the last election — should steer the Canadian ship through the current economic crisis.

Do you believe Mr. Harper can regain the trust of the House, after an "economic update" designed to be unacceptable to the three parties, his release of a secretly taped NDP caucus meeting, and his appeal to Conservative supporters to mobilize against the threats of socialism and separatism?

If so, what steps would he have to take to get the opposition to back down from their plan to defeat him on a non-confidence vote?

Jeffrey Simpson: The Conservatives, I predict, will launch a full-scale assault on this proposed coalition, using every means at their disposal, including using their war chest.

They will replenish that war chest by alarmed appeals for money from their already energized political base. Never under-estimate the money-giving willingness of enraged Conservatives!

Nothing will be ruled out, since Mr. Harper's own political career, to say nothing of the government, is at stake.

Jack Ryan, Victoria: The first line on the Bloc Québécois website begins: "Le Bloc Québécois est un parti politique Souverainiste . . . "

I find it unbelievable that the Liberals and NDP are joining a coalition that, since their combined numbers are less than the Conservatives, depend upon the support of the Bloc Québécois to survive every single vote.

Without that assurance, the Governor-General will not allow them to form a government.

Stéphane Dion, architect of the Clarity Act, is forming an alliance with the separatists for personal glory.

PM Harper badly misplayed his hand a few days ago and deserves comeuppance, but can the once-proud Liberal Party survive in English Canada if they actually carry this through?

The defenders of a united Canada are now sleeping with the separatists over political expediency.

As much as the actors involved claim this is about the economy, it is entirely about the government subsidy of $1.95 per vote, make no mistake about it.

Pierre Trudeau must be spinning in his grave. I left the Liberals because it was always only about the ends (power).

Can the Liberals survive as the defenders of a united Canada if they make this deal with the separatists?

Jeffrey Simpson: Jack, good question.

As I wrote this morning, "Pierre Trudeau must be rolling over in his grave."

But, then, he said separatism was "dead." The shots are still rattling around the Commons and about to sign off on policy.

Tony, Peace River, Alta.: Hi, Mr. Simpson. Could you explain the concept of prorogation in Canada's parliamentary system?

It seems to me like an undemocratic loophole in our laws. If Mr. Harper wants to avoid defeat, he can just prorogue Parliament and then bring it back into session after New Year's when the whole mess has blown over and no one cares any more?

That seems quite inappropriate that such a mechanism should exist without such an order having to be brought before the House in the form of a confidence vote.

Do you know why this is?

Jeffrey Simpson: Tony, prorogation is perfectly normal in most instances. It's the end of one parliamentary session with another set to start with a new Speech from the Throne.

Normally, the government presents a Speech from the Throne, outlines what it intends, follows along with legislation and, after a few years, it ends the session, regroups with a new legislative plan outlined in a new Speech from the Throne.

What the Harperites are contemplating — proroguing without getting anything done to save their political skins — illustrates the desperate straits in which the government finds itself, courtesy of its own attitudes and decisions.

Whilom Chime, Kawartha Lakes, Ont.: I support the coalition, because it is clear to me that two-thirds of us voted for its members.

Therefore, whatever common ground those members can find to act from is common ground supported by an overwhelming majority of Canadians.

I have two questions:

Firstly, in other countries where coalition governments are common, is it usual for coalitions to exist that exclude a party with one-third popular support? This coalition is novel in Canadian politics, but is it novel on the global political stage?

Secondly, and more interestingly, supposing this coalition manages to govern with about as much competence as Canadians have come to expect from their government, will it set the stage for opening up Canadian politics to coalition-style governing in the future?

If the next election returns a House similar to the current House, could we expect multiple parties with moderate common ground from the outset to refuse to support the single largest party with an ideology opposed to that common ground?

Could this even allow us Canadians to begin to seriously explore the concept of proportional representation?

Jeffrey Simpson: Whilom, let's test this out.

You didn't vote for one of the "members" of this coalition. You voted for one of the parties now in the coalition.

Neither you nor anybody else in Canada had any inkling whatsoever that this kind of coalition would take shape. You might have hoped for one, but you didn't vote for it, you didn't know who would lead it, you didn't know on what policies it would come together, and I suspect you didn't think it would be propped up by separatists.

That's the thing about proportional representation or even this kind of result following an election. You vote for a party and you get something rather different.

Elliott Gordon Youden, Ottawa: Jeffery, I hope this note finds you well.

I am curious to know if you think someone like Mr. Goodale, Mr. McCallum or Madame Hall Findlay would have been better choices to lead the coalition?

Additionally, how do you think this will affect the Liberal leadership race? Will there be more of a push to unite-the-left or will the Liberals have learned better by then?

Jeffrey Simpson: Elliott, I do actually think that someone (anyone) other than Mr. Dion would put a better face on this coalition.

But he wanted desperately to stay, lobbied hard for it, and in the end the party didn't want blood on the floor.

If Bob Rae, who is going to lose the leadership quite likely in May, had been willing to support Ignatieff as leader, Dion would have been replaced.

But Rae wasn't willing to do that, so he will lose in May instead of losing now.

Here's my guess: I make it a cardinal rule to assume, after many years in this line of work, that the vast majority of Canadians do not follow what happens on Parliament Hill. Maybe five per cent do in normal times. Maybe 25 per cent in crisis times.

For the rest, they have better things to do with their time.

When they wake up and hear by whatever means that Mr. Dion is, or might become prime minister, most of them will be shocked and dismayed, apart from core Liberal supporters who would be happy if a yellow dog were prime minister provided it was a Liberal.

Similarly, a whole lot of Canadians are going to be horrified at the prospect of the NDP in power since the federal NDP is not like the Prairie NDP, moderate and pragmatic, nor like the social democratic parties in western Europe who know what governing is all about.

This is a group of people whose ideas have never crashed against reality. Perhaps, now, in a coalition they will have to test their ideas against the reality as explained by the civil service and the complexities of governing. That might be salutary for them, and for us.

Jim Sheppard: Jeffrey, thanks again for taking the time today to answer questions from our readers. I'm sure they appreciated your insight and analysis.

Any last thoughts on this unprecedented series of events in Ottawa?

Jeffrey Simpson: Jim, thank you. It's crazy here, in every sense of the term.

I have no concluding thoughts today, since what I offer at this minute will likely be written out of the evolving script as soon as the words appear.

Jim Sheppard: To our readers: Thanks to all of you who submitted more than 100 questions today for this online discussion. As usual, we're sorry we can't deal with all of them in the allotted hour.

Please join us again at 2 p.m. ET today when John Geiger, editorial board editor of The Globe, will take your questions on today's Globe editorial calling on Mr. Harper to resign to avert the crisis.

You can Join that Conversation by clicking on this link

We will, of course, be asking Mr. Simpson to join us again soon as this unprecedented series of events unfolds.