# Liberal Party of Canada Leadership



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2012)

In the category of _not news_ we find this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/trudeau-to-seek-liberal-leadership-reports/article4568675/


> Trudeau to seek Liberal leadership: reports
> 
> STAFF
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




*Please*: let's restrain the personal attacks on M. Trudeau ~ he has had the courage to put himself up for election, something very, very, very few of us have the guts to do (one member to my certain knowledge, maybe two or three others); and he has been elected by his fellow citizens, Canadians like us, who had choices.

There is more to the _leadership_ of the Liberal Party of Canada than just the candidates. The party has avoided the painful business of self evaluation and self criticism; perhaps that's not surprising, it's hard to do, harder to do well, and, generally, unpleasant: so why not just go with what worked before, charismatic leadership?

Young M. Trudeau has _charisma_ ~ he's telegenic and is part of a _royal family_ of sorts. In my opinion the Liberals are smart to stay with alternating English and French leaders (Laurier - King - St Laurent - Pearson - Trudeau - Turner - Chretien - Martin - Dion - Ignatieff/Rae ...) but I suspect that there are other, equally or more able _francophone_ Liberals out there who would not have as many _negatives_ as M. Trudeau (his name, which earns respect in some parts of Canada (where the Liberal 'brand' is already strong) is still mud in other parts (where Liberals are in danger of losing some of the few seats they hold), his slender resume and his tendency to speak before thinking).


----------



## GAP (26 Sep 2012)

They (The Liberals) need a common sense plodder with some  charisma and a whole lot of common sense. 

Credibility in the Liberal Party right now is sadly lacking. I don't see Trudeau improving on that. In fact, he seems to fall into the same pattern as Martin, Dion and what's his face..... :


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Sep 2012)

Justin Trudeau is not his father, nor does he face the same political/economic/social conditions as his father did. To suggest that he will see the same success as his father is shallow thinking at best, at worst is plays into the messiah meme. I agree with others here that there are very capable francophone MPs who would make good leaders to rebuild the Liberal party (Domenic Leblanc for one).

I'm still curious to know how far along the last round of candidates are in repaying their loans. Last we heard, several were still owing quite a lot. There needs to be some push back from Elections Canada, or whoever governs this issue (not the party), that the Liberals get this sorted out before they hold another leadership race.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2012)

Based on my own knowledge of various candidates and candidate wannabe's, I can only think of two who might make the cut in terms of being actual useful leaders:

Martha Hall-Findley; who actually produced a policy study recently on Marketing boards (although looking at the study it was strange to see it coming from her and not some CPC functionary). Downside; still hasn't paid off the loans for the last Liberal Leadership race.

Marc Garneau: Canadian astronaut with a very impressive resume. Downside; don't really see much from him in the way of detailed policy, although his real role would be to select good policy ideas and move them through caucus.

Various other political luminaries exist (although it is interesting that most of the high profile Liberals from the 1990's seem to have evaporated, even as kingmakers or senior advisors), but I know even less about them. At any rate, it will be interesting to see how people do once the spotlight has been turned on them. I am also curious as to the emerging role of the blogosphere; few contenders will be able to evade searching questions from that source even if the legacy media only sends puffballs their way.


----------



## fraserdw (26 Sep 2012)

I think Trudeau would be little than a John Braid chew toy.  Garneau has the best shot at pulling something together, none of the others have large backing in the party but the Liberals tend toward the Messiah approach for their leaders, they will probably go with Trudeau.


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Sep 2012)

Trudeau is just a name. It is a party that has no soul. They don't have an idea left in their heads. Branded  as PC _Light_ or NDP _Light_. Nobody likes light beer or light salad dressing.

The Liberal Party is little more than a focus group and a logo.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is John Ibbitson's take on Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeau-as-leader-is-the-liberals-best-and-worst-hope/article4568779/


> Justin Trudeau as leader is the Liberals’ best and worst hope
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




My _initial_ guess is that Trudeau is a shoo-in for the job but that it, the Liberal leadership, will be his undoing. Both Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair are tough, _battle hardened_, veterans of the wars in the political trenches. They will smear M. Trudeau with one hand and then pummel him with the other: it will not be nice to watch. M. Trudeau's charisma and personality will make him nearly irresistible to young Canadians (the ones who don't vote) but middle aged and older Canadians will have no trouble resisting his charms, especially after Harper and Mulcair expose his rumoured lack of "bottom," as the Brits say.

Who's a better choice? Marc Garneau for the short term and Dominic LeBlanc for the long term.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> They will smear M. Trudeau with one hand and then pummel him with the other: *it will not be nice to watch*.


I've dealt with ugliness before; I've been to the Oromocto Legion on a Saturday night. I think I could tough it out.  ;D   Especially as he splits the Quebec vote between Liberal and NDP, diminishing both federally.


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Sep 2012)

I heard Don Boudria being interviewed on CFRA last week. It was an excellent example of idol worship by someone who is old and experienced enough to know better. When asked why he was backing Trudeau, all Mr Boudria could say was that he had two degrees and had taught high school. When his father's record was compared to Justin's rather slimmer file, all Mr Boudria would say is that Trudeau the Younger had two degrees and had taught high school and had won an election in a difficult riding. If that does not typify much of the enthusiasm for him - and the depth of the thoughtful deliberation behind it - the Liberal Party is in way more trouble than even its harshest critics will admit.

Good luck to Mr Trudeau. I believe he is a genuinely nice, caring person who is bringing a water pistol to a gun fight with two hardcases who make Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday look like Benny Hill.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2012)

And that, diminishing the NDP, is why, JM, we ought to hope that the Liberals pick the right leader and get on with the work of rebuilding the free market alternative to the Conservatives. 

The NDP have formed some fiscally responsible provincial administrations, along with some disasters, too, but the federal NDP is still in the hands of serious* socialists and must not gain power nationally. 

__________
* "Serious" is not the right word, I know, but I like the alliteration.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Sep 2012)

I've said before, Trudeau is the best thing that can happen to the Progressive Conservative Party. Making him leader of the Liberals will ensure the CPC remains in power. Probably with a majority.

As to the rest, when Ibbitson compared the Trudeau's to the Kennedy's I pretty well quit reading.


----------



## Remius (26 Sep 2012)

I don't think Trudeau stands a chance in the next election.  But he likely knows that.  No, I think Trudeau is doing a now or never move.  Given his age, this is a two term thing.  It does not matter if he wins the next election, he won't, but any increase in liberal seats will be seen as a victory.  He'll take the next few years to gain some experience as a party leader and as the third party expectations will be low.  Then he'll fight the next election, and quite possibly will form the official opposition.  He'll be seen as the the guy that's bringing the liberals back from the edge.  He'll cement his experience as leader of the opposition in that term.  We know Stephen Harper will likely run next election but I doubt he'll run after that.  Who does that leave to face a contending and significantly more experienced Trudeau? Add to that voter fatigue of having the conservatives in power for so long,it is very plausible that he becomes Prime Minister by then.   Its a very calculcated move on his part.  The prize not being the 2015 election,but the one after.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't think Trudeau stands a chance in the next election.  But he likely knows that.  No, I think Trudeau is doing a now or never move.  Given his age, this is a two term thing.  It does not matter if he wins the next election, he won't, but any increase in liberal seats will be seen as a victory.  He'll take the next few years to gain some experience as a party leader and as the third party expectations will be low.  Then he'll fight the next election, and quite possibly will form the official opposition.  He'll be seen as the the guy that's bringing the liberals back from the edge.  He'll cement his experience as leader of the opposition in that term.  We know Stephen Harper will likely run next election but I doubt he'll run after that.  Who does that leave to face a contending and significantly more experienced Trudeau? Add to that voter fatigue of having the conservatives in power for so long,it is very plausible that he becomes Prime Minister by then.   Its a very calculcated move on his part.  The prize not being the 2015 election,but the one after.




Good analysis; makes sense to me. I wonder if the Liberals can be patient enough to give him seven years (until the 2019 election).


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> but middle aged and older Canadians will have no trouble resisting his charms, especially after Harper and Mulcair expose his rumoured lack of "bottom," as the Brits say.



I know the sins of the father should not be visited upon the son, but I'm damned if I'm going to give him a chance to screw me over like dear old dad did.  I agree, that the two bigger kids in the sandbox will be swiftly giving the kid an atomic wedgie and charlie horses at first contact.  Will be fun to watch.


----------



## GAP (27 Sep 2012)

This in the National Post

Post-approved campaign posters, slogans for Justin Trudeau’s Liberal leadership bid
Steve Murray | Sep 26, 2012
Article Link


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2012)

Justin Trudeau is, if nothing else, rich fodder for columnists as this (the second in as many days) report by John Ibbitson shows ~ reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-trudeau-leads-will-liberals-follow/article4570953/


> If Trudeau leads, will Liberals follow?
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Meanwhile, over in the _National Post_, the discussion turns towards the Conservative leadership and John Ivison suggests that both Rona Ambrose and Jason Kenney are positioning themselves on the _social conservative_ end of the spectrum in order to be ready for a post 2015 leadership race. He, Ivison, sees Kenney as the front runner in this very early going.

Like M. Trudeau both Ambrose and Kenney are 40_ish_ - members of Ibbitson's "new generation of leadership."


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Sep 2012)

I agree that Trudeau, or whoever the next leader is, needs to lose in order to win. I don't know if they know that.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Sep 2012)

And in the What's New department the Grits must be swooning over their prospects with a the new leader. This story from the National Post site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

With Justin Trudeau as their leader, Liberals could easily win federal election: exclusive poll

Kathryn Blaze Carlson | Sep 27, 2012 1:36 PM ET


Justin Trudeau has not even formally announced his bid for the Liberal leadership, and already a poll suggests he would lead his party to power if an election were held today with him at the helm.

News broke on Wednesday that Mr. Trudeau will announce a run next Tuesday for the party’s top job when they pick a leader next April to replace interim head Bob Rae. Just hours later, Forum Research had sussed out whether his leadership could be a game-changer for the third-place party.

In an exclusive poll conducted for the National Post, Forum found if Mr. Trudeau were leader of the Liberal Party and an election were held today, the Grits would win, handily, with 39% of the popular vote. 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives would come in second, with 32% of the vote, and the NDP — today the Official Opposition and led by Thomas Mulcair — would return to third-party status, with just 20% of the vote.

“The real news here is that Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader has the effect of taking all the wind out of the NDP’s sails,” said Lorne Bozinoff, Forum Research’s president, of the 14% bump Mr. Trudeau would lend the Liberals.

Mr. Trudeau refused to answer questions from reporters on Parliament Hill on Wednesday, saying “I have nothing to announce today,” but the Quebec MP will reportedly announce his leadership intentions in his home riding of Papineau on Oct. 2 — the birthday of his youngest brother, Michel, who died 14 years ago in a B.C. avalanche.

As the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, one of Canada’s most contentious prime ministers, some onlookers are already questioning whether the young Trudeau, at age 40, can overcome his father’s legacy in the west and among some francophones in Quebec. Still, with the unofficial news of his bid, he is far-and-away considered the frontrunner with a massive lead.

Mr. Trudeau, who famously fought and beat Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau in a charity boxing match earlier this year, is already a huge draw for Liberal events and fundraisers. Plus, he has a massive following on social media sites like Twitter, where he boasts 150, 993 followers — second only in number of followers among Canadian politicians to Mr. Harper, according to Politwitter.ca.

Even without the Trudeau factor, the poll found that while Mr. Mulcair has the highest net favourability rating of the three leaders, the NDP is losing some momentum, with some of its support shifting to the Liberals: If an election were held today, the NDP would win the Official Opposition spot with 30% of the vote, down from 34% when Canadians were asked about party preference on Aug. 22; the Liberals under Mr. Rae, meantime, would win 25% of the vote, up three points from last month’s poll.

“It appears the NDP surge we were tracking has subsided somewhat, and voters are more comfortable with the Prime Minister than they have been in the past,” Mr. Bozinoff said.

The poll, a telephone survey of 1,707 randomly selected Canadian adults taken on Sept. 26, is accurate +/-2%, 19 times out of 20.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Sep 2012)

I think this poll fails to appreciate several things:

a. the Bloc will displace the NDP in Que;
b. the Liberals will not gain in the west;
c. both Harper and Muclair will use Trudeau as a chew toy; and
d. the messianic approach has been the most sucessful model for the Liberals.  :


----------



## GAP (27 Sep 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think this poll fails to appreciate several things:
> 
> a. the Bloc will displace the NDP in Que;Depending on what the PQ do to tard things up
> b. the Liberals will not gain in the west; True, maybe some in BC, but the Provincial Libs are screwing that up
> ...


----------



## Scott (28 Sep 2012)

I can't wait to see the next Vote Compass where we're asked what sort of hairdo we like


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2012)

My last line was meant to be sarcastic... perhaps I have to work on that some more.


----------



## bridges (28 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-trudeau-leads-will-liberals-follow/article4570953/
> 
> "The Liberal Party, if it is wise, will value one thing above all in whoever is chosen leader: the ability to speak to the suburban middle class about what they and the leader both value. That is Mr. Trudeau’s challenge. "



Although, isn't that the demographic that elected Rob Ford in Toronto?  And I hear they've been having a few problems with him lately.   :

At least we can't complain that our politics are boring.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2012)

Swoon factor must be huge, there are five links to separate articles, editorials and punditry pieces in today's NP article (referenced upthread).

Short answer; the Young Dauphin is a bit like Barrack Obama in 2007-2008; a blank slate for people to project their own dreams. Once reality sets in (and Steven Harper and Thomans Mulcair will provide a huge dose of reality at high speed and volume if/when the Young Dauphin becomes leader) the reality of Trudeau's lack of experience and ideas will be butally exposed for all to see.

Lack of ideas is one thing; if he were an experieinced leader his true role would be to pick out good ideas and shepard them through caucus, but where is his center? And of course, when has he ever demonstrated the ability to organize or manage large organizations?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2012)

The Liberal Party of Canada's favourite wet dream ~ brains, gravitas and charisma, in spades!
Source: _National Post_

The _National Post_ article from which the _Facebook_ page was lifted says:



> The Bank of Canada is trying to douse rampant speculation that Mark Carney is a potential candidate for the leadership of the Liberal party ... However, his denials to date have not been sufficiently categorical to dissuade some Liberals from dreaming of a Carney candidacy ... A “Draft Mark Carney for leader” Facebook page has popped up ... The movement garnered one friend so far — Tim Murphy, one-time chief of staff to former prime minister Paul Martin ... Murphy and another former Martin insider, Richard Mahoney, are among the names of influential Liberals rumoured to have urged Carney to take the plunge. Neither could be reached for comment Thursday."



Governor Carney strikes me as being a _liberal_, not a Liberal.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> [Governor Carney strikes me as being a _liberal_, not a Liberal.



Wouldn't that be hysterical; Mark Carney throws his hat in the ring post 2015 to replace Stephen Harper as leader of the CPC. The sound of jaws hitting the floor in Liberal PArty HQ would be audible all across Canada....


----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2012)

And....he would probably win the leadership race, if not the next election...


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Sep 2012)

Chronicle Herald Trudeau Cartoon


----------



## bridges (28 Sep 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Chronicle Herald Trudeau Cartoon



Link no worky    


Edit:  but it can be seen on the main page here:  http://thechronicleherald.ca/
The first of many, no doubt.  Thanks for the heads-up, jollyjacktar.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Sep 2012)

And the National Post, after publishing the results of a poll showing JC as the answer to the Grits' prayers, now posts an oped piece that suggests choosing him would be a triumph of fluff over substence. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright  Act.

Full Comment Kelly McParland: Liberals transform themselves into the Lindsay Lohan party

Kelly McParland | Sep 28, 2012 10:30 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 28, 2012 11:20 AM ET

Sober, serious-minded Liberals — surely there are some  — must look at their party sometimes and wonder if it will ever learn. After running the country  for most of the 20th century it’s morphing into the Lindsay Lohan of Canadian politics, constantly vowing to clean up its act, only to wake up with a headache and another charge on its rap sheet. The Liberals aren’t into drugs that I know of, but after three failed marriages, a stint in rehab and with its overall health in decline, it pledged to undertake a serious effort to re-establish itself as a mature, dependable party. Instead it’s plunging shamelessly into an affair with the handsome young thing with the dynamite hair.

Well, it’s a grown-up party that should know better, so all we can do is sit back and watch how it turns out. Maybe Justin Trudeau won’t be Maygan Sensenberger to the Liberals’ Rod Zimmer. Maybe there’s a hidden depth beneath that glib exterior. Maybe he’s more mature than the MP with the Johnny Depp moustache who called the environment minister a “piece of shit” during a heated moment in the House of Commons, and suggested that if Canada’s going to go the way of  Stephen Harper “maybe I would think about making Quebec a country.”

It’s possible, but so far we just don’t know. Which is what’s so disheartening about the Liberals’ latest fling. Most of them have no idea what Justin is about. They can’t know, because other than a few idealistic opinions on youth and the environment, he’s said very little about any of the things that are important to the country. Does he have a view on the economy, on job creation, on Israel or Syria or Iran, on U.S. relations or trade with China, on health care or infrastructure, or when and under what conditions to deploy the armed forces?

Beats me. If he has them he’s not sharing them, judging by his parliamentary web site (Justin.ca. How’d he beat the Bieber to that one?). His three comments on the economy consist of brief snippets straight out of party headquarters to the effect that Stephen Harper wants to give tax breaks to the rich while ordinary Canadians struggle. His list of “speeches” in the House stop at March 2011. He seems to have thought the Harmonized Sales Tax was a good idea, suggesting it would ensure “economic recovery and growth will begin sooner as opposed to later.” (Which is at least a step up from Jean Chretien, who vowed to repeal its predecessor). Since being named critic for Youth, Post-Secondary Education, and Amateur Sport he’s posted three statements, one wishing everyone a Happy Canada Day, and one each on the Olympics and Paralympics.

Pretty thin, it would seem, but maybe it’s enough for the Liberals. Trudeau hasn’t even confirmed his run yet, and already a National Post poll suggests he’d be prime minister on Monday if an election were held today. It would take a party with more backbone than the Liberals have shown in many a year to turn up their nose at that.

Yet you have to wonder. Here’s a party that, after its most recent drubbing, swore on Laurier’s grave that it would be thinking long and deep about its place in the world, what it stands for and what it believes, and wouldn’t be coming back to Canadians for their vote until it had some good solid answers, and policies to go along with them. Now Justin wiggles by and they’re begging shamelessly for a kiss. Just consider what it all says about them:

1. After the Ignatieff debacle they swore off coronations, pledging they’d learned their lesson. Now they’re ready to hand Justin the crown the moment he asks for it.

2. Rather than sort out a solid package of policies and principles, they’re happy to pick the leader first and agree to believe whatever he believes. In Justin’s case this is particularly risky – you could even say foolhardy – given how few utterances he has made on any of the issues.

3. Admittedly the Liberals don’t have the bench strength they once enjoyed, but they’re not totally without alternatives. While the party is throwing itself at Justin, it’s ignoring the lonely astronaut in the corner. Marc Garneau – who may or may not run now that Trudeau is in the race – is an engineer, a rocket scientist, boasts a degree in electrical engineering from the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, and was the first Canadian in space. Justin Trudeau is a dabbler – he dabbled in teaching, dabbled in the arts, dabbled in acting, dabbled in activism. Now he’s dabbling in politics. Which of these two men would you rather have by your side in a crisis?

4. Once again the party is betting on the star candidate, the rock star, the name that will get a few fast headlines. Sound familiar? Michael Ignatieff at least had credentials – intellectual, author, historian, Harvard professor. Yet couldn’t pull it off. Is charisma and great hair enough of a substitute.

5. If the party really thought he was that hot a commodity, don’t you think he’d have got a weightier portfolio than critic for Youth, Post-Secondary Education, and Amateur Sport?

When Pierre Trudeau won the leadership he defeated an impressive pool of talent: Robert Winters, Paul Martin, John Turner, Allan MacEachen. A party that can boast that much strength is one that’s ready for government. Today’s Liberals are a sorry memory of that day, yet seem disinclined, despite all their pledges otherwise, to re-build the foundations needed for a solid future.  They’re going with a paint job and some bright lights to disguise the decay. It’s the Lindsay Lohan approach.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Sep 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And the National Post, after publishing the results of a poll showing JC as the answer to the Grits' prayers...


Interesting typo...or _are_ you saying that we're going to hell in a handbasket?   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Sep 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Link no worky
> 
> 
> Edit:  but it can be seen on the main page here:  http://thechronicleherald.ca/
> The first of many, no doubt.  Thanks for the heads-up, jollyjacktar.


 :facepalm: sorry bout dat.


----------



## bridges (28 Sep 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> "...an affair with the handsome young thing with the dynamite hair."
> 
> "Now Justin wiggles by and they’re begging shamelessly for a kiss."
> 
> "Is charisma and great hair enough of a substitute."



Well now, just because he's sexy and has great hair doesn't mean he wouldn't make a good leader!      Some columnists protest too much, methinks...


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2012)

My preferred outcome for 2015 is a NDP majority. It will be painful but it will ensure Canadians never think of the NDP again.

But, since I have to manage my expectations, Justin Trudeau as PM ail do just fine. It's going to hurt for a bit but the hangover the average Canadian idiot voter will have will worth it for the entertainment value alone.


----------



## MJP (28 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> My preferred outcome for 2015 is a NDP majority. It will be painful but it will ensure Canadians never think of the NDP again.



You sir are a truly evil man...I like it.


----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> My preferred outcome for 2015 is a NDP majority. It will be painful but it will ensure Canadians never think of the NDP again.
> 
> But, since I have to manage my expectations, Justin Trudeau as PM ail do just fine. It's going to hurt for a bit but the hangover the average Canadian idiot voter will have will worth it for the entertainment value alone.



Awh....fuddle duddle......


----------



## bridges (28 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It's going to hurt for a bit but the hangover the average Canadian idiot voter will have will worth it for the entertainment value alone.



My thoughts exactly - about Toronto.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that be hysterical; Mark Carney throws his hat in the ring post 2015 to replace Stephen Harper as leader of the CPC. The sound of jaws hitting the floor in Liberal PArty HQ would be audible all across Canada....



Wasn't there speculation that he would run for the Torries in the recent past?


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Sep 2012)

And Andrew Coyne takes aim at the media and the public reaction to the story that Justin Trudeau is going to run for the leadership. The column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

The son is not the father and the future is not buried in the past

Andrew Coyne | Sep 28, 2012 8:11 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 28, 2012 9:05 PM ET

What is Justin Trudeau’s position on whether Canada should contribute to an international stabilization fund for the purpose of resolving the euro crisis? Does he agree that any final status settlement in the Middle East should be based on 1967 borders? How would he amend, if at all, the “net benefit” test currently applied to foreign takeovers in Canada?

Which would he say was the highest priority at the moment, reducing the deficit to reassure financial markets, or increasing the deficit to provide fiscal stimulus? Does he believe Canada’s defence needs require a fifth generation fighter jet, such as the F-35, with stealth capacity suitable for deep strikes into enemy territory, or would he favour a less expensive fighter, designed for patrolling Canadian airspace? Or should we replace manned fighters with drones?

To ask these questions is to answer them: Nobody knows. I don’t know what Trudeau thinks on these issues, and neither do you. Nor do the media, nor the Liberal party, nor, I’m guessing, Justin himself. It isn’t just that he has never, so far as I am aware, made any significant public statement on any of them — or on any others, outside of Quebec and a few personal hobbyhorses. It’s that it’s difficult even to imagine him doing so.

Perhaps I’m being unfair. Perhaps there are hidden depths to Justin, waiting to be revealed. The point is, we don’t know — as indeed we know very little about him generally, notwithstanding his lifelong celebrity. We don’t know a great deal about his character or judgment — though what glimpses we have been given raise doubts about both: his bizarre objections to a government document’s description of female genital mutilation as a “barbaric” practice; his scatology in Parliament; his musings that a Canada led by Stephen Harper might cause him to support the separation of Quebec, and his petulant performance when called out on it.

There is a strong whiff of nostalgia in the air just now. A lot of people who should know better seem to have persuaded themselves that it is 1968 all over again
We have no idea what kind of leader he would make for the Liberal party. We don’t know what his plans are to rebuild the party, or what direction he would take it, or where he would concentrate its meagre resources. We have a hint of his tenacity — winning the nomination and then the election in Papineau, beating Senator Patrick Brazeau in a boxing match — but we don’t know whether he has what it takes generally to be a leader: whether he can build a team, inspire their loyalty, betray it when he has to. We know nothing of his strategic sense, his ability to spot a political opening, exploit an opponent’s weakness, or strike a prudent compromise.

What we do know is that he has very little experience of the kind that would prepare him for such a job. Comparisons to his father, elected leader after just three years in Parliament, are fatuous: Pierre Trudeau had been minister of justice, and before that a professor of law and an intellectual force in Quebec politics for more than decade. Justin has been a high school teacher.

But none of this matters, apparently. All that we need to know is that he has a famous name, a pretty face and 150,000 Twitter followers. On that, and on that alone, the media have declared him the winner of a leadership race that has not yet even formally begun, and will not be decided until April. And on that same slim basis, a good many Liberals seem prepared to hand him the crown. Imagine if the Democratic Party had nominated John-John for president, and you have a close parallel. Now imagine they had done so without even knowing who else was in the race.

Perhaps there are hidden depths to Justin, waiting to be revealed. The point is, we don’t know 
I cannot believe the Liberal party would be so rash. I do not mean that he will not win. I do not even mean that he should not win. Perhaps, as I say, he will surprise us, displaying a political shrewdness, and an emotional maturity, we had not previously suspected. But he cannot do so if he is not put to the test of a vigorous campaign. For the Liberal party to do otherwise, for it to throw itself at his feet without the merest vetting, would confirm the worst fears about the party: that it had no raison d’etre, no ideals or ambitions, but had descended into little more than a personality cult. Far from building for the long term, it would have succumbed to the pressure to produce short-term results, with the probable consequence of neither.

There is a strong whiff of nostalgia in the air just now. A lot of people who should know better seem to have persuaded themselves that it is 1968 all over again. Among other things, that’s unfair to Justin, who is his own man and who is running, I am sure, for the best of reasons, but on whom many others seem to want to project their own fantasies. But the son is not the father, and the future is not buried in the past.

POSTSCRIPT: As many readers will know, I am the cousin of Deborah Coyne, who is also a candidate for Liberal leader. I do not believe that should have any influence on my assessments of the race or the candidates. But having put the matter on the public record, I will leave you to form your own judgment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a somewhat fawning survey of Justin Trudea:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeaus-success-grounded-in-hard-work/article4576484/


> Justin Trudeau’s success grounded in hard work
> 
> INGRID PERITZ AND DANIEL LEBLANC
> MONTREAL and OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I think that whoever eventually becomes Liberal leader (I am fairly sure it will be a French-Canadian) will, as many pundits say, find that the road to power leads through Quebec which means that the first enemy is the NDP, not the Conservatives. But, in order to appeal to Quebecers the conventional wisdom is that the Liberal Party of Canada must adopt a left_ish_ economic policy which will not play well in "New Canada," West of the Ottawa River.

In the next election 225 of 338 seats will be West of the Ottawa River (42+34+14+14+121) "Old Canada," East of the Ottawa River will have only 113, 78 of them in Quebec; a majority requires 169 seats. It is, theoretically, possible to win a majority without having a single seat anywhere East of Ontario ~ very, very hard but mathematically possible. Give the Tories 10 safe seats in "Old Canada," then they need only 159 of the 225 in "New Canada," say 25 in BC, 32 in AB, 13 in SK, 11 in MB and 78 in ON; they currently have 21 in BC, 27 in AB, 13 in SK, 11 in MB and 73 in ON so the required gains are 4 of 8 new seats in BC, 5 of the 6 new seats in AB, no changes in SK and in MB and just 5 of the 15 new seats in ON. That result is clearly attainable - make it a bit easier and give the Tories 15 of the 113 seats in "Old Canada" and it becomes quite achievable. That being the case, the question becomes: can the new Liberal leader displace Mulcair and the NDP and return to _Stornoway_, which is a reasonable "intermediate objective?"

How to beat Mulcair? Two choices:

1. Attack his left wing/social democrat policies as being bad for Canada ~ this will not appeal to Quebec voters so the "intermediate objective" is unlikely to be attained; or

2. Go father left than the NDP and appeal to Quebec _nationalism_ ~ this will not appeal to "New Canada," making the "final objective" (24 Sussex Drive in 2019) harder to achieve.

Rock, meet Hard Place.


----------



## ballz (29 Sep 2012)

What about a third option ... moving further right on economics / fiscal policies, while remaining left / progressive on social issues ... in other words, the new Progressive Conservatives.

Not many people in Canada are on board with the social policies of the Conservative Party, and they know it, that's why they always try and focus everything on the economy, and deflect most attention away from social issues.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> What about a third option ... moving further right on economics / fiscal policies, while remaining left / progressive on social issues ... in other words, the new Progressive Conservatives.
> 
> Not many people in Canada are on board with the social policies of the Conservative Party, and they know it, that's why they always try and focus everything on the economy, and deflect most attention away from social issues.




I don't agree with any of your points.

First: the Stephen Harper Conservatives are occupying the "right on economics" and staking out the "centre" on social issues.

Second: many, many people in Canada are "on board" with the Tory social policies. But, most Canadians are not _left_ or _progressive_ on social issues; they are looking for the "centre" that the Conservatives are trying to define. There is, certainly, a _progressive_ wing but it already belongs to the NDP. There are, broadly, two kinds of _social conservatives_ in Canada: the _religious right_ which is, largely in rural Canada and which does have some choices but, broadly, supports the Conservatives; and the _New Canadians_ who have some quite _conservative_ values on issues which do not, in most ways, coincide, at all, with the religious right. They appear, to me, to have moved into the Conservative camp. The _social_ battleground is the "centre."

Third: the reason Prime Minister Harper focuses "everything" on the economy is because it is the ONLY issue that really matters right now; to focus his and his party's attention anywhere else would be irresponsible.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (29 Sep 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Not many people in Canada are on board with the social policies of the Conservative Party, and they know it, that's why they always try and focus everything on the economy, and deflect most attention away from social issues.



Last I checked, the key social issues which define us as Canadians (in the sense that they are different from the US) such as abortion, health care, gay marriage, etc weren't as clear cut as it is made to seem by the media... I may be quoting old data, but abortion and gay marriage were almost a 50/50 split for both in terms of actual support.  

That said, social issues such as the ones mentioned above, are, have been, and will continue to be window dressing and university level debating points that have no real bearing on the future... economics, as Mr. Campbell notes, is the only key issue of any real value, WAS the only issue of any value during the last several elections, and will continue to be the only issue of value. At the end people vote with the wallets unless times are VERY good


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2012)

Well, since John Manley is out of the picture and Denis Codere and Dominic Leblanc would be sound but unpopular choices, it will be between Trudeau and Garneau.  Frankley, Garneau is a little too condescending, so I say "le Dauphin" should give it a go...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a somewhat fawning survey of Justin Trudea:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeaus-success-grounded-in-hard-work/article4576484/
> 
> ...



Is your assessment based on the addition of more seats?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2012)

Yes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2012)

The _Toronto Sun_ offers us their editorial cartoonist's look into the future:






http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297317724630_COMICS.jpg?quality=80&stmp=1348960837169&size=650x
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act
from the _Toronto Sun_


----------



## ballz (30 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't agree with any of your points.
> 
> First: the Stephen Harper Conservatives are occupying the "right on economics" and staking out the "centre" on social issues.



Contrary to the current theme in Canada and the US, political parties can agree on certain things. I just don't see why the Liberals have to push further left on economics when its clear Canadians are feeling pretty right-wing about economics right now.




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Second: many, many people in Canada are "on board" with the Tory social policies. But, most Canadians are not _left_ or _progressive_ on social issues; they are looking for the "centre" that the Conservatives are trying to define. There is, certainly, a _progressive_ wing but it already belongs to the NDP. There are, broadly, two kinds of _social conservatives_ in Canada: the _religious right_ which is, largely in rural Canada and which does have some choices but, broadly, supports the Conservatives; and the _New Canadians_ who have some quite _conservative_ values on issues which do not, in most ways, coincide, at all, with the religious right. They appear, to me, to have moved into the Conservative camp. The _social_ battleground is the "centre."



Perhaps I shouldn't have said left, I should have said "Left of where the Conservatives are." I think the "centre" that the Conservatives are trying to define is actually a shade to right of where the actual centre amongst the population is. This is where I think the Liberals could do themselves some good. Similar right-wing fiscal policy which is already proven to resonate with the Canadians, but more left of the Conservatives social policies, where the centre actually is.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Third: the reason Prime Minister Harper focuses "everything" on the economy is because it is the ONLY issue that really matters right now; to focus his and his party's attention anywhere else would be irresponsible.



While I agree that the economy is the biggest issue right now, if the PM Harper and the Conservatives felt that focussing everybody's attention on a certain social issue was to their advantage, then the would also give plenty of limelight to those issues, aka the LGR and "Tough-on-Crime," things that they knew would resonate with Canadians.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> economics, as Mr. Campbell notes, is the only key issue of any real value, WAS the only issue of any value during the last several elections, and will continue to be the only issue of value. At the end people vote with the wallets unless times are VERY good



Of course, but what if two parties had very similar economic policies that you agreed with? How would you decide between the two?


----------



## bridges (1 Oct 2012)

I have to agree with ballz - my sense is that there's little appetite for the socially conservative policies that you see coming out from time to time, from the CPC.  Now if only there were a socially progressive and fiscally conservative party...  



> "It helped him beat the heavily favoured Senator Patrick Brazeau in a charity boxing match this year."


 Getting rather tired of hearing about that boxing match!  It's getting to be the equivalent of dad's pirouette behind Her Majesty.  I hope the authors are not seriously suggesting that it's relevant to this leadership campaign.


----------



## Remius (1 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> I have to agree with ballz - my sense is that there's little appetite for the socially conservative policies that you see coming out from time to time, from the CPC.  Now if only there were a socially progressive and fiscally conservative party...



I'm not so sure about that.  Immigration reforms, as an example are being lauded by most as being a step in the right direction.  EI reforms, while not popular in some circles is another example of social policies where I think they hit the mark.


----------



## bridges (1 Oct 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that.  Immigration reforms, as an example are being lauded by most as being a step in the right direction.  EI reforms, while not popular in some circles is another example of social policies where I think they hit the mark.



A matter of opinion, of course.  Those examples have both social and financial implications - particularly the EI - and they have both positive and negative potential ramifications for our society, depending on whom you talk to.  I should have been more specific; I was thinking of things like the recently-defeated "let's study when life begins" motion.  I very much doubt we'd see that coming from the Liberals, much less the NDP or Green.

And as for Mr. Trudeau's vision for the country... too much more of this will help nobody (except the CPC):

 :crickets:


----------



## dapaterson (1 Oct 2012)

I for one fully embrace the idea of Justin as leader of a political party and Prime Minister in 2015.

Imagine the cheering throngs at rallies!  Imagine the motivated young people getting involved in the political process!  Imagine the increased tourism in his hometown of Stratford, Ontario!


Yes, it's time.  Justin Bieber of leader of the Liberal Party of Canada!  You know that he wouldn't be getting the job by riding on his fathers coat-tails.


----------



## bridges (1 Oct 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes, it's time.  Justin Bieber of leader of the Liberal Party of Canada!  You know that he wouldn't be getting the job by riding on his fathers coat-tails.



OK, but no more chugging milk before political rallies.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> I should have been more specific; I was thinking of things like the recently-defeated "let's study when life begins" motion.  I very much doubt we'd see that coming from the Liberals, much less the NDP or Green.



I think you've misunderstood why that particular motion was allowed to come forward:

a. the PM needed to show that the party was generally not in favour of the motion;
b. the PM needed to allow the back bench social conservatives some ability to show their constituents that they still mattered, and
c. it is not in the nature of the torries to stifle free speech because they dislike the content of the speech.

Of the three enumerated points, I think point "a" was the most important. This is the theatre of politics where what one is seen to do is often as valuable as what one actually does.


----------



## bridges (1 Oct 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think you've misunderstood why that particular motion was allowed to come forward:
> 
> a. the PM needed to show that the party was generally not in favour of the motion;
> b. the PM needed to allow the back bench social conservatives some ability to show their constituents that they still mattered, and
> ...



Your point "a" proves my point as well - that this wouldn't even be necessary in any other major party, because it would never have come up in the first place.  I doubt the action of defeating such motions wholly undoes the negative effects of their being raised at all, in spite of the PM's best efforts.

Ultimately all of this is a sidebar discussion, but I think the new Liberal leader & the party as a whole will only benefit from any more socially conservative motions from the CPC back-bench, even if they are just an exercise.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2012)

A significant slice of the CPC back bench, and some of the front bench too, have strong social conservative credentials. The Liberals used to have many of a similar bent, see e.g. Tom Wappel, but Jean Chretien and Paul Martin pretty much drove them out, despite the wishes of their constituents.

I repeat there are two separate and distinct _social conservative_ communities in Canada:

1. One is largely rural and almost entirely Christian; and

2. The second is centered on the new Canadian communities. While one or two issues overlap, a distaste for public recognition/celebration of _gay pride_ for example, they have strongly different views on others, like abortion.

The first group, despite parties like Christian Heritage, really has nowhere to go but they bring their firmly held beliefs to the Conservatives. The second group is much sought after by all three parties ~ the Conservatives seem to have them , for now, especially in suburban Ontario and in the suburbs around Vancouver.

I, personally, am a social liberal and I rather dislike the _Christian right_ but most _social conservative_ are, in all other respects, pretty _normal_ Canadians and if they can put up with my social views then I can accept theirs. That is something which is not possible in the NDP or in the modern Liberal Party of Canada, and both parties are intellectually worse off for excluding ideas they don't like.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2012)

This non news is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1264831--justin-trudeau-to-kick-off-liberal-leadership-campaign-in-quebec-b-c-and-ontario


> Justin Trudeau to kick off Liberal leadership campaign in Quebec, B.C. and Ontario
> 
> Susan Delacourt
> Ottawa Bureau
> ...




  The middle class?  :


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Oct 2012)

Susan must be just slobbering at this news. For the last few years she had invent things to write. Now she can sing the joyous news of "Trudeau"!! And there will be many others in the media party joining her.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Oct 2012)

I have the distinct impression this will turn into another coronation. Will they never learn?


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Susan must be just slobbering at this news. For the last few years she had invent things to write. Now she can sing the joyous news of "Trudeau"!! And there will be many others in the media party joining her.



On power play tonight she was almost having an organism espousing the attributes of dear Justin.....


----------



## bridges (1 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I, personally, am a social liberal and I rather dislike the _Christian right_ but most _social conservative_ are, in all other respects, pretty _normal_ Canadians and if they can put up with my social views then I can accept theirs. That is something which is not possible in the NDP or in the modern Liberal Party of Canada, and both parties are intellectually worse off for excluding ideas they don't like.



I think you have a good point - I don't know about the Liberals, but the NDP can be very narrow-minded about this kind of thing.  As a leftie, it annoys me to no end.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> On power play tonight she was almost having an organism espousing the attributes of dear Justin.....



 :rofl:

I think you mean orgasm.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> I think you mean orgasm.



Or maybe this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh1exCwGiY0


----------



## eurowing (2 Oct 2012)

He meant this I'm sure 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg4LSu4PZbQ


----------



## GAP (2 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> I think you mean orgasm.



Have you looked at her lately......?


----------



## bridges (2 Oct 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Have you looked at her lately......?



Now, now...    :

Anyway, the fawning likely isn't doing Trudeau any favours.  The criticism will serve him better in the long run, IMO.


----------



## bridges (2 Oct 2012)

BTW, having reread Susan's article above, it seems to me a relatively neutral retelling of events - not particularly excitedm compared to others.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2012)

_Gable's_ view, courtesy of the _Globe and Mail_:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/applause/article4576026/

It may be a little extreme to suggest that the good ship Liberal Party of Canada has sunk, rather than is just sinking; but the next leader is joining a team of recent 'leaders' (Martin, Dion, Ignatieff) who have been tossed over the side while wearing lead weighted boots.


----------



## bridges (2 Oct 2012)

That reminds me of this one...


(Edit:  how do you make the pictures big, when you attach them?)


Source:  http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/06/euro-crisis-0


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> That reminds me of this one...
> 
> 
> (Edit:  how do you make the pictures big, when you attach them?)
> ...




First: right click on the source image and select "Copy image URL"

Second: here, in your 'Reply' box, enter [ img ] http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/06/blogs/free-exchange/20120609_ldp001.jpg [ /img ] with the [ img] and [/img ] all closed up and, _voila_


----------



## bridges (2 Oct 2012)

Just tested - in my case there was no "Copy image URL", but I was able to get it via right-click, Properties, & then copying & pasting the URL that appears there.

Thanks - much appreciated.   

I do hope that whomever they choose, they get behind him or her 100% and there's no tossing anybody over the side afterwards.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> I do hope that whomever they choose, they get behind him or her 100% and there's no tossing anybody over the side afterwards.



"_The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them."_

Isaiah 11:6


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2012)

More on the NP abut the Young Dauphin's leadership aspirations. He at least seems to understand the need to bring "New Canada" into the fold, but this could also be a case of saying what his handlers want him to say. There seems to be little to no recognition that the "real" enemy is the NDP, and of course there is the huge empty space where you are supposed to insert policy...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/02/kelly-mcparland-justin-mimics-ignatieff-with-early-foray-to-alberta/



> *Kelly McParland: Justin mimics Ignatieff with early foray to Alberta*
> 
> Kelly McParland | Oct 2, 2012 12:30 PM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2012)

The Liberals will not, as they should not, admit, publicly, that the real enemy, for Phase 1, is the NDP: they must rally the troops with an appeal to *power*. But, in their war rooms and, even more important, over meals in _Scaramouche_, in Toronto, _Hy's_, in Ottawa and _The Beaver Club_ in Montreal, the Liberals are, I suspect, tightly focused on the _Dippers_.


----------



## fraserdw (2 Oct 2012)

Can Liberals still afford to eat in those places?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Can Liberals still afford to eat in those places?




I took a friend to lunch at _Hy's_ a few months ago: no ministers nor any instantly recognizable Tory MPs (I've heard rumours that it's out of bounds unless they are - clearly and visibly - paying) but there were two tables at which I recognized well known Liberal insiders and another at which I saw a well known NDP MP.

The _Rideau Club_ is still "in bounds," I guess, but, being retired, I don't go there much any more.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I took a friend to lunch at _Hy's_ a few months ago: no ministers nor any instantly recognizable Tory MPs (I've heard rumours that it's out of bounds unless they are - clearly and visibly - paying) but there were two tables at which I recognized well known Liberal insiders and another at which I saw a well known NDP MP.
> 
> The _Rideau Club_ is still "in bounds," I guess, but, being retired, I don't go there much any more.



From the 26 Feb* issue of the National Post, " Life on the Hill: Perfect pubs for politicos" by Kathryn Blaze Carlson 



> "Métropolitain Brasserie, the Parisian restaurant nestled in a plaza on Sussex Drive, was adopted by the Conservatives after the party assumed power five years ago. Earlier this month, Industry Minister Tony Clement blew out 50 birthday candles at the “Met,” amid its burgundy-leather banquettes and circular booths.
> 
> Hy’s — the city’s most classic watering hole — is relatively non-denominational, though the Conservatives celebrated there after Julian Fantino won the Vaughan, Ont. by-election in November. "



* The Link says 26 Feb 2011 but I'm positive I saw the same article, with graphic map showing location of aforementioned pubs, in the NP a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Oct 2012)

Now that Justin Trudeau is running for the Liberal Leadership, maybe it is time for Ben Mulroney to think about leading the Conservatives.

Just saying....


----------



## JorgSlice (3 Oct 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Now that Justin Trudeau is running for the Liberal Leadership, maybe it is time for Ben Mulroney to think about leading the Conservatives.
> 
> Just saying....



:rofl:


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2012)

Is he?

Can he carry it off? Can he appeal, equally, to young social liberals and older fiscal conservatives?

I understand that _*Trudeau 2.0*_ is what the Liberals want but _I hae ma doubts_.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Oct 2012)

I think they've misplaced the decimal one digit to the right.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think they've misplaced the decimal one digit to the right.



 :rofl:   :goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2012)

I did not watch _Trudeau 0.2's_* announcement, nor did I even get all the way through the multi-page version posted on the _Globe and Mail_ web site, (I read through it, to the end, but my eyes skipped (large) bits) but Bruce Anderson did, apparently, and his assessment is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/justin-trudeaus-opening-speech-did-not-prove-his-popularity-is-deserved/article4584969/


> Justin Trudeau’s opening speech did not prove his popularity is deserved
> 
> BRUCE ANDERSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I sincerely hope, for the sake of the Liberal Party of Canada and for Canadian politics, that Mark Garneau, at least, joins the race. Somewhere there must be one Liberal with *ideas*.

_____
* Thanks Mike.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Oct 2012)

I'm a Westerner....born there, raised there. 

The name "Trudeau" evokes pretty powerful memories - not good ones - of "fuddle duddle" , the middle finger and the NEP in the early 80s.

I am not all that fond of Mr. Trudeau, younger or his father....


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> BRUCE ANDERSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> 
> Canadian politics would well served if the ballot question in the next election were: which of these leaders do you trust the most, rather than which outcome do you most want to avoid


Sadly, I suspect that this is how the election will ultimately be framed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Oct 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm a Westerner....born there, raised there.
> 
> The name "Trudeau" evokes pretty powerful memories - not good ones - of "fuddle duddle" , the middle finger and the NEP in the early 80s.
> 
> I am not all that fond of Mr. Trudeau, younger or his father....



A pox on all his generations...


----------



## bridges (3 Oct 2012)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/02/kelly-mcparland-justin-mimics-ignatieff-with-early-foray-to-alberta/



> *Kelly McParland: Justin mimics Ignatieff with early foray to Alberta*
> 
> Kelly McParland | Oct 2, 2012 12:30 PM ET
> ...and luxuriant locks...   seriously?   :
> ...



Well, 67% of the 56% who showed up, voted for the CPC.  That's around 37% of eligible voters who bothered to cast votes for Mr. Harper and his representatives.  It was enough to almost sweep the province in our first-past-the-post system, but I'd hardly refer to it as "almost all" of the province.




			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm a Westerner....born there, raised there.
> The name "Trudeau" evokes pretty powerful memories - not good ones - of "fuddle duddle" , the middle finger and the NEP in the early 80s.
> 
> I am not all that fond of Mr. Trudeau, younger or his father....




Me too, on the westerner part.     We don't all have the same politics - I just don't want to promote the idea that some easterners seem to betray, of westerners being a homogeneous lot.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> ...I just don't want to promote the idea that some easterners seem to betray, of westerners being a homogeneous lot.


_True_ westerners are.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Oct 2012)

Because Maritimers, Newfoundlanders, Quebecois, and Ontarioids certainly aren't. Errr, wait... never mind.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Me too, on the westerner part.     We don't all have the same politics - I just don't want to promote the idea that some easterners seem to betray, of westerners being a homogeneous lot.



Did you mean _portray_?  Just curious.....


----------



## bridges (3 Oct 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Did you mean _portray_?  Just curious.....



Nope, I meant betray = reveal involuntarily, through comments & assumptions.  Not everyone, not all the time.  Bit of a pet peeve and I might be hypersensitive to it.        ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Nope, I meant betray = reveal involuntarily, through comments & assumptions.  Not everyone, not all the time.  Bit of a pet peeve and I might be hypersensitive to it.        ;D



Fair enough.  I'll back out now....

Politics....    :boring:


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Politics....    :boring:


There, there, little girl; don't you worry your pretty little head with all this man talk.   >


Yes, I know other females are participating in this discussion.....and that they can vote and _everything!_  :stirpot:


----------



## bridges (3 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> There, there, little girl; don't you worry your pretty little head with all this man talk.   >
> 
> 
> Yes, I know other females are participating in this discussion.....and that they can vote and _everything!_  :stirpot:



ZZzzzz.... wait, what?  What'd I miss?   

It's ok - I probably won't be voting for my local Liberal candidate no matter who the new leader is.  Unless there's some necessity for strategic voting...not likely in my riding though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2012)

Very smart move on Justin Trudeau's part: forcefully repudiate his father's _National Energy Policy_ and, at the same time, distance himself from Thomas Mulcair and contest some political _key terrain_, provincial rights, with Stephen Harper.


----------



## PanaEng (4 Oct 2012)

Justin Trudeau shouldn't be underestimated, Mulroney says
Liberal leadership hopeful kicks off campaign with Calgary and Vancouver events
CBC News
Posted: Oct 3, 2012 6:01 PM ET
Last Updated: Oct 4, 2012 9:00 AM ET 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/10/03/calgary-justin-trudeau-liberal-leadership.html



> Mulroney called Trudeau a "talented" and "fine young man," adding that the 40-year-old MP's "youth is an advantage."
> 
> "People who trivialize his achievements and hold out little hope for his prospects ought to be very careful," said Mulroney in an interview with the CBC's Amanda Lang. "Life doesn't work that way. And there are always surprises in political life. And he's capable of delivering a major one if they underestimate him."





> However, Trudeau's lack of experience as a critic on a major policy file is considered by some to be a weakness in his leadership bid.
> 
> Still, Mulroney cautioned rival parties to "be careful."
> 
> "This is not an untalented guy," he said. "I was Opposition leader when his father was prime minister. And we didn't agree on anything. But I can tell you this, he was a very tough, able guy and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree … if I were leading a political party up there I'd treat him with considerable respect."





> It was Trudeau’s father who brought in the National Energy Program, which was widely hated by Albertans and is often blamed for why the party does so poorly in the province. The initiative sought to give more control over the energy industry to the federal government.
> 
> “I promise you I will never use the wealth of the west as a wedge to gain votes in the east,” said Trudeau, drawing the biggest applause of the speech.
> 
> “It is wrong to use our natural wealth to divide Canadians against one another, it was the wrong way to govern Canada in the past. It is the wrong way today and it will be the wrong way in the future. It's not the politics of division that help make Canada strong.”


more in link

I followed Marc Garneau's performance during last election and previous Liberal Leadership campaign and, as much as I hate to say it, was not very impressed with his political abilities - hope they have improved.


----------



## Remius (4 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Very smart move on Justin Trudeau's part: forcefully repudiate his father's _National Energy Policy_ and, at the same time, distance himself from Thomas Mulcair and contest some political _key terrain_, provincial rights, with Stephen Harper.



True.  What I think I am seeiing is Trudeau defining himself before someone else does.  I have to admit, going to Alberta first was ballsy.  It looks like he's treating this leadership race as one that involves all Canadians and not just the party faithful.  Which I find interesting because he could gain ground early using this tactic, not just at the party level but at the national level.  Important when you wantto be seen as the guy who can win for your party.  We'll have to see what comes of this when the hard questions and attacks come his way.


----------



## bridges (4 Oct 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> True.  What I think I am seeiing is Trudeau defining himself before someone else does.  I have to admit, going to Alberta first was ballsy *and smart!*.  It looks like he's treating this leadership race as one that involves all Canadians and not just the party faithful.



(Edit mine.)   Yep, nip that baggage in the bud.  It will be good to hear more of what he has to say, in due course.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2012)

The big danger for the Liberals is there are unrealistic expectations about the Young Dauphin, since he is essentially a blank canvas which a largely uncritical media has painted their hopes and dreams on. Looking south, we see what happens when this process is taken to extremes, Barrack Obama was a blank slate in 2008, and was carefully cocooned until last night, when the entire myth imploded during the Presidential debate.

Since he is a sitting member in Parliament, his real life vetting without the protection of the media will happen soon enough (indeed it has already happened to a certain extent in the Blogosphere, where his outbursts in Parliament and stated preference for an independent Quebec over a Conservative Canada were dissected and laid out at length) when Prime Minister Harper and the Hon Tomas Mulcair turn their guns on him. 

Can he win the leadership? Quite probably; the Liberal Party seems to have imbibed the "insert saviour here" Kool Aid. Can he be an effective Parliamentary leader? Who knows? There is no real record to examine. Can he win the election? I strongly suspect the answer will be "No", as the CPC holds "New Canada" and the NDP will put everything into holding their new found stronghold in Quebec. The LPC overall have failed to make any sort of compelling argument as to why their platform should be considered by Canadians (indeed they have no platform, and have had none for years), so when people look for a reason to vote, they may realize there isn't anything beyond a smile and a haircut to vote for.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Oct 2012)

It may be a small thing, but his statement that we should not use the word "barbaric" to describe honour  killings (murder) tells me he lives in an ivory tower. 

I don't trust him, nor do I think he is suited to lead a major political party in Canada. He could become Prime Minister, not in the next few years but further on. 

Stephen Harper may come off like a cold fish, but he's at least competent IMO.


----------



## Maxadia (5 Oct 2012)

Harper might not be the most exciting Captain we have had, but he's keeping things on an even and steady keel.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Oct 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Stephen Harper may come off like a cold fish...



That is largely a construct of his critics and the media IMHO. Having met and spoken with him several times, I have quite an opposite opinion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Oct 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That is largely a construct of his critics and the media IMHO. Having met and spoken with him several times, I have quite an opposite opinion.



Agreed. There is nowhere in Canada, that I'm aware of, that is willing to give PM Harper his due.

Harper's name is a slagfest for every political writer, whether they have read the policies or not.

Harper gets demonised by our ignorant and biased press.


----------



## bridges (5 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Agreed. There is nowhere in Canada, that I'm aware of, that is willing to give PM Harper his due.



I have several friends who think he's doing a great job, and from what I hear he's pretty popular in Calgary.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Harper gets demonised by our ignorant and biased press.



In some cases, probably.  But is it also possible that in some cases they are simply exposing and/or disagreeing with something he's done?  Or is it a case of, if only everyone were better informed, they would agree with you/him?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> I have several friends who think he's doing a great job, and from what I hear he's pretty popular in Calgary.
> 
> In some cases, probably.  But is it also possible that in some cases they are simply exposing and/or disagreeing with something he's done?  Or is it a case of, if only everyone were better informed, they would agree with you/him?




I think much (most?) of the traditional, mainstream media IS both ignorant and biased. The reason is simple: incest. The traditional, mainstream media relies, almost exclusively, on a small number of _Stepford Wives_ like journalism schools that provide second rate _educations_ (they are, in fact, _craft_ schools and their programmes are suited to community colleges) and force-feed students with a consistent left of centre political _philosophy_. There are, of course, exceptions but I believe that recceguy's characterization (ignorant and biased) is, very broadly, correct.

Apologies to the journalists who visit Army.ca, but that's my opinion of your _profession_. Some of you are excellent, and indeed, unbiased reporters: able to provide me with timely, accurate information on a wide range of subjects. But most of you are woefully ignorant of science, mathematics and, therefore of economics, strategy - no matter how defined - and military matters.

The fault, as I see it, from my own highly biased perspective, is trying to make journalism into something it is not: a profession. It's a trade, like plumbing or drafting, and it should be taught, in a 'trade school' to people who already have a useful education, which includes, at the very least, two or three maths courses, one or more in statistics. _Specialist_ journalists are needed to report on complex issues like economics, health, trade, science and technology, defence and foreign affairs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from, respectvely, _Canada.com_ and the _Globe and Mail_, are two informative articles about Justin Trudeau:

*The Trudeau Team*

http://o.canada.com/2012/10/05/1006-col-dentandt/


> Trudeau’s rebels not about ‘renewal’: They mean to start from scratch
> 
> Michael Den Tandt
> 
> ...



size=13pt]AND[/size]​
*M. Trudeau Can Be a Game Changer*

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/on-day-of-leblanc-endorsement-poll-shows-trudeau-could-recreate-liberals/article4591559/


> On day of LeBlanc endorsement, poll shows Trudeau could recreate Liberals
> 
> MICHAEL MACDONALD
> The Canadian Press
> ...




Those (36%) who say, now, that they will vote Liberal if M. Trudeau is leading the party are:

1. Pledging to vote without thinking; and

2. Making _celebrity_ more important than say, ideas, _leadership_, policy, _integrity_, ability or _gravitas_.

But the young team behind M. Trudeau is smart and ambitious and they understand that they have _celebrity_ on their side and they calculate that it just might be enough ... *and they might be right.*


----------



## Dissident (5 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *and they might be right.*



Sadly, the triumph of style over substance. Again.


----------



## Remius (5 Oct 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Sadly, the triumph of style over substance. Again.



Well the liberals have lacked both for a longtime.  So maybe getting 1 out of 2 is progress for some?

On a more serious note though, what has potential is this.  Trudeau is getting attention through style or whatever.  Now we will need to see if he can make gains by using it properly.  you can have all the substance in the world but without attention you just won't get far.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Oct 2012)

I was struck while reading the first article Edward posted by the sameness of the group of supporters and how terribly metrosexual and Liberal party establishment they seemed to be. Their fresh, new ideas may well be the same old, same old less the grey hair and the wrinkles.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I was struck while reading the first article Edward posted by the sameness of the group of supporters and how terribly metrosexual and Liberal party establishment they seemed to be. Their fresh, new ideas may well be the same old, same old less the grey hair and the wrinkles.



Which is the real danger. OTOH, Smiling Jack Layton simply put a fresh coat of paint on the NDP without any really substantive changes to the Dippers, and they are now the official opposition. The LPC pulled the same trick between 1993 and 2006, essentially dusting off the 1993 "Red Book" for each and every election. How many times can you promise Universal Day Care before people start to realize that they have been had?

Tony Blair should be the model for would be reformers to emulate; "New Labour" did make some major changes and dropped some pretty traditional Labour planks to achieve and hold  power; and they did pretty well too until Blair was levered out by his own party.


----------



## uptheglens (6 Oct 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Their fresh, new ideas may well be the same old, same old less the grey hair and the wrinkles.



Their strategy is to longer polish a turd, but to roll it in glitter, IMO.


----------



## Nemo888 (6 Oct 2012)

How can you lead a party with no platform other than, "we really want to get elected". You need at least the pretense of an ideology. Without that the Liberals are history. Misguided or not he other two parties have platforms.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> How can you lead a party with no platform other than, "we really want to get elected". You need at least the pretense of an ideology. Without that the Liberals are history. Misguided or not he other two parties have platforms.




The answer is simple: exploit Canadians' _culture of celebrity_. Stephen Harper is boring; he talks about economics ~ yech; Thomas Mulcair has a beard ~ how uncool; Justin Trudeau has great hair and a brilliant smile ~ WOW!

I learned a really important political science lesson many years decades back; for some reason the topic turned to politics (I think she - a really gorgeous girl with whom I was keeping company at the time - had a compare/contrast question to answer, or something), anyway I ended up comparing and contrasting John Diefenbaker and Mike Pearson (so it was back in the mid to late '60s) and she looked at me as if I had gone completely mad and said: *"But, they wear boots!"* Indeed they did, as did many gentlemen of their age - well made, lightweight, soft, dress boots which could be, and in the early 20th century were worn with spats. Today many gentlemen wear _quarter Wellington_ boots ~ same thing. Anyway she was really pretty so I accepted her verdict that neither Diefenbaker nor Pearson could possibly get her vote and that since she was pretty sure that Tommy Douglas and Bob Stanfield wore boots, too, that left only Pierre Trudeau as a man fit to lead Canada. My point is that it wasn't boots, _per se_, that mattered to her, it was *charisma* which Trudeau had aplenty; Douglas not very much and Stanfield not at all. She cared nothing for policy, nothing for experience or qualifications, nothing for _gravitas_, but *style* mattered. I believe, quite firmly, that she was a far more _representative_ voter than I. I suspect her grandchildren think exactly the same as she did _(still does, I hope, she was a nice girl, too, besides being great in bed)_ and they are _representative_ Canadian voters who will, likely vote for Justin Trudeau based solely on style which means that they will reject substance - and Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair - as a qualification for high office.








   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_Classic_ dress boot, worn by e.g. John Diefenbaker                                                                       Modern _quarter Wellington_ dress boot, worn by e.g. E.R. Campbell


Edit: typo


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The answer is simple: exploit Canadians' _culture of celebrity_. Stephen Harper is boring; he talks about economics ~ yech; Thomas Mulcair has a beard ~ how uncool; Justin Trudeau has great hair and a brilliant smile ~ WOW!



I was thinking about this yesterday after catching a news clip about Justin Trudeau.   

I was wondering what kind of background and experience he had in politics, aside from the obvious family connection.  He's charismatic, good looking and 'acts hip' but aside from that in my very limited exposure to him in the news and articles he doesn't seem to have an actual presence if you know what I mean.

I think he will easily get elected for the above reasons.  Like UpTheGlens said, it's rolling something in glitter.  

I haven't made up my mind about him yet (probably won't because I don't care) but a little while back when he was asked if he was going to run for the Liberal party and he played coy "ohhhh I don't know if that's in the cards..." was a pretty transparent lie.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2012)

What makes this even more annoying to me is I have actually had the opportunity to observe the Prime Minister and Justin Trudeau "at close range" in smallish functions, and the reality is quite the opposite of the media narratives; the Prime Minister is actually a fairly warm person while I found the "real" Justin Trudeau to be devoid of presence (he essentially mailed in the speech, which was a retread of old (NDP) ideas anyway).

Since the vast majority of Canadians will never have the opportunity to meet either the Prime Minister or Justin Trudeau (or Thomas Mulcair, for that matter), they will have their opinions shaped by media "narratives" rather than observation or factual analysis. Edward is probably right; our collective fate is being shaped by people who place more stock in a person's footwear rather than ideas, experience or demonstrated competence. Think about that next time you hear a debate on the role of the Armed Forces, the Canadian budget, the environment, monetary policy or anything else of real consequence...


----------



## Dissident (6 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The answer is simple: exploit Canadians' _culture of celebrity_. Stephen Harper is boring; he talks about economics ~ yech; Thomas Mulcair has a beard ~ how uncool; Justin Trudeau has great hair and a brilliant smile ~ WOW!
> 
> [Plus rest of post]



Exactly.

I have had good nature arguments with the in laws (smart, well educated, military family) on many occasions about PM SH. Their main bone of contention is that Harper, aside from being Canada's GW Bush, is a cold heartless person who is only interested in money, not people. I always thought they represented the average voter, albeit more articulately.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2012)

If Stephen Harper hands the mantle over to Peter MacKay as per what many (informed Conservatives) believe to be a gentleman's agreement regarding the pooling of Reform and PC influence, then young Justin will have some serious image competition to deal with...fairly suave PM, rather smoking hot wife, and what will likely be a pretty good looking bambino on the way...2015 will be a very interesting race.  I do think that (relatively) young Justin will definitely have his work cut out for him, battling against two very seasoned adversaries (Harper/Mackay and Mulcair).

Regards
G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Oct 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> I have had good nature arguments with the in laws (smart, well educated, military family) on many occasions about PM SH. Their main bone of contention is that Harper, aside from being Canada's GW Bush, is a cold heartless person who is only interested in money, not people. I always thought they represented the average voter, albeit more articulately.



Simply their opinion, of course. Very narrow and not very accurate, if you ask me. That's just the way the press characterizes him.

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2012)

We ought not to forget that Justin Trudeau is not alone in the race; Deborah Coyne, for one, is also in.

This old article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, gives a fairly flattering portrait:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/deborah-coyne-enters-liberal-leadership-race/article4373408/


> Deborah Coyne enters Liberal leadership race
> 
> JOAN BRYDEN
> OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
> ...




Unlike M. Trudeau, Ms Coyne has some "bottom, " some _gravitas_ and has thought, spoken and written about issues.


----------



## Dissident (6 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Simply their opinion, of course. Very narrow and not very accurate, if you ask me. That's just the way the press characterizes him.
> 
> But that's just my opinion.



And I agree with yours. But even if they were absolutely right, we could do worse than a PM who is mainly concerned with managing the country as opposed to make people feel good about himself/the government. 

The funny thing to me is that their hatred of Harper is the only thing that unites them politically. I am curious to see if the MiL and the 2x BiL would rally under a Trudeau led Liberal party. As it stands the MiL is Green, one BiL is NDP and the other (a RCAF Capt) a staunch Liberal supporter.


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2012)

He's not even leader yet but people are foaming at the mouth to discredit him.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2012)

Altair said:
			
		

> He's not even leader yet but people are foaming at the mouth to discredit him.



So people should wait until he's the leader of a party to point out obvious issues with his merits as a leader?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We ought not to forget that Justin Trudeau is not alone in the race; Deborah Coyne, for one, is also in.
> 
> This old article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, gives a fairly flattering portrait:
> 
> ...



She also shares the same genes with Justin.

Which in today's Canadian, Liberal politics, seems to be the deciding factor.

Something like the House of Windsor, or the Hapsburgs, or some Japanese Dynasty.

If your related to that ponce Pierre, you're destiny is predefined.

Let's start a dialogue on the other side of the equation.  

Margaret Trudeau.

Some in the race also share her genes.

Maybe one of Mick Jagger's offspring will throw his hat into the ring next.

Of course Power Corporation has nothing to do with any of this  :


----------



## JorgSlice (7 Oct 2012)

Altair said:
			
		

> He's not even leader yet but people are foaming at the mouth to discredit him.



Please tell us about all of his amazing political successes that make him the "natural-born leader of Canada" the Liberals think he is.  :

He's got diddly-squat and everyone should rightfully know well in advance in order to keep him away from ending up at the helm of the LPC. Only problem is, silly Liberals will probably give him "Command" anyway.

Oh well, at least if JT ends up leader of the LPC it'll basically guarantee another Conservative majority for a long time


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Oct 2012)

I think it would be like giving command of a battalion to the new lieutenant because he has nice hair and spiffy boots.

"ponce Pierre"  - that made  me giggle.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2012)

Justin Trudeau is, broadly, about as well _qualified_ for party leadership and, eventually, high office as was Stephen Harper in 2003 ~ relatively young (Harper was 44 when he and Peter MacKay _"united the right"_ under Harper's leadership), untested in parliament and with minimal "heavyweight" private sector experience. 

I would argue that Harper's understanding of Canada, all of Canada, and the consequential _evolution_ of his policy ideas was gradual but steady from 2006 to 2011; I think that a few year as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and as a minority PM changed Prime Minister Harper into a committed _centrist_, a _gradualist_ who wants to lead 'softly.'

Let's imagine that M. Trudeau wins the leadership in 2013; unseats Thomas Mulcair in 2015 and becomes opposition leader; reduces Harper successor to a minority in 2019 and becomes PM in, say, 2022. Do you really think that he, and his _understanding_ of all of Canada, will not have _matured_/_changed_?

We need to wish the Liberal Party of Canada well. We *know* that the Conservatives will grow stale, corrupt and disconnected after too many years in power ~ it happens to all political parties in all real democracies, even Japan, Taiwan and, sooner or later, Singapore. Right now the "government in waiting" is the NDP. That is, I suggest, a bad choice for Canada so we, all Canadians including hard-core Conservatives like me, need a _centrist_ "government in waiting" and, baring a seismic shift in Canadian politics that means the Liberals.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Oct 2012)

With respect, do you really think the Liberals are willing to wait until 2022 to return to power. By then they will have sat on the opposition benches since early 2006, for more than 16 years. The only time they have been out of power for a longer time was during the second Macdonald era, following the defeat of Alexander Mackenzie in the 1870s. Moreover they will have gone through three leaders and an interim one in the 2006-2013 period. Do they have the brains and long term view to toil under one person for nine years and three elections?

Prime Minister Harper, in his three years in opposition, united the right, moved his branch to the centre and did all the hard, grunt work. He then fought two elections, ultimately becoming PM in a minority in 2006. Does the Young Dauphin, and his party, have the stamina for a much longer haul?


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2012)

And then there's this being thrown into the works......good PR for Justin...

One to watch... Sacha Trudeau
By: Staff Writer 10/6/2012 
Article Link

The middle brother of the three sons of Pierre Trudeau is stepping up as senior adviser to big brother Justin's campaign for leadership of the Liberal Party.

Will he and Justin become Canada's Bobby and Jack Kennedy, surely the most famous of American political brothers? Even the ever-colourful George and Jeb can't displace them.

Justin chose the birthday of third Trudeau brother Michel, killed in an avalanche in 1998, to announce his run for the leadership, no doubt a way to include all three brothers in the momentous occasion.

So far, the debate has been over Justin's ability to step out from Pierre's shadow. Will having a brother as adviser help or hurt?

That would be hard to say. Sacha, a journalist and documentary filmmaker, has kept a relatively low profile up to now, so the Canadian public knows little about him. Even Wikipedia seems to have missed the birth of his third child. We do know he has said he has no interest in being involved in politics.

But longtime Trudeau family friend Jack Austin, a former B.C. senator, says the Trudeau boys had the best of groundings in public-policy matters and are well prepared for public life.

Canadians will be interested to see just how the Trudeau brothers story plays out.
end


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> With respect, do you really think the Liberals are willing to wait until 2022 to return to power. By then they will have sat on the opposition benches since early 2006, for more than 16 years. The only time they have been out of power for a longer time was during the second Macdonald era, following the defeat of Alexander Mackenzie in the 1870s. Moreover they will have gone through three leaders and an interim one in the 2006-2013 period. Do they have the brains and long term view to toil under one person for nine years and three elections?
> 
> Prime Minister Harper, in his three years in opposition, united the right, moved his branch to the centre and did all the hard, grunt work. He then fought two elections, ultimately becoming PM in a minority in 2006. Does the Young Dauphin, and his party, have the stamina for a much longer haul?




I'm not sure (s)he, the next Liberal leader will have much choice. My current guess is that the 2015 election is still Harper's to lose give away.

M. Trudeau is trying, albeit a bit hesitantly, to signal a _centrist_ position; he has said no more NEP or pitting one region against the other which my secret decoder ring says means _"I'm eschewing my father's loony left economic dreams, no need to worry"_ and he said he's standing up for the middle class which the same secret decoder ring tells me means _"I'm conceding the *real* (skilled blue collar) middle class and the (generally professional white collar) upper middle class to Prime Minister Harper and I'm going to fight Thomas Mulcair, tooth and nail, for the large, lower middle/working class"_. Further, notwithstanding the current _All Justin/All the Time_ gushing media coverage, the media will split on Trudea ~ some of the media is, already, inclined against him: part, mostly at the _journalist_ level, is philosophically inclined towards the NDP, and another part, mostly at the _journal_ level is in the Tory camp. While there is a solid Liberal media it, and M. Trudeau, will have to contend with opposition from both flanks. Finally, I remain convinced that M. Trudeau must, realistically, wage a two phase campaign:

          Phase 1 aims to secure the opposition benches in 2015 - of course the Liberal leader will campaign to become prime minister but Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is the real target; and

          Phase 2 aims to secure 24 Sussex Drive - that's a realistic, but still difficult 2019 objective but the Tories will not go down easyily and reducing them to a minority will still be a victory.

The Liberals can hope for power in 2015 but a more realistic date is 2019 or beyond. If M. Trudea is their choice for leader then I think they must, finally, stick with him, even if it takes a long time.

Stephen Harper's aim has been and still is to change Canada in some fundamental ways ~ if he's doing as well as many people seem to think (worry) then he will make life hard for Liberals.


----------



## Maxadia (7 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We *know* that the Conservatives will grow stale, corrupt and disconnected after too many years in power ~ it happens to all political parties in all real democracies, even Japan, Taiwan and, sooner or later, Singapore.


 
I think we also have to consider in the equation that the Canadian people have a habit of turning on governments simply BECAUSE they have been in power too long.  Yes, corruption happens, but it's also kind of like we expect it to, "so let's give the new guys a shot because they obviously haven't been corrupted by years of power."  It's like we think they can't be corrupt because they've only been the opposition.

As for Sacha, how noble and nostalgic.  The two brothers now, are following in their father's footsteps -  "if only Michael had been around as well", people will be thinking.  Who wouldn't want to have three sons do the same? 

That could count for a LOT for Mr. Trudeau's campaign.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2012)

I really wish the press would stop comparing the Trudeau's with the Kennedy's.

There is not even the remotest similarity, except the brother part.

The Trudeau's don't even come close.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Oh well, at least if JT ends up leader of the LPC it'll basically guarantee another Conservative majority for a long time



Methinks you are underestimating the stupidity of Canadians.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...
> The Trudeau's don't even come close.




Actually, I think they do ... both are political and intellectual lightweights exploiting, in one case, dad's money, and, in the other, his name and money. Jack Kennedy parlayed good looks, a good war, youth, an indifferent political career, zero ideas and loads of money into the highest office in the land; Justin Trudeau will try to do the same, minus the good war.


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2012)

> Justin Trudeau will try to do the same, minus the good war.



Or, if he becomes the PM, he could bring back the eternal Peace Keeper with an intrusion into Sudan(don't worry, it will still be going on)  in the name of all the shrieking lefties out there...... :


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Or, if he becomes the PM, he could bring back the eternal Peace Keeper with an intrusion into Sudan(don't worry, it will still be going on)  in the name of all the shrieking lefties out there...... :



As if I didn't already have enough reasons to hope the LPC will never return to power.... :rage:


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2012)

A cautionary note, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _iPolitics_, for M. Trueau:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/10/09/paul-adams-justin-trudeau-beware-the-numbers-are-not-necessarily-your-friends/


> Justin Trudeau beware: the numbers are not necessarily your friends
> 
> By Paul Adams
> 
> ...




I'm sure a lot of Canadians wish M. Trudeau well; he seems a very likable man; but will we vote for him when the issue is "who do you want to _manage_ Canada?" I'm not sure the polls address that question, yet.


Edit: careless typo/spelling error  :-[  (It's been a bad morning for that.)


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm sure a lot of Canadians wish M. Trudeau well; *he seems a very liable man*; but will we vote for him when the issue is "who do you want to _manage_ Canada?" I'm not sure the polls address that question, yet.


[humour tangent]
Was that typo intentional?  Or is Freud at work?  ;D

[/humour tangent]


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> [humour tangent]
> Was that typo intentional?  Or is Freud at work?  ;D
> 
> [/humour tangent]




It was simple carelessness on my part, but I cannot leave it uncorrected as I doubt that M. Trudeau or his campaign tea will be held _liable_ (responsible) for much of anything over the next few months. They will, eventually ... when the Conservative and NDP negative ad teams get organized.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It was simple carelessness on my part, but I cannot leave it uncorrected as I doubt that M. Trudeau or his campaign tea will be held _liable_ (responsible) for much of anything over the next few months. They will, eventually ... when the Conservative and NDP negative ad teams get organized.



Phooey. I never get invited to campaign teas...... ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Phooey. I never get invited to campaign teas...... ;D




Well of course you don't; they, the campaign teas, are for ladies only ~ it's one of the few bits of sanctioned sexism we still have.


----------



## bridges (11 Oct 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Stephen Harper may come off like a cold fish, but he's at least competent IMO.





			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That is largely a construct of his critics and the media IMHO. Having met and spoken with him several times, I have quite an opposite opinion.



But he fosters _homeless kittens_!  :    (Which I think is a great thing to do, in general - just for the record.)

The PM does not seem to be big on communication.  For those of us who don't have the opportunity to meet & speak with him, we're limited to what we see through the media.  If that's found wanting, then perhaps he should consider doing a few more interviews.


----------



## GAP (11 Oct 2012)

> The PM does not seem to be big on communication.



Quite the contrary. Just because he doesn't run to the media over each little bit of criticism as some previous office holders were wont to do, does not mean he is not communicating. His actions have spoke far more eloquently than any amount of press conferences    ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2012)

Gerald Caplan is a leader of the NDP's _hard left_ wing; he is a noted Harper hater but he was just as critical of Chretien/Martin; here he is, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, with the loony-left's assessment of Justin Trudeau:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/what-the-ndp-are-scared-of-justin-trudeau/article4608844/


> What the NDP are scared of: Justin Trudeau
> 
> GERALD CAPLAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




If Caplan is right; if we are being set up for a HUGE battle for the (mainly young) _progressive_ vote then there is no place for the older, _fiscally conservative_, moderates to go except to Stephen Harper's Conservatives.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Oct 2012)

Can you say vote split = 2015 CPC Majority?


----------



## bridges (12 Oct 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> His actions have spoke far more eloquently than any amount of press conferences    ....



That's part of my point, actually.   He just does things and doesn't talk to Canadians about them.  In a more-or-less democratic society, this tends to breed mistrust over time.  

Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, talks a LOT - but we've yet to see what his actions would be.  Hmm, if only there were a happy medium...


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> That's part of my point, actually.   He just does things and doesn't talk to Canadians about them.  In a more-or-less democratic society, this tends to breed mistrust over time.
> 
> Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, talks a LOT - but we've yet to see what his actions would be.  Hmm, if only there were a happy medium...



I've said this previously to others:

Canadians had a choice last election between a "great thinker" or a "great doer" and chose the later. The Liberals appear to be facing the same choice between Ms Coyne / Mr Garneau (potentially) and Mr Trudeau. I suspect that they will have leaned nothing by the time this leadership event takes place, and crown Mr Trudeau. The result will be that once again we are faced with making the thinker vs doer choice. The question is which species of leader will Canadians choose?


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Oct 2012)

And while watching a program about government conspiracies, I recalled a Trudeau elder solution to the arms race. In his early years he began to urge scientists and engineers to "strangle discoveries" in the lab so they could not be turned into weapons. Clearly it was a loopy idea from a confused intellect.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2012)

The CPC finally makes an acknowledgement of the Young Dauphin. A trial balloon for their attack ads?

http://www.maximebernier.com/en/2012/10/justin-trudeau-ne-comprend-pas-l’economie/



> *Justin Trudeau doesn’t understand economics*
> 
> 14-October-2012 · Comment
> Tags :
> ...


----------



## JorgSlice (14 Oct 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The CPC finally makes an acknowledgement of the Young Dauphin. A trial balloon for their attack ads?
> 
> http://www.maximebernier.com/en/2012/10/justin-trudeau-ne-comprend-pas-l’economie/



Hahaha.... oh dear.  op:


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Oct 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I've said this previously to others:
> 
> Canadians had a choice last election between a "great thinker" or a "great doer" and chose the later. The Liberals appear to be facing the same choice between Ms Coyne / Mr Garneau (potentially) and Mr Trudeau. I suspect that they will have leaned nothing by the time this leadership event takes place, and crown Mr Trudeau. The result will be that once again we are faced with making the thinker vs doer choice. The question is which species of leader will Canadians choose?



In support of my position, I offer this:

Long-shots plunge into Liberal leadership race
CBC News
The Canadian Press
Posted: Oct 14, 2012 11:55 AM ET

A clutch of little-known long-shots is rushing in where Liberal luminaries fear to tread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberal Party of Canada's favourite wet dream ~ brains, gravitas and charisma, in spades!
> Source: _National Post_
> 
> The _National Post_ article from which the _Facebook_ page was lifted says:
> ...





Governor Mark Carney, speaking in Vancouver said, according to Reuters, at a follow up press conference: _"Look, I am doing my job. I am going to do my job. It’s pretty simple, I’ve got two years and change, at least, left on my mandate ... Why don’t I become a circus clown? I appreciate the great concern about my career, but I have gainful employment and I intend to continue it.”_

I wonder how carefully he chose his words ... is he comparing the Liberal Party of Canada to a circus and the next leader to a clown?


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2012)

Well......


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2012)

Bah.  There are other, more interesting types of clown employment.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Oct 2012)

Do you not think he chooses his words very carefully? In fact he may have been talking about his opinion of a post-bank political career.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Governor Mark Carney, speaking in Vancouver said, according to Reuters, at a follow up press conference: _"Look, I am doing my job. I am going to do my job. It’s pretty simple, I’ve got two years and change, at least, left on my mandate ... Why don’t I become a circus clown? I appreciate the great concern about my career, but I have gainful employment and I intend to continue it.”_
> 
> I wonder how carefully he chose his words ... is he comparing the Liberal Party of Canada to a circus and the next leader to a clown?



The rumour mill is that the Bank of England is looking at Mark Carney for its chief financial officer. So, if you were Carney, which position would you take; head of some moribund party or a chief position with the BoE??


----------



## Danjanou (15 Oct 2012)

Anyone think this will lead to yet another name tossed into the mix?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ontario-premier-dalton-mcguinty-resigns-office-225507009.html


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2012)

Dalton McGuinty as a Federal leader?  Come on, that's as ridiculous as Bob Rae!



Oh.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Oct 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Anyone think this will lead to yet another name tossed into the mix?
> 
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ontario-premier-dalton-mcguinty-resigns-office-225507009.html



He said tonight it was time for a "renewal". Not a retirement or a private sector job. A renewal. I immediately saw a jump to the Fed Liberal party, via the leadership race, as his motive. I'm sure as soon as he shucks his Premiership, he'll dive head first into the national scene.

It'll be good to see him bitch slapped by the heavyweights.

Renewal? Nope, he's just tired of screwing one province. Now he wants to screw them all.


----------



## JorgSlice (15 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He said tonight it was time for a "renewal". Not a retirement or a private sector job. A renewal. I immediately saw a jump to the Fed Liberal party, via the leadership race, as his motive. I'm sure as soon as he shucks his Premiership, he'll dive head first into the national scene.
> 
> It'll be good to see him ***** slapped by the heavyweights.
> 
> Renewal? Nope, he's just tired of screwing one province. Now he wants to screw them all.



Oh no... please Great Mother Maple Tree... save us all from this travesty


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Oh no... please Great Mother Maple Tree... save us all from this travesty



Don't worry, Justin will crush the Mcguinty's with one hand tied behind his back. I will even join the LPC and work for the Young Dauphin's leadership race just to ensure this happens if needed.

Yes, I am serious about this.


----------



## JorgSlice (16 Oct 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Don't worry, Justin will crush the Mcguinty's with one hand tied behind his back. I will even join the LPC and work for the Young Dauphin's leadership race just to ensure this happens if needed.
> 
> Yes, I am serious about this.



I have no doubt in my mind that you would.

I just... I cannot fathom the amount of sheer... ineptitude, that someone would need in order to even CONSIDER for 1 second, that McGetThisGuyAwayFromAnythingImportant could be a Prime Minister, let alone a Federal Politician.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Oct 2012)

See   « Reply #156 on: Today at 21:07:26 »

:dunno:   Stranger things have happened....ok, _strange_ things; too soon yet to tell if it's "stranger."


----------



## JorgSlice (16 Oct 2012)

True... true.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Governor Mark Carney, speaking in Vancouver said, according to Reuters, at a follow up press conference: _"Look, I am doing my job. I am going to do my job. It’s pretty simple, I’ve got two years and change, at least, left on my mandate ... Why don’t I become a circus clown? I appreciate the great concern about my career, but I have gainful employment and I intend to continue it.”_
> 
> I wonder how carefully he chose his words ... is he comparing the Liberal Party of Canada to a circus and the next leader to a clown?



As I've said on at least one occasion: I think Mark Carney is more Conservative than Liberal, while being less conservative than liberal. It would not surprise me to see his name pop up in Torrie circles after Mr Harper's time at the helm comes to a close.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2012)

Liberal über-insider Warren Kinsella suggests, in his column in the _Toronto Sun_, that Dalton McGuinty can win the federal Liberal leadership race because:

_"*One*, he has government experience. The other expected candidates, as impressive as they are, just don't. Government experience counts, particularly at times like these. Particularly against a cagey opponent like Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  

*Two*, McGuinty has a winning record. He's the longest-serving premier. He's a survivor. And, as noted, he has won three back-to-back victories — two majorities, and one very near majority. That's not bad.  

*Three*, McGuinty has built up the most successful Liberal machine in Canadian politics. All of that team — and, full disclosure, I had the privilege to run his war room in all three of his election campaigns — will follow him wherever he goes. With the help of the likes of political strategist Don Guy, deputy chief of staff Dave Gene, chief operating officer Laura Miller and the premier's brother Brendan, McGuinty has been the winningest Grit in Canadian politics."_

Kinsella goes on to suggest that Canadian Liberals should not jump, too soon, to Justin Trudeau.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Oct 2012)

McGuinty will be poison to the Liberal's hopes for Ontario. Not that they could do much worse than now.


----------



## GAP (16 Oct 2012)

Hmmm....Martin to Dion to "what's his face" to (Trudeau, McGinty, Garneau, etc)......


Messiah's are definitely in short supply.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> McGuinty will be poison to the Liberal's hopes for Ontario. Not that they could do much worse than now.


Maybe not as bad as Bob Rae, but there may be a bad taste in Ontarians' mouths, especially once we hear more about missing documents and Ornge during the Liberal leadership campaign - those issues will certainly provide a lot of messaging potential for the other guys.

More fed leadership speculation from "one insider close to McGuinty" via CP:


> ....  For the past month, a draft campaign has been in the works to persuade McGuinty to jump into the federal fray.
> 
> Some of his closest campaign advisers have been involved, including brother Brendan McGuinty — who was on hand for McGuinty’s news conference Monday — and Don Guy, campaign director for each of McGuinty’s three winning provincial campaigns.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> McGuinty will be poison to the Liberal's hopes for Ontario. Not that they could do much worse than now.




Agreed, but don't discount Kinsella's reasoning; the leader will be chosen by the Party and the Party wants one thing and one thing only: POWER.

Dalton McGuinty does have some undeniable advantages over Trudeau, Coyne and almost anyone else who might enter the race: experience, a winning record and a _machine_.

----------​
But it brings up one of my own   :deadhorse:  how parties select leaders. I believe parties should select leaders from within, primarily, the parliamentary/legislative caucus: sitting members plus most recent (or currently nominated) candidates, not by the party membership. But, I think there is a more important role for the party, at large: *policy*. The party platform is far too important to be developed by a small band of insiders from in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary who sit around a boardroom table in Ottawa, remote from the wants and needs of Canadians.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, are Justin Trudea's thoughts on Dalton McGuinty as a potential competitor.


----------



## Bass ackwards (17 Oct 2012)

Eloquent bugger, isn't he...


----------



## Danjanou (17 Oct 2012)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Eloquent bugger, isn't he...



Well he was a substitute drama teacher and an actor in a CBC mini series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_(2007_film)

That, his surname and his "wonderful hair" are apparently the needed prerequisites to lead the country.  :


----------



## Bass ackwards (17 Oct 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Well he was a substitute drama teacher and an actor in a CBC mini series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_(2007_film)
> 
> That, his surname and his "wonderful hair" are apparently the needed prerequisites to lead the country.  :



Unfortunately, those prerequisites may well get him _elected_ to lead the country.
(I wonder if he was ever a community organizer...?)


----------



## Danjanou (17 Oct 2012)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> (I wonder if he was ever a community organizer...?)



hang on a minute I'm updating his wiki entry now.... I'll add that. >


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2012)

And the _Globe and Mail_ reports that having, just today, raised enough money to pay off her 2006 campaign debt, Martha Hall Findlay is pondering another run for the Liberal leadership.  :


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2012)

She at least has published a good paper on the effects of Marketing Boards, so has something to bring to the convention policy wise. Of course the paper would be right at home at the CPC convention....

edit to add:

More on Marc Garneau

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/17/john-ivison-fiscally-restrained-marc-garneau-a-good-contrast-to-trudeau-mentia/



> *John Ivison: Fiscally restrained Marc Garneau a good contrast to Trudeau-mentia*
> 
> John Ivison | Oct 17, 2012 6:44 PM ET
> More from John Ivison
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2012)

Here are two opposing views on Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal leadership, both reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_ and the _Toronto Sun_, respectively:






http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1272892--hebert-arguments-against-mcguinty-s-entry-into-liberal-leadership-race-are-superficial


> Arguments against McGuinty’s entry into Liberal leadership race are superficial
> 
> By Chantal Hébert, National Columnist
> 
> ...



And, the contrary opinion​




http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/17/five-reasons-outgoing-ontario-premier-mcguinty--wont-run-for-federal-liberals


> Five reasons outgoing Ontario Premier McGuinty won’t run for federal Liberals
> 
> BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN
> 
> ...




Food for thought ...

If I was a (federal) Liberal I would want someone of substance to challenge Justin Trudeau ~ my worry is that, first, Trudeau is a bit of a _blank slate_, Liberals hope for much but, actually, *know* little about him; and, second, that a _coronation_ will not strengthen the new leader by exposing him to policy and personality challenges.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2012)

I'm not, in any way, _endorsing_ Marc Garneau, nor do I agree with everything (not even most) of what he says here, but: can you imagine Justin Trudeau making the complex socio-economic _policy_ argument that Garneau does in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/marc-garneau-as-canadians-move-across-provinces-ottawa-must-address-equalization/article4619230/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> As Canadians move across provinces, Ottawa must address equalization
> 
> MARC GARNEAU
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Actually, of course, the federal government has only limited "responsibility to ensure that wherever Canadians live, they receive comparable levels of services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." They, the feds, _manage_ the equalization process which does, indeed, have that aim, but it is, ultimately, the provinces which use or misuse equalization to provide the comparable levels of services. And it is not within the _Feds'_ power to guarantee "reasonably comparable levels of taxation," the governments of e.g. AB and QC (fail to) do that. But, that being said, M. Garneau is right - we do want, we should encourage, Canadians workers to migrate to the jobs, but that will leave many seniors 'behind' in regions that do not have the fiscal capacity to provide adequate healthcare. But: David Dodge is more right - enacting policies that will make jobs more readily available in Eastern Canada is better than fiddling with equalization. And there is another option: encourage seniors to migrate, too, to regions where employment is high and there is enough fiscal capacity to provide adequate services.

My point, however, is that this is a reasoned, rational suggestion on an important public policy matter, albeit one with which I disagree. I am not surprised that M. Garneau makes the suggestion. I cannot imagine the same words from M. Trudeau's pen.

__________
_Caveat lector_: I know M. Garneau from many years past (the 1980s) - not well, but enough to have socialized, now and again, and to have known e.g. his first wife, etc. His career and accomplishments are stellar.

A correction to the _Good Grey Globe's_ note at the bottom of the article. M. Garneau was promoted to Capt(N) while serving with the CSA and retired from the CF in that rank.


----------



## Danjanou (18 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And the _Globe and Mail_ reports that having, just today, raised enough money to pay off her 2006 campaign debt, Martha Hall Findlay is pondering another run for the Liberal leadership.  :



Hmmm experience in paying down debt, is that actually a positive for a Liberal leader? 8)


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2012)

The NP weighs on on McGuinty as potential Liberal Party of Canada leader. Looks like the Liberals may have to decide between the "least worst" choice in the high profile division, or actually do the work and pick a leader with some substance who can carry out the long deferred work of party renewal. Of course, Kelly McParland nails it in the last paragraph:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/18/kelly-mcparland-mcguinty-rumours-move-liberals-from-fantasy-to-farce/



> *Kelly McParland: McGuinty rumours move Liberals from fantasy to farce*
> 
> Kelly McParland | Oct 18, 2012 10:22 AM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (18 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....can you imagine Justin Trudeau making the complex socio-economic _policy_ argument....


  :not-again:    Not even with Jeff Dunham's hand up his butt.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The NP weighs on on McGuinty as potential Liberal Party of Canada leader. Looks like the Liberals may have to decide between the "least worst" choice in the high profile division, or actually do the work and pick a leader with some substance who can carry out the long deferred work of party renewal. Of course, Kelly McParland nails it in the last paragraph:
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/18/kelly-mcparland-mcguinty-rumours-move-liberals-from-fantasy-to-farce/




What Kelly McParland gets wrong is that, in 2015, the Liberals need Quebec ~ Ontario will have to wait until 2019. Quebec is where the next Liberal leader has to meet and beat Thomas Mulcair. By _custom_, a custom to which I expect the Liberals to adhere, the next leader should be a French Canadian so I suspect it is one of Cauchon, Coderre, Garneau or Trudeau







     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Martin Cauchon                   Denis Coderre                           Marc Garneau                   Justin Trudeau
Age: 50                               Age: 49                                     Age: 63                             Age: 40

My *guess* is that a team is in place to fiance M. Garneau's bid, I suspect neither Cauchon nor Coderre have much support but I will be surprised if they (one or the other, maybe both) don't give it a try, if only to make their place for next time.

M. Trudeau has the charisma, M. Garneau has the gravitas, each is deficient in what the other has, but I cannot believe that a good PR person cannot create some _excitement_ around M. Garneau, after all he was orbiting the earth when M. Trudeau was a schoolboy.


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2012)

Or they could go with Marth Hall-Findly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2012)

Denis Coderre will make an announcement today ~ probably to say he is leaving federal Liberal caucus to enter municipal politics.


----------



## GAP (31 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Denis Coderre will make an announcement today ~ probably to say he is leaving federal Liberal caucus to enter municipal politics.



It's not like there isn't any vacancies after the inquiry.....besides, that's where the money is.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2012)

Apparently a new contender, Toronto lawyer David Berschi what has pre-launched his campaign with this YouTube video.

And here is his website.


Edit: typo


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> What Kelly McParland gets wrong is that, in 2015, the Liberals need Quebec ~ Ontario will have to wait until 2019. Quebec is where the next Liberal leader has to meet and beat Thomas Mulcair. By _custom_, a custom to which I expect the Liberals to adhere, the next leader should be a French Canadian so I suspect it is one of Cauchon, Coderre, Garneau or Trudeau
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Updated chart: Denis Coderre is out and Denis Bertshi is in.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2012)

While I have no idea how broad or deep her campaign is, Deborah Coyne is also a contender for the Liberal Leadership: deborahcoyne.ca/

I have also heard Martha Hall Findley has paid off her campaign debts; she may well be throwing her hat int he ring as well.

I wonder if there will be an ABJ movement among the various Liberal party delegates opposed to the idea of a coronation?


----------



## JorgSlice (1 Nov 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While I have no idea how broad or deep her campaign is, Deborah Coyne is also a contender for the Liberal Leadership: deborahcoyne.ca/
> 
> I have also heard Martha Hall Findley has paid off her campaign debts; she may well be throwing her hat int he ring as well.
> 
> I wonder if there will be an ABJ movement among the various Liberal party delegates opposed to the idea of a coronation?



Coyne... Findley... 

While I'm a person who's skin starts to burn with the mention of Liberal(s) or NDP(s)... If Ms. Coyne and Ms. Findley put their gloves on and step into the ring and Libs somehow reclaim their lost braincells over the decades then Mr. Trudeau will stand no chance. In the end it'll look like 1) Coyne/Findley 2) Coyne/Findley 3) Trudeau (I was thinking /Garneau but then I realize the messiah complex The Reds have for Justin is just too strong).

However, I still fear that they'll basically hand Mr. Trudeau leadership and doom their party for years to come.


----------



## Dissident (1 Nov 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> However, I still fear that they'll basically hand Mr. Trudeau leadership and doom their party for years to come.



Sadly from my unscientific poll of the left leaning people around me, they are all ready to support JT as their only real hope to de throne the Conservative in the next (or the one after that) election. This was also reflected in a poll from the National Post I saw over the last couple of days (can't find it right now.)

So the Liberal party could do very well, if you consider getting a majority government the measuring stick, under Trudea leadership. /me shudders. Canada as a whole on the other hand...

Edit: The good Mr. Campbell has already referenced the poll in the 2015 election thread here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/101972/post-1184613.html#msg1184613


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2012)

The _Twitterverse_ is reporting that Mark Carney has said, definitively, that he has no interests in running for political office. Another Liberal wet dream comes to naught.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Nov 2012)

And now, entering the ring is Reform (er, Liberal) candidate Martha Hall Findley:

http://www.russ-campbell.net/2012/11/second-time-lucky-hall-findlay-enters.html



> *Second time lucky? Hall Findlay enters Liberal leadership race*
> 
> Former MP Martha Hall Find­lay has for­mally an­nounced in Cal­gary she’s en­ter­ing the fed­eral Lib­eral lead­er­ship cam­paign. This is the sec­ond time since en­ter­ing pol­i­tics as a can­di­date in the 2004 fed­eral elec­tion for the On­tario rid­ing of New­mar­ket-Au­rora, that Ms. Hall Fin­lay, 53, has sought to lead the fed­eral Grits.
> 
> ...



And a post with several links that demonstrate just what sort of a man the Young Dauphin really is (for those of you who never had the chance to see him in person) Several embedded links and video:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/justin-trudeau-caught-lying-about-liberal-candidate-apologizing-for-war-vets-campaign-signs/



> *Justin Trudeau caught lying about Liberal candidate apologizing for war vets campaign signs*
> November 14, 2012 — BC Blue
> 
> If you’d like to see a perfect example of what leadership ‘qualities’ MP Justin Trudeau brings to the table, check out this video from Sun News that catches him making up a lie about Liberal candidate Grant Humes (see here). http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid868989705001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241GVQxOh-GBHNHu5Cuhlf-y9&bctid=1967868022001
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Nov 2012)

I'm not a Liberal, but if I were I would probably support Ms Hall Findley. Of all the current crop she's the one who brings the most to the table. Too bad she'll be swept aside by Trudeaumania 0.2


----------



## PanaEng (15 Nov 2012)

What about his Ex-Military person:http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=7535779&sponsor
Anyone here heard of her?

On another topic. For as much as I think Mr Garneau has the intellectual ability to be a great leader (how far did that get Mr Ignatieff nationally?), I think he lacks the charisma or political skills to push his way to the top.

P.S. I also don't agree with many of the things he has said/written.


----------



## Danjanou (15 Nov 2012)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> What about his Ex-Military person:http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=7535779&sponsor
> Anyone here heard of her?



Nope and I'm willing to bet that after the first round of votes no one will again 8)


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Nov 2012)

Well, she did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.  >


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2012)

While Martha Hall Findlay brings some much needed _thoughtfulness_ to the race, and despite his lack of _charisma_, I think both Mark Garneau and the party will be sorry if he dos not run. Garneau will be sorry because I suspect he can give M. Trudeau a real run for his money, possibly (probably?) even beat him; the party will be sorry because M. Garneau has _substance_ or _gravitas_ or what the Brits call _bottom_ and that is almost totally absent in M. Trudeau and it will be too late, in 2014, to learn that it is an essential leadership ingredient.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2012)

...and if the Liberals don't get it from Garneau, then their going to watching Mulcair use it on them to pound them into the sand....


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2012)

Liberal insider and _agent provocateur_ Warren Kinsella wants some Liberal leadership candidates to quite while they're "ahead" in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Sun_:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/11/16/grit-leadership-wannabes-no-seat-dont-compete


> Grit leadership wannabes: No seat? Don’t compete!
> 
> BY WARREN KINSELLA, QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...




Broadly, I agree with him - the leadership race needs a few real "winners," not a mass of "who dats."

But I suspect this is directed, fairly narrowly, at Martha Hall Findlay who threatens to bring some *ideas* to the leadership race and that will be a problem for M. Trudeau, I think.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Nov 2012)

Clearly Warren wants a coronation rather than an election. Past leadership contests have been won quite handily by folks who did not currently hold a seat. Why should this one be any different? I would rather democracy be more inclusive rather than less, as proposed by this idea.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Nov 2012)

Kinsella captures perfectly the arrogance that is and likely will remain to be the thorn in the LPC's side for some time to come.

"Fairness"?  Just go to the Party's home page to "Meet [all?] the Candidates"

It kind of looks like the screen capture below at the moment.  At first I thought it was some fancy Java programming that would rotate the candidates as people viewed the Leadership page....nope, there is one and only one candidate to be formally presented on the site (as of 19 Nov 2012).


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2012)

And here, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is *why* Martha Hall Findlay and Mark Garneau scare the beejeebus out of M. Trudeau's fanatics supporters:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/Policy+wonk+Hall+Findlay+presents+Trudeau+with+challenge/7567571/story.html


> Policy wonk Hall Findlay presents Trudeau with a challenge
> 
> By Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News
> 
> ...




I have considerable respect for the _new_ Martha Hall Findlay ~ the one who emerged after she left parliament. I doubt she can win; I don't think she _should_ win because I think the Liberals will be well advised to stick with tradition and select a _Francophone_ for its next leader (Blake, _Laurier_, King, _St Laurent_, Pearson, _Trudeau_, Turner, _Chrétien_ Martin, _Dion_, Ignatieff ... (recognizing that McKenzie (1919), Graham (2006) and, now, Rae (2011-2013) have been interim leaders).

But I think she can attack and weaken Justin Trudeau one one flank while M. Garneau attacks and defeats him on the other.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Nov 2012)

That was a good article and I would actually pay attention to what the Liberal Party was offering if she won the race.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Nov 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That was a good article and I would actually pay attention to what the Liberal Party was offering if she won the race.



She gets a bum rap...she's of the same calibre as John Manley.  If the Liberal party truly wanted to rebound, they would do well to give her a fair shake.


I don't think the LPC is going to rebound...certainly not anytime soon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Nov 2012)

Andrew Coyne suggests, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, that the Liberals are in the political _penalty box_ for a a major misconduct, not just being _offside_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/19/andrew-coyne-how-to-enjoy-third-party-status-in-a-few-easy-steps/


> The Liberals’ only chance of survival is as a forceful, effective third party
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




I think he's on the right track, but maybe not for all the right reasons.

First: It seems to me that the Liberals can and should campaign to win it all, *but* in their own heart-of-hearts they should be battling to unseat the NDP as the party that forms _Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition_. It is not clear to me that they can accomplish that in 2015 because, in addition to all the factors Andrew Coyne analyses, Thomas Mulcair is a formidable politician in his own right and he is toughening his caucus, preparing them to fight and win, again, in 2015.

Second: It seems to me that the Liberals need to stand *for* something other than just achieving and holding power; that was their mantra in the past, it's becoming the CPC's mantra now and it will cost the CPC just as it did the Liberals.

My guess: IF the Liberals pick a good leader - someone other than M. Trudeau - they have a chance, albeit only a 50/50 one, to displace the NDP in 2015, to reduce the CPC to a minority in 2019 and to regain power in, say, 2021. IF the Liberals pick M. Trudeau then I suspect they stay in 3rd place (because his many _positives_ will be torn to shreds by sustained, mean, _nasty_ and above all *effective* CPC and NDP negative advertising campaigns) and he quits and then someone like Ms Hall Findlay tries for 2nd place in 2019.

My hope: we never have a NDP majority government in Canada. The only way my hope can be fulfilled is if the Liberals survive and return, eventually, to the status as "government in waiting."


----------



## Journeyman (20 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> IF the Liberals pick M. Trudeau then I suspect they stay in 3rd place (because his many _positives_ will be torn to shreds by sustained, mean, _nasty_ and above all *effective* CPC and NDP negative advertising campaigns) and he quits...


I doubt if he'll quit, even after a defeat, because he's a "name" -- and while the "name" is about the only thing he brings, many Liberals seem to see it as a mantra already.

Unfortunately, they may be right. Not merely due to my innate political cynicism, I see the changing demographics playing a more critical role. There's a growing body of younger voters -- a generation not noteworthy for deep thought -- who will look at Trudeau's name and age, and say "good enough for me." These may be the ones who retain the unthinking youthful idealism that will cause them to believe that all those Conservative policies, like restraining debt, are evil and mean-spirited, yet they will have jobs and young families and vaguely understand that NDP policies will bankrupt them personally.

Because of them, while the "name" will be enough to garner their ballot, all it's likely to do is split the left vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Nov 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I doubt if he'll quit, even after a defeat, because he's a "name" -- and while the "name" is about the only thing he brings, many Liberals seem to see it as a mantra already.
> 
> Unfortunately, they may be right. Not merely due to my innate political cynicism, I see the changing demographics playing a more critical role. There's a growing body of younger voters -- a generation not noteworthy for deep thought -- who will look at Trudeau's name and age, and say "good enough for me." These may be the ones who retain the unthinking youthful idealism that will cause them to believe that all those Conservative policies, like restraining debt, are evil and mean-spirited, yet they will have jobs and young families and vaguely understand that NDP policies will bankrupt them personally.
> 
> Because of them, while the "name" will be enough to garner their ballot, all it's likely to do is split the left vote.





And splitting the left vote is why I disagree with Stephen Harper's reported aim of destroying the Liberals and creating a UK style two party system. If we have a UK style system then we *will*, without fail, have periods of successive NDP majority governments which will, in my opinion, do far more harm than good. I can live with (relatively short) periods of a _centre-left_ Liberal governments (say, to terms) followed by (also two or, maybe three term) Conservative government.

The _natural governing party_ myth was crated because King governed for 22 years, but 13 of them were in the very _unnatural_ situation of the Great Depression and a World War. St Laurent governed, normally, for nine years; then we had Diefenbaker for six years; and then Pearson for five (two minorities); followed by Trudeau for 15 with a nine month Joe Clark _interregnum_. But, really, from 1945 to 1993 (48 years) we had a reasonable series of changes in government: 22 years of Conservatives and 26 of Liberals - the Liberals were about evenly divided between the _right_ (St Laurent and Pearson) and left (Trudeau) wings of that party.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Kinsella captures perfectly the arrogance that is and likely will remain to be the thorn in the LPC's side for some time to come.
> 
> "Fairness"?  Just go to the Party's home page to "Meet [all?] the Candidates"
> 
> It kind of looks like the screen capture below at the moment.  At first I thought it was some fancy Java programming that would rotate the candidates as people viewed the Leadership page....nope, there is one and only one candidate to be formally presented on the site (as of 19 Nov 2012).


Good catch - milpoints inbound.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Nov 2012)

The media, including the _Good Grey Globe_, is all aflutter because Justin Trudeau has expressed a coherent thought, suggesting that Prime Minister Harper's Not so new Foreign Policy plan is correct in pretty much all respects but going one step further and recommending that the CNOOC/_Nexen_ deal go through.

Now, I happen to agree with M. Trudeau ~ I have said many times that we must look to Asia for trade and immigration and that we need to exploit our natural resources, on a global trade basis, while they are in high demand. My guess, however, is that M. Trudeau has not "seen the light," rather I suspect his "team" is actually terrified that Martha Hall Findlay's penchant for tossing out real ideas might upset the Trudeau campaign's plan.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The media, including the _Good Grey Globe_, is all aflutter because Justin Trudeau has expressed a coherent thought, suggesting that Prime Minister Harper's Not so new Foreign Policy plan is correct in pretty much all respects but going one step further and recommending that the CNOOC/_Nexen_ deal go through.
> 
> Now, I happen to agree with M. Trudeau ~ I have said many times that we must look to Asia for trade and immigration and that we need to exploit our natural resources, on a global trade basis, while they are in high demand. My guess, however, is that M. Trudeau has not "seen the light," rather I suspect his "team" is actually terrified that Martha Hall Findlay's penchant for tossing out real ideas might upset the Trudeau campaign's plan.



That's the way it looks to me. He and his followers were content with him spouting catch phrases and non commital platitudes up to MHF joining the fray. He now has to show his Emperor's cloths and start coming out with a solid platform of ideas he can call his own.

Methinks he may be in trouble along that line of reasoning. He seems fairly devoid of such planks. Now he runs the risk of having to form his platform on what little he really knows or listening and adopting his handler's thoughts as his, without knowing the true direction to take them or the true consequences behind the direction chosen.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Nov 2012)

Unfortunately for M. Trudeau he exposes a whole flank to an attack and takeover by Thomas Mulcair and the NDP: all those, not just _lefties_, who oppose the CNOOC/_Nexen_ deal for a wide range of reasons were counting on the Liberals to oppose the deal, too ~ consider e.g. Diane Francis at the _Financial Post_ ~ she's no _Dipper_, not even close, but she is a fierce opponent of the CNOOC/_Nexen_ deal 

My guess, since it appears that CNOOC has agreed to Ottawa's conditions for the _Nexen_ takeover, is that Prime Minister Harper will get the credit for doing the deal and many opponents will flock towards Mr. Mulcair because there is, now, nowhere else to go. The Liberals will gain nothing from this.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _natural governing party_ myth was crated because King governed for 22 years, but 13 of them were in the very _unnatural_ situation of the Great Depression and a World War. St Laurent governed, normally, for nine years; then we had Diefenbaker for six years; and then Pearson for five (two minorities); followed by Trudeau for 15 with a nine month Joe Clark _interregnum_. But, really, from 1945 to 1993 (48 years) we had a reasonable series of changes in government: 22 years of Conservatives and 26 of Liberals - the Liberals were about evenly divided between the _right_ (St Laurent and Pearson) and left (Trudeau) wings of that party.



Sorry, I may be missing something, but you seem to be implying that Diefenbaker was Liberal; he, of course wasn't, he was a Tory.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Nov 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Sorry, I may be missing something, but you seem to be implying that Diefenbaker was Liberal; he, of course wasn't, he was a Tory.




No, I was trying to highlight the fact that the Tories were in power for six years between St Laurent and Pearson ~ it wasn't "wall to wall" Liberals.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, I was trying to highlight the fact that the Tories were in power for six years between St Laurent and Pearson ~ it wasn't "wall to wall" Liberals.



If you had mistaken John Diefenbaker for a Liberal. I'm sure there would probably be a lightening bolt heading in your direction as I type.  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And splitting the left vote is why I disagree with Stephen Harper's reported aim of destroying the Liberals and creating a UK style two party system. If we have a UK style system then we *will*, without fail, have periods of successive NDP majority governments which will, in my opinion, do far more harm than good. I can live with (relatively short) periods of a _centre-left_ Liberal governments (say, to terms) followed by (also two or, maybe three term) Conservative government.
> 
> The _natural governing party_ myth was crated because King governed for 22 years, but 13 of them were in the very _unnatural_ situation of the Great Depression and a World War. St Laurent governed, normally, for nine years; then we had Diefenbaker for six years; and then Pearson for five (two minorities); followed by Trudeau for 15 with a nine month Joe Clark _interregnum_. But, really, from 1945 to 1993 (48 years) we had a reasonable series of changes in government: 22 years of Conservatives and 26 of Liberals - the Liberals were about evenly divided between the _right_ (St Laurent and Pearson) and left (Trudeau) wings of that party.



Mr Harper's reported aim of destroying the Liberals etc is just that - reported. I've not seen anything published that confirms a two party state as the desired outcome. To relegate the Liberals to third party status is, in my mind, sufficient to destroy them for years to come. Particularly as it looks like they've got a loaded shot gun aimed squarely at their collective foot. I think Mr Harper has sufficient tactical acumen to recognize this.

I will agree that a two party state a-la the UK is most undesirable because Canadians are inherently centrist, and with the Torries holding and cultivating the center, that leaves the NDP firmly on the left with only more left rudder to steer. When Canadians tire of the current governing party, it is imperative that a near centre party replace them. We will not be able to afford the current NDP manifesto, nor it's descendants.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2012)

Deborah Coyne, an announced but, apparently, not yet "official" (paid up?) candidate for the LPC leadership fires back at Justin Trudeau on the oil sands issue in an opinion piece in the _National Post_.

She makes a few of good, obvious points:

1. "It is naïve to see China as on a benign shopping spree for natural resources around the world;"

2. "The Chinese government and its state-owned enterprises are focused exclusively on the pursuit of the national interest of China;" and

3. "Canada, and anyone hoping to lead both the Liberal Party of Canada and our great nation, must stand up firmly for the Canadian national interest in any negotiations with China."

But she fails, miserably, to define our "national interests" vis-à-vis either China or natural resources.

On the other hand, at least she does fire back ... Mark Garneau: where are you?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Kinsella captures perfectly the arrogance that is and likely will remain to be the thorn in the LPC's side for some time to come.
> 
> "Fairness"?  Just go to the Party's home page to "Meet [all?] the Candidates"
> ...




I'm guessing that one, despite any and all announcements, is not an official candidate until one has paid the $75,000 entry fee and that, for some, is going to be a big hurdle. Martha Hall Findlay, for example, just finished, earlier this year, paying of her debts from the last (2008/09) leadership contest. I suspect she, and Ms Coyne and all the others are having some trouble convincing supporters that:

1. They have some reasonable chance of beating M. Trudeau and, thereby, being in a position to "reward" supporters; or

2. That they have a reasonable prospect of repaying their leadership campaign loans within the lawful, albeit often ignored, time limits ... or at all.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Nov 2012)

I notice the party's page now has Ms Coyne and Mr Trudeau on it as candidates.


----------



## jpjohnsn (22 Nov 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I notice the party's page now has Ms Coyne and Mr Trudeau on it as candidates.


I suspect that this nothing more suspicious than the candidates being added as they officially declare.  JT was the only one on the site because he was the only one that had submitted his paperwork by that point.

That being said, they probably should have waited until at least 2 people had declared before having the site go live.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Nov 2012)

And just in time for the byelections, a story surfaces about an interview Mister Trudeau gave in French in 2010 in which he stated there were too many Albertans running the country, and Canada worked better when it had a prime minister from Quebec. The item is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Trudeau tired of Albertans running Canada

2:11 pm, November 22nd, 2012
DAVID AKIN | PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF


OTTAWA - In the wake of Liberal MP David McGuinty's anti-Alberta comments this week, a 2010 interview with Liberal leadership hopeful Justin Trudeau raises the issue about whether that attitude is baked into the DNA of the federal Liberal party.

In November 2010, Trudeau told a Quebec television show that he was tired of Albertans running the country and that, whether it was Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney, Canada is better off when Quebecers are running the country.

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau said in French to interviewer Patrick Lagace on the Tele-Quebec program Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters).

Lagace then asked Trudeau if he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans?"

Trudeau replied: "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us."

Trudeau specifically named prime ministers Pierre Trudeau, Chretien and Paul Martin but also included Progressive Conservative Mulroney on his list of great Quebec prime ministers of the last century.

Trudeau, who was scheduled to speak to supporters in Chilliwack, BC, Thursday afternoon was not immediately available for comment. Earlier this week, Trudeau had been campaigning in Calgary and Edmonton as he tries to succeed Michael Ignatieff as the next permanent leader of the federal Liberal Party.

"My entire campaign has been about bringing people together, about not pitting region against region and about being a strong representative and a voice that says the same thing in Chicoutimi as we say in downtown Calgary as I'll say in Toronto as I'll say in BC That's the kind of politics that I am trying to do here," Trudeau told reporters who were asking for his reaction to McGuinty's comments.

On Tuesday, McGuinty accused Conservative MPs from Alberta of "shilling" for the Alberta oil and gas industry.

"They are national legislators with a national responsibility," McGuinty told Sun Media in an interview Tuesday, "but they come across as very, very small-p provincial individuals who are jealously guarding one industrial sector ... the oilsands business specifically, as one that they're going to fight to the death for.

"They really should go back to Alberta and run either for municipal council in a city that's deeply affected by the oilsands business or go run for the Alberta legislature."

On Wednesday, McGuinty apologized for his comments and resigned his position as the Liberal natural resources critic.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Nov 2012)

On Tuesday, McGuinty accused Conservative MPs from Alberta of "shilling" for the Alberta oil and gas industry.

"They are national legislators with a national responsibility," McGuinty told Sun Media in an interview Tuesday, "but they come across as very, very small-p provincial individuals who are jealously guarding one industrial sector ... the oilsands business specifically, as one that they're going to fight to the death for.

"They really should go back to Alberta and run either for municipal council in a city that's deeply affected by the oilsands business or go run for the Alberta legislature."

On Wednesday, McGuinty apologized for his comments and resigned his position as the Liberal natural resources critic.

Mr Trudeau, on the other hand, said fuddleduddle, flipped off Western Canada, and treated himself to a jaunty new cravat and a haircut.


----------



## DBA (23 Nov 2012)

Mr Trudeau needs to go back to grade school to learn plural and singular forms of nouns as he thinks "Albertans" can be singular.



> "it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda."



He is now saying he really meant an Albertan and specifically Mr Harper. Spineless and dishonest to backpedal an attack on all Conservative Albertans to one just about Harper. He should either apologize if he didn't really mean it or stand behind it if he did mean it.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Nov 2012)

He's doing damage control and trying to spin it and use people's dislike of Harper to make him sound like a hero. Considering the current Nanos poll that suggested Harper was trusted by 41% of the surveyed people when the closest Lib/NDP leader was 13%. But of course he's evil...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Nov 2012)

The _Twitterverse_ suggests that Mark Garneau now has his money lined up (much more than the $75,000 "entry fee" I presume) and will announce his candidacy on Wed, 28 Nov, in Montreal and then, again, in Ottawa.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2012)

While I, normally, regard Ezra Levant as a _buffoon_, he does, now and again, play a useful _court jester_ role. He does that in this (only modestly overstated) column about the "free ride" which the _media party_ has given Justin Trudeau:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/23/speaking-in-liberal-mother-tongue-media-party-gives-justin-trudeau-a-pass-on-anti-alberta-remarks


> Speaking in Liberal mother tongue: Media Party gives Justin Trudeau a pass on anti-Alberta remarks
> 
> BY EZRA LEVANT, QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...




I need to be clear: I believe the _media_ is biased - in all directions; I accept, even relish a _biased_ media but I wish TV was more like print journalism with _editorials_, _columnists_ and _reporters_ (different *types* of people say different *types* of things (opinions vs facts)) and publicly stated political points of views, like the _Toronto Star_. As it is, I generally regard TV "news" as _infotainment_ and I watch, mainly, for Brooke Baldwin's body ...







I also believe there is a _media party_, led, mainly, by TV news programmes that are desperate to fill a 24/7 news cycle; when there is no real news, _per se_, they must resort to either fabricating it (see the erroneous _Postmedia_ reports on Conservative donations) or do _fluff_ journalism - and Justin Trudeau is the *perfect* bit of _fluff_: beautifully telegenic and a celebrity just because of his name (think Princess Eugenie of York). But the _media party_ is, largely, a herd: most are of the same generation which means they were "educated" (journalism is a craft, *fer chrissakes*, like plumbing, not a profession like engineering or the law) in a few schools, by a small cadre of like minded professors and they share a common _social_ position which is, broadly: anti-_conservative_ ... they aren't really *FOR* much of anything, just against that which they (erroneously, again) define as _conservative_, which they think of as being old and maybe even _fascist_.

Justin Trudeau is a *celebrity*, and that may be enough, in 21st century Canada, to make him our prime minister.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Justin Trudeau is a *celebrity*, and that may be enough, in 21st century Canada, to make him our prime minister.




And Cam Cardow, the _Ottawa Citizen's_ editorial cartoonist captures my deepest fears:





Courtesy of the Ottawa Citizen


----------



## uptheglens (25 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And Cam Cardow, the _Ottawa Citizen's_ editorial cartoonist captures my deepest fears:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Get used to it. I, personally am looking forward to being governed by a gang-banger from that gritty 'hood of South Central Stratford.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Nov 2012)

Michael Jackson sure looks young in that picture.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Nov 2012)

Another contestant, according to the _Winnipeg Free Press_: Joyce Murray, a Liberal MP representing Vancouver Quadra.

Ms Murray brings one big issue to the table: *"she believes Liberals, New Democrats and Greens should have the option of conducting run-off nominations to choose a single candidate in tightly contested ridings where a united progressive front would guarantee defeat of the ruling Tories,"* according to the _Winnipeg Free Press_ article. 





Joyce Murray, MP

I'm glad she's in the race and I hope her idea is debated seriously.

I think (maybe just hope) the idea is a loser; it is, _defacto_, a partial "unite the left" project without the need for commonality of views on anything except Conservative = bad.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Nov 2012)

I think her idea will lead to less democracy rather than more. It will mean the disenfranchisement of great swathes of the population where their preference is not given the opportunity to face the electorate on an even footing with others. It also smacks of the "natural governing party" entitlement thinking that got Liberals into trouble last time, and reflects that the goal is to rig the system so as to return to government at all costs.


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Nov 2012)

:goodpost:

It certainly reflects a not too tight grip on the feelings of the 99.5% of the population who are not in the political class. Even the members of the political class may be luke warmish to the idea. Why should a true blue grit knock on doors and contribute time and money to elect a dipper rather than work for someone of his or her own political persuasion? You may not like the Tories but that doesn't mean you like the NDP way of thinking and governing any better.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Nov 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think her idea will lead to less democracy rather than more. It will mean the disenfranchisement of great swathes of the population where their preference is not given the opportunity to face the electorate on an even footing with others. It also smacks of the "natural governing party" entitlement thinking that got Liberals into trouble last time, and reflects that the goal is to rig the system so as to return to government at all costs.




But the results in Calgary Centre, last night, (Cons: 37%, Libs 33%, Greens 26% and NDP 4%) will give some impetus to the ABC (Anything But a Conservative) crowd, which has members in all three _"progressive"_ parties.

In the bigger picture: 





Source: _National Post_

Maybe the votes suggest that the _"progressives"_ need to have a bitter internecine war, lasting a couple of election cycles (2015 and even 2019) to sort out which will be the "government in waiting," which the (distant) third party and the "conscience of parliament," and which a forgotten _fringe_ movement.


----------



## my72jeep (28 Nov 2012)

I just read this. Former astronaut Marc Garneau has joined the race to become leader of the federal Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a sad but, I fear true analysis of *why* M. Garneau, despite having all the brains, ability, _bottom_ or _gravitas_ and so on that M. Trudeau lacks, will, likely, fail to win the leadership:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/does-garneau-have-the-right-stuff/article5743076/


> Does Garneau have the right stuff?
> 
> LYSIANE GAGNON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Indeed: "Who knows?" But the betting, the polls all say that M. Trudeau, despite offering nothing of any substance, nothing at all, beyond "great hair," will win the leadership race. The polling suggests that:

1. A substantial plurality of Canadian knows little about him; 

2. That same substantial plurality Canadians does  not care about anything except his looks and name; and

3. Many of those Canadians - maybe even enough to give the Liberals a minority government - would vote for M. Trudeau (and for Liberal candidates) based on his charisma and their (Canadians') ignorance.

_"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."_

Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)


----------



## Poppa (28 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the results in Calgary Centre, last night, (Cons: 37%, Libs 33%, Greens 26% and NDP 4%) will give some impetus to the ABC (Anything But a Conservative) crowd, which has members in all three _"progressive"_ parties.
> 
> In the bigger picture:



How much do you figure the drop in popular vote for the Conservative member had to do with the fight between the provincial PC and Wild Rose factions?


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2012)

NP's profile on Mr Garneau:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/28/marc-garneau-liberal-leadership/



> *‘It’s not rocket science’: Former astronaut Marc Garneau launches Liberal leadership bid*
> 
> Canadian Press | Nov 28, 2012 9:47 AM ET | Last Updated: Nov 28, 2012 10:29 AM ET
> More from Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2012)

Poppa said:
			
		

> How much do you figure the drop in popular vote for the Conservative member had to do with the fight between the provincial PC and Wild Rose factions?




I really don't know.

I suspect that the demographic profile of most urban areas explains a lot. The central ridings are polyglot, _mixed_ in every sense, and not surprisingly, more _progressive_ on most issues than are neighbouring suburban and rural ridings.

I think the last provincial election and the election of Mayor Nenshi in 2010 exposed the fact that Calgary, proper, is _unfriendly_ to the Wild Rose message, at least as it was delivered in 2012.


----------



## larry Strong (28 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think the last provincial election and the election of Mayor Nenshi in 2010 exposed the fact that Calgary, proper, is _unfriendly_ to the Wild Rose message, at least as it was delivered in 2012.



If I recall correctly, there was a fairly organized ABWR drive in both Calgary and Edmonton during the mid to latter part of the last provincial election.

Larry


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Nov 2012)

Not only do I see the Dauphin getting the leadership, he'll be the next PM too come 15 I'd wager.  The populist mood swing that he evokes in certain circles will be strong by then if the discontent with the Harper government continues on it's present course which seems to be deepening as time passes.  The Calgary by-election should have been a cakewalk for the Tories.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not only do I see the Dauphin getting the leadership, he'll be the next PM too come 15 I'd wager.  The populist mood swing that he evokes in certain circles will be strong by then if the discontent with the Harper government continues on it's present course which seems to be deepening as time passes.  The Calgary by-election should have been a cakewalk for the Tories.




I disagree for the reasons I gave above. I think the _hard right_ wing of the CPC, the _Wild Rose_ wing if you like, captured the riding association and nominated an _ideologically pure_ but barely electable candidate.

Now that same _wing_ of the CPC may capture more riding associations in urban ridings Prime Minister Harper really needs, in which case he may have to refuse to sign some nominations and _parachute_ some of his own candidates into those ridings.

I think PM Harper has both his party and our our country on the right course: towards a moderate, centrist but less intrusive national government. A lot of CPC members disagree; they want to be US Republicans; if they capture the CPC then Canadian voters will do to us, the Conservatives, what Americans did to the GOP: hand us our asses on election day.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think PM Harper has both his party and our our country on the right course: towards a moderate, centrist but less intrusive national government. A lot of CPC members disagree; they want to be US Republicans; if they capture the CPC then Canadian voters will do to us, the Conservatives, what Americans did to the GOP: hand us our asses on election day.


I'm with you 100% in that I believe PM Harper is the best man for the job, however, the great unwashed multitude are making more noise everyday.  

This caterwauling may just get more folks out to vote in 15 than ever before and if they believe correctly or not that we are heading to become like the GOP in direction and thrust they will hand us our asses that day.  I do believe that whomever wins, they won't have a majority to play with.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2012)

A pretty devastating look at the Young Dauphin and what he brings(?) to the LPC and Canadian politics. Sadly, despite all this, the average "low information" voter will neither know nor care anything about the policy positions, moral compass or "vision" of the leadership candidates or eventual winner (and when you really get down to it, could they name any of these factors about Steven Harper, Thomas Mucair or even Elizabeth May?):

http://abearsrant.com/2012/11/justin-trudeau-the-peter-pan-of-canadian-politics.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ABearsRant+%28A+Bear%27s+Rant%29



> *Justin Trudeau – The Peter Pan of Canadian Politics*
> Published November 28, 2012
> “All children, except one, grow up.”
> 
> ...



Edit to add a twofer. It seems when the rubber hits the road, the Young Dauphin actually has the reverse Midas touch i.e. everything he touches turns into....:

http://diogenesborealis.blogspot.ca/2012/11/justin-trudeaus-kiss-of-death.html



> *Justin Trudeau's kiss of death*
> 
> I'm starting a new meme - the "Justin Trudeau effect". It refers to the disastrous effect that a visit or endorsement from Justin Trudeau has on a Liberal candidate's election prospects. The latest victim: Calgary Centre Liberal candidate Harvey Locke, whose campaign received a visit from Young Justin last week. Trudeau's visit helped Locke snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at the hands of Conservative Joan Crockatt in yesterday's federal byelection.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2012)

The problem, Thucydides, is that the Canadian Conservative _blogosphere/Twitterverse_ is no more representative of Canadian voters than the US conservative equivalent is of US voters. If we rely upon the Canadian Conservative _blogosphere/Twitterverse_ to 'inform' political opinon then we, like the US GOP, will have our arses handed to us by the Liberals Party of Canada.

We, Conservatives, need to let M. Garneau and Ms Hall Findlay highlight the fact, and it is a fact, that Justin Trudeau is a vacuous dilettante, in other words: an upper class twit. Then, assuming he wins the Liberal leadership despite all that, we need combined, albeit uncoordinated attacks from both the left (NDP) and right (CPC). We need the mainstream media - the _infotainment_ industry, CBC, CTV, Global, etc - to comprehend, despite their innate prejudices, that M. Trudeau is a weakling, and to 'inform' Canadians of that fact.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Nov 2012)

What nobody seems to have addressed so far is the potential impact all those $10 memberships might have. If I recall, not only are these folks in a position to cast a vote, so are all the "free" supporters. The glitter effect may be underestimated. 


Then again as Sun Tsu said "never interrupt your enemy when he's in the midst of making a mistake."


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2012)

Sadly, the Legacy Media already seems to have staked out the position that the Young Dauphin is the greatest thing since sliced Wonder Bread (TM). 

What I am counting on is his inability to respond to attacks from the Left or Right and an ever incresing series of gaffes which even the media will not be able to ignore (especially when caught live). His previous record suggests that is exactly what will happen. The other factor is the closed bubble he is constructing for himself (i.e. a team  of advisors "under 40" and presumably heavy on the Quebecois elements). They will have a hard time reaching out to the majority of over 40 voters who live outside of the Quebec or the major metropolitan areas since they will have no world view to connect with.


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2012)

Maybe he knows all this and is setting things up so that he replaces Jean Charest....


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2012)

We are at war with EastAsia. We have always been at war with EastAsia. Justin Trudeau's views today on the gun registry. (Notice the article carefully fails to mention that he voted to keep the Long gun registry, and to my knowledge has never before made any positive statements regarding the issue) The article sidebar has a list of current positions on other policy items:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/01/pol-the-house-justin-trudeau-long-gun-registry.html



> *Trudeau calls long-gun registry 'a failure'*
> 
> Having a firearm is an 'important facet of Canadian identity,' Liberal leadership hopeful says
> By Susana Mas, CBC News Posted: Dec 1, 2012 3:15 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 1, 2012 7:49 PM ET Read 566 comments566
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Dec 2012)

>On the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project, Trudeau said he's not opposed to pipelines in general, just this particular one, citing environmental concerns. "It's the wrong one."

OK, bright boy.  Which route out of Alberta do you envision that doesn't cross watersheds and water tables?  Sailboat fuel for brains, that one.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Dec 2012)

The ABC, _Anybody But a Conservative_, idea will not go away, as demonstrated by this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _iPolitics_:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/03/joyce-murray-has-a-really-important-idea/


> Joyce Murray has a really important idea
> 
> By Paul Adams
> 
> ...




Here's why ABC is a good idea: there is only a large handful of ridings in which the CPC candidate secured 50% of the vote ~ not enough to win even a minority against a _unified_ opposition. If the aim is to prevent another Conservative government, in other words if your entire electoral objective is negative, then Ms Murray's idea is a good one.

(But it is not clear, from a very cursory glance at the data linked above, that the Liberals would benefit very much from a properly organized ABC campaign. We might well end up with an NDP minority government, a CPC opposition and the Liberals and Greens (who finished second in a few ridings) fighting it out for last place.)

Here's why it is a dumb idea: Paul Adams says that Ms Murray _"wants to allow Liberal riding associations to cooperate with like-minded parties at the local level in choosing a joint candidate."_ That's a HUGE problem because *there are no like minded parties*. The Liberals and the NDP and the Greens are NOT alike; if they were, as the CA and PCs were in the 1990s, then they would have united already. In other words Ms Murray's idea rests on a false premise.

I really hope that she keeps pushing this and I hope that the anti-Conservative media faction keeps supporting her because it is good news for the Conservatives. It will prompt the Liberal left wing to look more favourably on the NDP which will, in turn, cause the _Manley Liberals_ to look more favourably on the CPC and leave the real Liberals looking for another saviour.

Paul Adams is right, albeit for the wrong reasons, in his last sentence. The "progressives" cannot unite because they are not FOR the same things; disliking Stephen Harper is not a sufficiently firm base upon which to build a political movement. But ABC is a nice wet dream for many Canadians.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Dec 2012)

I can not see Ms Coyne, Ms Hall Finley, Mr Garneau or even JT embracing such a foolish plan. The goal of the Liberal party is to win a future election. This plan would not see them do that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2012)

Another smokescreen generated by the NDP supporters who wish to absorb the LPC.

The LPC supporters who get behind this sort of idea are those who want to win without the effort of developing a useful platform.

Above it all lie the "important" issues of our time, of which the importance is assumed to fit preconceptions, not proven.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2012)

Whatever you think of the Young Dauphin, this article lays out the pitfalls for anyone who becomes leader of the LPC. Unless there is a purge of the palace guard, they will indeed be hamstrung by the desire to "_be bold and inventive, just as long as they’re not too bold or too inventive_". Of course the Young Dauphin is perfect in one regard; having no base of accomplishments to stand on, and very limited experience in the "real" world he will be quite easy for the powers that be to mold and shape. Martha Hall-Findley and Marc Garneau would be harder nuts to crack in this regard.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/04/kelly-mcparland-justin-trudeau-learns-that-liberals-want-new-ideas-just-like-the-old-ones/



> *Kelly McParland: Justin Trudeau learns that Liberals want new ideas just like the old ones*
> 
> Kelly McParland | Dec 4, 2012 11:47 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 4, 2012 12:02 PM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The ABC, _Anybody But a Conservative_, idea will not go away, as demonstrated by this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _iPolitics_:
> 
> http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/03/joyce-murray-has-a-really-important-idea/
> 
> ...




Jamey Heath, formerly Jack Layton's communications director and a pretty sharp political thinker disagrees with me in this thoight provoking article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _iPolitics_:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/04/uniting-the-centre-left-answering-the-skeptics/


> Uniting the centre-left: answering the skeptics
> 
> By Jamey Heath
> 
> ...




I half agree with some things Mr. Heath says: left_ish_ campaigns do work ~ Canadians' votes are, rather easily, bought with promises of "free" this or that. As he says, _"Jean Chrétien’s platform in 1993 was more leftish than Paul Martin’s in 2006. The former won, the latter didn’t."_ He neglects to mention that while M. Chrétien did, indeed, "campaign from the left" he "governed from the right" and then won another victory in 1997 and a third in 2000. I also agree that a resurgent BQ or a federal NPQ (Nouveau Parti Québécois) of some sort will further complicate life on the political _left_.

That being agreed, I still think that the political DNA of the NDP is *fundamentally different* than that of the Liberal Party - the legacy of J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell, David Lewis, Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent is too different from the legacy of Mackenzie King, Louis St Laurent, Mike Pearson and Jean Chrétien (and, yes, I skipped Pierre Trudeau because he was, in fact, _sui generis_, a NDP members who migrated to the Liberals without, ever, adopting the Liberal's political philosophy. But maybe that's what (former Liberal) Tom Mulcair is doing to (or for) the NDP).

Anyway, there IS some credible political support for Ms Murray's idea.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2012)

Brian Gable, of the _Globe and Mail_, explains what's happening with M. Trudeau's campaign:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/echo-point/article5865355/


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Dec 2012)

Mr. Campbell, James Heath is no slouch when it comes to thoughtful, considered analysis.  I think the Liberals are really not in a very good position, because the NDP are shaping themselves to be a "transposed-ever-so-slightly-left" (but not too far left) version of Chretien's '93 team of "Socially-left-of-centre, Fiscally-hanging-around-the-centre" Liberals.  In '93, given the fracture of the PCs into their major components of ultra-cons (Reform) and left-over PCs (almost all P, a lot less C) the Liberals almost 100% took over the PC's agenda. You have to hand it to Chretien, he knew precisely what he was doing with his little red book, knowing that in pursuing much of the ex-PC's agenda as his own, he was going to break two of his three promises...keeping only one: "No new 'elicopters!"  The two broken promises (cancelling GST and NAFTA) were not so much broken promises as they were "borrowing" two of Mulroney's well-considered and very necessary (for Canada's future economical success) ideas. Chretien's then (with Martin stewarding the economics of it all) made his mark in Canadian political history by running the government in a manner not at all dissimilar to how Harper is running things today -clear mandate and tight control.

I think that the NDP (the smart, cunning ones anyway) looked at what Chretien's did in '93 and are doing that now...although they are doing so not to secure a majority, but to cinch their place as the opposition party for a very long time to come.  Heath's words are very interesting, and I believe anyone doing "PIPB" (political IPB) would note with keen interest where it seems that Heath (and no doubt Mulcair) see the future strength and positioning of the NDP:



> Focusing on differences, not similarities, is a mug’s game. They exist, of course, but *they also exist within political parties*.
> 
> Mr. Paikin also suggests that Liberals “need to reach both left and right in order to rebuild a winning coalition.” Apparently he believes it’s impossible to work with *other centre-left parties*, but not to bridge the left-right divide.



Hmmm...differences within political parties...other center-left parties?   

The significance of those words by Heath should not be "unappreciated" either by followers of Canadian politics I general, or by Liberal "strategists" (if such people truly exist..."dogmatic tacticians encumbered by by arrogant belief that they are the true ruling party" is the best that I believe the Liberal brain trust has at the moment)

If the NDP strategists (and they do have some good people) are able to think of themselves as "center-left", pragmatically yet carefully explore "rightwards" towards the center, then the Liberal goose could very well be cooked.  It may not be popular with the NDP's farther left-leaning crowd, but Mulcair (supported by people like Heath) might very well be able to keep "Team Orange" together AND still in control of Stornaway.

:2c:

Regards 
G2G


----------



## busconductor (5 Dec 2012)

The Liberals are now changing the values they stood for 20 years ago replacing them with the Conservatives'. Fiscal responsibility which was a hallmark for the Conservatives from the time of Manning who was taken for granted by the voters, became the battlecry of the Chretien government during their last years. Repealing gun control put the young Trudeau in 'estoppel' such that when he 'got into it' it erased all the shortcomings the Conservatives have committed. Why would I vote for a political party who cannot orally accept their mistakes but acknowledge them by deeds? Even the non-Christians among the voters like the Hindus, the Sikhs, Moslems are now realizing through political education by the 'commissars of the Conservatives' they too would benefit if the Conservatives would be in power. There would be no conflict of interest between them and their daughters if the latter gets impregnated without the benefit of marriage. Abortions would hopefully be criminalized in the future. My 2 cent opinion and with due respect.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2012)

It seems to me that we really have four parties in Canada:

A hard left party --- a left of centre/centre left party --- a centre right/right of centre party --- a hard right party

In numbers the relationship is:

===        (Hard left ~ real socialists, nationalize the banks, etc)
====== (Soft left and centrists) 
=====   (Soft right and centrists)
==          (Hard right ~ _Focus on the Family_, etc)

In my opinion we are a left of centre people who are governed by a centre right _coalition_ because the Hard Right is too small and too weak to elect enough members to achieve official party status. But, while I think the right knows it must be united and the Hard Right knows it must surrender to the moderates or be forever consigned to the opposition benches, the board _left_ does have options. The Hard Left knows that it can masquerade as a centrist party and win, at least, the opposition benches. The Liberals, who (mostly) consider themselves to be the left of centre/centre left party know that they can - by skimming a few voters from each of the Hard Left and the Centre Right groups - win the government. Thus, my suspicion is that it is harder to "unite the left" than it was for Harper and MacKay to "unite the right." Both Harper and MacKay knew they could not hope to govern alone ... neither Mulcair nor the next Liberal leaders knows that with anything like the same certainty.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Dec 2012)

Concur for the most part, Mr. Campbell  I think, however, that Mulcair is smart (and cunning) enough to pursue two courses of action for the NDP, both with reasonable chances of success:

1) Take the center-left away from the Liberals through adept use of the art of politics (his preferred COA), or 

2) Propose a working relationship with the LPC, but leverage existing status as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to take the lead in the coalition, and use the Liberals' arrogance/reticence to refuse to cede lead to the NDP as justification to nullify any collaboration and revert to COA 1, above. (Mulcair's back-up plan)

Regards
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Dec 2012)

The usefulness of the NDP depends on whether it is controlled by the faction that represents the 15-20% the NDP usually polls.  If that faction is in control, any appearance of a slightly left-of-centre platform is a Trojan horse.  (Campaign centre, govern left.)  The Liberals are ideologically still the proper left-of-centre party, but their brand is still tainted (especially in Quebec).


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2012)

Greg Weston reports on the _"Perils of Pierre's Son"_ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _CBC News_ website:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/06/f-greg-weston-justin-trudeau-liberal-leadership-race.html


> Justin Trudeau, long shot with a short resumé
> *Liberals could be 'rolling the dice for a miracle'*
> 
> By Greg Weston, CBC News
> ...




M. Trudeau is not a stupid man ... anything but. But, he does not have the sort of experience that might lead someone like me to believe that he is, in any way, qualified to be Prime Minister. On the other hand prime Minister Harper's resumé was pretty thin when he took the reigns of the newly formed CPC in 2003 and most fair minded people would agree that he is not a bad prime minister ... he may not be a St Laurent or even a Borden but he's light years better than several.


----------



## busconductor (8 Dec 2012)

Given the young Trudeau's heated ridicule on those 'who spun stories' like that of his own future Privy Council which will surely spin stories to cover up for his mother's deep attachment to the communist terrorist Fidell Castro when he becomes PrimeMinister is a already a sign  of compromised spies and cops based on the fact that one will wonder what story will he spin if asked about his mother's attachment to communist Cuba. Everybody abhorred the Soviet Union, why not Cuba? While Harper bears the brunt of his defense of literal democratic capitalism, the young Trudeau chose them to be a non-issue just like other liberals when tagged by Harper as 'socialists". Young fellow is still not yet PrimeMinister and now his pangs are showing. My 2 cent opinion and with due respect.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Dec 2012)

Whew! That was close...I thought the Mods were going to have to invoke Godwin's Law.


----------



## GAP (8 Dec 2012)

Oh...please meds....hurry up and come.......


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Oh...please meds....hurry up and come.......



Sorry, all I have right now is some Naproxin for the pain and swelling.....


----------



## busconductor (9 Dec 2012)

Here's another one on the young Trudeau. Remember when he had a rigged boxing match with his "fellow Conservative"? He was taunting me for my "alleged cowardice" for not accepting a challenge to a fistfight made by a South Korean CSE colleague in front of an alleged Cuban spy. I did not accept the challenge because I was really an "a**h*** in the workplace.If I accepted the challenge only I wouuld be fired. I deliberately made myself one by way of dumping workload on him to push South Korean guy to the 'extreme Left' to 'gather info on suspected Russian, Cuban, Chinese and French moles in the workplace. Korean guy misrepresented himself to be a "North Korean spy". It was a show. Besides it was Harper who campaigned for non-violence in the workplace. It was also tantamount to 'challenging someone to a duel' given that Korean guy knows taekwondo and I practice jiu-jitsu. We should had either broke each others' arms or had killed each other. So the young Trudeau can be indirectly liable for violence in the workplace and directly liable for challenging someone to a duel, a crime punishable by 5-7 years under the Criminal Code of Canada.


----------



## Scott (9 Dec 2012)

You really are an idiot.


----------



## busconductor (9 Dec 2012)

How do you know? After taking up a battery of tests, I was really diagnosed by my psychiatrist to be an idiot. You must be omniscient.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2012)

busconductor said:
			
		

> How do you know? After taking up a battery of tests, I was really diagnosed by my psychiatrist to be an idiot. You must be omniscient.



No.  We just know a little more of which you talk about than you do.  You are taking tidbits of openly known facts and claiming to have knowledge of that which you do not.  You are a delusional fraud.  Please go away, or we will have the manager of that bookstore throw you out.




Chapters - Square One 
189 Rathburn Road West, 
Mississauga, Ontario 
L5B 4C1 
Canada


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2012)

The site rules state:
• You will not *troll the boards or feed the trolls*. A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages.1


It's obvious that busconductor cannot be salvaged nor will he contribute anything of value; he's an admin burden. Ban him and be done with it.



[size=8pt]1.  Mike Bobbitt, Conduct Guidelines.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The site rules state:
> • You will not *troll the boards or feed the trolls*. A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages.1
> 
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Dec 2012)

There is a fairly long and chart filled article at ThreeHundredEight.com that suggests that Justin Trudeau is well ahead in the polls but that the shine might be wearing off.

The key charts are:

















So, despite the obviously high risks in running a lightweight celebrity, the potential rewards tell the Liberals to go with M. Trudeau because:






In a 338 seat House of Commons the current polls suggest the Conservative get a majority against Ms Hall Findlay, a very strong minority against M. Garneau and a weak minority against M Trudeau. My guess is that, after the fact of massive advertising, the results in 2015 are more likely to be: a strong Conservative majority against Ms Hall Findlay (say 180+ seats), a modest Conservative majority against M. Garneau, but with the NDP remaining in opposition in both cases, and a weak Conservative majority (say 170+ seats) against M. Trudeau but, in that case, the Liberals displacing the NDP as the official opposition party.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2012)

A critique of Marc Garneau's policy planks as presumptive leader of the LPC. To tell the truth, there is very little here that is different from previous Liberal ideas. The Who nailed it pretty well: "meet the new boss - same as the old boss"

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/12/12/william-watson-liberal-weightlessness/



> *William Watson: Liberal weightlessness*
> 
> William Watson | Dec 12, 2012 7:32 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 12, 2012 7:34 PM ET
> More from William Watson
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Dec 2012)

"But what does “fact-” or “science-” based mean?"

Euphemisms for "whatever we feel/think is right".  Most politicians and media people can no longer distinguish between "fact" and "interpretation", and thinks social studies are "science".


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2012)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, illustrates how divided the Liberal Party Of Canada remains - M. Trudeau is not the first choice of many Liberal insiders/power brokers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-the-liberal-party-lost-mark-carney/article6414626/?cmpid=rss1


> How the Liberal Party lost Mark Carney
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC, STEVEN CHASE AND JANE TABER
> OTTAWA and HALIFAX — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I think we should take Mr. Carney at his word: people approached him but he declined to play along. The media will, however, now try to suggest that the Liberal _courtship_ somehow or other makes it impossible for Mr. Carney to work with the Conservative government.

I'm happy to concede that Mr. Carney might well be a "Manley Liberal" but he might, just as easily, be a "Prentice Conservative."

But, the main point is: divisions, deep divisions remain in the Liberal Party. It appears to me that M. Trudeau is trying to position himself so as to earn the trust of the "Manley Liberals" but so are M. Garneau and Ms. Hall Findlay and they might push M. Trudeau back towards the 'left,' his father's socially and economically discredited 'left' which now belongs to Thomas Mulcair and the right wing of the NDP. Rock, meet hard place.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2012)

For me the key line in the article was this:



> “Certain people want things to happen … the political world, it seems to me, is a world for optimists. I’m in a world that’s a world for realists.”



Looking at the current state of the Liberal party, I can't say I blame him. OTOH the article seems to put a lot of time and energy in attempting to paint him as a Liberal, even though I have not seen any public declarations by Mr Carney as to what, if any, political party he follows or belongs to. Situating the estimate could be quite embarrasing if he does choose to enter politics on his return from England.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Dec 2012)

I have to agree with the previous opinions. I've always sensed that Mr Carney was more blue than red. The contention that his father was Liberal ergo so is he is a patently false assumption: witness the Layton father/son. I'm not sure that now is the time for "blue liberals" to succeed. The current LPC is still far too red for the Manley group to make any meaningful headway.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2012)

Stephen Gordon in _MacLean's_ weighs in in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _MacLean's_:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/16/the-carney-affair-with-the-liberal-party-of-canada-it-will-all-end-in-tears/#.UM3N_BnGpjQ.twitter


> The Carney affair with the Liberal Party of Canada: It will all end in tears.
> 
> by Stephen Gordon on Sunday, December 16, 2012
> 
> ...




I think I agree with most of this. I suppose one cannot blame the Liberals for trying to find a better leadership candidate than Coyne, Garneau, Hall Findlay, Murray, Trudeau etc but is it _*appropriate*_ to approach an official who is already sitting in such a key post? It's been done before, of course: Lester B Pearson was recruited into the party while he was serving as a very senior public servant in External Affairs; Marcel Massé was recruited by the Liberals after he retired as Clerk of the Privy Council and amongst the many, many other examples we have Gen Andy McNaughton who was recruited into the Liberal Party (and into the cabinet) shortly after he resigned his overseas command, but the _Governor_, like the _Clerk_ and a very few other appointments (the CDS?) ought to be "out of bounds" for political recruitment while they are in office.


----------



## GAP (16 Dec 2012)

This is mainly about Liberals, but the Cons are not blameless either. Anyone remember Hillier?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2012)

More, on the (unofficial) Liberal _courtship_ of Governor Carney, in this item which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/mark-carney-and-the-liberals-need-to-clear-the-air/article6460101/


> Mark Carney and the Liberals need to clear the air
> 
> MICHAEL BABAD
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




If this does become the _Carney Affair_ and if "the sterling reputation of the Bank of Canada" is tarnished then Tim Murphy and the other Liberal insiders have much for which to answer. This "star search" nonsense is not, of course, an exclusively Liberal pass time, as GAP correctly notes, but there need to be some limits, enforced by at least some sort of a "gentlemen's agreement."


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Stephen Gordon in _MacLean's_ weighs in in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _MacLean's_:
> 
> http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/16/the-carney-affair-with-the-liberal-party-of-canada-it-will-all-end-in-tears/#.UM3N_BnGpjQ.twitter
> 
> I think I agree with most of this. I suppose one cannot blame the Liberals for trying to find a better leadership candidate than Coyne, Garneau, Hall Findlay, Murray, Trudeau etc but is it _*appropriate*_ to approach an official who is already sitting in such a key post? It's been done before, of course: Lester B Pearson was recruited into the party while he was serving as a very senior public servant in External Affairs; Marcel Massé was recruited by the Liberals after he retired as Clerk of the Privy Council and amongst the many, many other examples we have Gen Andy McNaughton who was recruited into the Liberal Party (and into the cabinet) shortly after he resigned his overseas command, but the _Governor_, like the _Clerk_ and a very few other appointments (the CDS?) ought to be "out of bounds" for political recruitment while they are in office.




More on _"L'affaire Carney_," this time from the UK in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Guardian_, which notes that the Bank of Canada has cleared Governor Carney of any conflict regarding his vacation visit with Scott Brison:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/17/mark-carney-cleared-conflict-interest?INTCMP=SRCH


> Mark Carney, next Bank of England governor, cleared of conflict of interest
> *Bank of Canada says Carney, who will replace Mervyn King, did not breach rules over holiday stay with opposition leader*
> 
> Phillip Inman and agencies
> ...




I'm inclined to agree that Carney's normally good judgement was "suspended" for a while ~ he should have informed Finance Minister Flaherty or, at least the Clerk of the PCO, when the _courtship_ began and he should have told the Liberals that he was not interested until, at least, after he had left the BOC. The vacation with Brison is not, for me, a problem: Ottawa is a small town; Scott Brison is a rising star politician of a similar age to Carney and with an interest in finance; that he and the Carney family might have become (and remain) friends is not surprising.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2012)

Some thoughts on the Liberal leadership race in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Progressive+Liberals+alarmed+federal+leadership+contenders/7716489/story.html


> Progressive Liberals alarmed as federal leadership contenders tilt right
> 
> By Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...




One can hardly blame the Liberal leadership contenders for trying to find some "room" between the Tories, who have moved, aggressively, from the right towards the centre, and the NDP who are moving, with equal determination, towards that same centre from the left. The question is: is there enough room in the crowded centre for a party that wants to be centrist?

While I agree with Stephen Carter that the locus of Canadians politics has moved away from Quebec and towards the West, I am not so sure about his contention that "labels" no longer matter. I suspect that the Liberal "brand" stills smells in many parts of the West and that M. Trudeau's positions on the oil sands and the gun registry are not going to change very much.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2012)

See the _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbitson's predictions about the Liberal leadership on the video link in this post.
.
.
.
.
.
Hint: Trudeau wins the leadership and the Liberals soar ... then, before year's end, sink back to third place.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on _"L'affaire Carney_," this time from the UK in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Guardian_, which notes that the Bank of Canada has cleared Governor Carney of any conflict regarding his vacation visit with Scott Brison:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/17/mark-carney-cleared-conflict-interest?INTCMP=SRCH
> 
> I'm inclined to agree that Carney's normally good judgement was "suspended" for a while ~ he should have informed Finance Minister Flaherty or, at least the Clerk of the PCO, when the _courtship_ began and he should have told the Liberals that he was not interested until, at least, after he had left the BOC. The vacation with Brison is not, for me, a problem: Ottawa is a small town; Scott Brison is a rising star politician of a similar age to Carney and with an interest in finance; that he and the Carney family might have become (and remain) friends is not surprising.




The media has been all aflutter and all "aTwitter," too, about Mark Carney's political persuasions and/or his judgement; the _Good Grey Globe's_ Lawrence Martin, writing in _IPolitics_, and Jeffrey Simpson, in the _Globe and Mail_, have been especially vocal. Now, in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Sun_, Governor Carney, in effect, says Lawrence Martin lied is mistaken:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/12/20/politics-not-in-play-at-bank-of-canada-says-flaherty-carney


> Politics not in play at Bank of Canada, says Flaherty, Carney
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN	 ,PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2012
> ...




I remain convinced that:

1. The _courtship of Carney_ illustrates Liberal Party desperation more than anything else; and

2. Governor Carney probably has ambitions far, far above being the leader of Canada's third party. My guess is that Governor Carney probably set a five year term on his Bank of England employment so that he will be available for one of the big, _global_ monetary manager jobs that will come open _circa_ 2018-20.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2012)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright SAct from _iPolitics_, Paul Adams speculates on why the Liberals appear to be trying to jump into the centre-right sector of the Canadian political spectrum:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/30/the-liberals-strange-quest-for-the-centre-right/


> The Liberals’ strange quest for the centre-right
> 
> By Paul Adams
> 
> ...




It appears more and more likely that M. Trudeau will win the Liberal leadership. I remain convinced that:

1. It is very possible, even probably that Justin Trudeau's election will move the Liberals into first place in the polls in 2013; but

2. The Liberals, under sustained attack from both the Conservatives and the NDP, will falter ~ because M. Trudeau is a young, inexperienced leader ~ and by mid 2014 they will be back in third place; and

3. It is possible that the Liberals can manage to displace the NDP as official opposition in late 2015, after the next election - in which case M. Trudeau will have some time/room to grow as a leader; but

4. It is equally possible that the Liberals will remain in third place after the 2015 general election and M. Trudeau will, almost certainly, resign the leadership then.

By 2019 I expect Canadians to be tired of the Conservatives and I expect the Conservatives to be out of ideas. I hope there is a _centrist_, free enterprise, _moderate_ Liberal Party there ready to govern  because I don't think the NDP has the genetic where-with-all to be _centrist_, free enterprise or _moderate_.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Dec 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> By 2019 I expect Canadians to be tired of the Conservatives and I expect the Conservatives to be out of ideas. I hope there is a _centrist_, free enterprise, _moderate_ Liberal Party there ready to govern  because I don't think the NDP has the genetic where-with-all to be _centrist_, free enterprise or _moderate_.



I couldn't agree more - both your analysis and your "hope".

The former helps me to time my entry into politics.... ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Dec 2012)

Planning on running under the NDP banner, huh? >


----------



## GAP (31 Dec 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Planning on running under the NDP banner, huh? >



With that bike? Not a chance.....Greens, definitely Greens......


----------



## overthefence (1 Jan 2013)

As long as we are terribly burdened with too much debt, the Liberals have nothing else to brag but winning Quebec by a few hundred votes in the last referendum, which can be attributed to the most patriotic Canadian Jews by way of assisting dying and elderly patients in hospitals to mark their ballots with their thumbmarks. The Liberals are the ones responsible for putting us in this terrible debt mess. Pierre and Jean kept on nationalizing basic industries which stfiled domestic and foreign investmets, taxing and giving away much needed revenues to welfare projects and tax rebates just to win votes. That to me is the most disgusting deed that any politician has done, 'give away doles and put the country in debt to win an election'!. Try to muse them over yourselves if that was the right thing?

The Conservatives have never that done that kind of thing in their lifetime. They were consistently fiscally responsible.They don't care if they lose an election. They are not going to entice an electorate with a carrot stick just like what the Liberals did. There is nothing wrong with welfare as long as a country like Singapore can afford them!


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jan 2013)

overthefence said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The Conservatives have never that done that kind of thing in their lifetime. They were consistently fiscally responsible.They don't care if they lose an election. They are not going to entice an electorate with a carrot stick just like what the Liberals did ...




The author appears to have missed Diefenbaker, Clark and Mulroney ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jan 2013)

The author appears to be missing a lot of things....


----------



## overthefence (1 Jan 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The author appears to have missed Diefenbaker, Clark and Mulroney ...



If I were Mulroney I would had done it too (not because I am stubborn headed and do not want to accept my mistakes), assuming the Liberals were successful to make the public believe. Mulroney was 'blackmailed' and threatened with 'losing if he did not do it'. We can succumb to sin but Mulroney was only accessory and not 'principals or co-principals of the crime like us liberals. I can accept my mistakes like Boris Yeltsin. During 1994 I was a staunch proponent of heavy taxation taunting them to 'tax hard, harder, harder...' until I studied micro and macro economics and finally came to admit that  taxes stifle investments and causes unemployment. It is simple as admitting them that we were responsible for the economic mess Canada has been in. 

I wish that I get paid 20 thousand dollars by a rich Liberal by admitting our mistakes personally and I can donate half to orphans of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and half to the orphans and widows of Canadian Forces.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jan 2013)

overthefence said:
			
		

> If I were Mulroney I would had done it too (not because I am stubborn headed and do not want to accept my mistakes), assuming the Liberals were successful to make the public believe. Mulroney was 'blackmailed' and threatened with 'losing if he did not do it'. We can succumb to sin but Mulroney was only accessory and not 'principals or co-principals of the crime like us liberals. I can accept my mistakes like Boris Yeltsin. During 1994 I was a staunch proponent of heavy taxation taunting them to 'tax hard, harder, harder...' until I studied micro and macro economics and finally came to admit that  taxes stifle investments and causes unemployment. It is simple as admitting them that we were responsible for the economic mess Canada has been in.
> 
> I wish that I get paid 20 thousand dollars by a rich Liberal by admitting our mistakes personally and I can donate half to orphans of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and half to the orphans and widows of Canadian Forces.




Back on the Ban Bus, busconductor.

Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2013)

Martha Hall Findlay give a good interview, here, on _Sun TV_, to Army.ca member David Akin.

His comments, in the accompanying article, are also interesting.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2013)

A rundown of the declared leaders. Some have very impressive resumes indeed, and many are willing to "talk the talk". It remains to be seen how:

a. Party members react to this
b. Vested interests react to this
c. The party as a whole willing to change direction, or do they still want to go for a shortcut?

My personal feeling is there is still too much institutional inertia in favour of "the cynical pork-and-patronage politics" for any of these proposals to gain any real traction, rather, like Kyoto, they are there to attract voters without any commitment to actually do anything with them.

We shall see:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/14/andrew-coyne-federal-liberal-leadership-hopefuls-need-the-west-to-win/



> *Andrew Coyne: Federal Liberal leadership hopefuls need the West to win*
> 
> Andrew Coyne | Jan 14, 2013 7:51 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 14, 2013 8:47 PM ET
> More from Andrew Coyne | @acoyne
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2013)

More people are beginning to notice. Will it make a difference?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/kelly-mcparland-justin-trudeau-stands-out-as-the-least-qualified-among-the-liberal-leadership-candidates/



> *Kelly McParland: Justin Trudeau stands out as the least qualified among the Liberal leadership candidates*
> 
> Kelly McParland | Jan 15, 2013 2:01 PM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...



The other leadership candidates should be pushing their resumes out to media and supporters as fast as they can, and make a large point of their accomplishments during the actual campaign and debates. If nothing else, this should give some low information voters a shock, and embarrass the Liberal party hierarchy and any journalist with ethics for their support of the young Dauphin.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2013)

I didn't watch the Liberal Party of Canada leadership debate last night but the _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbitson did and here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, are his observations:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/liberal-leadership-debate-stays-on-script/article7569800/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> Liberal leadership debate stays on script
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




There is a whole of _Emperor's new clothes_ sort of stuff about M. Trudeau's campaign ~ he is running on _fluff_, pure and simple. Maybe it doesn't matter; maybe he will win then lose, again, in 2015, then be replaced, in time for 2019, by a real leader ... maybe.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2013)

Liberalism in Canada seems to be running out of steam, and may become irrelevant much sooner than anyone has expected. A shell or "Zombie" party might exist for a while longer, but history seems to have shown that parties can become extinct very quickly indeed. Think of the Progressive Conservatives, the British Liberals or (farther back) the Whig party in the United States:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/21/kelly-mcparland-liberals-are-running-three-leadership-campaigns-but-wheres-the-excitement/



> *Kelly McParland: Liberals are running three leadership campaigns, but where’s the excitement?*
> 
> Kelly McParland | Jan 21, 2013 12:24 PM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2013)

The Liberal Party of Canada seems determined to run a leadership "race" in which no one can actually lose because the winner will be an overwhelming consensus choice. This means that debates must avoid policy at all costs. In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _MacLean's_, we get the few actual tidbits from a weak debate conducted using a silly format:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/02/the-liberal-debate-in-winnipeg-so-laid-back-not-much-laid-bare/


> The Liberal ‘debate’ in Winnipeg: so laid-back, not much laid bare
> 
> by John Geddes on Saturday, February 2, 2013
> 
> ...




In my opinion, the Liberals need to 1) _speak to Quebec_, which is where they must begin their long, hard, uphill ruck-march back to power, and 2) _excite Canadians_, especially Quebecers, with some innovative policy ideas. So far they appear, to me, to have studiously avoided both.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Feb 2013)

Every time I have heard a clip of Justin on the radio, it seems to me that his words are the usual platitudes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Feb 2013)

When even as fervent a Harper hater as the _Good Grey Globe's_ Lawrence Martin is fed up with the vacuous intellectual pabulum that the Liberals are serving, we know something is wrong. He opines, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that the Liberals "are a comatose lot, reduced to trotting out the same kind of mush that saw them get trounced in the 2011 election:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/hey-liberals-stop-boring-us-to-death/article8206092/


> Hey Liberals, stop boring us to death
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I am a staunch, paid up, to the legal limit donor Conservative.

But: I want the Liberals to succeed.

I know, with absolute certainty, that sometime between now and 2020 the Conservative Party will become fat, lazy, corrupt, bereft of ideas, and, generally, in need of a few years in the political _reserve_ (opposition) to regroup and reorganize. I seriously doubt that Thomas Mulcair can lead the NDP far enough into the political centre to make them a safe government for Canada. While the Liberal record, post M. St Laurent, is spotty on pretty well every issue, even Justin Trudeau has  renounced much of the policy vandalism and sheer lunacy that his father, Pierre Trudeau (Canada's woest ever prime minister), foisted upon us and the Liberals are, in my opinion, the best hope we have to be a (barely acceptable) government in waiting.

Thus I share Lawrence Martin's dismay: the Liberals need to "harden the f**k up" and test their would be leaders, especially on the battleground (the economy) that Stephen Harper and Canadians, in general have chosen.


----------



## GAP (5 Feb 2013)

When the Libs lost in 2006 the thought then was it would be at least a decade before they were able to come up with something resembling a leader and a coherent policy.....


----------



## dapaterson (5 Feb 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I know, with absolute certainty, that sometime between now and 2020 the Conservative Party will become fat, lazy, corrupt, bereft of ideas, and, generally, in need of a few years in the political _reserve_ (opposition) to regroup and reorganize.




Paging Senator Mike Duffy from Kanata PEI.  Paging Senator Duffy.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Paging Senator Mike Duffy from Kanata PEI.  Paging Senator Duffy.



Interesting how the shoe is now on the other foot.  No longer is he reporting on the carrying ons of Parliament and the Senate; he is now partaking in it.   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Feb 2013)

Finally ... Marc Garneau has come out swinging. He has just given a press conference, his opening statement, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his campaign website, is attached:

http://marcgarneau.ca/statement-130213/


> Statement by Liberal Leadership Candidate Marc Garneau
> 
> 2013/02/13
> 
> ...




It's a pretty clear and simple statement: I am a mature, thoughtful man ~ Justin isn't; I have ideas and I am willing and able to express them in policy terms ~ Justin hasn't and isn't; I have a plan for Canada ~ Justin doesn't; and I'm the best choice to lead the LPC ~ Justin isn't, not yet, anyway.


----------



## larry Strong (13 Feb 2013)

It will be interesting to see how Le bébé responds to this.

Larry


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Feb 2013)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_ and filtered through the TorStar's Susan Delacourt, is the Trudeau campaign's explanation of why it is so very light on policy:

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2013/02/trudeau-versus-policy-in-liberal-leadership-race.html


> Trudeau versus policy in Liberal leadership race
> 
> Posted by: Susan Delacourt
> 
> ...




M. Trudeau is, essentially, running a "front runner" campaign and, in that role, he neither wants nor needs to give opponents any easy targets. But there's a risk: Canadian might want to what policies and principles he espouses, failing to tell them that makes him an easy target for Prime Minister harper and Opposition leader Mulcair.


Edit: format (to take the last paragraph, my words, out of Ms Delacourt's article).


----------



## Sythen (13 Feb 2013)

Speaking as someone with not a politically strategic bone in my body. Does it seem like Mr Trudeau is not giving any specifics on policy because he feels his "celebrity" will be enough to win this election, and if that doesn't work, by next election he won't have anything concrete the Conservatives can attack him on so he can focus next election on whatever the flavour of the month is?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2013)

Not just the Young Dauphin,but the LPC "Brain Trust"as well.

Given the short attention span of the electorate (one wag on Army.ca suggested people will become interested in the campaign about a month _after_ the election) this may actually be a viable strategy, although it does run the risk of being devoured by clever attack ads or inserts into political speeches, events etc. ("Here is what we in the CPC/NDP plan to do about problem "x". What do the Liberals propose?").

The other factor that allows this sort of behaviour is the fact that most of the Media is not going to aggressively follow up on the lack of Liberal policy, vision or plans. This is a clever slight of hand, since they can trumpet the faux scandal of the month or spin their "narrative" to paint the other parties as "bad" without ever having to explain why the LPC is "good" in explicit terms.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2013)

Marc Garneau attempts to light the policy fire. As the article says, it is about time to inject some real meat into this vague leadership "race". My concern is that since the LPC essentially wasted the period between 2006-today and never came out with any policy or defining philosophy (arguably this happened a lot longer ago; consider the LPC ran using the 1993 "Red Book" platform for each election since then),ther is really nothing for the candidates to hang their policy on (i.e. no one with a policy will be albe to explain "why" their policy is good Liberal policy or articulates Liberal values. Oddly Martha Hall-Findley has good, solid Conservative policy with her marketing board position...)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/14/kelly-mcparland-marc-garneau-challenges-justin-trudeau-to-take-a-stand-any-stand/



> *Kelly McParland: Marc Garneau challenges Justin Trudeau to take a stand. Any stand.*
> 
> Kelly McParland | Feb 14, 2013 1:27 PM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2013)

Kelly McParland hits a key point about ideas: they must be ones which resonate with many, ideally most Canadians, and, just as important in politics, they must be ones in which the "party base" can believe, too. In  other words, the Liberal leader must, first of all, understand, appeal to and "connect" with the Liberal Party "base," ~ something that Ignatieff, McParland argues, failed to do.

I'm not at all sure that I understand the Liberal base but my *guess* is that it is a bit left of centre: it likes big, interventionist government but it accepts that it must serve the vested interests of big business, the big banks and big labour, too. The Liberals "base" is, I *think* a big city movement ~ isolated from rural Canada, from small town Canada and, increasingly, from sub-urban Canada. If I'm right then the LPC and NDP are competing for the same slice of the political spectrum, leaving the Conservatives with a clear run at the 40% or so of voters that are needed for a majority government. If that's the case then both parties are making a mistake and both need to redefine and fight for their core constituencies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2013)

Two _National Post_ columnists have gone after Justin Trudea and the whole Liberal establishment, with some justification in each case:

In his his column, headlined *"Drunk on Trudeau, Liberals prepare to forget reform and hand him the keys,"* Kelly McParland says:

_"This is a party that woke up the morning after elections in 2006, 2008 and 2011 with ugly headaches and a deep sense of regret,  spent the day on the couch gobbling hangover remedies and swore that never … ever…  would it make the same mistake. Oh Lord.  Did we seriously do that  … with Stephane Dion? … oh my God. And Michael Ignatieff too? How will we ever live it down? Take me now, please take me now ... They took the cure. Elected new party officials and swore up and down the country to stay away from the quick fixes and devote themselves to a slow, solid rebuilding of Liberalism, on a firm basis of beliefs rather than flash and a pretty face.  They would dig deep and establish what Liberalism was all about, establish real principles and policies that weren’t simply about winning votes ... Then came Justin, an once again the party is dancing around with a lampshade on its head."_

Trudeau, McParland notes, is short on policies but very, very looooong on charisma. 

Andrew Coyne says much the same thing in his column headlined *"Liberal Party would rather be a personality cult than transform itself;"* he says:

_"Perhaps it was an impossible thing to expect. Perhaps it was even unfair. To demand that the Liberal Party of Canada, after a century and more as the party of power, should reinvent itself as a party of ideas; that it should, after a string of ever-worse election results culminating in the worst thumping in its history, ask itself some searching questions, including whether Canada still needed a Liberal Party, and if so on what basis — perhaps it was all too much to ask ... Because, on the evidence, the party isn’t capable of it. Or perhaps it simply doesn’t want to. Either it does not believe such a process is necessary. Or it does, but can’t bear it. Whatever may be the case, nearly two years after that catastrophic election, the party shows no interest in reinventing itself, still less in any healthy existential introspection. The policy conference that was to be the occasion for this came and went; the months that followed were similarly void ... And the leadership race, so long delayed, so eagerly awaited? Not the ideal place for a party to reflect on who it is and what it stands for — that’s why the race was put off for so long, to get all of that out of the way beforehand — but perhaps it was the only realistic shot. As they chose between candidates, Liberals (and “supporters”!) would also be choosing between competing visions of the party, sharpening and forcing issues that until now the party had preferred to avoid. Only that’s not really how it’s turning out, is it? ... It’s tempting to suggest this amounts to asking party members (and “supporters”!) to accept him on faith now, on the promise that he will listen to their views later. Except to most of his followers, it doesn’t matter whether he listens to them or not: he had them at hello. Trudeau may not be wholly uninterested in ideas himself, but he is plainly the candidate of those who are. All many of them know is his name and his face, and all the rest need to know is that, for much of the population, that is enough. He will spare them the hard work of looking within. He will rescue them from doubt, from debate, from having to choose to be this and not that."_  He concludes: _"By such rationalizations, the Liberal Party of Canada prepares to transform itself into a personality cult."_

I need to reiterate: Although I am a Conservative Party member and a major donor, I want the Liberals to pick a good, effective leader, because -

     1. I KNOW that in a few years my Conservative party will be stale, tired, bereft of good ideas, in need of a rest in the political wilderness; and

     2. I don't not think the NDP can transform itself into a socially progressive, economically moderate and fiscally responsible party in time to take over.

Therefore we need a Liberal government in waiting.

But I suspect that M. Trudeau will be a weak leader - as his father was. (The _"gunslinger"_ image was well crafter and well publicized but it didn't tell us anything about the timid, little man who wanted to lead a timid, little Canada.*) I also suspect that Messers Harper and Mulcair will destroy M. Trudeau's Liberals, send them back, yet again, to rebuild - but this time it will be too late; they will not be ready to govern when the Conservatives need to be replaced.

It's all rather sad.

_____
* See _A Foreign Policy for Canadians_, Trudeau's 1970 White Paper and contrast it with St Laurent's 1947 _Grey Lecture_ - the best, arguably the only original foreign policy Canada ever had. Trudeau saw and presented Canada as a poor, weak place, unable and unwilling to assert itself in the world - not even strong enough to oppose South Africa on a clear, moral principle, as Diefenbaker had done.


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Mar 2013)

Terry Glavin lets us know he is not a Trudeau admirer in this piece from the Ottawa Citizen reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:

The Trudeau effect

By Terry Glavin, Ottawa Citizen February 28, 2013 


Everybody’s laughing at Italy this week. Silvio Berlusconi is back. Italian voters have somehow managed to give their comically corrupt 76-year-old former prime minister a clear shot at keeping the country’s centre-left coalition from the Lower House majority it needs to properly govern the austerity-wracked country. Ha ha. Idiots.

But this sort of thing can happen to the nicest of democracies. There are rules that apply here, and Canadians should not be too quick to mock. After allowing its leadership race to degenerate into a sort of cross between a beauty contest and a reality television show, Canada’s very own Liberal Party, for instance, is on the verge of handing its crown to someone it would not be entirely wrong to call a largely talentless and insufferably foppish celebrity drama queen.

This is not a nice way to describe Justin Trudeau. It is also one thing to be Italy’s best-known patron of teenaged prostitutes and quite another thing to be merely a strangely pretty 41-year-old former snowboarding instructor who would be wholly unknown to all of us if he weren’t the son of a famously glamorous Canadian prime minister.

But at some point, it is going to have to be made to sink in. This is a guy who was boasting, as recently as 2001: “I don’t read newspapers. I don’t watch the news. I figure, if something happens, someone will tell me.” This is a guy whose main real job before he got into federal politics five years ago was a stint as a teacher at Vancouver’s West Point Grey Academy.

I note that particular gig only because earning as much as $462,000 a year for merely being the celebrity Justin Trudeau and giving inspirational speeches at up to $15,000 a pop is not what is ordinarily considered a “real” job. It is a racket, and Trudeau has carried on with it, featherbedding his $158,000 MP’s salary with more than a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of these celebrity “speakers’ fees” since 2008, when he first got elected Member of Parliament for the down-at-heels Montreal riding of Papineau.

Odd as it sounds, there is no House of Commons rule that prohibits MPs from moonlighting like this. Odder still, Trudeau has got away with justifying this lucrative sideline work on the grounds that he’s doing it as a favour to his constituents. “It is to make sure that the values of the people who elected me in Papineau are being heard in Ottawa and across the country,” he told reporters.

This is like something the notoriously stupid Alaskan ex-governor Sarah Palin might have said, but it gets a pass when Trudeau says it, and Trudeau gets away with this sort of thing all the time owing only to a pathetic and distinctly Canadian variety of celebrity-worship. This is not to be mean. It is actually the most charitable way to explain how it has come to pass that Justin Trudeau, if you don’t mind, is actually on the verge of annexing the Liberal Party of Canada as his personal vanity project.

It has got so that two weeks ago, when the leadership contender Martha Hall Findlay hinted at Trudeau’s obvious unsuitability to the task of championing the “middle class” he claims to be uniquely qualified to champion, she was jeered at and shouted at and hounded until she apologized. Maclean’s magazine called her question a “jarring outburst.”


If this were France in 1793, Justin Trudeau would be just another dandy in a powdered wig and a frilly shirt being trundled away to his just reward on the guillotine at the Place de Carrousel in Paris. But this being Canada in 2013, to merely ask out loud why it is that not once since Justin Trudeau declared his candidacy last fall has he managed to articulate a single original and coherent thought, is to be not just impolite, but inexcusably impudent and saucy beyond all bounds.

Only the other day, when the sturdy and perfectly capable leadership candidate Marc Garneau came close to publicly noticing Trudeau’s determined vacuity, Postmedia News reported that Garneau had subjected the dauphin to a “fiery attack.”

The Liberal party’s desperation — down to 35 seats in the House of Commons, rudderless, bereft of ideas — is not sufficient to explain this state of affairs. Neither is money, although Trudeau has purchased a great advantage over his competitors in the race by outspending all eight of them combined. The main reason is merely that his name is Trudeau. It’s the glitz of it. With a family name like that, it’s amazing what you can get away with.

In Montreal, Justin is one half of a high-society power couple, the other half of which is Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau, a former entertainment-television personality, a sometime bulimia-awareness ambassador and occasional New Age self-improvement evangelist of some sort. Gregoire has been known to explain the scourge of global violence against women as a matter of some dislocation in “the feminine and masculine balance of divinity.” Just last week, the 38-year-old Gregoire-Trudeau showed up in the Globe and Mail describing herself as being “at that awkward stage between jail bait and cougar.”

Can you imagine the spouse of any other politician getting away with saying something like that? Of course you can’t.

Then there’s Justin’s “senior adviser” in his leadership campaign, a celebrity documentarist whose works include a crude piece of anti-Israel propaganda produced in association with the Iranian government’s English-language propaganda arm. This most cherished of Justin’s confidantes is also famous for having penned a 2006 essay for the Toronto Star attributing such super-human powers to Cuban strongman Fidel Castro, “an expert on genetics, on automobile combustion engines, on stock markets, on everything,” as the ability to go long periods without sleep and to harvest sea urchins from the ocean floor at depths of 20 metres without any artificial breathing apparatus.

This is Justin’s brother Alexandre we’re talking about here, so, you know, back off.

These are the Trudeaus. They are, first and foremost, rich and famous. They are chic and glamorous. “They are,” as F. Scott Fitzgerald put it in his short story The Rich Boy, “different from you and me.”

The same rules just don’t apply.


----------



## larry Strong (2 Mar 2013)

A piece by David Akin on the opposite side of the article posted above,reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:

*Harper haters get behind Murray for Liberal leader*



> OTTAWA - Could Joyce Murray win the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada?
> 
> It may seem a preposterous question to ask. After all, from the numbers we have so far, we know that Justin Trudeau has an overwhelming fundraising advantage.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Mar 2013)

So how would Ms Murray's proposal work in practice?

Would all the candidates who came second to the Torries be the only ones to run in those seats, or would the be some other convoluted process? I hardly see the parties, particularly the NDP, dilute their standing in favour of other "also rans". I hope this gerrymandering proposal never comes to pass.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2013)

This is how Ms Murray's campaign is working:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/us-funded-groups-trying-to-influence-who-wins-liberal-leadership-race/



> *US funded groups trying to influence who wins Liberal leadership race*
> February 28, 2013 — BC Blue
> 
> The American organization Avaaz funded by billionaire George Soros is trying to get MP Joyce Murray elected leader of the Liberal Party:
> ...



There are two questions here:

1. What is the real goal of Avazz and their fellow travelers?

2. Why are they throwing money and resources in a quixotic campaign with little hope of winning?

I suspect they are trying to set the stage for the NDP to be the winners in the 2019 election, in support of their Progressive goals, but at this point this is speculation on my part.


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Mar 2013)

It is just plain unworkable. How many far left Dippers would vote for a Blue Liberal and vice versa. It sounds great in theory but sucks in practice. It seems to me Dion and May tried it in the 2008 election in an effort to defeat McKay, but he won anyway.

Mind you, many pundits hate the first past the post system too. Unfortunately for them, it is one of those things that is bad in theory, but works in practice. Imperfect as it is, it is better and easier to manage than any of the alternatives.


----------



## larry Strong (2 Mar 2013)

That's what I don't understand either. If you pick NDP in one riding, and Lib in another, and then Green elsewhere, how do you get a majority/minority? Unless they plan on ganging up after the election......not so sure how that would sit with John and Mary Sixpack.


Larry


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2013)

Which is why this is so mysterious to me.

The only thing that comes to mind is to create even more disarray in the LPC and prevent it from becoming the "Government in waiting", so when the 2019 election rolls around only the NDP is a viable alternative to the CPC. (This also assumes that the CPC will have become tired and complacent by then and voters are eager to vote them out. There are arguments against that proposition, starting with demographics and some possibilities hinging on Prime Minister Harper stepping down and being replaced by a new leader to keep the party fresh). Other counter arguments to that scenario are the defection of "Blue Liberals" to the CPC in the event the LPC disintegrates, maintaining the relative size of the CPC voting block.

Of course it could come down to the American sponsors of Avaaz simply do not understand Canadian political culture, believe the CBC, Toronto Star and Rabble.ca as gospel and have backed the wrong horse.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Mar 2013)

I'm too lazy to look this up to verify my understanding: is "the party leader becomes PM if the party wins" still a custom, or did it become a law?  Surely a party which newly forms government would be within its rights to tell its leader "Thank you, now fuck off" and choose a different one within the House.

It is pleasing that Trudeau-supporting Liberals have shat out their "party of well-reasoned, sensible policy" credentials.  They are all serious and earnest and oh-those-horrible-anti-science-conservatives-tsk-tsk-sorrowful; then Trudeau shows up, and - to borrow a phrase - their panties hit the floor with a splash.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Mar 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'm too lazy to look this up to verify my understanding: is "the party leader becomes PM if the party wins" still a custom, or did it become a law?  Surely a party which newly forms government would be within its rights to tell its leader "Thank you, now frig off" and choose a different one within the House.



There is no law AFIK that mandates the party leader be PM, although the custom is sufficiently well entrenched to be considered a permanent policy. That being said, there are some examples of sitting PMs facing leadership reviews and failing to maintain their place as head of the party. Specifics escape me just now. Custom in these situations is that the new leader/PM holds an election at the next opportune moment to legitimize their leadership with the voting public.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2013)

Jean Chrétien was ousted as party leader by Paul Martin Jr, and resigned as party leader and PM in 2003, handing over the reigns to Mr Dithers, a choice many Liberals probably regret now......


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2013)

A look at the leadership race to date. All I can say is they will get what they pay for...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/03/michael-den-tandt-justin-trudeaus-last-obstacle-is-the-threat-of-complacency/



> *Michael Den Tandt: Justin Trudeau’s last obstacle is the threat of complacency*
> 
> Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News | 13/03/03 7:19 PM ET
> More from Postmedia News
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Mar 2013)

It's easy to emerge from a fight without a scratch when nobody's carrying knives.


----------



## GAP (4 Mar 2013)

When's the coronation again?   :


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> When's the coronation again?   :



It pretty much happened a few months ago.

Trudeau as leader will likely garner him some seats in Quebec eroding the NDP base.  He has no chance out west except for maybe some Sask and BC seats.  The east coast will likely vote for his party with him at the helm and if he can take enough Ontario seats...well...

The problem for the NDP is that so far we've seen one member cross over to the Bloc, and I suspect that we will see a slow trickle over the next few years.  A trickle that will hurt Mulcair no matter how good he might seem to some.  The NDP will have to work hard to balance out that they are a federal option without pissing off the seperatists in their midsts.  All of that will be to Trudeau's benefit.

With Trudeau surviving a bloodless leadership campaign, he remains undamaged goods.  The campaign has also served to give more name recognition to Garneau, Finlay, Murray etc. surrounding himself with a strong team of potential Ministers in waiting. 

Also Trudeau has created (call this leadership race a practice run) a campaign team that is media saavy and likely has a plan to deal with the negative attacks he will likely face from the Conservative communications machine.

I mentioned this before, as long as Trudeau can get his party into second place, or even better for him, reduce the Conservatives to a minority situation we may see him as the PM following Harper.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Mar 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I mentioned this before, as long as Trudeau can get his party into second place, or even better for him, reduce the Conservatives to a minority situation we may see him as the PM following Harper.



Perhaps, but the Liberals have a habit of sacrificing their leaders on the altar of all or nothing. It may be premature to think that Trudeau might be immune from that fate.


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2013)

Of course but desperation makes people do strange things.  The liberals have never been in third place.  Always first or second.  The advantage for Trudeau is that there is nowhere to go but up.  If they remain in third after the next election I would agree.  Previous leaders from Chretien on saw a steady erosion and or loss.  He, by making gains, will provide the first tangible tastes of victory.  All he has to do is set expectations low enough to ensure the semblance of solid victory.  If he can motivate the apathetic voters, even more so.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2013)

Not sure if this is a good or bad thing for the Young Dauphin, but since the LPC has been running on empty for up to 20 years (it is telling that the core of EVERY election campaign except for Stephan Dion's quixotic attempt has been the 1993 Red Book), it is actually difficult for contenders like Marc Garneau or Martha Hall Findley to "sell" their policy platforms as being in any way "Liberal". There is no philosophical or intellectual core for them to hang their policies on, and indeed with the tectonic shifts by the CPC and NDP to close off the middle, we see Marc Garneau articulating policy proposals that would fit comfortably in any pronouncements by Thomas Mulcair, while Martha Hall Findley should be standing right beside Jim Flaherty when she pronounces on Marketing Boards.

Since there is no core values for the LPC to defend, not making any policy pronouncements really has no downside: there is nothing to defend or repudiate anyway. Until the LPC fixes that (and they have wasted all the time since 2006 when it finally became obvious to everyone that they had lost their way), then the LPC will only be able to fight tactical battles in selected ridings in order to win seats and grow in Parliament; but they are up against a powerful strategic machine in the form of a well funded and demographically ascendent CPC. The NDP will also be fighting tactically for all their Quebec seats to maintain their power base (as well as strategically to grab Green and Orange Liberal voters across Canada), and the BQ will be back as a spoiler as well.

Will legions of Justin Beiber fans be induced to vote Liberal? Will there be enough of them to make a difference? My prediction is the Government and Opposition will tag team the Young Dauphin in the house to expose his lack of maturity and decorum, constantly ridicule him for not having any plan and leave the LPC crushed yet again in 2015.


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2013)

Thucydides:  

Very good point, but as well funded and demographically ascendent (which to be frank could decend just as easily) as the CPC might be now, Trudeau's machine should not be dismissed or underestimated.  His machine is proving to be quite effective at getting their message (as vague as it might be) out to the masses.

If this is even mildly accurate http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/04/pol-trudeau-supporters-numbers.html
then I think the Conservatives and NDP will be facing a stronger contender than some would like to portray him as.   Those numbers is accurate are hard to ignore.  Even Lowell Green is shocked lol.

He could very well pull and Obama and if so people couldn't give a damn about core values.  They'll drink the Hope kool aid.  then again once he's the leader, he might just take the two years he has to formulate policy or play the waiting game, weather the storm until the campaign starts.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2013)

There is definitely that  aspect to look for, but I wonder just how engaged the "Justin Beiber" vote actually is. The sort of people I run into at political gatherings are quite focused and actively engaged (and actively engaged right now, as we speak); while the Justin Beiber crowd drifts along.

2015 could well be a battle between a disorganized mob and packs of wolves and velociraptors. Certainly there will be a percentage of people who will come into the campaign asking questions and suddenly discovering that the answers are not coming from the Young Dauphin's camp. Others will be carved off by better "shiny toys" that have been crafted in CPC and NDP workshops for years (especially the NDP, which has only benefited from the LPC's relentless leftwards drift), while others will just become bored of the whole thing when they see there is nothing inside the tent once the Young Dauphin has induced them to come inside (so they walk right out again).

And of course no matter what, for the LPC the key battlefield is Quebec, so any time and resources they take away from that battle is a net loss for them.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> There is definitely that  aspect to look for, but I wonder just how engaged the "Justin Beiber" vote actually is. The sort of people I run into at political gatherings are quite focused and actively engaged (and actively engaged right now, as we speak); while the Justin Beiber crowd drifts along.



This will be telling come the convention. If JT does indeed have 150 000 supporters (keeping in mind that these are not paying party members) it will be important to see how many actually cast a vote in his favour.  If that many (or a significant chunk) non-party members make the effort to vote for him it might be a sign of things to come, considering that if he can get that many to come out and engage in the political process in what is more or less an internal affair.  The true measure of those numbers will be on voting day.  As well it would seem he is amassing quite a war chest.  

Defining him and is team as a disorganised mob in the next election is not giving him the approriate credit I think.  That line of thinking could be dangerous as it lulls us into thinking this thing is in the bag come 2015.  I think after he wins the leadership, the Trudeau machine will already be focusing on 2015.  He's been able to pre-emptively stop a variety of attacks against him and he is playing to the masses.  Rather than a disorganised mass It will be a mass but with very shrewd and elusive targets that might just keep the wolves and veloceraptors chasing their tails unless the same packs of wolves and super reptiles fully understand that they are not facing the same prey as before.  

I for one see him as a very real threat to both the Conservatives and the NDP.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Mar 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Will legions of Justin Beiber fans be induced to vote Liberal?


I'm having trouble aligning "Beiber fans" and "legal voting age."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> This will be telling come the convention. If JT does indeed have 150 000 supporters (keeping in mind that these are not paying party members) it will be important to see how many actually cast a vote in his favour.  If that many (or a significant chunk) non-party members make the effort to vote for him it might be a sign of things to come, considering that if he can get that many to come out and engage in the political process in what is more or less an internal affair.  The true measure of those numbers will be on voting day.  As well it would seem he is amassing quite a war chest.
> 
> Defining him and is team as a disorganised mob in the next election is not giving him the approriate credit I think.  That line of thinking could be dangerous as it lulls us into thinking this thing is in the bag come 2015.  I think after he wins the leadership, the Trudeau machine will already be focusing on 2015.  He's been able to pre-emptively stop a variety of attacks against him and he is playing to the masses.  Rather than a disorganised mass It will be a mass but with very shrewd and elusive targets that might just keep the wolves and veloceraptors chasing their tails unless the same packs of wolves and super reptiles fully understand that they are not facing the same prey as before.
> 
> I for one see him as a very real threat to both the Conservatives and the NDP.



There's a ton of non Liberals out there that joined just so they could vote and screw with the machine.

He's only going to be a threat because of his dad's "Trudeaumania'. He'll get the same vote from the same sort of young, empty headed types that voted for his dad because of charisma and not his substance or political and business acumen.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2013)

Just to clarify, the disorganized mob I was talking about is the "Justin Beiber" voters; not the various political war machines that are attempting to corral and brand them. Sorry for the ambiguity.

No doubt the Young Dauphin was selected by the LPC brain trust in the expectation that "star power" can draw enough votes to win an election. We will see just how well that works when the public is exposed to a few years of immature outbursts, political pandering to Quebec (to challenge the NDP/BQ) and a severe lack of vision or even a clear understanding of what the questions are, much less possible answers by the new leader.

Since the LPC brain trust is part of that crowd that believes the Montreal-Toronto axis is the natural core of Canada and have missed the demographic and economic boat that sailed to the West in the 1980's (sounds a bit like JRR Tolkien's history of Canada), they will have a difficult time convincing people that a personality cult is the way to go.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2013)

More on what I called the "Justin Beiber" crowd and how they will affect the LPC:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/08/kelly-mcparland-the-liberal-party-trusts-its-future-to-the-twittersphere/



> *Kelly McParland: The Liberal party trusts its future to the Twittersphere*
> 
> Kelly McParland | 13/03/08 9:26 AM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2013)

Latest in the Liberal Drama Queen sweepstakes. I tend to agree with one of the commentators that the "glitch"is "supporters" have no commitment to the LPC so are simply not engaged enough to register to vote:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/trudeau-camp-calls-for-one-week-extension-blames-technical-problems-for-low-voter-registration/



> *Trudeau camp calls for one-week extension, blames technical problems for low voter registration*
> 
> Joan Bryden, Canadian Press | 13/03/12 | Last Updated: 13/03/12 11:53 AM ET
> More from Canadian Press
> ...



From the comments



> I think it's funny that grown men and women think that people signing up as liberal "supporters" - with absolutely no commitment of any kind - really care about voting. If these people cared enough to vote, they would have figured out a way by now. If they haven't, they're not really interested.
> 
> getting the names of 165K people really has no value JT.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2013)

> MP Marc Garneau is dropping out of the race to lead the federal Liberals and will support his MP colleague Justin Trudeau, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The former astronaut and MP for Montreal's Westmount-Ville-Marie riding will make the announcement at 11 a.m. ET in Ottawa.
> 
> Thursday is the last day for supporters to register to vote. By Monday night, less than a third of those signed up with the party had registered to vote in the leadership contest ....


CBC.ca, 13 Mar 13


----------



## GAP (13 Mar 2013)

Smart move...he was not going to be able to overcome the Trudeaumania wave, so back off, show support, move on. 

No sense in  :deadhorse:


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Smart move...he was not going to be able to overcome the Trudeaumania wave, so back off, show support, move on.


And if one believes some recent numbers, it may be a coronation....


> Garneau: survey of 6,000 Liberals shows Trudeau at 72%, Garneau 15%, Joyce Murray 7.4%, Martha Hall Findlay 5.2%


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2013)

He knew he couldn't win so he's going to back the annointed one, hoping to get a plumb shadow cabinet job in exchange for his support.

Yup, just the kinda guy, the kind with real conviction to a cause, that we should vote for :

Then they have the gall to wonder how they lost grip of the Canadian voter :facepalm:


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (13 Mar 2013)

So much for a leadership race where there was robust discussion on policy. Just clamor to the guy they think will sweep them back to power


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2013)

More on Marc Garneau dropping out. While there may be ulterior motives like wanting a shadow cabinet post, I can also imagine the sheer frustration of trying to advance policy ideas in the teeth of universal indifference. (Well, actually, I can more than imagine, since I have been in a similar boat in the past...). Condolances to both Mr Garneau and to the Liberal Party of Canada. Given Edwards long term prognosis (the CPC will become tired and complacent, and voters will become tired and vote them out, allowing the NDP to become the governing party), this is a bad day for everyone....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/13/by-jonathan-kay-marc-garneau-proves-canadians-dont-want-smart-candidates-with-good-ideas/



> *Jonathan Kay: Marc Garneau proves Canadians don’t want smart candidates with good ideas*
> 
> Republish Reprint
> Jonathan Kay | 13/03/13 | Last Updated: 13/03/13 12:39 PM ET
> ...



Until we as Canadians pull our collective heads out of our asses and start getting engaged on questions like the economy, international relations, defense, the evolution of society etc. we will have to endure more and more "Young Dauphins" entering the political arena fishing for voters in the "Twittervere" rather than people who will be capable of forecasting future problems and issues and crafting potential solutions. When reality strikes, these policy free candidates will resemble headless chickens, and we Will be on our own.  

(Think I'm exaggerating? Who is making any attempt to put the financial house in order as the provinces are expanding their debt at a record rate? looking beyond that, what provisions are being made for the demographic "bust" in the 2020's and beyond?)


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2013)

Commentary from the National Post on what happened and the huge risk they are taking:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/14/kelly-mcparland-liberals-are-betting-the-farm-on-justins-likeability/



> *Kelly McParland: Liberals are betting the farm on Justin’s likeability*
> 
> Kelly McParland | 13/03/14 8:47 AM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Mar 2013)

>The character of the party can be established later, he says, once voters have been engaged.

You have to vote for the candidate to find out what's in it, eh?

Maybe the strategy is there, but we don't see it: victory in the next election is unlikely, so choose a popular nothing to draw voters away from the NDP rather than waste a useful leader's future.  Then caste away the failed leader - had his shot, didn't he - and choose a real one for the following election.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Mar 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The character of the party can be established later, he says, once voters have been engaged.
> 
> You have to vote for the candidate to find out what's in it, eh?
> 
> Maybe the strategy is there, but we don't see it: victory in the next election is unlikely, so choose a popular nothing to draw voters away from the NDP rather than waste a useful leader's future.  Then caste away the failed leader - had his shot, didn't he - and choose a real one for the following election.



That would be crediting the party's brain trust with a degree of sophistication far beyond what its past performance indicates.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Mar 2013)

It is possible, of course, that the Liberal Party _brain trust_ is on to something. This is Canada in the 21st century, after all, and we are, by and large, a shallow, celebrity obsessed, ill informed and poorly educated people. Maybe M. Trudeau - telegenic, "nice" (in the ways that Stephen Harper is not), charismatic (like his father) and simply "new" - is enough to make him prime minister after the 2015 general election. Perhaps the so called _media party_, which, to the degree that it exists at all, detests Prime Minister Harper, will forgive M. Trudeau any sin and ignore any failing in an effort to advance his cause against the hated _Harperites_.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2013)

This blogger expands on Edwards point, which is a bit frightening to contemplate. Is this the way we want to find the people who will be making decisions for the rest of us?

http://abearsrant.com/2013/03/marc-garneau-resigns-as-the-liberal-party-embraces-the-cult-of-celebrity.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ABearsRant+%28A+Bear%27s+Rant%29



> *Marc Garneau Resigns As The Liberal Party Embraces The Cult Of Celebrity*
> Published March 14, 2013
> 
> I’m going to put aside partisanship for a moment because something happened today which I think exemplifies more than anything else, one of the problems facing us these days.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2013)

The _Hill Times_ is is reporting that _"Irregularities in voter registrations for the upcoming federal Liberal Party leadership election are being challenged “big time” as scrutineers for the seven remaining candidates are poring through the qualifications of tens of thousands of potential voters."_


----------



## CougarKing (22 Mar 2013)

Good grief. Some people can't accept that this ship has sailed.

link



> *How Joyce Murray could beat Justin Trudeau and win the Liberal leadership race*
> 
> By Andy Radia
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2013)

The ship has left Southampton on its way to New York....

IT is interesting that Joyce Murray has a theoretical chance to be the winner of the contest, especially in light of her platform of seeking an unofficial merger with the other "Progressive" parties, and act that would probably result in the extinction of the Liberal Party as a separate entity.  

It is also interesting that the two other candidates who released detailed platforms have attracted so little support from the party membership, which does not bode well considering Canada is entering a period of profound demographic and economic changes. It would be nice to know that the people running for high political office are actually thinking about these things and have some plan to meet these challenges.

Finally it is interesting that so few "supporters" could be persuaded to actually register for voting, much less be induced to become members of the party.

Good thing there are 19 registered political parties in Canada. We might need to widen our search horizons.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The ship has left Southampton on its way to New York....
> 
> IT is interesting that Joyce Murray has a theoretical chance to be the winner of the contest, especially in light of her platform of seeking an unofficial merger with the other "Progressive" parties, and act that would probably result in the extinction of the Liberal Party as a separate entity.
> 
> ...



I know a bunch of 'non liberals' that registered to vote. They did so thinking they could throw a wrench into the silly system that this party has chosen to elect a leader. I doubt that they are an isolated bunch from a small pocket in Canada. 

That's your true 'wildcard'.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2013)

I know a few as well. I had considered doing so myself when it was rumored that Dalton McGuinty was considering a run as party leader, but luckily for my blood pressure, this never happened...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I know a few as well. I had considered doing so myself when it was rumored that Dalton McGuinty was considering a run as party leader, but luckily for my blood pressure, this never happened...



I would have signed up and voted for him ;D


Just to watch him get eaten alive in the big leagues.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2013)

Do not underestimate M. Trudeau. He has, as this _Globe and Mail column__ points out "charm, good hair and a chance." Further, as another Globe and Mail article says, he's very adept at raising money - far, far better than Dion, Ignatieff and Rae.

The questions remain:

     1. Can he raise enough money - and further is money, alone, enough - to counter the attacks that Prime Minister Harper and Opposition Leader Mulcair will unleash in parliament and in the media?

     2. Is charisma, even charisma supported by good hair, enough?

I fear that in 21st century Canada the answer to the second question is: Yes.
_


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Mar 2013)

I said it before, and I'll say it again.  The Dauphin will be the next PM.  (not that I'd like to see it happen...)


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2013)

We have discussed many times the notion that the "road back" or "road to power" for the Liberal Party of Canada starts in Quebec and that it is, essentially a three way contest: BQ (or a new Quebec Party) vs. Liberals vs. NDP. Michael de Tandt explores that notion in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/24/michael-den-tandt-justin-trudeaus-is-less-vacuous-than-you-might-think/


> Justin Trudeau may be more than just a pretty face
> 
> Michael Den Tandt
> 
> ...




Maybe there's more to M. Trudeau than many, me included, have seen.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2013)

Ditto.  If he starts to articulate some good, sound policies, he may become the logical choice for most Canadians for a Conservative brand that, like all parties in power, is getting more stale as the years go by....


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Mar 2013)

>In addition to so-called charisma, it explains why he’s raising so much money.

The "in addition" to charisma is his surname.  There is nothing under the sun that should make anyone believe the people attracted to Trudeau are attracted to "ideas".  Pundits are going to go apesh!t for the next couple of years trying to find more in the candidate than Barbie, but at the end of the day, it's just going to be Barbie.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2013)

The _Globe and Mail's_ editorial cartoonist pretty much sums it up:

Reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/remember-you-are-mortal/article9178812/


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2013)

"I read Playboy for the articles."

"I follow Trudeau for the ideas."


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "I read Playboy for the articles."
> 
> "I follow Trudeau for the ideas."



While this may be true for the Young Dauphin as a person, consider his effectiveness as a sock puppet for whoever is in control of the Liberals. Using wide media acceptance (and the distinct reluctance for legacy media to actually ask questions or do any in depth investigating or reporting), you feed your ideas into the TelePrompTer and the Young Dauphin reads it to thundering applause and uncritical acceptance.

The best way for both Prime Minister Harper and Thomas Mulcair to effectively neutralize the Young Dauphin is to get him into unscripted terrain where his inability to think on his feet or answer detailed questions will get him into trouble. Pressing him for answers once he is manoeuvred into these positions will cause outbreaks of foot-in-mouth disease and an almost 100% certainty that he will explode in a childish temper tantrum (remember the POS remark in the House?) which can be rapidly exploited via social media.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Mar 2013)

It will be interesting to see how he fares in a real debate, rather than the mutual admiration society that he was recently subject to in Montreal. I agree with other observers... get him off script and stand back.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Mar 2013)

The Conservatives can win elections without much support in Quebec; the NDP and Liberals can not.  The Conservatives still enjoy the advantage of "let's you and him fight" (Mulcair and Trudeau).


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2013)

A forlorn hope is forming up to storm the bastion of Liberal power brokers, and Joyce Murray *could* be the surprise winner of the contest after all. While this might be screamingly funny from some perspectives, the "three amigos" concept is probably dead in the water (although I would not put it past Thomas Mulcair to say something like "Hey; what a great idea! The NDP is sure to win Toronto, Vancouver and all these Quebec ridings if only the vote wasn't split....):

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/28/murray-emerges-as-primary-challenger-to-trudeau-as-grassroots-groups-rally-behind-the-vancouver-mp/



> *Murray emerges as primary challenger to Trudeau as grassroots groups rally behind the Vancouver MP*
> 
> Canadian Press | 13/03/28 8:23 PM ET
> More from Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Apr 2013)

The Toronto Sun started off the new fiscal year with an editorial endorsement of Justin Trudeau for the next prime minister. This 1 April editorial is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

Editorial

Foolish not to go with Justin Trudeau 

QMI Agency

First posted: Monday, April 01, 2013 01:23 AM EDT | Updated: Monday, April 01, 2013 02:02 AM EDT 
   
After a long and raucous editorial board meeting, one that led to the unprecedented dismissal of several senior editors, Sun Media has decided to endorse Justin Trudeau as the next prime minister of Canada.

Put aside everything we have said before.

Reality speaks volumes, and Sun Media, more than any other news organization in this great country, is not afraid to face reality when it starts to stare us down.

In reviewing Justin Trudeau's run for the Liberal leadership, we have come to realize that he cannot be simply dismissed as a Shiny Pony and, although somewhat vacuous in both policy and substance, scientists tell us that all a vacuum needs to break out of its nothingness is a bit of air.

Let's give Trudeau that air, for the time has come to forgive the sins of the infamous father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and realize that some genetic apples do fall far enough away from the tree to not be equally rotten.

For too long now, Sun Media has fought tooth-and-nail for the kind of fiscal conservatism that Prime Minister Stephen Harper first embraced when he had a minority government but has set sadly aside now that he has his long-sought majority in the House of Commons.

Or, to put it more succinctly, the taxpayers' money his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, has spent in building up both the debt and deficit, even though there is a promise of balancing the budget by 2015, finally had us searching for someone with more imagination and a less targeted focus.

Only Justin Trudeau fills that bill.

Look around. If we wanted to replace Stephen Harper today, would any right-thinking person look to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair to step into the breach with fanciful visions of what Canada could be, if only faux conservatism were cast into the wind?

Stardust is the elixir this country needs, and only Justin Trudeau has such wizard-like magic in his wand.

Don't cut him short like we at Sun Media initially did before we gave our collective heads a shake.

A big no, therefore, to Stephen Harper.

Yes, however, to the great and powerful Oz, er . . . Justin Trudeau.


----------



## Shadowolf (1 Apr 2013)

April Fools


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2013)

The numbers (130,000 members + _supporters_, not the 295,000 they talked about) bode ill for the Liberals. They have about the same level of supports (counting those 'supporters' who don't pay dues, etc) as the NDP had a year ago in dues paying members ... are they really going to go far with this? See Gloria Galloway and Nick Nanos in this video clip.


----------



## CougarKing (4 Apr 2013)

Has anyone else here read the book Big Shift  described in this article below? 

National Post link



> *John Ivison: I wouldn’t place a wager on the Liberals being in power in two years time*
> 
> 
> “Polls, polls, polls. Forget them,” advised the architect of Justin Trudeau’s apparently successful campaign to become the Liberal Party’s next leader.
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Apr 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Has anyone else here read the book Big Shift  described in this article below?
> 
> National Post link



I just finished the book yesterday. In light of the recent polls, the authors make an interesting point from their research: the economy is the most important issue facing the country, and the CPC is the party that is best able to manage the economy.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2013)

It seems the delta between the reported numbers of supporters and the actual people willing to put their money down is far greater than most people imagine. This CBC report lays out some rather incredible numbers for the upcoming convention:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/04/pol-advancer-liberal-showcase.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



> *Liberals get ready for 'mini-convention'*
> Ticket sales have been slow for showcase at Metro Toronto Convention Centre
> 
> By Leslie MacKinnon, CBC News Posted: Apr 5, 2013 5:33 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 5, 2013 9:44 AM ET Read 284 comments284
> ...


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (6 Apr 2013)

I'm disappointed by the lack of discussion on policy through this "leadership race"- it certainly hasn't felt like a race. The party has essentially thrown their lot behind the guy-Trudeau-who they feel will get them back to power the quickest. And most of Trudeau's appeal has come through his surname and personality. To discuss policy will actually hurt him. What a race, what a party, b'y...


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Apr 2013)

More media slavishness: New “Trudeaumania” best bet for Liberals to beat Harper: poll



Best line in the whole piece: 

Although supporters of the New Democrats think* Pierre Trudeau *will help the Liberals face-off against the Conservatives, the notion of a Liberal-NDP merger is still popular, the Ipsos Reid poll reveals.





No, I didn't miss type that.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2013)

Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair might run into each other getting their quota of tags for hunting season, but this article shows the LPC is probably already dead in the water. They may be able to make a fight of Quebec (especially if the BQ or similar party is also contesting the province, making each seat a three way race), but they have entirely failed to do "renewal", rethink policy options or otherwise position themselves for the electorate. Party leadership wasn't even able to stage manage any sort of excitement to the race/coronation, so the idea that there is "momentum" coming from the convention is laughable.

The CPC is entrenching their economic manager credentials, while the NDP is reworking their constitution and overall policy approach (maybe this is just semantics, smoke and mirrors, but it is still policy work) to cement their place as the "Center-Left" party. So the question is: "Where do the Liberals fit in the political landscape"? The Center is almost entirely occupied now, and unless they can come up with some really out of the box thinking post haste, their options seem limited to attempting to team up with or merge with other "Progressive" parties. The NDP isn't interested and I doubt the Greens can really offer enough to tempt the LPC to merge with them. Some NP pundits have called for a makeover of the LPC to become a libertarian party; but there is already a Libertarian Party (which lacks the finances and organizational skill to became a challenger), so what is left?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/06/jesse-kline-liberals-will-have-tough-challenge-building-momentum-following-todays-showcase/



> *Jesse Kline: Liberals will have tough challenge building momentum following today’s showcase*
> 
> Jesse Kline | 13/04/06 | Last Updated: 13/04/06 6:10 PM ET
> More from Jesse Kline | @accessd
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (7 Apr 2013)

:facepalm:

"Zombie Trudeau" activists rally outside Liberal Showcase convention venue

(Canadian Press video link)


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2013)

I didn't pay much attention to the Liberal Party of Canada's _showcase_ of its leadership candidates in Toronto, but, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_, national affairs columnist Tim Harper did:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/06/liberal_leadership_candidate_justin_trudeaus_challenges_just_beginning_tim_harper.html


> Liberal leadership candidate Justin Trudeau’s challenges just beginning: Tim Harper
> *Justin Trudeau’s hard work begins after the votes are counted in the federal Liberal leadership contest.*
> 
> By: Tim Harper National Affairs
> ...




I agree that winning this "race," if that's the right word, is the easy part. It is not clear to me that the Liberal Party of Canada, riven with internecine strife ever since the 1960s, has done anything except to have, yet again, "reached for the shiny bauble."


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Apr 2013)

Many of us have noted that Justin Trudeau's route to power is through Quebec; he must have a "firm base" from which to launch a national offensive. This is the front page of today's _Journal de Montréal_:






The pages of the English language media are full of Trudeau ... what's the problem in French speaking Quebec?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Many of us have noted that Justin Trudeau's route to power is through Quebec; he must have a "firm base" from which to launch a national offensive. This is the front page of today's _Journal de Montréal_:
> 
> The pages of the English language media are full of Trudeau ... what's the problem in French speaking Quebec?



......that they don't consider him the Quebec son and savior he purports to be? Or, as the last election showed, they just don't find the liberals capable of delivering the lopsided, extortion payment, largesse of Ottawa that they have come to expect as Quebec's right?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Many of us have noted that Justin Trudeau's route to power is through Quebec; he must have a "firm base" from which to launch a national offensive. This is the front page of today's _Journal de Montréal_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Habs didn't totally crush the Bruins  ;D

On a serious note, except for political jnkies who view poitics the way Habs fans view hockey, this was a total non event; much like the NDP rewrite of their constituton or the faux scandals manufactured by the Legacy media are also a non events on the street. The real question for every political party (all 19 of them) is how to become as interesting to the general public as the Habs or whatever Hollywood (or Bollywood, for that matter) celebrity is on todays reality TV show. The LPC is obviously beting that celebrity fairy dust is the path to power, with some frightening implications for our society if they are correct.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Apr 2013)

So.....anyone for the Beebs as the Minister of Foreign Affairs?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2013)

John Ibbitson makes the (hopeful?) case that Justin Trudeau has, somehow or other (magically?) settled nearly 40 years of Liberal divisions in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeaus-rise-brings-broken-liberal-party-back-together/article10840027/


> Trudeau’s rise brings broken Liberal Party back together
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I think John Ibbitson is historically inaccurate and, therefore, hopelessly optimistic.

The deep divisions do not date from Trudeau vs. Turner _circa_ 1975; they are rooted in the 1960 Kingston Conference and the divisions are between the _visions_ of Pierre Trudeau and Walter Gordon, on the left hand, and Louis St Laurent and Walter Harris _et al_ on the other, _right_, fiscally conservative hand. The new, left-wing Liberals (Trudeau, Gordon, etc) highjacked the CCF/NDP agenda (King had, famously, described the CCF as "Liberals in a hurry") but they simply assumed that the economic boom which St Laurent, Harris, Howe etc had overseen would last forever - many Liberals, including John Turner, knew that was a deeply flawed assumption, and that - pretty basic "ways and means" - is the source of the Liberal Party's divisions and they are nearly 60 years old. The dispute is not about power, it is about economic principles: St Laurent had 'em, Trudeau didn't; the Liberal Party of Canada has yet to decide if it wants some. John Turner, Paul Martin Jr. and Martha Hall Findlay did/do want a sound, principled economic policy, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chrétien* and Stéphane Dion did not; it is not clear what Justin Trudeau thinks, if he does.


_____
* In fairness, M. Chrétien ran a somewhat fiscally conservative government but, in the main, he did not trim spending, instead he offloaded the _entitlement_ burden to Alberta, BC and Ontario.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Apr 2013)

>Expect all of that to be swept away, replaced by a centralized organization devoted to recruiting a national base of mass support using the most sophisticated tools of communication and fundraising.

Or, expect old age and treachery to overcome youth and idealism.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2013)

As long as Power Corp / Demerais continue to control the Liberal party I expect little change. Kind of ironic when it's the Liberals who accuse the Torries of being controlled by corporations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2013)

*= EQUALS =*



?

According to the _Globe and Mail's_ Jeffrey Simpson that is the case and he makes his case in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/dont-discount-trudeaus-flair-for-the-stage/article10947253/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> Don’t discount Trudeau’s flair for the stage
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Consider the differences between e.g. Churchill, Truman, St Laurent and Eisenhower - men of great substance, on one hand and Kennedy, Trudeau (père), Reagan and Blair - men of great style, on the other. It isn't that "style" cannot or does not provide leadership - Ronald Reagan and Pierre Trudeau did "lead" in their own ways, rather, it is that the leader's own sense of direction is unclear. We knew where Louis St Laurent stood on issues so we knew where he was likely to lead us; Trudeau, on the other hand, declared _x_ and then, promptly, implements _y_ - remember "Zap! You're frozen!" followed by wage and price controls?


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Apr 2013)

What the article overlooks is that Regan brought eight years experience as Governor of the most populous US state. That must come in useful as President. Trudeau on the other hand brings...


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What the article overlooks is that Regan brought eight years experience as Governor of the most populous US state. That must come in useful as President. Trudeau on the other hand brings...



About as much experience as Stephen Harper had when he took over the leadership of his party?

People have said this before...don't underestimate him.  I don't think he'll win the next election (but he will likely win the following one)


----------



## brihard (10 Apr 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> About as much experience as Stephen Harper had when he took over the leadership of his party?
> 
> People have said this before...don't underestimate him.  I don't think he'll win the next election (but he will likely win the following one)



Indeed. That's why our prime ministers have a cabinet to lean on. While I personally am skeptical as hell of Trudeau and do not, as of yet, want to see him as PM, I'm also not going to pretend we have enough to go on to say he can't do the job.

Any party in power eventually gets stale. The Conservatives under Harper will be no exception. I don't think there's a chance in hell the NDP's strength in the last election will be repeated to the same degree... For all the talk of 'cooperation' on the left, I know I'm not alone among centrists in that I'll vote Liberal or Conservative depending on the election, but wouldn't consider voting NDP or for an NDP-inclusive coalition. When the Conservatives get stale, unless the Liberals really disgust me, that's where I'll likely vote.


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> For all the talk of 'cooperation' on the left, I know I'm not alone among centrists in that I'll vote Liberal or Conservative depending on the election, but wouldn't consider voting NDP or for an NDP-inclusive coalition. When the Conservatives get stale, unless the Liberals really disgust me, that's where I'll likely vote.



Exactly my position.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Apr 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> About as much experience as Stephen Harper had when he took over the leadership of his party?



Essentially true, but the comparison was Trudeau/Regan not Trudeau/Harper. Two entirely different things.


----------



## GAP (10 Apr 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What the article overlooks is that Regan brought eight years experience as Governor of the most populous US state. That must come in useful as President. Trudeau on the other hand brings...





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> About as much experience as Stephen Harper had when he took over the leadership of his party?



Actually that's not true....nowhere does it detail the policy wank positions and experience in formulation policy that Harper had prior to being elected then taking over the leadership. Justin has....a fist fight, high school teacher degree, daddy's name....and not much else..


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Actually that's not true....nowhere does it detail the policy wank positions and experience in formulation policy that Harper had prior to being elected then taking over the leadership. Justin has....a fist fight, high school teacher degree, daddy's name....and not much else..




There we go with the underestimation again.  Just to compare,  both are/were relative new comers and as far as what people expect/ed as "experience" to be prime minister both fall/fell very short of that.

Both have/had about the same amount of time as a sitting MP prior to taking the leadership of their respective parties.  Both do not have degrees in law.

Harper lectured at university off and on, Trudeau was a teacher.  And while Harper might have formed a think tank and was part of what amounts to a think tank, Trudeau was active in various advocacy causes.  To each their own.

While it's easy to criticise Trudeau for a lack of experience it's also easy to forget that Harper was also inexperienced by whatever standards we set.   Trudeau is also starting younger.  I find his most vocal critics focus on that.  He's actually said some interesting things throughout the leadership campaign but again, his detractors keep focusing on his hair, the brawl last year (which many conservatives were hoping he would get trounced) and his relative lack of experience.

Start looking after what he is saying, go after his ideas and the consequences of what that might be.  He's likely going to win the style war but he also playing an interesting balancing act that could appeal to swing voters on both sides.

By focusing on his youth (again, relative) and perceived inexperience, his opponents are playing a dangerous game of underestimation.  

What I see is someone who can generate cash.  Possibly votes too.  But money is a real tell tale sign.  If he can be seen as innovative and fresh, the experience card kind of gets ignored.  Look at Obama.


----------



## GAP (10 Apr 2013)

> Look at Obama.



Really??

One of, if not the least, effective Presidents the US has ever had, and you would hold him up as a shining example of what we should aspire to...... :


----------



## DVC185 (10 Apr 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Trudeau was active in various advocacy causes.



Is that like a community organizer?  :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ...
> By focusing on his youth (again, relative) and perceived inexperience, his opponents are playing a dangerous game of underestimation.
> 
> What I see is someone who can generate cash.  Possibly votes too.  But money is a real tell tale sign.  If he can be seen as innovative and fresh, the experience card kind of gets ignored.  Look at Obama.




I agree, his flaws, real and imagined, *will* be highlighted both Conservative and NDP advertising but both parties also need to do more that just _accentuate the negative_; when the campaign starts M. Trudeau *will* have policies that will have been tested for their attractiveness to middle class Canadians, Messers Harper and Mulcair need to have the same.


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Really??
> 
> One of, if not the least, effective Presidents the US has ever had, and you would hold him up as a shining example of what we should aspire to...... :



Really...eye rolling...

GAP, I didn't hold him up as a shining example of what we should aspire to.  Please re-read.  I am using him as a shining example of what happens when someone who has relatively little experience, taps into the hopes of the populace (who were sick of the establishment) with charisma and appeal.  What did his opponents do?  They went after his inexperience, they questioned his place of birth for gods sake.  Very few attacked his policies in any meaningful way.  All that most people heard was the b-cert issue. Or that his name rhymed with Osama.  Good plan (insert sarcasm).  Obama's team came up with innovative money raising and connecting with the population through twitter, social media etc.  Trudeau is on that same path.  If people criticise Trudeau on fluffy stuff like his inexperience or his pedigree they risk defining that message as just that while he will define his in a more positive light, and it being the only message people will here.  When i say look at Obama, I say it as look what can happen when you underestimate and look what you could end up with.

Hope that clears it up a bit.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Apr 2013)

Trudeau seems to be trying to follow Obama's template - look, a shiny new toy; I am everything you want me to be.

Everyone is by definition inexperienced until the first time they hold a position.  However, there is a world of difference in the paths people might take to prepare themselves to hold a position.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Trudeau seems to be trying to follow Obama's template - look, a shiny new toy; I am everything you want me to be.
> 
> Everyone is by definition inexperienced until the first time they hold a position.  However, there is a world of difference in the paths people might take to prepare themselves to hold a position.



I think I actually heard Trudeau use the phrase 'hope and change' in one of his speeches recently.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Apr 2013)

Being a "nice guy", as Stockwell Day described Trudeau, isn't enough to lead a country.

link



> *Mulroney, Day and the business community: Justin Trudeau earns praise from unlikely sources*
> 
> As Liberals get set to elect Justin Trudeau as their new leader, there are some heavy hitters coming to his defence over criticisms that he's more sizzle than steak.
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (12 Apr 2013)

My (random) thoughts...

1)  Mr. Obama was criticized for being an inexperienced light weight.  Look at who is into his second term of President of the United States.

2)  I find Joyce Murray's views on the environment and NDP merger ironic, considering she was a former BC Liberal environment minister.  Being elected under the BC Liberal banner in 2001, the party was branded as the "conservative" alternative; the anti-NDP/Greens; led by arch-capitalist Gordon Campbell, who was very (too) friendly with the "Howe Street" crowd.  As environment minister (re-named "Water, Land and Air Protection"), she over saw the gutting of the ministry, de-regulation of environment, parks and wildlife laws, ending the moratorium on open-pen Atlantic salmon farming, and turning the environmental review process into a giant rubber-stamp for business.

Needless to say, I find her current positioning very ironic. 

And I haven't heard a peep from the national media about her past in Mr. Campbell's cabinet.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Apr 2013)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> My (random) thoughts...
> 
> 1)  Mr. Obama was criticized for being an inexperienced light weight.  Look at who is into his second term of President of the United States.



Campaigning and governing are two different things.


----------



## Nemo888 (12 Apr 2013)

Are they going to have any policies? Valueless, uncontroversial and vague,..... They are worse than me when my girlfriend asks why we aren't married.

How can I have an opinion on nothing?


----------



## RangerRay (12 Apr 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Campaigning and governing are two different things.



I agree.  My point was that charisma and fluff has beaten competent management and policy before.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2013)

More on the challenges facing M. Trudeau in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Free Press_:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/trudeau-faces-daunting-challenges-to-rebuild-party-manage-expectations--202851041.html


> Trudeau faces daunting challenges to rebuild party, manage expectations
> 
> By: Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...




The "piece of shit" remark is just one gem that Justin Trudeau has left for the Conservative and NDP attack ad creators; consider also: _"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work,"_ (November 2010) and _"I always say that if I ever believed Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper and we were going against abortion and going against gay marriage, and we were going backward in 10,000 different ways, maybe I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country,''_ (February 2012); we will, certainly, be reminded of both, again and again between now and the next election.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Apr 2013)

<sarcasm>





</sarcasm>


> Justin Trudeau is the new leader of the Liberal Party, winning as expected on the first ballot with more than 80 per cent of the vote.
> 
> He beat the five other opponents – and no one was even close. His biggest test comes Monday as he will face Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair in the House of Commons. He also must try to continue the momentum built over the campaign into a federal campaign expected in 2015.
> 
> ...


_Globe & Mail_, 14 Apr 13


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2013)

There goes the neighbourhood.


----------



## Jester_TG (14 Apr 2013)

It's pretty much the only thing they could do. 

Hopefully for them he can get the younger crowd to vote.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2013)

So now we can look forward to the CBC touting his triumph as if he's the new messiah. Their prior silence on the subject has been deafening.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Apr 2013)

Jester_TG said:
			
		

> It's pretty much the only thing they could do.
> 
> Hopefully for them he can get the younger crowd to vote.



Yeah, good luck with that Mr. Trudeau; none of them knew your Dad either  :sarcasm:


Canada’s youth vote edges up in 2011, but still a drag on the total turnout 

Canada’s youth vote rose slightly in 2011 in concert with the overall turnout, but the numbers are still low.

Only 38.8 per cent of Canadian youth (eligible voters aged 18-24) cast a vote in May, in contrast with only 37.4 per cent in 2008.

As in the past, there were a number of familiar contributing factors to the low youth turnout. Some were related to young Canadians being unaware of when or where to vote, or to personal issues that prevented them from getting to a polling station.

However, motivational factors were also at play. 

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/11/24/canadas-youth-vote-edges-up-in-2011-but-still-a-drag-on-the-total-turnout/


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2013)

Predictably, but sadly, the _Good Grey Globe_ is chock full of Trudeau adoration.

He gets a long, signed, column to recycle another Barack Obama speech ~ long on platitudes and quite devoid of substance; and

The _Globe_ editorializes about "Three strong party leaders". What arrant nonsense! Fisrt if they are speaking about leaders of three strong parties then it must be recognized that the Liberal Party of Canada is anything but. It is the *third party* with a historic low number of seats, it has enjoyed a public opinion "bounce" on the strength of the media interest in its leadership contest but there is little to indicate that it can sustain that support. If the headline writers meant three strong leaders of parties then that too is rubbish because there is nothing at all to indicate that M. Trudeau has any backbone.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2013)

Sadly, I think we'll just have to get used to it. The MSM has never been a friend of the CPC and vice versa.

In their desire to unseat Harper, they will likely now, focus their full attention on turning Trudeau into a messiah. 

One that they feel the masses of unwashed will flock to with their urging.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2013)

Well, the the CPC isn't wasting any time getting its message out.


----------



## Sapplicant (15 Apr 2013)

Marc Garneau went to space for nothing.  :


----------



## CougarKing (15 Apr 2013)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Marc Garneau went to space for nothing.  :



Perhaps Garneau should have done a campaign commercial like this one.  ;D But then again...a lot of his potential supporters younger than 30 are still looking at Justin Trudeau's hair...  :


----------



## jpjohnsn (15 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, the the CPC isn't wasting any time getting its message out.


The CPC needs to start thinking about new strategies and not recycling the same predictable negative ad campaigns.  As much as people point and laugh at the Liberal's ineptitude with the "troops in our cities" negative ads, the final nail in the coffin of the PCs in 1993 was when the LPC made political hay out of the ad featuring a picture of Chretien that Liberals convinced people was a case of the Tories making fun of his physical disability.  

All the CPC PR machine needs to do is bobble the ball just once, which is extremely easy to do with a negative ad, and public opinion could turn in a heartbeat and Trudeau will be a martyr in the same vein as Chretien was in 93.   No matter what legitimate subsequent punches the CPC might throw in his direction, he'll be the underdog - and everyone loves an underdog.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Apr 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> In their desire to unseat Harper, they will likely now, focus their full attention on turning Trudeau into a messiah.
> 
> One that they feel the masses of unwashed will flock to with their urging.



Speaking of which...  






More political cartoons here.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2013)

Thomas Mulcair shuts down the Young Dauphin on his first day as leader (and the PM slams Tom into the boards). Politics as hockey is quite bruising. This display indicates the "real" way of shutting down the Young Dauphin; just perform at a much higher level and demonstrate by word and deed that he is totally out of his league:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/15/thomas-mulcair-upstages-justin-trudeau-in-his-first-question-period-as-liberal-leader/



> *John Ivison: Mulcair upstages Trudeau in his first Question Period as Liberal leader*Republish ReprintReprintsRepublish OnlineRepublish OfflineJohn Ivison | 13/04/15 7:41 PM ET
> More from John Ivison
> 
> NDP leader Tom Mulcair didn’t get the memo that Question Period has been renamed The Trudeau Show.
> ...



edit to add this from the comments. Too bad all politicians don't speak like this for real:



> *accidentalcontrarian*
> 
> Indeed, the straight answer to Mulcair's demanding inquiry as to what skills Canadian workers are lacking in order to work at Tim Horton's would have been as follows:
> 
> 'Mr. Speaker I can inform the honourable member that such unemployed Canadians are not lacking in skills but only in preparedness to work where the jobs are available, Mr. Speaker I have it on good authority that Canadian workers are not just refusing to move across the country to take these entry level jobs but indeed will not even commute to the next town in PEI to do so. Mr. Speaker it is sad, but in order to make up for the Canadians who chose not to work we must import workers who will work, and who will also pay the taxes needed to support those who will not'


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2013)

I think the conservatice ad machine may have made an error in going after Trudeau so early in the game.  

Reasons:


1- They've defined him as the threat.  Meaning that he could be the guy to beat them.
2- When the election does eventually get called this kind of stuff might be stale.
3- How JT reacts and how he comports himself might lead some people to think that he is not in fact over his head.
4- The Liberals could turn this around and use the whole "divisive" politics thing to brand Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.  Given that voter fatigue and a persceived stale governement might be in play in 2015 this could be fatal.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2013)

The Young Dauphin won by a "landslide", but looking at the metrics, the hill wasn't too tall. The number of "supporters" in Quebec should be very worrying for the Liberal brain trust, they know as well as we do that the road to power is through Quebec:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/17/kelly-mcparland-leadership-votes-show-quebec-remains-a-liberal-desert/



> *Kelly McParland: Leadership votes show Quebec still unenthralled with Trudeau*
> Kelly McParland | 13/04/17 | Last Updated: 13/04/17 10:33 AM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (2 May 2013)

National Post link



> *‘If Harper took off his shirt in public, I’m not sure he’d raise any money for charity’: Trudeau’s mom - mad Tories are ‘bullying her Justin’*
> 
> Justin Trudeau may have decided to turn the other cheek when faced with Conservative attack ads, but his mother isn’t going to let the Liberal leader be “bullied” by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (12 May 2013)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I agree.  My point was that charisma and fluff has beaten competent management and policy before.



It has, however in this day and age I have my doubts.

People want solutions to problems within an hour, just like on TV. Celebrity rules: Common sense, reason and logic run second to a charismatic, photogenic candidate whose head may be as empty as an old beer can.


----------



## CougarKing (13 May 2013)

Surprise, surprise...  :

link



> *Hill Times crowns Trudeau Canada's sexiest MP*
> 
> ..By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – 6 hours ago.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 May 2013)

In the latest news, Liberals win in Labrador byelection. Reproduced under the  Fair Dealings section of the Copyright Act.



> Liberals take Labrador, as Jones wins big over Penashue
> Former Conservative cabinet minister defeated by Liberal
> By Rob Antle, CBC News
> Posted: May 13, 2013 7:33 PM NT
> ...



 Article Link 

This of course will give the Young Dauphin's standings a big boost; many Hallelujahs to follow.


----------



## RangerRay (25 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It has, however in this day and age I have my doubts.
> 
> People want solutions to problems within an hour, just like on TV. Celebrity rules: Common sense, reason and logic run second to a charismatic, photogenic candidate whose head may be as empty as an old beer can.



I wouldn't say that.  Christy Clark won in BC with nothing more than a mega-watt smile, lies about the state of the provincial economy and fear-mongering of the NDP.  Now she will try to get Trudeau elected PM with the same formula.


----------



## Armymedic (26 May 2013)

Lying about the provincial economy and fear mongering about what the opposition will do if elected seemed to work for the Liberals in Ont too.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 May 2013)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that.  Christy Clark won in BC with nothing more than a mega-watt smile, lies about the state of the provincial economy *and fear-mongering of the NDP.*  Now she will try to get Trudeau elected PM with the same formula.



The things the Liberals said about the NDP wasn't just fear-mongering. Some the NDP election promises would have been disastrous for B.C. if they had won the election. The reality is that the NDP were, in some cases, their own worse enemy.


----------



## RangerRay (30 May 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The things the Liberals said about the NDP wasn't just fear-mongering. Some the NDP election promises would have been disastrous for B.C. if they had won the election. The reality is that the NDP were, in some cases, their own worse enemy.



Absolutely.  Especially after their Morgan-Kinder flip-flop.  However before that, all the Libs had on the NDP was their record from 20 years ago, a back-dated memo from the late '90s, and an unpaid transit fare.  Compared to the last 12 years of debt and cronyism, and the most incompetent person to ever occupy the Premier's Office, all the NDP had to do was veer to the centre and hammer the BC Liberal record.  Instead, they tried to out green the Greens and barely mentioned the Libs' abysmal record in office.

My point was that there is little to no difference between Trudeau and Clark in terms of charisma vs. policy, except who their opponents are.  They are both photo/telegenic charismatic bobble-heads with platitudes, not policies.


----------



## DBA (30 May 2013)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> My point was that there is little to no difference between Trudeau and Clark in terms of charisma vs. policy, except who their opponents are.  They are both photo/telegenic charismatic bobble-heads with platitudes, not policies.



Trudeau reminds me of the wisdom in Voltaire's observation: "To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered." It easily applies to all superficial qualities.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2013)

>a back-dated memo from the late '90s

Misdeeds by politicians fall into four categories:
1) Human weakness (eg. drinking, drug use, adultery, traffic violations, etc)
2) Personal gain (eg. accepting bribes, padding expenses)
3) Gain for others (relatives, peers, party members, etc)
4) Subverting the "system" - institutions, processes, mechanisms of accountability - to retain power

Those are in order of seriousness (corrosive effect on trust in the "system" and the people who run it).  A document falsified to evade responsibility and accountability is an extremely grave ethical lapse.   What sort of collective mind-fart the NDP experienced in order to allow Dix to become leader I don't know, but they did.


----------



## RangerRay (31 May 2013)

They should have elected John Horgan or Mike Farnworth.  Both would have moved the party to the centre and hammered the BC Liberals' record.  But we're getting off topic.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 May 2013)

Yes, but to bring it back: one thing Trudeau has is a clean sheet.  Naive isn't anywhere near the ballpark of corrupt.

The only real problem with Trudeau being the figurehead of the party is the custom of making the figurehead PM when the party wins.  If we had a long tradition of the MPs selecting their own first-among-equals, coupled with a long tradition of it rarely being any party's leader, there would be much less fuss at hand.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2013)

I notice that Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi seems to have taken a much higher profile in the news lately (and not just because of the Calgary floods). Even canada.com’s online editor Patrick O’Rourke is promoting him via Twitter (and not in a neutral fashion).

It occurs to me that two things are in play here:

1. Naheed Nenshi is starting to expand his profile in order to move beyond civic politics, and;

2. Smart people in the LPC might be having buyers remorse over their recent leadership convention and are scouting out potential high profile people to prepare for post 2015.

From what public pronouncements I have been able to find from the Mayor, it does seem like this is a good political match.


----------



## The_Falcon (23 Jun 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Yes, but to bring it back: one thing Trudeau has is a clean sheet.  Naive isn't anywhere near the ballpark of corrupt.



To quote a detergent ad, Trudeau's clean sheets are a little dingy...http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/21/justin-trudeau-using-a-psychological-trick

Taking money from trade union's as a "private speaker" and then arguing against bills that would force unions to be more transparent with their books, yeah...that ain't unethical or daresay corrupt at all.  To bad there isn't a similar way to take an MP to court over conflict of interest ala Ford.


----------



## Remius (23 Jun 2013)

Well, isn't Calgary going to have an election soon?  That may just be it.

People seem to be indicating that he is more inclined towards provincial rather than Federal.

But...if he (Nenshi) was being approached by the LPC I doubt it's buyer's remorse and more of a case of trying to get a star candidate to break into Alberta.  It would be a coup for the Liberal's under Trudeau to get ANY seats in Alberta and would likely get a senior critic position or a ministerial one should that become the case.

But I guess we'll see shortly.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Jun 2013)

He could just as easily step into the Conservative camp. There's several AB seats going to open for the next election


----------



## Remius (23 Jun 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> He could just as easily step into the Conservative camp. There's several AB seats going to open for the next election



And no doubt he's likely being courted by all sides.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2013)

Remember Claire Hoy? He is a fairly well known author/biographer/ghost writer and he was a pretty well known political columnist until he faded from view many years ago. Well, he's still there, at least part time, writing for (amongst others) the _Orangeville Citizen_. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Orangeville Citizen_ are his thoughts - which are pretty well organized - on the popularity of M. Trudeau:

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2013-06-27/Columns/National_Affairs.html


> Trudeau’s popularity may soon fade
> 
> CLAIRE HOY
> 
> ...




His first question, "so what?" should be familiar to every officer and NCO who has ever made an appreciation or estimate of the situation. It is, always and everywhere, a good question.

Mr Hoy doesn't find much meat upon which to chew. In truth, M. Trudeau hasn't said all that much, has he? That's probably good 21st century politics: run on charisma, ignore policy.

Mr. Hoy does chew on M. Trudeau's ethics and he asks a final question: "Is this really the ethical standard people want in a leader?" He answers it, too, and I agree with him.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Jun 2013)

One Trudeau was more than enough.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2013)

The Young Dauphin is a gift that just keeps on giving:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/07/20130713-161854.html



> *Trudeau uncritical of Suzuki's controversial comments*
> Updated
> 9:58 am, July 14th, 2013
> 4:18 pm, July 13th, 2013
> ...


----------



## BorisK (15 Jul 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> To quote a detergent ad, Trudeau's clean sheets are a little dingy...http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/21/justin-trudeau-using-a-psychological-trick
> 
> Taking money from trade union's as a "private speaker" and then arguing against bills that would force unions to be more transparent with their books, yeah...that ain't unethical or daresay corrupt at all.  To bad there isn't a similar way to take an MP to court over conflict of interest ala Ford.



I'm glad someone else noticed that, and other, sinister handshakes. One scientifically illiterate Trudeau was enough thanks.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jul 2013)

The gift that keeps on giving again.....

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/07/20130716-152043.html



> *Trudeau under fire for attending controversial Islamic group's event*
> 3:20 pm, July 16th, 2013
> 
> OTTAWA — The Muslim Canadian Congress criticized Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau Tuesday for his association with what it calls "Canada's leading Islamist group."
> ...


----------



## Inquisitor (18 Jul 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The gift that keeps on giving again.....
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/07/20130716-152043.html



Pot, This is Kettle, Black, Over

Speaking points for the Hon. Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism   on the occasion of a breakfast meeting hosted by the Islamic Society of North America
Mississauga, Ontario, November 29, 2008


link to text here http://web.archive.org/web/20120804181322/http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/speeches/2008/2008-11-29.asp

BTW this headline from Huffington Post  "Jason Kenney's Speech To Islamic Group ISNA Erased From Government Sites " 

Link here http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/18/jason-kenney-isna-trudeau_n_3618659.html

A computer glitch I'm sure umf, umf, umf hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Haven't heard Fox News North Sock Puppet Ezra Levant  howling about Kenney

I never said it was a perfect world


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2013)

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> Pot, This is Kettle, Black, Over
> 
> Speaking points for the Hon. Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism   on the occasion of a breakfast meeting hosted by the Islamic Society of North America
> Mississauga, Ontario, November 29, 2008
> ...



Keep it civil.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jul 2013)

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> I never said it was a perfect world



Neither did I.

This is just as offensive, and truly sad that the minister did not apologize for the bad judgement displayed there.


----------



## Inquisitor (18 Jul 2013)

Thank you both. Will do best to improve.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2013)

This looks like it will devolve into the sort of bunfight that no one wins. Biggest loss is to the nursing home, which is now out $20,000.:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/22/they-consider-this-matter-closed-charity-drops-refund-request-to-justin-trudeau-kicks-out-board-members/



> *‘They consider this matter closed’: Charity drops refund request to Justin Trudeau, kicks out board members*
> 
> Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News | 13/07/22 | Last Updated: 13/07/23 9:54 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (23 Jul 2013)

Sounds like something backfired.  I bet we won't be hearing from the CPC on this issue.


----------



## CougarKing (23 Aug 2013)

Justin..."the gift that keeps on giving."  But I guess his "pretty boy" image is enough for the debt-drenched twenty-something baristas with Philosophy MAs who elected him:

:

National Post link



> *Kelly McParland: Justin Trudeau may be too perfect to be middle class*
> 
> For a moment, there, Justin Trudeau had it in his hands.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Aug 2013)

Since when was Trudeau "Middle Class"?


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Aug 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Since when was Trudeau "Middle Class"?



Agreed. His father the Ponce - I love that  term - was far from middle class.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Since when was Trudeau "Middle Class"?



I think that's the point of the article


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Aug 2013)

I think at this point any alternative to Dear Leader and his minions would be good.  Not a fan of any of the parties, but the polarisation in parliment where sound bites are more important then actually getting things done needs to stop.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Aug 2013)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think at this point any alternative to Dear Leader and his minions would be good.  Not a fan of any of the parties, but the polarisation in parliment where sound bites are more important then actually getting things done needs to stop.



Actually, the last session of parliament was probably the most productive session that the Hill has seen in decades.

As to sound bites and polarization, this government is no different that those that preceded it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Aug 2013)

I guess productivity and effectiveness are matters of opinion; systematically gutting the environmental legislation covering all our waterways and fisheries as part of the budget omnibus bill is one of the many ways they gamed the system and bypassed normal parliamentary procedures.

While other governments have had their own problems, this particular government is taking things to different level.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Aug 2013)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I guess productivity and effectiveness are matters of opinion;



Indeed they are unless the assertion is backed up by some kind of metric.

I too found the omnibus bills distasteful, but more in their delivery than in their content.  I am increasingly finding this government to be mean-spirited, small-minded, high-handed and devoid of grace or graciousness.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Aug 2013)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think at this point any alternative to Dear Leader and his minions would be good.  Not a fan of any of the parties, but the polarisation in parliment where sound bites are more important then actually getting things done needs to stop.



I rather object to your assertion that the PM is to be compared to Kim Jong Il - a North Korean dictator. :facepalm:

Maybe I should refer to Justin Trudeau as "Uncle Joe".


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Aug 2013)

Nah, he could never grow a rocking Stalin 'Stache, let alone pull it off.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Aug 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Nah, he could never grow a rocking Stalin 'Stache, let alone pull it off.



Yeah you're right. Maybe Little Ponce is a better name......


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2013)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeaus-cannabis-candour-part-of-plan-to-brand-liberals-as-party-of-transparency/article13944430/



> *Trudeau’s cannabis candour part of plan to brand Liberals as party of transparency  *
> 
> Joan Bryden
> OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
> ...



I've been wondering if more was going to be said on this site about this reefer stuff... this article isn't too far off from the truth.

It was a smart move for Trudeau to support legalization of marijuana. It's a battle easily won over the Conservatives, an area of their "tough on crime" bill where I feel they went in the wrong direction (minimum jail sentences for some petty marijuana-related offenses), and I think most Canadians would agree. It's unfortunate to say this, but this may also mobilize more young voters, who typically don't vote, but are more likely to vote Liberal or NDP than for the CPC.

I also felt that this whole admitting to smoking pot while being an MP was a big risk. On one hand, it probably does buy him more credibility as a human (always good if the voters feel you are more like them), but definitely less as a politician and a lawmaker. I think, all in all, those that will hold this against him, and those that will buy into the incoming attack ads that will undoubtedly paint Trudeau as a pothead, are probably part of the older generation that wasn't going to vote for him anyway.

"During a three-day caucus retreat in Prince Edward Island that begins Tuesday, Liberal MPs and senators are to be presented with a template for publicly disclosing their expenses online, starting this fall."

This though, this is the real gem. This *is* showing real, tangible leadership. This is really taking the bull by the horns in an area that will resonate with Canadians. I don't know if this was his idea or not, but the Liberals are moving in the right direction with this if they want to take a bite out of the Conservatives.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2013)

Leave it to the Mop & Pail to turn his breaking of our laws, into a positive facet of his leadership abilities. :


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Aug 2013)

> *Trudeau’s cannabis candour part of plan to brand Liberals as party of transparency*



It's a _puff_ piece by the Liberal Party allies to excuse/engender his greatness to the populaces.

Not only did he smoke pot, he knows/associates with someone who has a stash large enough to pass around. A dealer? 

You can look at these links if you are interested:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/prince-of-pot-marc-emery-stands-by-statement-trudeau-smoked-dope-with-him/

For a laugh. JT's hair: http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/another-brilliant-lampoon-video-justin-trudeau-hair-care-line-up/


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Not only did he smoke pot, he knows/associates with someone who has a stash large enough to pass around. A dealer?



Are you kidding me? :rofl:

I expected this kind of response around here, but let's get real. The prohibition on marijuana is archaic and a joke. Canadians are sick of it, and it's on its way out. While I think its poor leadership to be blatantly breaking the laws as an MP, and certainly poor judgement to do so, trying to pretend he is unfit to breathe the same air as the rest of us, and corrupt to the point that he might be hanging around with drug dealers, is taking away from YOUR credibility and those who would vote against him.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me? :rofl:
> 
> I expected this kind of response around here, but let's get real. The prohibition on marijuana is archaic and a joke. Canadians are sick of it, and it's on its way out. While I think its poor leadership to be blatantly breaking the laws as an MP, and certainly poor judgement to do so, trying to pretend he is unfit to breathe the same air as the rest of us, and corrupt to the point that he might be hanging around with drug dealers, is taking away from YOUR credibility and those who would vote against him.



Laws can be bad laws, but until they are changed, they are still the law.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me? :rofl:
> 
> I expected this kind of response around here, but let's get real. The prohibition on marijuana is archaic and a joke. Canadians are sick of it, and it's on its way out. While I think its poor leadership to be blatantly breaking the laws as an MP, and certainly poor judgement to do so, trying to pretend he is unfit to breathe the same air as the rest of us, and corrupt to the point that he might be hanging around with drug dealers, is taking away from YOUR credibility and those who would vote against him.



MilPoints on the way.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Aug 2013)

ballz: 





> Are you kidding me? :rofl:



The truth hurts? What do you call a person who has an apparent ready supply of a prohibited drug? He may not be dealing, but what he is doing is against the law. JT is in the position to safeguard the laws and he is associating and indulging with a person who is breaking the law.

He is a millionaire, and the son and grandson of millionaires. He is not the same as us. He is a minority as a millionaire in Canada.

ballz: 





> The prohibition on marijuana is archaic and a joke



So you break the law? Do you in this case if that's how you feel.

Discipline by Example.


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ballz:
> The truth hurts?



Well no, it doesn't actually, because I don't plan to vote for Trudeau, nor are you speaking anything remotely close to "true."



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What do you call a person who has an apparent ready supply of a prohibited drug?



A supply big enough to "pass it around?" That's anybody and everybody that brings ONE joint to the party. A "supply" that big, is not very big at all, and by trying to take that angle you are showing that you either have no clue what you are talking about or are just trying to play it up as a big deal because it suits your politics.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> but what he is doing is against the law. JT is in the position to safeguard the laws and he is associating and indulging with a person who is breaking the law.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Laws can be bad laws, but until they are changed, they are still the law.



Thanks, both of you, for you insight. When you find where I said that breaking the law as an elected official was a good idea, come back and tell me about it.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> He is a millionaire, and the son and grandson of millionaires. He is not the same as us. He is a minority as a millionaire in Canada.



No where did I say he was the same as "us" (whoever that is). I said this will Canadians *feel* like he is more on the same page with them, much more so that PM Harper who wants to throw people in jail for 6 months for growing 6 plants. PM Harper is out to lunch on this, whether your like Trudeau or not.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ballz:
> So you break the law? Do you in this case if that's how you feel.
> 
> Discipline by Example.



No I don't, so you can stop wagging your finger at me. I am free to support whichever policies I choose to. You can scrutinize them all you want, but if you want to attack my character you're just showing how weak your position is. Much like when the Tories try to attack Trudeau's character because he smoked a joint. It will FAIL.


Trudeau's policy is much better than PM Harper's policy on this subject. He has taken a risk to stir up the debate, to get his would-be voters out and voting, and to connect with some on-the-fence voters. All in all, the risk is probably going to pay off, especially if the old farts of this country can't get over it and decide its a good hill to die on come election time.


----------



## BorisK (25 Aug 2013)

They aren't attacking him just because he smoked pot... They are attacking him because it's another example of him being an idiot.  He votes to increase charges for pot use, while enjoying it himself, and yet you think he is defending the use of marijuana because he admitted to using it while voting to make it more illegal?

Reminds me of when he voted to keep the gun registry over 15 times then once it was ended tried saying that he was glad it was gone.  

This hypocrite utopian dreamer millionaire has the worst attendance record of any mp and has repeatedly not shown up for critical votes because he was too busy collecting money from tax payer subsidized charities for blowhard speeches.  

Trudeau jr is an airhead that wants more fame, not good policies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me? :rofl:
> 
> The prohibition on marijuana is archaic and a joke. Canadians are sick of it, and it's on its way out.



Thank you for YOUR insight, but it's only your opinion.

Unless you have some sort of inside track on this, I suggest you state it as your opinion, not fact.

Many Canadians are far from agreement with you on the subject. So please don't make personal statements like they are a done deal.

I also just made a simple statement of fact. So you can reel in your neck 

Trudeau took an oath to uphold our laws. He has blatantly broke, at least, one.

Many promising careers have crashed and burned on much less.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Aug 2013)

It may just be me, and heaven knows I'm not a political scientist, but the Liberals are once again proposing soft issues that almost always involve redistribution of income. The Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to have been successful in pushing economic issues that create wealth rather than just shift the exisiting pile around. What unique plan has Mr Trudeau proposed to create wealth in Canada? Given the state of the world's and our own economy, and our ability to fund further social programs without falling further into deficit and debt, which do you think is aprt to be more successful with a wary tax paying public?

This of course is a generalization, but does seem correct in large terms.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Aug 2013)

The whole legalization of pot needs to be looked at. IMO we have relatively little info on the long term effects on the brain, lungs etc. 
If we knew about the negative effects of alcohol and tobacco hundreds of years ago would we have ever legalized them?


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2013)

Alcohol is also a "drug," of sorts, and our American neighbours tried prohibition, and we know how well that worked, don't we?


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Alcohol is also a "drug," of sorts, and our American neighbours tried prohibition, and we know how well that worked, don't we?


Same with parts of Canada, to similar effect.


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Many Canadians are far from agreement with you on the subject. So please don't make personal statements like they are a done deal.



Polls are obviously only so accurate, but they would suggest that those who are "far from agreement" with me are few and far between.

This poll http://bccla.org/news/2004/11/opinion-poll-confirms-canadians-want-legal-marijuana/ suggests that only 8% are "far from agreement" (believe it should be a criminal offense) with me on the subject while over 60% agree that it should be legalized.

Of course, you're right, it's not a "done deal" as of yet.




Anyway, I never meant for this article to turn this thread into a marijuana debate. I would be happy to have that debate in another thread of course, but I was hoping to get a warm and fuzzy on what everyone thought of the _tactics_ being used by Justin Trudeau. As the article points out, is it wise to be "transparent to a fault?"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> Polls are obviously only so accurate, but they would suggest that those who are "far from agreement" with me are few and far between.
> 
> This poll http://bccla.org/news/2004/11/opinion-poll-confirms-canadians-want-legal-marijuana/ suggests that only 8% are "far from agreement" (believe it should be a criminal offense) with me on the subject while over 60% agree that it should be legalized.
> 
> ...



Polls have recently been proven to show that, if anything, they have been mostly wrong.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It's a _puff_ piece ....


Dude, I see what you did there


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2013)

Tim Harper opines that M. Trudeau may be "flying too close to the flame" in an opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/26/justin_trudeaus_life_of_calculated_risks_tim_harper.html


> Justin Trudeau's life of calculated risks: Tim Harper
> *Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s life as an open book is refreshing, but he makes himself an inviting target for his opponents.*
> 
> By: Tim Harper National Affairs,
> ...




I agree that M. Trudeau is taking risks but he's leading the third party, he's got to *gain* 136 seats, above the 34 he holds now, to get a bare majority government in 2015, Prime Minister Harper only has to *gain* seven.

Now I have no doubt that M. Trudeau is going to gain seats at the expense of both the Conservatives and the NDP; but will he, can he gain 136? No, not in my judgement. Can he gain, say, 65, enough to move from third party to official opposition status? Maybe, he might gain 15 of the 65 seats he needs from the Conservatives and 50 from the NDP. Prime Minister Harper, then, having lost 15 seats to the Liberals, needs to gain, overall, 22 seats to retain a majority ~ and there are 30 "new" seats, so let's say he gets 22 of those 30, he can "afford" seven losses and that assumes he will not make any other gains. 

The task facing Justin Trudeau is formidable; risks are necessary.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Aug 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I rather object to your assertion that the PM is to be compared to Kim Jong Il - a North Korean dictator. :facepalm:
> 
> Maybe I should refer to Justin Trudeau as "Uncle Joe".



That was obviously over the top hyperbole; although the PMO is rather effectively strangling the democratic process in parliament (even his own backbenchers are quitting/objecting publicly, plus robocalls, prorogations etc) and fermenting and 'us vs them' mentality against pretty much everyone that doesn't agree with them.  The binders to the new members of cabinet with an enemy list was a pretty good example (also pretty childish).

Don't follow the 'Uncle Joe' reference, but you can refer to him however you like.  While there are some MPs I do respect, I think the majority of them serve no useful purpose and are in it for themselves.  Nothing pisses me off quite as much as the MPs and senators 'retiring' before they are thrown out that qualify for their full pension after a few short years of service, particularily when in a few years they will earn more then someone that gets the full payout under the NVC, which as far as I can tell, generally means they are wheelchair bound at best.

I think a substantial cull on the number of MPs would be appropriate; they might be actually effective at half their current number, as there are far too many bums in the seats that just vote as per the piece of paper handed to them by the party whip.  I'm not sure who they are representing at that point, but it's definitely not their constituents.  Might be cynical, but I think our current system is fundamentally broken without cooperation between the parties.  Maybe a few years of minority governments would help.

Maybe it's just me, but if you can take three or four months off work and the country still runs, you may not be as important as you think.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Aug 2013)

Navy_Pete 



> The binders to the new members of cabinet with an enemy list was a pretty good example (also pretty childish).



I see that you are a A/SLt with a few years of CF experience. Please don't take this the wrong way. I congratulate you on your career choice and your commissioning.

I think I know what you mean by that statement. I am going to explain how I look at this.

You will experience or you have experienced a hand over brief, whether it be a watch or a division. It may have been you receiving the hand over brief or you participated as a briefer. Depending on the level, i.e. a change of command there will be a binder or binders covering a multitude of subjects, most with mandatory headings. An "enemies" heading would not be included unless the unit was involved in action or a mission where there was enemy.

When you receive a hand over brief you will be informed somewhat on the strengths/weaknesses of your subordinates, who needs assistance, has problems and who is the go to person. You will also be informed of your superiors, several layers up, idiosyncrasies, and probably the creed of the Buffer so you can ensure your sailors don't experience their wrath, but rather get a BZ.

If you know and understand the modus operandi of your subordinates and your superiors you will know how to give orders and instructions in order that the mission/task is completed to standard and safely: the experience/training level of your sailors, how detailed the orders must be, how much supervision is needed, etc, etc.

If I was a government minister, I would want to know who I could trust with a job, who will climb all over the other civil servants in the office to get ahead (and lower office morale), who has an agenda, etc. This is "office" politics. I would also want to know which member of the media you must "spell it out to" so there is no room to twist the info. Just a couple of examples there.'


Facebook is full of binders of enemy lists.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Aug 2013)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me, but if you can take three or four months off work and the country still runs, you may not be as important as you think.



You presume that they're off. The reality is more likely that they're working in their home constituencies.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Navy_Pete
> 
> If I was a government minister, I would want to know who I could trust with a job, who will climb all over the other civil servants in the office to get ahead (and lower office morale), who has an agenda, etc. This is "office" politics. I would also want to know which member of the media you must "spell it out to" so there is no room to twist the info. Just a couple of examples there.'
> 
> ...



I would agree with you on that, but there are things you commit to paper, and other things that are conversations you have over a coffee.  Putting something like that, to paper, where it is pretty likely to be leaked (in this case 100%), was just stupid, and possibly had something to do with a large number of the PMO staff being under thirty.  (here's the original story btw; http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/16/pol-cabinet-shuffle-enemy-lists.html)

In this particular case, this had less to do with strengths and weaknesses; but rather a list of sycophants and another of people that disagreed with the govt.  I think anytime you define someone with a different opinion as an enemy, you are being close minded.  After spending the last few years in Ottawa, my general impression is that for a number of folks in politics it's a game, and that the people that are there to actually trying to make a difference are mostly stuck in the backbenches.  Not that the liberals were any better, but that doesn't mean what the current govt is doing is right, and for a party that was big on accountability, they've had a pretty poor track record lately.

I think one of the problems, which things like this illustrate, is that this particular PMO has centralized things a bit more then in the past, and seems to be a lot more in the shorts of all the various departments and their respective cabinet ministers.  So now the gaggle of idealistic inexperienced want to be Machiavellis are doing things better suited to experienced staffers from the individual ministers offices.  Our parliamentary system in a lot of ways gives the PM a lot more authority then POTUS to drive the show, and because the MPs are voting to a list rather then forming their own opinions, the votes in the house are mostly for show.

Incidentally, thanks for the heads up on the profile; I"d completely forgotten about that info in there.  Not that it matters, but that was about seven years, a few promotions and a half dozen postings plus an MOC number change out of date.  Either way, if I was given a list of 'enemies & friends' on a turnover, either in the military or when I spent some time in the private sector, I'd assume that the person that came up with that was most likely a poor leader and not terribly mature.


----------



## ballz (28 Aug 2013)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> In this particular case, this had less to do with strengths and weaknesses; but rather a list of sycophants and another of people that disagreed with the govt.  I think anytime you define someone with a different opinion as an enemy, you are being close minded.  After spending the last few years in Ottawa, my general impression is that for a number of folks in politics it's a game, and that the people that are there to actually trying to make a difference are mostly stuck in the backbenches.  Not that the liberals were any better, but that doesn't mean what the current govt is doing is right, and for a party that was big on accountability, they've had a pretty poor track record lately.



Bureaucrats have a _responsibility_ to execute the government's will / intent. Many of them cannot separate their opinion from their profession. These people, especially high-ranking bureaucrats, are a threat to the government's effectiveness.

In the CAF, we can be held accountable for openly criticizing the gov't in uniform. Consider a bureaucrats suit his uniform. When he is at work, he is obligated to support the gov't, that is what he is being paid to do. The difference is, unfortunately, bureaucrats cannot be held accountable quite as easily as we can.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Aug 2013)

Ballz, I get what you're saying, but having a responsibility to execute an order doesn't mean you can't disagree during discussions leading up to it.  Once my CO makes a decision, I'll do everything I can to support and execute it, but that doesn't mean that prior to I won't argue to take a different course if there are valid reasons to do so.

You also have to consider the senior bureaucrats SMEs in their respective areas; maybe if you are a new Minister and someone senior in that department with a lot of experience is telling you privately that something is not a good idea, it might legitimately be because it's simply not a good idea.  Not that some of them don't have their own agendas, but they might want to listen and consider that it's a possibilty their plan/policy or whatever just won't work, or is perhaps illegal.

Blindly dismissing opposing opinions is and labeling them as 'enemies', in my opinion, how bad decisions get made.  Maybe they are just talking out of their arse, but using the devil's advocate ensures that something is looked at from all angles before it's put into place.

Also good ideas come from strange places, so by ignoring whole swaths of people they are also losing the opportunity to cherry pick the good parts and claim them as their own.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2013)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Ballz, I get what you're saying, but having a responsibility to execute an order doesn't mean you can't disagree during discussions leading up to it.  Once my CO makes a decision, I'll do everything I can to support and execute it, but that doesn't mean that prior to I won't argue to take a different course if there are valid reasons to do so.
> 
> You also have to consider the senior bureaucrats SMEs in their respective areas; maybe if you are a new Minister and someone senior in that department with a lot of experience is telling you privately that something is not a good idea, it might legitimately be because it's simply not a good idea.  Not that some of them don't have their own agendas, but they might want to listen and consider that it's a possibilty their plan/policy or whatever just won't work, or is perhaps illegal.
> 
> ...




If I can paraphrase Bill Clinton: it all depends on what you mean by "senior."

As a general rule subject matter expertise "peaks" at the level of director (first executive level in the civil service/colonel or lieutenant colonel in the military) from director general onwards the "executive" skills and experience equal and then override any technical expertise. Thus, with a very, very few exceptions (the deputy minister of justice, for example, will almost always be a lawyer and the CF's surgeon general will almost always be a physician) deputy ministers of departments, like the ministers they serve, may have zilch to just little experience in or "expertise" about the departments they run. Look at the biography of Richard Fadden the deputy minister of DND ~ external affairs, PCO, auditor general, natural resources, TB, PCO again, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, natural resources again, citizenship, CSIS and then DND. Does it look like he's in DND because of his expertise in defence issues? And trust me, he has a whole helluva lot more say in defence policy matters than does Gen Lawson.

Very senior bureaucrats do have opinions, in fact they gather, on a pretty regular basis, to discuss _their_ - not the partisan politicians' - _grand strategy_ for Canada. My sense of them and their vision is that they/it are: _socially liberal_, fiscally conservative, _cautious on matters of defence and foreign affairs_, free traders, _*strong* on law but not on *order*_, generous towards First Nations, _for increased immigration_, nervous about China ... and America, right now, and resoundingly neutral on Conservatives vs Liberals vs NDP.

This ~ a _balanced_, neutral, long term civil service _strategy_ versus a partisan, focused, short term political platform ~ is an essential feature of a Westminster style parliamentary democracy. The senior bureaucrats _serve_ the politicians but they do so from a "firm base" of policy perspectives that is, generally, better informed than any other in the country.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Aug 2013)

That's a great point; I've never had to do anything for the DM specifically so generally tend to forget they exist.


----------



## CougarKing (29 Aug 2013)

Whether Trudeau actually gets Robertson and Freeland on his team is another story altogether:

link



> *Justin Trudeau looking for another high profile catch in Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson*
> By Andy Radia
> 
> Politics Reporter
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (29 Aug 2013)

Mayor Moonbeam headed for federal politics?  I'm not entirely surprised, but I expected him to join the Greens.  Lizzy May probably didn't want him because there would be no room for both of their egos.  Trudeau may regret inviting Gregor into the Liberal Party.

Mind you, the whole reason why he went civic was the BC NDP thought he was a radical lightweight prima donna and didn't make him welcome.  I don't even think he lasted an entire term in Victoria.  Then he took over a center-left party created by former Mayor (now Liberal Senator) Larry Campbell and turned it into a radical environmentalist party.

It's also no secret that he is bank-rolled by the American Tides Foundation.

Some interesting reading on Vancouver's Mayor Moonbeam:

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/11/20/the-socialist-state-a-city-in-peril-gregor-robertson-re-elected-mayor-of-vancouver/

http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2010/12/mayor-robertson-oil-tankers-tides.html

He may scare more "blue Liberals" to the Tories!


----------



## CougarKing (19 Sep 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Andrew Leslie?  Political ambitions?
> 
> [Casablanca]
> 
> ...



Speaking of which...

Perhaps Gen. Leslie recognizes that Justin Trudeau is a defence policy lightweight and thus less likely to question/counter anything Gen.Leslie would say? 

Link



> *Former army commander newest star recruit to Trudeau's Liberal team*
> 
> OTTAWA - Justin Trudeau has begun showcasing a new Liberal team, with some surprise stars emerging.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Sep 2013)

That should be a large team.

Isn't Trudeau weak in every area other than charisma and paddling up creeks in B.C.'s interior ???


----------



## Journeyman (19 Sep 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Chrystia Freeland — as co-chair of an advisory council on the economy.


She's about as left-wing as they come. I can see her draging the Liberals into a squabble with the NDP trying to out-socialist each other over who can spend the most on the oppressed, downtrodden, latte-drinkers.

At any rate, if she's Trudeau's economic advisor kiss any defence spending goodbye.


----------



## Remius (19 Sep 2013)

Interesting tactic.  He's recruiting so called (and I believe they are) experts in various areas.  No previous real political experience (and baggage) but will likely make for a formidable team.  I'm curious to see who else will be recuited...


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> At any rate, if she's Trudeau's economic advisor kiss any defence spending goodbye.


Or maybe she & Vance/Garneau'll duke it out to see who gets the $ :evil:


----------



## a_majoor (20 Sep 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Interesting tactic.  He's recruiting so called (and I believe they are) experts in various areas.  No previous real political experience (and baggage) but will likely make for a formidable team.  I'm curious to see who else will be recuited...



The real key is can these people be welded into a team, as opposed to a team of individuals advocating for their own issues. Since the center is hollow, I suspect the "team" will become a mighty hockey game of egos getting slammed into the boards......


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Quote from: S.M.A. on 2013-09-19, 10:40:49
> 
> 
> > Chrystia Freeland — as co-chair of an advisory council on the economy.
> ...




I'm still having trouble with this one. Chrystia Freeland is a well known _social_ journalist who wrote, from a decidedly non-economic point of view, for _quality_ papers like _The Financial Times_ and _The Economist_, much as her opponent, Linda McQuiag was the resident "loony lefty" for Conrad Black's _National Post_ in the 1980s. She has two books to her credit: _Sale of the Century_, published in 2000, about Russia's  transition to capitalism and, very recently, _Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else_ which is not, at all, about economics. 

Consider what she has to say about _inequality_. Compare it with what Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has to say about the same issue. But there's a difference, agree with him or not, Prof Stiglitz focuses on why inequality is problematic: it is that it reduces _equality of opportunity_. Freeland, on the other hand, trashes companies that have gotten more and more productive because, she suggests, they have kept wages low. The fact is that wages have grown, but overall labour costs have declined because companies are working smarter ~ see the GE Canada advertisements about robots.

I think M. Trudeau has perfectly good economic advisors in John McCallum and Scott Brison, in Ms Freeland he has a polemicist and one, as Journeyman says, who represents an _extreme_ position on the economic spectrum.

I think the Liberals went badly off the mainstream *l*iberal economic course in the 1960s and '70s. I think Jean Chrétien, an instictive fiscal conservative, and Paul Martin dragged the Liberal Party back towards the centre ~ an overspending centre, to be sure, but far from Pierre Trudeau's _vision_ of money growing on trees. I think Justin Trudeau is risking all the good, hard political capital Jean Chrétien spent.


----------



## Lightguns (23 Sep 2013)

Liberals better be careful or Leslie will slap a 500 dollar spending limit on them and create whole bean counter staff to make them justify those expensive perks they give themselves.......


----------



## Haletown (23 Sep 2013)

The CPC should get Rick Hillier to run against Leslie.

Would make for a most interesting riding for debates.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The CPC should get Rick Hillier to run against Leslie.
> 
> Would make for a most interesting riding for debates.



Massive headquarters vs No headquarters?


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> She's about as left-wing as they come. I can see her draging the Liberals into a squabble with the NDP trying to out-socialist each other over who can spend the most on the oppressed, downtrodden, latte-drinkers.
> 
> At any rate, if she's Trudeau's economic advisor kiss any defence spending goodbye.
> 
> ...




More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Buzzfeed Business_, about why allowing Chrystia Freeland to jump on the Justin Trudeau _bandwagon_ was a mistake:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewzeitlin/how-chrystia-freeland-hastened-reuters-nexts-demise


> How Chrystia Freeland Hastened Reuters Next’s Demise
> *The dynamo who left Reuters to run for a seat in Canada’s parliament was both the motivating force behind the wire service’s ambitious digital revamp and one of the primary reasons it was killed, current and former employees tell BuzzFeed.*
> 
> Posted on September 25, 2013
> ...




In my, admittedly biased, _opinion_ Chrysia Freeland is a _journalist_ of the sort who do their best work in _People_ magazine.  Despite "writing incisive portraits first of Russian oligarchs, then global plutocrats," she is not an economist nor a business manager, she's a gifted writer and a minor league celebrity but she brings nothing to M. Trudeau's economic team. He needs, actually he deserves better than this.


----------



## GAP (26 Sep 2013)

I sounds like Trudeau has also drunk the Chrystia Freeland koolaid....


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2013)

I have said, several times, that I want the Liberal Party of Canada to get its act together with a good leader and a good front bench team. I'm a Conservative, and a significant contributor to that party, but I *know* that the CPC is going to get stale and corrupt and will need to be replaced for a term or two while they re-energize themselves. I cannot make myself believe that the NDP, even with a good, solid leader, is in any way ready to govern. The government in waiting needs to be the Liberal Party of Canada and it needs to have a _centrist_ position. Ms Freeland is not a _centrist_; she is a _silk stocking socialist_, rather like Pierre Trudeau and she's wrong for the LPC and wrong for Canada.


----------



## tomydoom (26 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> that the CPC is going to get stale and corrupt and will need to be replaced for a term or two while they re-energize themselves.



As a life long Tory, it saddens me to say it, but I think the CPC has allready become stale and corrupt as evidenced by the steady trickle of scandals erupting around various Senators and MPs. Certain members seem to have entered the "terminal entitlement" phase of the political life cycle. My observation is when the evidence of terminal entitlement becomes too obvious the Canadian electorate decrees a re-stacking of the chairs. We saw this oh about 10 years ago with the Liberals and just over 20 for the Mulroney PCs. Unfortunately the Manley/Martin (Blue?) Liberals do not seem to be in the drivers seat, so when the time comes for a change of government I agree that we will be left with a choice of stale, bad and worse.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2013)

tomydoom said:
			
		

> As a life long Tory, it saddens me to say it, but I think the CPC has allready become stale and corrupt as evidenced by the steady trickle of scandals erupting around various Senators and MPs. Certain members seem to have entered the "terminal entitlement" phase of the political life cycle. My observation is when the evidence of terminal entitlement becomes too obvious the Canadian electorate decrees a re-stacking of the chairs. We saw this oh about 10 years ago with the Liberals and just over 20 for the Mulroney PCs. Unfortunately the Manley/Martin (Blue?) Liberals do not seem to be in the drivers seat, so when the time comes for a change of government I agree that we will be left with a choice of stale, bad and worse.




And, as if to prove your point, _Global News_ is reporting that "Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro has been kicked out of the Conservative caucus following news Thursday he has been charged with four offences under the Canada Elections Act."

I have no brief for (or against) Mr. Del Mastro, beyond the innocent until proven guilty, but if I accept your premise that the CPC is already past it's 'best before date,' I find it very, very difficult to believe that M. Trudeau can build a useful government-in-waiting in the next 24 months ~ especially not if he is taking economic advice from the likes of Ms Freeland. Scott Brison? Yes, I can imagine him as Finance Minister, I would be comfortable with him as Finance Minister. Chrystia Freeland? No, but I would be comfortable with her as a back bench MP ... far back.


----------



## tomydoom (27 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, as if to prove your point, _Global News_ is reporting that "Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro has been kicked out of the Conservative caucus following news Thursday he has been charged with four offences under the Canada Elections Act."
> 
> I have no brief for (or against) Mr. Del Mastro, beyond the innocent until proven guilty, but if I accept your premise that the CPC is already past it's 'best before date,' I find it very, very difficult to believe that M. Trudeau can build a useful government-in-waiting in the next 24 months ~ especially not if he is taking economic advice from the likes of Ms Freeland. Scott Brison? Yes, I can imagine him as Finance Minister, I would be comfortable with him as Finance Minister. Chrystia Freeland? No, but I would be comfortable with her as a back bench MP ... far back.



I agree, I would compare the situation to the Martin era Liberals, where the LPC was clearly past it's best before date, but the Conservatives were not yet viewed as "ready for prime time".  I can forsee a the CPC reduced to a minority government in the next election and a Trudeau (god help us) minority in the election after that.  

That said I would hesitate the underestimate the unfortunate affection that many Canadians (Ontarians?) have for the name "Trudeau". I am aware that the name is an anathema in much of the country between Vancouver and Ontario, however Ontario still accounts for 14 Million people and a swing in the suburban 905 belt around Toronto would be enough to reduce the CPC to minority government.  While those suburban voters are socially conservative, they still hold great affection for PET as they credit him with letting them into the country, I say this as someone who lived in Peel Region for 10 years and the Tories may find the current support that they enjoy in those ridings is a mile wide and an inch deep.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2013)

And the saga of Liberal Party of Canada financial mismanagement continues from Dion through Ignatieff to Trudeau according to this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Coyne+owes+after+failed+Liberal+leadership/9038515/story.html


> Coyne owes $61,000 after failed Liberal leadership bid
> 
> BY GLEN MCGREGOR, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




The Liberal party of Canada knew, going in, that the $75,000 entry fee would be a problem for most leadership contenders but it, the Party, is so desperate for money that it imposed the fee anyway.

The simple fact is that too few Canadians give a damn* about the Liberal Party ~ not enough, anyway to support it financially.

_____
* A damn being defined as caring enough to spend even $10.00 for a party membership.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2013)

Don't worry Edward. Elections Canada will ignore the statutory limits for repayment, fail to impose fines or sanctions and allow Liberal leadership candidates to walk away from their debts/illegal campaign contributions. 

There is already plenty of precedent for that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2013)

And it gets worse; the _National Post_ reports that "Financial reports published by Elections Canada on Tuesday show Liberal MP and unsuccessful leadership contender Marc Garneau was left with $45,000 in unpaid loans and another $54,100 in unpaid bills owed to two consulting companies ... [and] two long-shot candidates also ran up big debts: Deborah Coyne’s campaign still had $61,000 in unpaid loans outstanding and while Karen McCrimmon’s campaign reported owing $47,000."

As I understand it (and I'd be very happy to be corrected) the _Elections Act_ doesn't allow _Elections Canada_ to punish either the candidates or the Liberal Party ~ which is where any punishment should fall ~ for this sort of nonsense.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2013)

I'm not sure why EC thinks the sanctions are "unenforceable", since *the law requires candidates to repay their debts within 18 months of their election includes penalties of $1,000 and up to three months in jail*, but here are the gory details. It will be interesting to see the headlines in Oct 2014:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Failed+Liberal+leadership+candidates+left+once+again+with+large+unpaid+campaign+loans/9038515/story.html



> *Failed Liberal leadership candidates left once again with large unpaid campaign loans*
> 
> OTTAWA — The Liberal Party appears headed for a repeat of the 2006 fiasco over unpaid leadership campaign loans, with three candidates in this year’s race reporting large debts they have been unable to pay off.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Oct 2013)

They should be prohibited from running for a seat until they repay their debts. Senators in the same situation should be barred from the upper chamber until they clear their debts.

Not like there's any chance of that happening.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2013)

The blogger did not leave the link to the actual interview, but the transcript answers a lot of questions about the LPC:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/liberal-mp-leblanc-lets-slip-why-trudeau-is-so-unprepared/



> *Liberal MP LeBlanc lets slip why Trudeau is so unprepared*
> December 9, 2013 — BC Blue
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2014)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen['i], Andrew Coyne argues that Justin Trudeau has secured his hold on the Liberal Party of Canada in a way that no one has done since ... Chrétien? Trudeau (père)? or even St Laurent?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Justin+Trudeau+continues+grow+leadership+role/9541687/story.html







Justin Trudeau learning to carry mantle of leadership

BY ANDREW COYNE, POSTMEDIA NEWS

FEBRUARY 23, 2014

Le parti, c’est lui.

How total is Justin Trudeau’s control of the Liberal party after this convention? So total that, the leader having brutally kicked the party’s senators out of caucus, suddenly, unilaterally and in explicit contravention of the party’s constitution, the party voted, in a “sense of the convention” resolution, to deem it constitutional, and to direct that the constitution be amended to make it legal.

So total that speaker after speaker at the convention, several with vastly greater life accomplishments, took the podium to praise the leader, not merely with the usual “next prime minister of Canada” boilerplate, but in terms faintly suggestive of a religious cult. So total that, though he had already left the convention — ducking out the back door to avoid reporters — delegates gave him a rousing standing ovation anyway, just for practice.

This isn’t just his party. He is the party, and with good reason. He owes them nothing; they owe him everything. It isn’t just a matter of having won the leadership with 80 per cent of the vote, most of whom have long since vanished. (Of nearly 300,000 “members and supporters” signed up during the race, and 140,000 who registered to vote, just 70,000 paid members remain.) And it isn’t just a consequence of the party’s current standing atop the polls, or its recent success in fundraising, or the raft of star candidates it has attracted, almost certainly on the strength of his dynastic appeal.

It is because he continues to grow in the role. The Trudeau who spoke to the convention Saturday afternoon was a different person than even the Trudeau of last spring’s leadership race. Gone was the theatrical shake of the head, the exaggerated pauses for effect; so, too, the uncertain Question Period performer was for the moment also a memory. In its place was a poised, relaxed, and engaging speaker, if not yet prime ministerial in tone and temper than certainly more identifiably leader-like. (A rival party adviser sniffed: “they’ve finally got his hair right, at least.”)

The speech itself was very strong, subtly weaving together several related arguments around the theme of “justice as fairness.” It was not deep but it was precise: he has been honing his indictment of the Harper government, and though of course it was largely written for him it was well within his range. It felt and sounded like something he would say, and believe, and to quote the old Henry Kissinger line, it had the added advantage of being true.

The negative, attack-dog politics of the Harper government (the argument was also addressed at times to Tom  Mulcair’s New Democrats, but it seemed tacked on) was here cast not as a complaint (see: Michael Ignatieff) but as a distraction: rather than solving your problems, he told his notional audience of “middle class” Canadians, they are exploiting them. It was a practical, as much as a moral argument. “Anger might be a good political strategy,” he said, “but it makes for lousy government.”

It’s a neat trick, attacking your opponent for his negativity without yourself sounding negative: hence the low-key, almost rueful tone of the speech, the “more in sorrow than in anger” appeal to disaffected Tories who wonder where the Stephen Harper who, “as a young idealistic reformer, was a principled man,” has gone. If the speech was itself devoid of specific solutions, it was likewise phrased with centrists in mind, stressing equality of opportunity rather than outcomes while acknowledging that “governments can’t do everything.”

If so, someone neglected to tell his party. If the party seemed unusually of one mind — only two resolutions failed, while most passed without debate — it may have been because, with rare exceptions, they were not asked to make any choices. Whatever your pet cause, whatever use for public funds you could imagine, the party was for it. While there were some bold proposals in the mix — a parliamentary reform package, with the promise of a serious look at proportional representation; a guaranteed annual income; legalized assisted suicide — there was enough new spending to kill us all. If the Trudeau speech was intended to persuade centre-right voters to cross over, the Trudeau party was doing its best to scare them away.

No matter, perhaps. The whole thing was mostly for show: the platform will be whatever the leader says it is. But it is a delicate balance Trudeau and his advisers are attempting. The new emphasis on spending suggests they believe they have split off as many Conservative voters as they are going to, and are now taking aim at the NDP. There may be merit in this — while Ignatieff was never going to lure voters away from Jack Layton,  Trudeau’s chances would seem rather better against Mulcair — but it’s not a given that they can hold onto those disaffected conservatives.

For now, however, the task was merely to press his stamp upon the party. The speech wasn’t likely to find many television viewers on an Olympic Saturday afternoon, but it wasn’t really aimed at them: it was to showcase his new-found mastery to, and of, the party. The party, for its part, seems only too happy in his agreeably totalitarian grip. If there were none of the old internal enmities that enlivened past Liberal conventions, it is because the rival camps have been mostly obliterated. If there were few references to party history, or to any party leader since Trudeau the elder, it is because this is less the Liberal party than it is the Trudeau party. It believes what he believes. It wants what he wants.

The professional cadres have been sent out to work in the fields. The senators are seated in self-criticism circles. It is the Year Trudeau.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Click to expand...



I need to repeat: I wish the Liberal Party well ~ not *too* well, I am a Tory, after all ~ because I know we need them as a government in waiting because, inevitably, the Conservatives will grow old, fat, corrupt and lazy in government. Some will argue that's already happened.

But I see dangers in the way the Liberals have embraced M. Trudeau, by which I mean the way they have embraced the unknown.
_


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Feb 2014)

It's telling that he break a party "law", and then the law be changed after the fact. This isn't leadership; this is an absolute monarchy.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Feb 2014)

Obamaism.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Feb 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> It's telling that he break a party "law", and then the law be changed after the fact. This isn't leadership; this is an absolute monarchy.



You mean like Comrade Greg in Manitoba?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Feb 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> It's telling that he break a party "law", and then the law be changed after the fact.



International Talk Like a Pirate Day 2014 is Friday, September 19 not Monday, 24 February


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Feb 2014)

Some place between "Man on a White Horse" and "Rule of the Technocrats".......

_Democratie_ has yet to be learnt.


----------



## BorisK (24 Feb 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Obamaism.


Exactly like it.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2014)

All the CPC and NDP really have to do is quietly arrange for more speaking engagements by the Young Dauphin and then sit back, the pin is already pulled on that grenade and the safety lever will fly off all on its own:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-under-fire-for-ukraine-joke-1.2549392



> *Justin Trudeau under fire for Ukraine joke*
> Liberal leader joked Russians already in bad mood over Olympic hockey loss
> By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Feb 24, 2014 1:50 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 24, 2014 6:48 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Feb 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But I see dangers in the way the Liberals have embraced M. Trudeau, by which I mean the way they have embraced the unknown.



It would seem that they have continued the practice of deifying their leader... which leads to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64KlhfIN5qY


Never pass up an opportunity for a Python reference.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Feb 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> All the CPC and NDP really have to do is quietly arrange for more speaking engagements by the Young Dauphin and then sit back, the pin is already pulled on that grenade and the safety lever will fly off all on its own:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-under-fire-for-ukraine-joke-1.2549392



I just saw the clip on the National. 9erD had to stop me from trying to punch him in the face... on our TV  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (26 Feb 2014)

Damage control. The Young Dauphin apologizes for his remarks about the situation in the Ukraine:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/25/justin-trudeau-apologizes-after-drawing-fire-for-silly-olympic-hockey-ukraine-joke/



> *Justin Trudeau apologizes after drawing fire for ‘silly’ Olympic hockey-Ukraine joke*
> Canadian Press and Postmedia News | February 25, 2014 | Last Updated: Feb 25 5:00 PM ET
> 
> Justin Trudeau sat down Sunday with Tout le monde en parle, a Radio-Canada show, to talk politics to the backdrop of a live studio audience.
> ...



Quite frankly, there is already more than enough on record to demonstrate that he does not have the "ntellectual strength to lead a party and lead the country.", and both the Conservatives and the NDP can craft plenty of material from it. Between now and 2015, I think the game plan will be to try to put the Young Dauphin in a situation where he can be asked a tough question outside of a controlled environment and let him speak. True, the legacy media will probably not follow up, but there are now legions of social media outlets that will do the job, and judging from what happened here politicians will have to react to social media even if the fawning legacy media is willing to give it a pass.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2014)

John Fewings, in the _Ottawa Citizen_, examines the Liberal Party of Canada's _communication strategy_:





Source: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_


----------



## GAP (26 Feb 2014)

Personally, I would rather they just let him babble on.....rather than correcting him each time he flops....come election time it would be wonderful to have a plate full of Trudeau witticisms ......


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2014)

It _seems_, to me, that M. Trudeau is a genuinely "nice" and "likable" young man. He is, most assuredly, *not* Stephen Harper, a politician Canadians, broadly and generally, actively dislike. Being "nice," and being "liked" _may_ be enough, in the absence of attractive Conservative policies, to make him prime minister.

Now, I expect the CPC to have policies ready for the 2015 election. I anticipate that they will be _attractive_ to most Canadians ... which means that I will, almost certainly, be disappointed, again.

The issue, for me, is: which of the two _centrist_ to _right of centre_ parties can produce the least objectionable policies?

The Liberal Party has a long way to go to earn my trust again. I believe, strongly, that Pierre Trudeau led the LPC far too far off the _centrist_ track and into _statism_ and _socialism_, both of which I regard as destructive to the national commonwealth and to liberal democracy. Unless and until a Liberal leader renounces _Trudeauism_ (s)he, and his or her party are unlikely to regain my trust. (It is interesting to note that in the run-up to the LPC leadership convention and on a couple of important policy issues M. Trudeau fairly explicitly renounced his father's ideas.)


----------



## pbi (26 Feb 2014)

Regardless of what you might think of Trudeau the Elder, he had far more gravitas and statesmanship in his little finger than the Younger has in his entire body. It's no excuse top say "he's still young and inexperienced": the Game is already on, and he's in it.

I could, perhaps, see myself voting Liberal at some point, maybe. But not with this guy at the helm. He has to learn to engage brain before starting mouth, or he will be eaten for breakfast.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> .....voting Liberal at some point, maybe. But not with this guy at the helm.


I can only guess that he'd be a snappier dancer if he were to pirouette behind the Queen.



Google it kids; it's a reference that predates Bieber's birth or Harry Potter being written.


----------



## pbi (27 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I can only guess that he'd be a snappier dancer if he were to pirouette behind the Queen.
> 
> 
> 
> Google it kids; it's a reference that predates Bieber's birth or Harry Potter being written.



I didn't say "a lot of gravitas". I said "far more".


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Feb 2014)

Thing headed south for the LPC when John Manley stated that he would not seek party leadership...
:not-again:

Mr. Campbell, you and others will likely have a long time to wait for a worthy contender to provide a true check and balance to the CPC.





_*edited for spelling*_


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Thing headed south for the LPC when John Manley stated that he would not seek party leadership...
> :not-again:
> 
> Mr. Campbell, you and others will likely have a long time to wait for a worthy contended to provide a true check and balance to the CPC.




I agree with you on both counts. John Manley might be the best PM we never had. But, in my _opinion_ the LPC headed south in the mid 1960s when Lester Pearson, an otherwise admirable man, made two blunders:

     1. He accepted, even embraced the Tom Kent/Kingston 1960 "lurch to the left" which was, and remains, unaffordable. It was, and still is, the worst sort of _pandering_ politics; and

     2. To regain his party's position in Québec he recruited the so called "three wise men:" Jean Marchand, Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau who, collectively, dragged the LPC from the centre to the left of centre area of the political spectrum.

The Liberals have never been able to drag themselves back to the centre: too much pandering to many _special interests_ has cemented the _Grits_ in the wrong economic space.

I continue to support the CPC, especially financially, for two reasons:

     1. I believe in political _engagement_ ~ BUT *not for serving CF members*;

     2. I think the CPC is, at the policy level, far less dangerous than either the LPC or the NDP.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2014)

I'm seeing, as Justin Trudeau progresses, through the recent months an interesting trend.  Keep in mind I have no way of verifying this but...

His blunders and verbal strokes seem to somehow be getting worse even though he's presented himself quite well recently.  

I'm wondering, how long it will take before his off hand ill thought comments will start to take a toll.  For now he seems to be teflon. Nothing seems to stick.

Could it be that no one really cares about any of that or that they are too enamoured with him to really be bothered.  Or could it be that he (or rather his team) is just good at damage control?

Take his latest gaff.  By all accounts that was a dumb thing to say.  Reaction was viral.  No response from Trudeau.  In fact, he is conspicuously absent from QP.  Marc Garneau takes point (something he's been doing a lot lately) and acts as the Liberal strong man.  Trudeau waits a bit then issues a statement indicating his apology to Ukrainians and regret over what he said.  Problem seems to go away.

If it is by accident, then he's the luckiest politician out there.  If it is by design, the Liberals may be developping a very effective political machine.  Perhaps they have to, given that they will have to weather Justin Trudeau's ill thought comments.  It certainly won't be the last one.

I'll bet that if the Liberals do take power that Marc Garneau will be the Deputy PM.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Feb 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'll bet that if the Liberals do take power that Marc Garneau will be the Deputy PM.



For that to happen Trudeau will have to reverse his edict that Senators are no longer part of the Liberal caucus.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> For that to happen Trudeau will have to reverse his edict that Senators are no longer part of the Liberal caucus.


 ???
Marc Garneau is the MP for Westmount—Ville-Marie; he's not in the Senate.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> For that to happen Trudeau will have to reverse his edict that Senators are no longer part of the Liberal caucus.



I am a little confused as to why that would need to happen.  Perhaps you thought he was a Senator and not an MP?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree with you on both counts. John Manley might be the best PM we never had. But, in my _opinion_ the LPC headed south in the mid 1960s when Lester Pearson, an otherwise admirable man, made two blunders:
> 
> 1. He accepted, even embraced the Tom Kent/Kingston 1960 "lurch to the left" which was, and remains, unaffordable. It was, and still is, the worst sort of _pandering_ politics; and
> 
> ...




I agree with Marc Davis here.

None of us, as far as I can see, _likes_ the CPC, not unreservedly. Some of us like them less and less with each passing day and policy action.

But only a tiny handful of us bother to try to change those policies. Those of us who do try _joined_ the party.

If you don't like the CPC but think, as I do, that it is less bad than any of the others then join it and press for change.

If you don't like the CPC but find the LPC or, heaven forbid, the NDP to be the better choice then join one or the other of them and press for change to suit your views.

But, if you are anything other than a serving member, sitting in the bush and throwing sh!t is a cop out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree with Marc Davis here.
> 
> None of us, as far as I can see, _likes_ the CPC, not unreservedly. Some of us like them less and less with each passing day and policy action.
> 
> ...



I am a dues paying member of the CPC.

I have written many letters and, mostly, have received nothing but "Thanks for you correspondence of....blah, blah, blah."

Currently I don't have time to hobnob with MPs or attend party rallies and conventions, but I do support my local candidate and donate the maximum allowable.

Perhaps when I retire, I'll take time from jetting around the world, attend these rallies and conventions, hobnob with the party elite and harangue people that their opinion doesn't count unless they pay to play.

Thanks, I now have something to look forward to.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Feb 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I am a little confused as to why that would need to happen.  Perhaps you thought he was a Senator and not an MP?



My mistake. That's what I get for posting after my 12hr night shift.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> She's about as left-wing as they come. I can see her draging the Liberals into a squabble with the NDP trying to out-socialist each other over who can spend the most on the oppressed, downtrodden, latte-drinkers.
> 
> At any rate, if she's Trudeau's economic advisor kiss any defence spending goodbye.
> 
> ...




Well, well, well, wasn't Chrystia Freeland a brilliant choice to be a _star_ candidate and member of the leaders _inner circle_? She how well she has _united_ the Liberal Party of Canada in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-blocks-candidacy-of-ex-mps-wife-over-bullying-complaints/article17478438/#dashboard/follows/


> Trudeau blocks candidacy of ex-MP’s wife over bullying complaints
> 
> JOAN BRYDEN
> The Canadian Press
> ...



Tony Ianno was, still is, I imagine, on the _right_ wing of the Liberal Party. He was a Paul Martin loyalist, a _Manley Liberal_ in many respects. He is a representative of a large minority within that party, I think.

Ms Freeland is from a far, far different political world.

The Liberal party of Canada has not been united since the mid 1960s. The first big split was Trudeau/Turner, then Turner/Chrétien, then Chrétien/Martin. It is not clear, to me, where on the left-right spectrum M Trudeau stands but I am pretty sure that Ms Freeland is a _silk stocking socialist_ who is, probably, to the left of Jean Chrétien and very close to Pierre Trudeau ~ which is to say in economic _la la land_.

I think M. Trudeau's preemptive strike will create more problems that it solves.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Mar 2014)

> His team countered that opening up nominations doesn’t mean the leader can’t promote his preferred winners, as long as the contests are run fairly.



  Hunh?  ???


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2014)

> > His team countered that opening up nominations doesn’t mean the leader can’t promote his preferred winners, as long as the contests are run fairly.
> 
> 
> 
> Hunh?  ???



“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, well, well, wasn't Chrystia Freeland a brilliant choice to be a _star_ candidate and member of the leaders _inner circle_? She how well she has _united_ the Liberal Party of Canada in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-blocks-candidacy-of-ex-mps-wife-over-bullying-complaints/article17478438/#dashboard/follows/
> Tony Ianno was, still is, I imagine, on the _right_ wing of the Liberal Party. He was a Paul Martin loyalist, a _Manley Liberal_ in many respects. He is a representative of a large minority within that party, I think.
> ...




And it appears, according to this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_, the problems are just starting:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/zach-paikin-criticizes-justin-trudeau-as-he-ends-liberal-nomination-bid-1.2576147


> Zach Paikin criticizes Justin Trudeau as he ends Liberal nomination bid
> *Trudeau broke open nomination promise, Paikin says in ending bid to run for Liberals*
> By Laura Payton, CBC News
> 
> ...




"Oh, what a tangled web we weave," and all that.

I don't think M. Trudeau set out to deceive us when he made his open nominations promise. I think he just deceived himself.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2014)

Reproduced, without further (written) comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-trudeau-autobiography-already-in-this-age-doesnt-matter/article17724818/#dashboard/follows/


> A Trudeau autobiography already? In this, age doesn’t matter
> 
> ELIZABETH RENZETTI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2014)

In any serious party, the fact that the leader is unable to explain what is "middle class" (despite making a stand on helping the "middle class" and being asked three separate times by three separate reporters), expresses admiration for the Chinese communist system of government and makes really inappropriate remarks about the Russian invasion of Ukraine (to name the most recent series of gaffes) should be enough to give everyone pause.

Do the Liberals even have anyone on the bench who might be able to step in? Or for that matter, if the Young Dauphin isn't able to pull out of third place in the next general election (especially if it turns into a cage match in Quebec), who might be waiting in the wings to replace him?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2014)

It's only one poll, but CROP is pretty authoritative in Quebec ... _La Press_ reports that "Le constat le plus troublant pour le Parti libéral est que ses appuis chez les électeurs francophones fondent comme neige au soleil." (The most disturbing finding for the Liberal Party is that its support among francophone voters is melting like snow in the sun.) The Liberals are polling at only 24% amongst French speakers, well below the NDP at 38%. That (38%) is below the 42.9% of the vote the NDP got in 2011 and the Liberals are well up from the 14.2% that they got in QC in 2011 but it appears to indicate that M. Trudeau's massive popularity in English Canada doesn't cross the linguistic divide. Given that his route to power must (my guesstimate) include displacing Thomas Mulcair's NDP in Quebec, this poll is bad news.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2014)

Former Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis was not everyone's idea of the modern, sophisticated, 21st century professional politician, but he served long and, in his own way, loyally, and now he is out in public _dissing_ Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/long-time-mp-karygiannis-this-is-not-the-same-liberal-party-we-knew/article18308492/#dashboard/follows/?click=drive


> Long-time MP Karygiannis: ‘This is not the same Liberal Party we knew’
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I think there are lessons in the Liberals' (and the Conservatives' and NDP's) _culture_ wars. They are not new: the Liberals have been riven with dissent since the mid 1960s when the party accepted the output of the Kingston Conference (1960) and lurched left. The Conservatives had them between the small town Ontario Conservatives of George Drew and the prairie populists behind John Deifenbaker and then, indeed now, between the old _Progressive Conservatives_ and the _Reform Conservatives_. It was not easy for Jack Layton and, now, Thomas Mulcair to drag the NDP's _loony lefties_ towards (no all the way to) the political centre.

I think M. Trudeau is making a fundamental error in thinking that his own _celebrity_ equals permanent *political* popularity and I think he has decided that _celebrity_ candidates like Chrystia Freeland and Andrew Leslie have some value because of their celebrity status. Mr Karygiannis is sending an important message: stick close to the grass-roots, look after the communities (remember, the very origins of our democracy are community based ~ the French title of our House of Commons, _Chambre des communes_, is, actually, more accurate, it is a house that represents the people in their communities) and represent the _ordinary_ people, which is something the NDP's David Lewis understood, way back when, and  which Conservative Minister Jason Kenney understands, today.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2014)

And, in a column that is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, Michael Den Tandt, who is not a Conservative shill by any stretch of the imagination, wonders if the shine is off M. Trudeau:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Justin+Trudeau+honeymoon+over/9796337/story.html


> Is Justin Trudeau’s honeymoon over?
> 
> BY MICHAEL DEN TANDT, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> 
> ...




_Quibble_: I guess (hope) the editors missed the second line of the opening sentence:

          _"I’ll so offend to make offence a skill, 
           Redeeming time when men think least I will."_
                               Henry IV, Part 1, Act I, Scene II

Anyway, Shakespeare did define what M. Trudeau needs to do. He has been "unscripted" but now he needs to redeem himself by showing us, in the next 18 months, something of substance, someone worth voting *for*.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 May 2014)

ERC: 


> I think M. Trudeau is making a fundamental error in thinking that his own celebrity equals permanent political popularity....



It worked for a community organizer. "We are the Ones We've Been Waiting For"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=molWTfv8TYw


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2014)

Part 1 of 2

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is a useful exploration of the relationship between Justin Trudeau and his political _guru_ Gerald Butts:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Meet+Justin+Trudeau+most+trusted+adviser/9846629/story.html


> Meet Justin Trudeau's most trusted adviser
> 
> BY LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...



End of Part 1 of 2


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2014)

Part 2 of 2



> *Political polishing*
> 
> Trudeau and Butts went in different directions after McGill. While everyone had expected Trudeau, with his rock-star glamour and high-profile family name, to immediately jump into politics, he instead left for Vancouver to teach.
> 
> ...





In some ways the Trudeau/Butts _synergy_ reminds me of that between his father, Pierre Trudeau, and Ivan Head, his foreign policy advisor. Trudeau _père_ had no idea about foreign policy. Pierre Trudeau was, using Isaiah Berlin's notion, a _hedgehog_, a man with one, big, fixed idea - he was a fervent anti-nationalist - as opposed to being a _fox_, a man with many, many different ideas. Ivan Head was the foreign policy _fox_; I disagreed, firmly, with almost everything Head said and wrote but Pierre Trudeau followed his formula without any visible deviation. But, I accept that Justin Trudeau is more of a _fox_ than he is a _hedgehog_. What's evident, I think, is that while M. Trudeau may have many ideas few, if any, are 'formed.' For that, for political _gravitas_ he needs Gerald Butts.


----------



## CougarKing (2 Aug 2014)

So much for the Trudeau touch. 

Canadian Press



> Updated: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:24:22 GMT | By The Canadian Press, cbc.ca
> *Liberal fundraising slides to ‘scary’ numbers, says party official*
> 
> The federal Liberal Party appears to have lost some of its fundraising momentum while the New Democrats are gaining ground.
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (2 Aug 2014)

So, less than a 4% drop between a leadership conference when everyone's hyped up and a year later when nothing is going on and it's a "crisis"?

The Tories lost 86% more funding year over year ($186K less vs $100K less for the Liberals); it's all in how you spin the numbers.


----------



## ballz (2 Aug 2014)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> So much for the Trudeau touch.
> 
> Canadian Press



Sounds like the fundraising director is calling these numbers "scary" to encourage more donations. If they actually were hurting for donations, they would probably try and keep it on the down low to achieve the right public perception and just boost fundraising efforts under the radar. :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## observor 69 (2 Aug 2014)

This ought to help:

Power brokers planning to fete Trudeau on Conservative turf

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/gin-and-jaguar-set-to-fete-trudeau-on-former-tory-turf/article19787702/


----------



## CougarKing (6 Aug 2014)

Another thing he did before that would come back to bite Justin in the a**...

CBC via MSN News



> Updated: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:55:09 GMT | By CBC News, cbc.ca
> 
> *Justin Trudeau's mosque visit draws fire from Steven Blaney*
> 
> ...


----------



## Transporter (6 Aug 2014)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Another thing he did before that would come back to bite Justin in the a**...
> 
> CBC via MSN News



In my mind, this article does more to make Steven Blaney look like a whiny a** than it does to impugn Justin Trudeau's judgement.


----------



## CBH99 (7 Aug 2014)

It's too bad that Raj Sherman isn't involved with the liberals at the federal level.   He took on corruption and malpractice head on - got dragged through the mud for it - but came out of it with his integrity strong, and the public much better off for it.  A case where whistleblowing was absolutely the right thing to do.  

At the federal level, he would be a much more attractive and solid choice for voters (over Trudeau).   Just my    :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2014)

Well, someone (Malcolm Mayes in the _Edmonton Journal) agrees with me:




_


----------



## CougarKing (12 Oct 2014)

The "dauphin" had a bad week especially since his "whip out" phallic gaffe earlier last week:  :facepalm:

Yahoo News/Andy Radia column



> *Conservative Party, Jason Kenney pounce on Justin Trudeau's terrible week via social media*
> By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – Fri, 10 Oct, 2014
> 
> Trudeau has had a lousy week — a lousy month even — and the Conservative Party is doing its best to make sure you know that.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (19 Oct 2014)

Let's see if he will regret these remarks next year...

Canadian Press



> *Trudeau suggests Harper's planned tax cuts could be reversed by Liberal gov't*
> The Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA - Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is signalling the tax cuts promised by the Conservative government could lead to a political showdown ahead of the 2015 federal election.
> ...


----------



## ballz (19 Oct 2014)

What I really want to see is *more* of my money spent on a failing, direction-deprived education system. [/sarcasm]


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Oct 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> What I really want to see is *more* of my money spent on a failing, direction-deprived education system. [/sarcasm]



Which is not even a Federal responsibility in Canada...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Which is not even a Federal responsibility in Canada...



Unless, you go to Hogwart's School of Wizardry and Wonders  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Oct 2014)

Precisely my point....


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2014)

I think he missed the point about Canada's middle.class being strong.  And the way to make it even stronger would be to reduce the tax burden on it, not increase it.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2014)

The correct response to strengthening the middle class (a demographic the Young Dauphin cannot actually define, BTW) is to reduce the tax burden on the average family of four from @ 41% of their income to 30%. A ten percent reduction in taxes and fees that consume more of Canadian's incomes than food, shelter and transportation would do a lot to strengthen the middle class (indeed it would probably expand the middle class as people on the lower end [$40,000/year] would be able to move up, and people earning less would also be albe to raise their standards of living).


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2014)

Cutting taxes ~ by shrinking government, is good public policy, but, very often, not very popular with the voters. Government is, broadly, in the _service_ business and many, many of the services it provides are of direct, measurable, visible benefit to individual voters. Cutting the people who provide those service, even if the service itself is unaffected, or cutting a service is fraught with political risk.

There is a good, solid economic argument for borrowing (issuing long term bonds) to pay for the maintenance or expansion of infrastructure which has a 'service life' that is equal to or greater than the term of the bond. (A similar, but less economically sound argument can be made for borrowing to buy e.g. fleets of expensive aircraft, vehicles or warships which also have long service lives.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2014)

We don't borrow for infrastructure.  We borrow to pay handouts.  All of the spending on defence, justice, and infrastructure comes out of the balanced part of the operating balance.

Money is fungible, even when earmarked for a particular outlay.  Borrowing "for infrastructure" merely dresses it up to ease the "infrastructure" pressure point and permit untrammeled spending elsewhere.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2014)

I _think_ what's being proposed, by e.g. David Dodge and others, is that the _balanced_ budget should be used to fund current _operations_, which includes e.g. salaries and pensions and fuel for cars, ships and aircraft and, and, and ... But long term projects, by definition _works and buildings_ but _*maybe*_ also ships and airplanes, should always be funded by issuing bonds that are repayable before the end of the expected service life of the long term project. The idea, as I understand it, is that current spending should be reduced to the required minimum ~ a highly _*political*_ number, to be sure ~ and taxes, including corporate taxes, should be reduced accordingly to stimulate both consumer spending and business expansion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2014)

Sounds like a division into what one might call "on-budget" and "off-budget".  But then eventually someone decides to roll a large chunk of "off-budget" into "on-budget" shortly before the reason for the chunk is slated to go away so that the chunk increases the "baseline".


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Oct 2014)

I have to agree with Edward here. I think raising money from bonds is a good idea with lots of precedent. That being said, if they're floated on the bond market we run the risk of devaluation when rates fall. On the other hand, the government can declare a substantive interest rate and issue the bonds as a package deal. I think that either way, one borrows from Canadians, and not from banks or the IMF. While the bond liabilities will show up as a form of debt, they'll be sovereign debt and not subject to the whims of the international banking community or foreign governments.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Edward here. I think raising money from bonds is a good idea with lots of precedent. That being said, if they're floated on the bond market we run the risk of devaluation when rates fall. On the other hand, the government can declare a substantive interest rate and issue the bonds as a package deal. I think that either way, one borrows from Canadians, and not from banks or the IMF. While the bond liabilities will show up as a form of debt, they'll be sovereign debt and not subject to the whims of the international banking community or foreign governments.




Wait! _*Wait! *_Don't push me where I don't want to go ... I keep saying two things:

     1. This notion ~ using long term bonds (debt) to fund long term infrastructure projects ~ makes some, good economic sense; and

     2. It is an notion proposed by some pretty smart people.

I'm of two minds ... as is so often the case.

I see the economic attraction if, *Big IF*, it is done by a very, very fiscally prudent government which has, already_ slashed _ programme spending, especially social transfers, and has cut corporate and personal taxes and maintained balanced budgets for a sustained period ... i.e. it cannot happen in nCanada as long as 99% of Canadians are allowed to vote.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Wait! _*Wait! *_Don't push me where I don't want to go ... I keep saying two things:
> 
> 1. This notion ~ using long term bonds (debt) to fund long term infrastructure projects ~ makes some, good economic sense; and
> 
> ...



Perhaps I overstated your enthusiasm, apologies.

Maybe we should try this at the municipal level first and see how it goes? I should drop a bug in the ear of Wpg's new mayor.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2014)

Actually, while I see the _logic_ in financing infrastructure by bonds, even when one has a budget surplus, I also think we should learn more about PPP: Public Private Partnerships. These are, actually, nearly as old a public works, themselves. Toll roads and canals, for example, were the norm in ancient, medieval and early moderns eras. The 'state' cleared the land or river and an entrepreneur built, operated and maintained the canal or road ... and collected fees for it.

(_Caveat lector_: my younger son, a vice president at _Price Waterhouse Coopers_ does this stuff for a living and he has suggested to me that business, in general, is poor at evaluating PPPs and government is far, far worse.)

There are an awful lot of _things_ that governments build, operate or do (in the sense of providing services) that might be useful public goods but which need not be built, operated or done by the government, itself. (It may have changed by now, but when I was last in japan for any length of time I noticed that the subways in major cities are privately owned and operated; the government _regulates_ them ~ routes, fares, connections, etc ~ but each is, essentially, a private, albeit regulated, monopoly ... rather like out telcomm system was when I was young.)


----------



## CougarKing (10 Mar 2015)

Justin Trudeau...PM Trudeau Sr.'s gift to the Liberals who keeps on giving. :

Yahoo News-Canada Politics column



> *Trudeau's Toronto speech 'obscene,' says multiculturalism minister Kenney*
> 
> Defence and multiculturalism minister Jason Kenney is hitting back at Justin Trudeau after the Liberal party leader accused the Conservative government of stoking fear and prejudice against Muslim Canadians.
> 
> ...


----------



## cryco (10 Mar 2015)

It was a good speech, however much I dislike him, that was unfortunately marred by some rather poor comparisons. 
Too bad.
ps I still don't like his dramatic talk. Almost like a much smoother William Shatner.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Apr 2015)

Better than decent odds at becoming PM? Seriously?  : 

Maclean's



> *Justin Trudeau quietly suggests we change everything*
> Justin Trudeau invites questions, but finds only Liberals willing to quiz him
> Maclean's
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Apr 2015)

So he threw a party and no one really showed up?  While he and his handlers may have seen this as something they could trumpet about evil Mr. Harper and 'should-have-been-me-not-him' Mr. Mulcair not giving a fig about Canadians, he and his team may have overlooked the fact that this could also demonstrate that he has not even enough gravitas to bring any of his opponents out for even a half-made effort to debate/discuss his issue.  Sounds like a crappy convention salesman who can't even get anyone to stop at his booth.  The only way he could have made it any worse was to schedule his meeting two days later, on Thursday, just before the Easter weekend.   :

:2c:
G2G


----------



## ballz (5 Apr 2015)

I think the opposition parties just played good politics on this. Your average sucker (and I'm in this category) would have went and made a spectacle of this, and allowed Mr. Trudeau more limelight than he deserves. Even showing up and schooling Mr. Trudeau would still have worked out more to Mr. Trudeau's benefit than anyone else's.

The Tories, full of saavy, veteran politicians, and led by the best _player_ in Ottawa, and the NDP, led by probably the strongest politician in Ottawa (second to PM Harper in gamesmanship, but not much else), simply ignored him. :ignore: Nothing else could be so devastating...


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Apr 2015)

:nod: Exactly what I was thinking. Well played by the veterans. Another example of junior' slack of experience as well as what is appearing to be less and less experience from the back room string pullers.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Apr 2015)

Mister Trudeau, being a Roman Catholic in name only (CINO), probably was unaware that Thursday was Maundy Thursday.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Apr 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Roman Catholic in name only (CINO)


A.k.a. NARC (non-active Roman Catholic)


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Apr 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A.k.a. NARC (non-active Roman Catholic)


Oh, he's active,but it's only for appearances.  

But love that term.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Mister Trudeau, being a Roman Catholic in name only (CINO), probably was unaware that Thursday was Maundy Thursday.



Although, for some reason, I doubt many of the missing liberals were in church for the event, or even celebrating it.

I think most of the MPs, from all sides, just shrugged and said to themselves "I'm not blowing off my holiday for this useless shit" or perhaps words to that effect. :bunny:


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Apr 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Although, for some reason, I doubt many of the missing liberals were in church for the event, or even celebrating it.
> 
> I think most of the MPs, from all sides, just shrugged and said to themselves "I'm not blowing off my holiday for this useless shit" or perhaps words to that effect. :bunny:



You're quite right about all that.  Especially the bunny ears


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2015)

Wow, Elizabeth May is too whack to handle:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/thursdays-reasons-to-fear-for-humanity-you-can-love-justin-or-hate-him-or-maybe-both-at-once



> Thursday’s reasons to fear for humanity: You can love Justin or hate him, or maybe both at once
> Kelly McParland | April 9, 2015 | Last Updated: Apr 9 9:41 AM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> 
> ...



Rest of the articles on the link are pretty funny as well (especially the one about the Racoons)


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Wow, Elizabeth May is too whack to handle:



Yes indeedy.  She is too whack to handle.  I get a kick out of her FB ads (God I hate FB for spamming ads on us.) for the Green Party. 

The question is easy to answer.

Yes! She is simple.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Apr 2015)

"Women's issues....."


Is that, like, how to make the perfect sandwich?   >


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "Women's issues....."
> 
> 
> Is that, like, how to make the perfect sandwich?   >










Wimmen otta be barefoot, pregnant an' in the kitchen ... makin' bacon sandwiches.   

   :sorry:


----------



## George Wallace (10 Apr 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :sorry:



Does look tasty though.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Apr 2015)

So, the future leader of the nation needs his mother to stick up for him?

*Margaret Trudeau says she dreads 'bullying' attack ads against son Justin*
CBC News

 :facepalm:


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Apr 2015)

That's a touching picture of the bond between mother and son....beautiful!  :'(


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2015)

One wonders when the CBC will invite Prime Minister Harper's family to complain on-air about the slaggings to which he is, routinely, subjected.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Apr 2015)

Would that not require CBC itself to stop the slagging first, and silence Terry Milewski ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2015)

Don't get me wrong ... a sitting prime minister is, must always be fair game for criticism, even for the vituperative slagging that _journalists_ like Jeffrey Simpson and Terry Milewski hand out. 

Notwithstanding some hostile press, I think it's a fact that this prime minister still has quite a few friends in the media.

But the Margaret Trudeau attack was a bit over the top and CBC should have guessed that it would be before they agreed to let her promote her book on their network.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Apr 2015)

> "'You know why grandma has those lines Xav?'" Margaret quotes Justin as saying, "'Because she's laughed her whole life.'"
> 
> "I wanted to say 'I've cried too,'" she added.



And let's not forget her nights out with Ron Wood of the Rolling Stones, probably added a few lines as well...


----------



## GAP (17 Apr 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And let's not forget her nights out with Ron Wood of the Rolling Stones, probably added a few lines as well...



Awh.....but they go away with a good sniff....


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Apr 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And let's not forget her nights out with Ron Wood of the Rolling Stones, probably added a few lines as well...



Remember when the Trudeaus built a new patio?  Pierre mixed the concrete, and Maggie laid The Stones.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Apr 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Remember when the Trudeaus built a new patio?  Pierre mixed the concrete, and Maggie laid The Stones.



This woman is an embarrassment.  :facepalm:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (19 Apr 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> This woman is an embarrassment.  :facepalm:



And she had to write another book and spend a lot more time on TV reminding the country how stupid she is and how she shares those stupid genes with Justin.  Thanks Mom.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2015)

Remember that explains this poster as well. BTW, I have shown this around and am losing count of the number of keyboards I now have to replace..... ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Apr 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Remember that explains this poster as well. BTW, I have shown this around and am losing count of the number of keyboards I now have to replace..... ;D



I have residents - inmates - who are far smarter than our dear Justin.


----------



## CougarKing (21 Apr 2015)

Surprise, surprise. Justin doesn't wanna play second fiddle to Mulcair in any coalition.

Canadian Press



> *Trudeau might be open to forming coalition with NDP, but not with Mulcair as leader*
> 
> By Melanie Marquis, The Canadian Press– Tue, 14 Apr, 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (21 Apr 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Surprise, surprise. Justin doesn't wanna play second fiddle to Mulcair in any coalition.
> 
> Canadian Press


Covered here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/101972/post-1361923.html#msg1361923

... And further down that thread  is his "clarification" that he is not open to a coalition even without Mulcair.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ suggests that the Liberal Party of Canada needs a real (small l) liberal like Margaret Thatcher. I would go a bit farther and say that Canada needs a real (small l, Gladstonian)) liberal political party:
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Liberals+need+Margaret+Thatcher/8235786/story.html
> 
> ...





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The default for soft-core conservatives has always been the Liberals. There’s just one problem – Justin. Even Liberals secretly admit that if their leader’s name were Gaston Tremblant, he’d still be a high-school drama teacher.
> “He has good people around him,” they insist. It’s not clear who they’re trying to reassure – other people, or themselves.
> ...




I repeat what I have said many times before: we, Canada and Canadians, _*need*_ a Liberal Party, an alternative to the CPC, a "government in waiting," but the Liberal Party we need, in its own turn, needs a _*leader*_ ... Justin Trudeau is not it. The CPC is right: he's _"just not ready"_, and, in my opinion, he's never going to be "ready," he will always be a high school drama teacher. Tell me, honestly, all of you who are fed up with Stephen Harper:_ do you really want Justin Trudeau in 24 Sussex Drive?_

The LPC needs new leadership ... soon, but in any event before it takes over the reigns of government.

My fervent hope is that in the next election the Liberals finish third again and Justin Trudeau resigns and goes back to whatever rich kids with no particular skill set do ...

There are some good choices for _interim_ leader while the Party reorients itself (in policy) and picks a new leader: Carolyn Bennett, Irwin Cotler and Ralph Goodale all come to mind.

For the next leader, the party also has some good choices (only a very few of which I would support) including: Judy Foote, Marc Garneau, Ted Hsu, Kevin Lamoureux, Dominic LeBlanc, Geoff Regan, Judy Sgro, and, _my choice_, hands down, *Scott Brison*.

I could well imagine being happy to see a Liberal government led by Scott Brison ... I might not vote for my local LPC candidate but I can see myself being happy with a Liberal majority government, while, still,  supporting a CPC which can and will provide an alternative when we need it.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 May 2015)

It's too bad the Liberals alienated John Manley.  He would have been an excellent leader and the Liberals would likely be in power today if he were.  While Harper is fairly smart economically, Manley would have run circles around him.  Trudeau Jr. just doesn't cut it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> color=red]_ do you really want Justin Trudeau in 24 Sussex Drive?_[/color]



Nope I don't.  I, like many, are deep in the wilderness in this coming election.  Harper needs to go, hes gotten stale and bloated.  JT, my god please not another Trudeau.  Mulcair, well he may get my vote.  I have voted NDP before and I currently see him as the most skilled politician on the hill.  But quite honestly it is a crap shoot at the point for who I will vote for.   

It is interesting that the adds are coming out now and the Libs and CPC are firing salvos at each other while the NDP is being ignored and they run an add that introduces their leader.  An "orange tsunami" may be heading our way.


----------



## a_majoor (27 May 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Nope I don't.  I, like many, are deep in the wilderness in this coming election.  Harper needs to go, hes gotten stale and bloated.  JT, my god please not another Trudeau.  Mulcair, well he may get my vote.  I have voted NDP before and I currently see him as the most skilled politician on the hill.  But quite honestly it is a crap shoot at the point for who I will vote for.
> 
> It is interesting that the adds are coming out now and the Libs and CPC are firing salvos at each other while the NDP is being ignored and they run an add that introduces their leader.  An "orange tsunami" may be heading our way.



I suspect this is part of the larger CPC strategy to provide a bit of soft support to the NDP in order to encourage more vote splitting on the left (much like how the political "right" was shut out for the 1990's with vote splitting between Reform and the PC's, or how the NDP slid into Alberta with vote splitting between the PC's and Wildrose).

As has been noted multiple times, the Liberal's "path to power" runs through Quebec, where they have to unseat the NDP, and may also face challanges from the BQ or other "Quebec" parties. Getting votes in Ontario will also be much more challenging if the NDP is stronger in urban ridings (in my home riding, Liberal Glenn Pearson was unseated by a very weak CPC candidate simply because his "votes" were being taken by NDP and Green candidates. The CPC candidate received almost the same number of votes as the previous CPC candidate, who was a much stronger candidate, which suggests there is indeed a "hard" upper limit to how many actual voters support the CPC).

So look for lots of interesting contortions to encourage vote splitting on the left, while "Progressives" call for "strategic voting" (yet again) to unseat the CPC. Sadly, the very people who call for "strategic voting" are really the ones who will be shooting the Progressive movement in the foot, as these "strategic voters" may conclude their best strategy is to go NDP in Liberal leaning ridings.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 May 2015)

I don't always agree with her, but I certain read and listen to what she says, one of the best and most thought out writers on the left in my opinion.


from http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/22/conservatives-blind-to-growing-desire-for-regime-change-hbert.html
MONTREAL — Every 10 years or so, Canadian voters take a broom and clean house on Parliament Hill. They often rearrange the furniture in ways unexpected by those who had grown comfortable in the back rooms of power.

Think back to 1984 and the ushering in of a Quebec/Alberta coalition crafted by Brian Mulroney’s Tories. At the time, a Conservative sweep of the Liberal fortress that Quebec had been under Pierre Trudeau was almost as unthinkable as the 2011 orange wave. Only five years before, in 1979, Quebec had so massively voted Liberal as to deprive Joe Clark of a majority.

Then, a bit less than a decade after Mulroney’s first victory, the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party took crowbars to the house he had built, leaving the Tory party in ruins and clearing the way to a Liberal decade under Jean Chrétien.

At the time of the latter’s retirement, most Liberals expected to stay in power indefinitely under Paul Martin. They dismissed the notion that Stephen Harper could ever be prime minister or their party fall to third place behind the NDP.

It is in the nature of successful ruling parties to develop a blind spot for the rot that tends to set in over their time in office. At some point they stop seeing themselves as voters see them and become agents of their own electoral destruction.

Harper’s Conservatives are precariously close to having reached that point, if they have not yet. At a minimum they seem to be blind to every warning sign of imminent danger.

There has always been an army of voters — usually a majority — that would not be caught dead supporting the Conservatives. That has been par for the course for the past decade. But there is mounting evidence that the anti-conservative vote is more solid while the pro-Harper vote is frittering away.

Anecdotally, the sense that it is time for a change is rampant (and growing) in just about every region of the country. The Conservatives seem hell-bent on solidifying that sense at every step of the way to the campaign.

There is no rationale for the prime minister to boycott — as he is currently set to do — the leaders’ debates that will be produced by the country’s main networks in the next campaign. Most voters can only construe that as hubris.

In the same spirit, there is no justification for spending millions of public dollars on self-serving pre-election advertising. It can only come across as behaviour symptomatic of a party that has come to think its interests and those of the government are one and the same and that they share the same purse.

At this rate regime change could easily trump policy as a ballot box issue next fall.

What is certain is that a pre-election budget designed to shore up the Conservative advantage in the lead-up to the campaign has instead fallen flat. A month after its presentation, the ruling party is back at or below the 30 per cent mark in national polls.

At the same time, the security issue that the Conservatives see as a trump card next fall may not have the electoral traction that they had hoped.

In Quebec where terrorism has been consistently high on the radar for months, a CROP poll published on Friday in La Presse found that the high profile of the anti-terrorism debate had failed to turn it into a ballot box issue.

That same poll reported a steep jump in NDP support over the past month. Based on CROP’s numbers, another Quebec orange wave next fall is not out of the question.

The New Democrats can thank Rachel Notley for that. In the wake of the NDP victory in Alberta, more voters are seeing Thomas Mulcair as a potential prime minister — and not only in Quebec.

Some Conservative strategists welcome polls that predict a three-way national race next fall because they think a more competitive NDP will create more opposition splits in their favour.

Fair enough, but the subtext of those polls is also that an electorate increasingly driven to regime change by a singularly tone-deaf incumbent team is willing to look at more than one option in the quest for an alternative to the current prime minister.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 May 2015)

On the other hand, the previous run of LPC government was majority, majority, majority, minority.  The current run has been minority, minority, majority.

Enough time has elapsed for another recession to strike soon, the recovery from the last one was not strong, and none of our economic "sectors" are exhibiting strength at present.  We are only just now shifting from deficit to surplus.

On the gripping hand, Nigel Wright, a federal CPC chief of staff, tried to loan Mike Duffy money to pay back claimed expenses.  That matter is being investigated.  Adrian Dix, a provincial NDP chief of staff, falsified a document to make investigation problematical.

Wright is not running as a candidate anywhere.  Dix was selected as his party's leader and ran in the last BC provincial election.

The point: debate policies by all means; keep some perspective on what constitutes "tired" and "corrupt".


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2015)

This National Post article is great: if the problem is "me", then I can do something about it.... >

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-trudeau-explains-slide-in-polls-saying-its-not-him-its-you#__federated=1



> *Robyn Urback: Trudeau explains slide in polls, saying it’s not him — it’s you*
> Robyn Urback | June 23, 2015 2:12 PM ET
> 
> Trudeau has introduced a handful of solid, evidence-based policies that should temper the bad in terms of winning public support, but they're not working. Maybe the issue is... him?
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (30 Jul 2015)

Nice hair won't save him if he keeps this up.  ;D

Reuters



> *Backers fear that missing-in-action, Trudeau losing bid to lead Canada*
> Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:45am EDT
> 
> By David Ljunggren and Allison Lampert
> ...


----------



## C-Aitchison (28 Aug 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Nice hair won't save him if he keeps this up.  ;D
> 
> Reuters



I'd still argue that he's done a great job. According to polls (I know, we need to use these lightly), if the election were today it would seem the party would more than double their caucus under his leadership. Coming from next to nothing to shy of 100 seats is pretty impressive in my opinion.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Aug 2015)

WLUArmyBrat said:
			
		

> I'd still argue that he's done a great job. According to polls (I know, we need to use these lightly), if the election were today it would seem the party would more than double their caucus under his leadership. Coming from next to nothing to shy of 100 seats is pretty impressive in my opinion.



I would be a bit more hesitant to say that he has dont a "great" job. While he has surrounded himself with good people who have come up with some solid proposals (infrastructure, environment) I would suggest that any leader of the Liberal party of Canada would have been in approximately the same place based on the prevailing political climate today (three parties essentially tied for support). Further, how would you assess the improvement of the liberal party based on the huge increase in support for the NDP? If you take a look at any historical data than one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada, potentially relegating the liberals to the perennial third place party (though with more seats- but, as a third place party in a minority situation it's not really important whether you win 40 or 90 seats.. you can still heavily influence the leading party). Wouldn't Mr. Trudeau have to be seen as a leader who was unable to move his party from its third place standing, just do a bit better in third place? Does that constitute "great"?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I would be a bit more hesitant to say that he has dont a "great" job. While he has surrounded himself with good people who have come up with some solid proposals (infrastructure, environment) I would suggest that any leader of the Liberal party of Canada would have been in approximately the same place based on the prevailing political climate today (three parties essentially tied for support). Further, how would you assess the improvement of the liberal party based on the huge increase in support for the NDP? If you take a look at any historical data than one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada, potentially relegating the liberals to the perennial third place party (though with more seats- but, as a third place party in a minority situation it's not really important whether you win 40 or 90 seats.. you can still heavily influence the leading party). Wouldn't Mr. Trudeau have to be seen as a leader who was unable to move his party from its third place standing, just do a bit better in third place? Does that constitute "great"?



I agree.

However, he has done a 'great' job of public speaking the words his handlers have told him to say.


----------



## Acorn (28 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada,



Just one qubble - the Liberal Party is, IMO, firmly Centerist, but quite willing to cherry-pick from the left and right at need. That kept them in power for quite some time. 

Both the NDP and Conservatives remain left and right, though both have adopted the cherry-picking, and what's hurting the Liberals is the NDP's drift toward the centre.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2015)

I wouldn't call it "drift" - they appear to be under power.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Aug 2015)

WLUArmyBrat said:
			
		

> I'd still argue that he's done a great job. According to polls (I know, we need to use these lightly), if the election were today it would seem the party would more than double their caucus under his leadership. Coming from next to nothing to shy of 100 seats is pretty impressive in my opinion.



Poll numbers often do not correlate with seat distribution. A party can be leading in the polls, and still fall short of seats come election day.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I would be a bit more hesitant to say that he has dont a "great" job. While he has surrounded himself with good people who have come up with some solid proposals (infrastructure, environment) I would suggest that any leader of the Liberal party of Canada would have been in approximately the same place based on the prevailing political climate today (three parties essentially tied for support). Further, how would you assess the improvement of the liberal party based on the huge increase in support for the NDP? If you take a look at any historical data than one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada, potentially relegating the liberals to the perennial third place party (though with more seats- but, as a third place party in a minority situation it's not really important whether you win 40 or 90 seats.. you can still heavily influence the leading party). Wouldn't Mr. Trudeau have to be seen as a leader who was unable to move his party from its third place standing, just do a bit better in third place? Does that constitute "great"?




The problem for the LPC is twofold. Much like the PCPO, the "old guard" of advisors and back room operators are stuck in neutral, operating under essentially old play books and assumptions. 

What a leader would have to do is challenge these assumptions and pull the party behind them in a new direction (Think of Tony Blair in the UK and how he change dthe Labour Party).

However the LPC chose to try to keep their playbook but put on a new "cover" (Nice Hair), hoping for celebrity to do the job that lack of vision and serious policy development to put the vision into action should have done. Had the LPC been able to find a leader rather than coronate the Young Dauphin, I suspect things would be much different in the election today.

While I know Edward, and probably a lot of other people would like the LPC to be "the government in waiting", I suspect that institutional inertia, and the inevitable corruption of power in the back rooms may mean that a true revival would need a massive overhaul, and such an overhaul might require an electoral trouncing of Kim Cambell proportions to shake the foundations. So long as they can continue to limp along, they might be able to convince "enough" people that their way is right, they only need just one more push to get over the top....


----------



## Acorn (29 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I wouldn't call it "drift" - they appear to be under power.



I'm not sure the whole crew is working towards the captain's objective though. I wonder if the Greens are going to pick up some of the dissaffected left that'll inevitably jump ship?


----------



## C-Aitchison (31 Aug 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I would be a bit more hesitant to say that he has dont a "great" job. While he has surrounded himself with good people who have come up with some solid proposals (infrastructure, environment) I would suggest that any leader of the Liberal party of Canada would have been in approximately the same place based on the prevailing political climate today (three parties essentially tied for support). Further, how would you assess the improvement of the liberal party based on the huge increase in support for the NDP? If you take a look at any historical data than one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada, potentially relegating the liberals to the perennial third place party (though with more seats- but, as a third place party in a minority situation it's not really important whether you win 40 or 90 seats.. you can still heavily influence the leading party). Wouldn't Mr. Trudeau have to be seen as a leader who was unable to move his party from its third place standing, just do a bit better in third place? Does that constitute "great"?



I'll agree with that. Great wasn't the best term.



> Poll numbers often do not correlate with seat distribution. A party can be leading in the polls, and still fall short of seats come election day.



I completely agree. They can also be behind, then sweep (IE. NDP). That's why I said we should use these lightly.

While I do agree the Party requires a huge shift in how they operate, I do believe Trudeau has been an effective leader. As someone helping out with multiple campaigns, and someone heavily involved in the party, Trudeau has motivated the group internally much more than Ignatieff did (I can't speak to Dion).


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Aug 2015)

WLUArmyBrat said:
			
		

> While I do agree the Party requires a huge shift in how they operate, I do believe Trudeau has been an effective leader. As someone helping out with multiple campaigns, and someone heavily involved in the party, Trudeau has motivated the group internally much more than Ignatieff did (I can't speak to Dion).



Mr Trudeau may be the leader, but Gerald Butts is doing the leading.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2015)

For me the most interesting outcome of the 19 Oct 15 election will be the fate of the leaders. Assuming the current polls are fairly accurate and will hold up for four more weeks, and there are none of the _"events, dear boy, events"_ that used to worry British prime Minister Sir Harold MacMillan (later 1st Earl of Stockton), then a minority seems most likely, probably either an NDP minority (50_ish_% likelihood), or, (40_ish_%) a CPC minority or, less likely (maybe 10%) a Liberal one.

_I think_ Prime Minister Harper is toast, even if he wins and even if (thanks to some unforeseen _"events"_) he won a majority. If he wins he will be the toast (pun intended) of his party and the political establishment for being the first PM since Pierre Trudeau to have won four mandates,* but it will not last: he is too unpopular and, by rights, his party should have rebelled, as the Australian Liberals just did, last year.

_I believe_ that, again absent those pesky _"events"_, M Mulcair is secure in his leadership.

That leaves M Trudeau.

     If he wins then he is, of course, secure ... just how secure will be a function of how well he wins and what happens in the following election, but Liberals do not jettison winners.

     If he finishes second there may be some questions, but my guess is that he will still be secure.

     What happens if he finishes third, as the polling still suggests he will? (He might beat the CPC in the popular vote but _vote efficiency_ could condemn the Liberals to third party status.) In that case _I suspect_ that even if he makes a major
     improvement to the Liberal Party's fortunes, in terms of seats won, his leadership will be challenged. The Liberal;s have some young, but seasoned, MPs just waiting to do better and there are some fresh new faces on the horizon ...
     Andrew Leslie and  Catherine McKenna, both here in Ottawa, just to name two. Many Liberals, MPs and party activists will be dismayed if the party does not achieve official opposition status at the very least.

____
* _The Great Sir John A_ served six mandates, four of them majorities; Mackenzie King also served six mandates, three being majorities, Sir Wilfred Laurier served four, all majorities, and PET served four, three majorities and one minority.


----------



## Altair (21 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For me the most interesting outcome of the 19 Oct 15 election will be the fate of the leaders. Assuming the current polls are fairly accurate and will hold up for four more weeks, and there are none of the _"events, dear boy, events"_ that used to worry British prime Minister Sir Harold MacMillan (later 1st Earl of Stockton), then a minority seems most likely, probably either an NDP minority (50_ish_% likelihood), or, (40_ish_%) a CPC minority or, less likely (maybe 10%) a Liberal one.
> 
> _I think_ Prime Minister Harper is toast, even if he wins and even if (thanks to some unforeseen _"events"_) he won a majority. If he wins he will be the toast (pun intended) of his party and the political establishment for being the first PM since Pierre Trudeau to have won four mandates,* but it will not last: he is too unpopular and, by rights, his party should have rebelled, as the Australian Liberals just did, last year.
> 
> ...


I doubt they dump him in a minority situation. Going into a leadership battle when the government can fall at any time would be...foolish.

Not to mention that if the election predictions are close to accurate he would he the only leader in the past decade to actually raise the liberals seat numbers. He could also be within 10 seats of the Opposition and within 30 of the goverment. 

To dump him would be to throw away that momentum.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Sep 2015)

Unless "within 10 seats of the Opposition and within 30 of the goverment" is the high water mark of his potential, in which case the Liberals need a different leader to move up.


----------



## Altair (21 Sep 2015)

Rebuilding the liberal party is going to be a work in progress.

Trudeau doesn't nneed to rebuild the party in one election cycle. 

I think he just needs to set himself up well for the next one, which in a minority situation might be soon.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Sep 2015)

The problem is, Trudeau isn't rebuilding the Liberal party. He's grasping at straws using far-left advisors and its driving them into the ground. The NDP are now more centrist on most issues than the Liberals, and it's going to crush the party.

Trudeau doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to do whats necessary for the Liberals: A ground up rebuild of the entire team. Everyone's fired. Get a new core with new, fresh ideas. Only then does he stand a chance to become relevant. Until then, he's just a mouthpiece with nice hair.


----------



## Altair (21 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The problem is, Trudeau isn't rebuilding the Liberal party. He's grasping at straws using far-left advisors and its driving them into the ground. The NDP are now more centrist on most issues than the Liberals, and it's going to crush the party.
> 
> Trudeau doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to do whats necessary for the Liberals: A ground up rebuild of the entire team. Everyone's fired. Get a new core with new, fresh ideas. Only then does he stand a chance to become relevant. Until then, he's just a mouthpiece with nice hair.


I'll agree to disagree.

When justin trudeau took over the liberal party, it was broke. It was demoralized. It was solidly in third place and had lost seats in 4 consecutive elections.

Justin trudeau now has the liberal party up within a margin of error of first place.  His party is second in terms of fundraising. He has survived the attack ads that has completely destroyed the previous two liberal leaders.

When coming into this campaign,  most people thought the ndp would pressure them from the left and the conservatives pressure them from the right leaving them with a ever shrinking middle from which to draw votes from, making then irrelevant. As of today, they are running second in the polls. They are looking to triple their seat count. Their fundraising is strong. 

 The liberal party today is a far cry ahead of where many pundits thought it would be, where Stephen Harper and Tom mulcair thought it would be, and I'm guessing many ordinary Canadians thought it would be. Will they win power or even official opposition?  Maybe not.  But the rebuilding of the party has begun and its actually improving under Trudeau as opposed to getting worst like it did under dion and Ignatieff. 

So no, I don't believe that the liberal party will commit political suicide by throwing itself into a divisive leadership race. Especially in a minority situation where no one even knows when the next election will be.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Sep 2015)

Cult of personality.

Which only gets you so far.


----------



## cavalryman (21 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Cult of personality.
> 
> Which only gets you so far.


It got President Obama two terms, and arguably, he was no better qualified nor more charismatic than Mister Trudeau.


----------



## Altair (28 Sep 2015)

I hope that now that the NDP campaign is beginning to sink,  and with the LPC in solid second place nationally, people start calling for mr Mulcair's head.

Doubt it, people only seem to hate trudeau and want him to resign despite the gains the liberal party has made.

Never mind that the according to 308 the ndp might do worst this election than they did the last. I still hope the anti harper vote in the ndp flock to the liberals in the dying days.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Sep 2015)

He's partnered up with Wynne. First mistake.

Second mistake. Not realizing that Wynne is using him as a stepping stone to secure her move to federal politics when things get to hot in the province\ when she gets her ass handed to her next election. 

That she is using his campaign for a "what works\ doesn't work" experiment for her own campaign, at the expense of his. She needs him out of the way when she jumps to the big leagues.

JT is toast.


----------



## Altair (28 Sep 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He's partnered up with Wynne. First mistake.
> 
> Second mistake. Not realizing that Wynne is using him as a stepping stone to secure her move to federal politics when things get to hot in the province\ when she gets her *** handed to her next election.
> 
> ...


According to 308.com, which had every party seat count within 6 seats during the 2011 election, Justin trudeau is solidly in second place.

How is he toast again?


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Sep 2015)

Trudeau is toast in the sense that he was trumpted in to save the Liberal Party, but he's done nothing other than reverse some of the losses to the NDP. I strongly doubt he's cut into the support the Tories have, especially amongst Center-Left voters.

Tonight will truly be telling whether we'll see Trudeau around after the election. If he can hold his own in a free-format debate designed to exhaust talking points and cause real dialogue, he'll stick around. If he crashes and burns like he started to in the French language debate, there's going to be a lot of finger pointing within the Liberal Party circles.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2015)

I seriously think that Trudeau is toast already.  In my opinion he has had a bad case of "hoof in mouth decease" from the start of the campaign.   The more he opens his mouth, the more I am turned off.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> According to 308.com, which had every party seat count within 6 seats during the 2011 election, Justin trudeau is solidly in second place.
> 
> How is he toast again?



Just took a quick look to see if your response was to me.

I have you as Kilo_302 _lite_. As such you are on ignore, as he is, and I won't enter into dialogue with you.

Have a good day.


----------



## Altair (28 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Trudeau is toast in the sense that he was trumpted in to save the Liberal Party, but he's done nothing other than reverse some of the losses to the NDP. I strongly doubt he's cut into the support the Tories have, especially amongst Center-Left voters.
> 
> Tonight will truly be telling whether we'll see Trudeau around after the election. If he can hold his own in a free-format debate designed to exhaust talking points and cause real dialogue, he'll stick around. If he crashes and burns like he started to in the French language debate, there's going to be a lot of finger pointing within the Liberal Party circles.


Save the liberal party? That's exactly what he and his team have done.

4 years ago people wondered if the liberal party would even exist in 2015. 

6 months ago when things started to go sour for the Liberal party people wondered if they would be squeezed in fron the right by the conservatives and from the left by the ndp leaving them with a ever shrinking middle.

Today the liberal party is second in fundraising, beating out the NDP and second in the polls. The liberal party is improving it's results for the first time in more than a decade. Looking to more than triple the 2011 results.

Save the party? Accomplished. Next election, gun for the top job. Rebuilding takes time. But this is as good of a first step as anyone is going to see.

Now while all of you are gunning for mr Trudeau, and his exit from politics, what about Mr Mulcair? His party is now looking to get about 98 seats according to 308.com and its dropping by the day. The ndp are looking to be relegated to third place again. And this is after he pissed off his base in order to be more electable. Why is no one saying he is toast. Because if he doesn't even keep the ndp as the opposition never mind ruling party, I bet Mr mulcair takes a long walk on the snow.


----------



## Altair (28 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I seriously think that Trudeau is toast already.  In my opinion he has had a bad case of "hoof in mouth decease" from the start of the campaign.   The more he opens his mouth, the more I am turned off.


If he finishes second in front of the ndp, what does that make mulcair? Really burnt toast?

Let's face it, if he gets second place, he's good. I don't think anyone expected a party with 34 seats to jump straight into goverment. It even took the CPC a few tries. And nobody was calling for mr harper to leave after he got official opposition in a minority parliament in 2004.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2015)

Ahem.....








It applies just as much to the Liberals and the NDP today as it did to the Conservatives 8 weeks ago.

Related - interesting that the message has swung so much that the focus is now not on why the Conservatives aren't panicking but why the Liberals and NDP shouldn't be panicking - and on how being first loser might in fact be a win.

Just curious, me.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Save the liberal party? That's exactly what he and his team have done.
> 
> 4 years ago people wondered if the liberal party would even exist in 2015.
> 
> ...



Saving the Liberal party means drawing center-right voters like me away from the Tories. I see them doing the opposite, drawing voters from the left side of the NDP. I wouldn't be too quick to declare victory or that the Liberal party is saved. I still don't know what they stand for. They're 2nd in fundraising, but is that money flowing in because the party is set up well, or is led by Trudeau? The Tories have a guy that 60% of the country doesn't like, but they can fundraise the combined amount of the Liberals and NDP every year. Its because people know what they're getting when they support them. If Trudeau came in quietly, and established a party doctrine and policies, and then started to promote them, I'd be willing to buy this "rivival" isn't just a Trudeau effect.

I completely agree with you about Muclair. If he tanks even going into a close third behind the Liberals, after the Tories being there for the taking, he's going to get skewered. His left-wing base that he's desperately tried to keep quiet will tear the party apart, which is good news for the Liberals, but even better news for the Tories.

I think its also telling that you state rebuilding takes time, and yet think Trudeau should be Prime Minister. It really shows you're more anti-Harper than pro-Trudeau. The Liberals would do well to learn from not winning this election, and take a few years to refine what they need to do to win, than to ride the coattails of Pierre Junior with no real, substantive change to party doctrine. I mean come on, they had Chretien out stumping for them. If that doesn't say "we haven't moved on from the early 90s", I don't know what does.


----------



## Altair (28 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Saving the Liberal party means drawing center-right voters like me away from the Tories. I see them doing the opposite, drawing voters from the left side of the NDP. I wouldn't be too quick to declare victory or that the Liberal party is saved. I still don't know what they stand for. They're 2nd in fundraising, but is that money flowing in because the party is set up well, or is led by Trudeau? The Tories have a guy that 60% of the country doesn't like, but they can fundraise the combined amount of the Liberals and NDP every year. Its because people know what they're getting when they support them. If Trudeau came in quietly, and established a party doctrine and policies, and then started to promote them, I'd be willing to buy this "rivival" isn't just a Trudeau effect.
> 
> I completely agree with you about Muclair. If he tanks even going into a close third behind the Liberals, after the Tories being there for the taking, he's going to get skewered. His left-wing base that he's desperately tried to keep quiet will tear the party apart, which is good news for the Liberals, but even better news for the Tories.
> 
> I think its also telling that you state rebuilding takes time, and yet think Trudeau should be Prime Minister. It really shows you're more anti-Harper than pro-Trudeau. The Liberals would do well to learn from not winning this election, and take a few years to refine what they need to do to win, than to ride the coattails of Pierre Junior with no real, substantive change to party doctrine. I mean come on, they had Chretien out stumping for them. If that doesn't say "we haven't moved on from the early 90s", I don't know what does.


The liberals do not need to steal votes from the CPC. By every single measurable metric, the CPC voters are the most committed to their party. 

No, the LPC and the NDP need to grab voters who are looking for change. 50 percent of NDP voters have the LPC as their second choice, and NDP supports are the least sure of their choice. Same for the NDP , they need to target LPC supporters who have the ndp as their second choice.

If one considers that 60 percent of Canadians want change, both the NDP and LPC have 30 percent support,  60 percent combined, and that 50 percent of their supports have each other as their second choice, that leaves 30 percent of the electorate in who might swing one way or another in order to deliver change. 

Why go after the hard target that is the CPC voter?

Go for the voters who want change.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> If he finishes second in front of the ndp, what does that make mulcair? Really burnt toast?



Pretty much.


----------



## Altair (28 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Pretty much.


So what was harper after the 2004 election then?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> So what was Harper after the 2004 election then?



Nowhere what these two are at the moment.  In fact, very much more a intelligent and thoughtful leader than the two of them put together.  But that is only my opinion.


----------



## Altair (28 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Nowhere what these two are at the moment.  In fact, very much more a intelligent and thoughtful leader than the two of them put together.  But that is only my opinion.


My point there was Harper had improved the CPC result but still lost the election.

It's the situation trudeau is looking at atm (we'll see if that continues to election day)

I really, really doubt that he steps down after this election. I really really doubt that the party tries to force him out. I think the LPC gives him a chance to improve the LPC results in the next election.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> My point there was Harper had improved the CPC result but still lost the election.



True, but I don't think that the power center of the party expected him to win. I think the goal was to learn the ropes and show people what he could do. In that sense, I would call that a win. You have to remember that within the Conservative party there's no faction championing the "natural governing party" paradigm. This is where liberal leaders are vulnerable. The power center of the party expects them to win every time out.

There's no shortage of swords held by the Liberal party available for Mr Trudeau to fall on if he doesn't carry the day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

I don't think Altair is wrong if M Trudeau finishes a respectable second to the Conservatives or, (gods forbid) first. The danger I have always seen for M Trudeau and the LPC is finishing _anywhere behind_ the NDP. The Liberals and the Conservatives are natural opponents with one or two or even three parties taking up very minority positions in the rear ... à la the CCF and Social Credit back in the '50s or the NDP and BQ _circa_ 2004 and 2006. The danger for the LPC is being too close to the NDP and the voters becoming confused about who is the _alternative_ to the CPC.

If, and it's still a Big IF with three full weeks to go, M Trudeau can maintain first or second place ( behind the CPC) then, _I think_, he's secure as leader ... even though _I believe_ that's bad for the LPC. If, on the other hand he finishes second or third _behind_ the NDP then I agree that he must go.


----------



## Altair (28 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't think Altair is wrong if M Trudeau finishes a respectable second to the Conservatives or, (gods forbid) first. The danger I have always seen for M Trudeau and the LPC is finishing _anywhere behind_ the NDP. The Liberals and the Conservatives are natural opponents with one or two or even three parties taking up very minority positions in the rear ... à la the CCF and Social Credit back in the '50s or the NDP and BQ _circa_ 2004 and 2006. The danger for the LPC is being too close to the NDP and the voters becoming confused about who is the _alternative_ to the CPC.
> 
> If, and it's still a Big IF with three full weeks to go, M Trudeau can maintain first or second place ( behind the CPC) then, _I think_, he's secure as leader ... even though _I believe_ that's bad for the LPC. If, on the other hand he finishes second or third _behind_ the NDP then I agree that he must go.


There are few leaders in the liberal party who could do better than trudeau is doing currently. Trudeau had a brand that could withstand the CPC attack machine which had very successfully destroyed both dion and Ignatieff.

 I don't think any liberal right now could say that they withstood the CPC attack machine. Not even garneau. Garneau IMHO,  was a ignatief clone, smart, intellectual, but devoid of a personality and open to being branded by the CPC before even getting his feet on the ground.

Anyone who says trudeau leaving would help the LPC is naive in my opinion. The longer he stays as leader the harder it will be for the CPC attack ad machine to target him. People know trudeau already, love him or hate him. The longer he stays on the more people will get to know him. Love him or hate him.

Again,  I look back at harper in 2004. He was leading in the polls and could have beaten the martin LPC. Then the hidden agenda thing came out and he's in the official opposition instead of 24 Sussex. 

He didn't quit, he stayed on, was a good goverment in waiting, and got his chance in 2006. When the hidden agenda line came out again, it was far less effective.

Ironically enough,  the justin trudeau "just not ready" plays into trudeau's run next election. Because people will "maybe he wasn't ready, but he's done well, and is ready now." I highly double the CPC even drags out that line again.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> There are few leaders in the liberal party who could do better than trudeau is doing currently. Trudeau had a brand that could withstand the CPC attack machine which had very successfully destroyed both dion and Ignatieff.
> 
> I don't think any liberal right now could say that they withstood the CPC attack machine. Not even garneau. Garneau IMHO,  was a ignatief clone, smart, intellectual, but devoid of a personality and open to being branded by the CPC before even getting his feet on the ground.
> 
> ...



Sadly, that's the case.  If John Manley was leading the LPCs, the Cons would be done like dinner.  Instead of staying centre, and leveraging into the left flank of the cons while pushing the NDP further left (what Manley would be quite capable of doing), Trudeau Jr. has done some kind of crazy straddling left-of-centre manoeuvre, that has weakened the foundations of the left leg by doing things like supporting C-51 and doesn't set the progressive elements of the cons' minds at ease either.  As Mr. Campbell says, he's a nice personable young man, but the Butts/Wynne factor can't be ignored, as they play Trudeau's strings...


----------



## Altair (28 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sadly, that's the case.  If John Manley was leading the LPCs, the Cons would be done like dinner.  Instead of staying centre, and leveraging into the left flank of the cons while pushing the NDP further left (what Manley would be quite capable of doing), Trudeau Jr. has done some kind of crazy straddling left-of-centre manoeuvre, that has weakened the foundations of the left leg by doing things like supporting C-51 and doesn't set the progressive elements of the cons' minds at ease either.  As Mr. Campbell says, he's a nice personable young man, but the Butts/Wynne factor can't be ignored, as they play Trudeau's strings...


Stephan dion and Micheal Ignatieff were both very capable MPs and ministers. Dion less so, naturally. But both were branded by the CPC attack machine. I don't exactly see how John Manley,  for all of the respect he can muster in Ottawa,  could avoid that. He isn't exactly a household name. 

There are very few leaders in the liberal party who could withstand the CPC  attack ads. And the liberal party could not get it wrong again. If they went with John Manley or Marc Garneau and got stomped again, the liberal party would be dead. They might never return. Harper would get his wish of a two party country, which the CPC would win two out of every three elections.

So for all of those saying trudeau has failed, remember how he took this party from the grave to a solid 100+ seats today. Love him or hate him, he's the best leader the liberals have had in 12 years at a time where they couldn't afford to blow it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

_My view_, and please remember that _I want_ the Liberal Party of Canada to succeed as a _centrist_ alternative to the Conservatives,* reinforced, tonight, by watching him in the foreign affairs debate, is that M Trudeau is, really "just not ready" and, also _just my opinion_, he likely never will be; (he lacks _bottom_, there's no _depth_, no _gravitas_). _My opinion_ is that the LPC needs a new, young, _effective_ leader: Scott Brison is my first choice, but there is depth in that party beyond Mr Brison. M Trudeau has celebrity, but that's all he has.

____
* I do not agree with Prime Minister Harper's reputed desire for a Left <> Right two party system; I prefer a Centre-Left <> Centre-Right two party system, with, no doubt, minor parties on the left and, maybe, the far right, too.


----------



## MARS (29 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't exactly see how John Manley,  for all of the respect he can muster in Ottawa,  could avoid that. He isn't exactly a household name.



hmm...I actually think he could, because I think he is pretty much the smartest guy in the room.  If he were leading the LPC I would vote for whoever my liberal candidate was in a heartbeat, even if he was a complete pee in a cup, dolt, just for the opportunity for John Manley to be at the helm of the country for a bit. 

He actually is a household name for me and probably others my age.  He had mass appeal across party lines when he was in government.  He really was "the hero Gotham needed, but not the one it deserved".  No one could blame him when he left for not wanting to lead that party in the shape it was in.  Maybe someday we will all get lucky and he will come back to politics.  

my 2 cents


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2015)

>If one considers that 60 percent of Canadians want change, both the NDP and LPC have 30 percent support

This has been a popular talking point for years.  Of course the 30% of voters who prefer the NDP and 30% who prefer the LPC want change - by definition.  It is a pointless statement of the obvious that is dressed up so it can pretend it means the CPC in government is somehow illegitimate.  Then its enthusiasts go completely off the rails by assuming that the "second choice" options only benefit the NDP and LPC.

Suppose some of the "second half" of the LPC 30% that do not have NDP as their second choice decide to move to the CPC when poll analysts start talking about a move of some of the "first half" to the NDP.  What happens then?


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2015)

Manley is the leader the LPC should have had - an opportunity lost.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >If one considers that 60 percent of Canadians want change, both the NDP and LPC have 30 percent support
> 
> This has been a popular talking point for years.  Of course the 30% of voters who prefer the NDP and 30% who prefer the LPC want change - by definition.  It is a pointless statement of the obvious that is dressed up so it can pretend it means the CPC in government is somehow illegitimate.  Then its enthusiasts go completely off the rails by assuming that the "second choice" options only benefit the NDP and LPC.
> 
> Suppose some of the "second half" of the LPC 30% that do not have NDP as their second choice decide to move to the CPC when poll analysts start talking about a move of some of the "first half" to the NDP.  What happens then?





> John Ivison: Montrealers waiting on a wave — and they don’t care if it’s an orange wave or a red one



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-montrealers-waiting-on-a-wave-and-they-dont-care-if-its-an-orange-wave-or-a-red-one

If Montreal is waiting to back a winner they could be waiting a while.  It takes energy and coordination to generate a wave - and neither of those seem to be in abundance in Quebec just now.  Conversely it is the easiest thing in the world to create static.







Heading for a 3 4-way tie in Quebec?  Not good for Liberals or NDP.  Not so bad for Harper.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2015)

Manley "not exactly a household name"....you're kidding, right?  ???  Hmmm...what was the name of that report?  Yeah, the apolitical one about Canada's role in Afghanistan that bridged so many disparate groups? Hmmm, what was its name again?

Okay, now I know you're purely a Trudeau cheerleader, and not a True Grit.  :not-again"


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Manley "not exactly a household name"....you're kidding, right?  ???  Hmmm...what was the name of that report?  Yeah, the apolitical one about Canada's role in Afghanistan that bridged so many disparate groups? Hmmm, what was its name again?
> 
> Okay, now I know you're purely a Trudeau cheerleader, and not a True Grit.  :not-again"



Maybe we can cut him some slack G2G.  He's so young he probably doesn't know there was a world before yesterday.


----------



## Altair (29 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >If one considers that 60 percent of Canadians want change, both the NDP and LPC have 30 percent support
> 
> This has been a popular talking point for years.  Of course the 30% of voters who prefer the NDP and 30% who prefer the LPC want change - by definition.  It is a pointless statement of the obvious that is dressed up so it can pretend it means the CPC in government is somehow illegitimate.  Then its enthusiasts go completely off the rails by assuming that the "second choice" options only benefit the NDP and LPC.
> 
> Suppose some of the "second half" of the LPC 30% that do not have NDP as their second choice decide to move to the CPC when poll analysts start talking about a move of some of the "first half" to the NDP.  What happens then?


 I have never, ever said that in order say the CPC is illegitimate. If the LPC wins, it will be with far far less than 50 percent support. That's just first past the post for you. 

I said that in regards to which parties supporters are easier to get on board. CPC supporters are almost fanatical in their support of their party. LPC and NDP  voters are more likely to jump ship and my point was they are easier to target them than to try to get a right of center voter to vote from a left of center party.

Now while I am well aware that I am not anyone favorite poster, and that as a liberal I will not be popular in a military political forum board, I do my best to not to let my dislike of the CPC taint what I say. Will I argue and debate in favor of the LPC and justin trudeau? Yes. Will I say I dislike harper and am totally neutral on mulcair? Yes. Will I be a bloody hypocrite and say that because 60 percent of Canadians don't vote conservative that they are a illegitimate goverment when anyone who wins Oct 19th will be far below 50 percent voter support? No!

I like to think I play fair here.


----------



## Altair (29 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Manley "not exactly a household name"....you're kidding, right?  ???  Hmmm...what was the name of that report?  Yeah, the apolitical one about Canada's role in Afghanistan that bridged so many disparate groups? Hmmm, what was its name again?
> 
> Okay, now I know you're purely a Trudeau cheerleader, and not a True Grit.  :not-again"


I voted for martin in 2004, duceppe in 2006, dion in 2008, skipped 2011 because everyone sucked and the army had me occupied. 

2 liberals and I flirted with the bloc once.

Take that for what it's worth and call me whatever you damn well please.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2015)

Altair   you are doing better than most.

Keep at it.  The secret round here is to not pretend that you are something you aren't.


----------



## Altair (29 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Trudeau is toast in the sense that he was trumpted in to save the Liberal Party, but he's done nothing other than reverse some of the losses to the NDP. I strongly doubt he's cut into the support the Tories have, especially amongst Center-Left voters.
> 
> Tonight will truly be telling whether we'll see Trudeau around after the election. If he can hold his own in a free-format debate designed to exhaust talking points and cause real dialogue, he'll stick around. If he crashes and burns like he started to in the French language debate, there's going to be a lot of finger pointing within the Liberal Party circles.


verdict?


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Sep 2015)

I think he held his own with Muclair, and made quite a few good points. His downfall, was the passionate (maybe even desperate) reference to his father's policies, and his constant interrupting of the other leaders. He never held a candle to Harper who was very calm and didn't get emotionally involved, even when Justin restated his position that convicted terrorists get to keep their Canadian citizenship if they're a dual citizen. Muclair raked him over the coals on C-51, which he finally articulated his position significantly better than in previous engagements. A lot of the time you could hear his (Trudeau's) voice raise as he got excited trying to make a point and smirk at himself when he managed a one-liner. It shows inexperience. 

I think he's successfully distanced himself from Muclair, whether that's good or bad, we'll find out in a couple weeks. It certainly wasn't a slam dunk performance for anyone. Very telling was the question on how Trudeau would deal with Putin, which got spontaneous laughter from the audience. He's not respected enough to become prime minister yet. If he can put in a good show as the leader of the official opposition, it may sink the NDP back to third party and give him a better run. If he somehow gets elected in a minority and trashes the place (like his policies suggest), the Liberal Party will be even more devastated then after the Mulrooney win.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2015)

>I have never, ever said that in order say the CPC is illegitimate.

I didn't mean you, which is why I referred to past (and ongoing) use of the sentiment (by others).


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2015)

So Mulcair and Trudeau both got a little heated during the debate, while Harper maintained his usual calm demeanour?

I don't care if Harper has outbursts in private, if he's the best man for keeping cool while dealing with foreign heads of state.


----------



## Altair (29 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think he held his own with Muclair, and made quite a few good points. His downfall, was the passionate (maybe even desperate) reference to his father's policies, and his constant interrupting of the other leaders. He never held a candle to Harper who was very calm and didn't get emotionally involved, even when Justin restated his position that convicted terrorists get to keep their Canadian citizenship if they're a dual citizen. Muclair raked him over the coals on C-51, which he finally articulated his position significantly better than in previous engagements. A lot of the time you could hear his (Trudeau's) voice raise as he got excited trying to make a point and smirk at himself when he managed a one-liner. It shows inexperience.
> 
> I think he's successfully distanced himself from Muclair, whether that's good or bad, we'll find out in a couple weeks. It certainly wasn't a slam dunk performance for anyone. Very telling was the question on how Trudeau would deal with Putin, which got spontaneous laughter from the audience. He's not respected enough to become prime minister yet. If he can put in a good show as the leader of the official opposition, it may sink the NDP back to third party and give him a better run. If he somehow gets elected in a minority and trashes the place (like his policies suggest), the Liberal Party will be even more devastated then after the Mulrooney win.


If trudeau gets in, the conservatives or the ndp would be able to hold him in check. Not that I think he needs to be,  but he wouldn't be able to rule without the opposition holding him to account





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> So Mulcair and Trudeau both got a little heated during the debate, while Harper maintained his usual calm demeanour?
> 
> I don't care if Harper has outbursts in private, if he's the best man for keeping cool while dealing with foreign heads of state.


 I can only imagine both of them are being told to be passionate. 

After the first debate, people said mulcair was creepy with his weird smile and passive approach. 

Trudeau was criticized during the french debate for his aloof approach he took to it.

If people are looking for a calm, cold, calculated approach to everything, they are going to vote for harper. I doubt they would taken it as genuine if Mulcair or Trudeau tried that approach.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Sep 2015)

> I voted for martin in 2004, duceppe in 2006, dion in 2008, skipped 2011 because everyone sucked and the army had me occupied.
> 
> 2 liberals and I flirted with the bloc once.
> 
> Take that for what it's worth and call me whatever you damn well please.



So we share voting for Martin.  Had Manley followed Martin (although it wasn't a «tête carée's» turn yet), we would have likely voted similarly again.  My base reasoning would likely be different (Blue Grit or Red Tory is my preference) than your's (you seems more aligned to party than the leader himself), but the end result would have been the same.  Once Dion showed up, my choice was easy...Red Tory it was and Harper was still playing nice(-ish) with MacKay (and the re-named PC clan).

You seem to mistakenly assume that military members will overwhelmingly (and mindlessly) vote Conservative for rather simple, dogmatic reasons. Perhaps some do, but others do so for pragmatic reasons based on worth of the leadership, warts and all, vice ethereal, genetic/branding reasoning. Many see Trudeau Jr. as a front offic piece being driven by the back room, like GW was by the Old Man and Dick Cheney.  Gerald Butts and Kathleen Wynne's = Canadian George Bush Sr. and Kathleen Wynne. 

Hopefully you find time to vote and don't repeat 2011.

G2G


----------



## Altair (30 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So we share voting for Martin.  Had Manley followed Martin (although it wasn't a «tête carée's» turn yet), we would have likely voted similarly again.  My base reasoning would likely be different (Blue Grit or Red Tory is my preference) than your's (you seems more aligned to party than the leader himself), but the end result would have been the same.  Once Dion showed up, my choice was easy...Red Tory it was and Harper was still playing nice(-ish) with MacKay (and the re-named PC clan).
> 
> You seem to mistakenly assume that military members will overwhelmingly (and mindlessly) vote Conservative for rather simple, dogmatic reasons. Perhaps some do, but others do so for pragmatic reasons based on worth of the leadership, warts and all, vice ethereal, genetic/branding reasoning. Many see Trudeau Jr. as a front offic piece being driven by the back room, like GW was by the Old Man and Dick Cheney.  Gerald Butts and Kathleen Wynne's = Canadian George Bush Sr. and Kathleen Wynne.
> 
> ...


I plan to advance next weekend. LPC won't win in my riding but at least my vote will show up in the nation numbers.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Oct 2015)

And that is a good thing, Altair! Have no doubt. :nod:


----------



## Altair (1 Oct 2015)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-ndp-can-kiss-its-chances-goodbye/article26571622/?service=mobile



> No guts, no glory, the old saying goes. You gotta takes risks. Sit on a lead in the third period, watch the lead disappear.
> 
> Same thing in politics, as Thomas Mulcair and the NDP are learning now.
> 
> ...



Just one man's opinion, but it echoes what I was saying. Trudeau and the LPC was stuck between the CPC on their right and NDP on their left. The squeeze was on and I think both the CPC and NDP thought that the liberals would be pushed further and further into third place with a ever shrinking pool of voters to draw from.

Problem was , mulcair shifted so far center with no concessions to the NDP traditional base that it left him vulnerable on his left and that's where the LPC struck. For all of those who think Trudeau is a empty suit, remember he probably needs to ok this shift. He's the one who has to sell it.

Now after a few decent debate performances for trudeau where he preformed above expectations thanks to CPC advertising, and a left leaning platform on which to run on, which includes things the NDP would normally run on, it looks increasing like the NDP is stuck in that shrinking middle. With the quebec vote looking like it's about to collapse on them and another french debate where you know the bloc and CPC are going to nail them on the niqab issue just making things worst, I think it's safe to say LPC war room>NDP war room. 

Three more weeks to go, but the longer trudeau looks like the agent of change the harder it will be for the NDP and Mulcair to turn things around.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-ndp-can-kiss-its-chances-goodbye/article26571622/?service=mobile
> 
> Just one man's opinion, but it echoes what I was saying. Trudeau and the LPC was stuck between the CPC on their right and NDP on their left. The squeeze was on and I think both the CPC and NDP thought that the liberals would be pushed further and further into third place with a ever shrinking pool of voters to draw from.
> 
> ...



_Agreed on Point 1._

Don't (fully) agree the second point. _I suspect_ that the "shift" was packaged, by Gerald Butts and the Wynne team, and sold to the whole party apparatus, including M Trudeau, as the ONLY way to beat the NDP.

But, outflanking the NDP on the left, while a good campaign tactic, might not be any indication, at all, of how the Liberals might govern. History says that the Liberals often campaign on the left and then govern from the right: look at St Laurent, Pearson, Chrétien and Martin. Pierre Trudeau was the only authentic _left of centre_ prime minister Canada ever had, the rest, mostly Liberals in the 20th century, were social and fiscal moderates. The civil service is, in some measure, _Liberal_ in its inclinations, but the civil service _Liberalism_ is of the social and fiscal moderate sort; they fought, hard, against Pierre Trudeau and, as often as not, won; and they will be a very strong voice in the next PM's ear ... if the PM is anyone other than Stephen Harper.


----------



## Altair (1 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Agreed on Point 1._
> 
> Don't (fully) agree the second point. _I suspect_ that the "shift" was packaged, by Gerald Butts and the Wynne team, and sold to the whole party apparatus, including M Trudeau, as the ONLY way to beat the NDP.
> 
> But, outflanking the NDP on the left, while a good campaign tactic, might not be any indication, at all, of how the Liberals might govern. History says that the Liberals often campaign on the left and then govern from the right: look at St Laurent, Pearson, Chrétien and Martin. Pierre Trudeau was the only authentic _left of centre_ prime minister Canada ever had, the rest, mostly Liberals in the 20th century, were social and fiscal moderates. The civil service is, in some measure, _Liberal_ in its inclinations, but the civil service _Liberalism_ is of the social and fiscal moderate sort; they fought, hard, against Pierre Trudeau and, as often as not, won; and they will be a very strong voice in the next PM's ear ... if the PM is anyone other than Stephen Harper.


I think Trudeau would need to govern from the left this time around, if he won. He would probably have a slim minority goverment if he won, and I don't see the CPC supporting him. The ndp would be who he needs to woo in order to govern.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

Despite the title, "The fall and rise of the Liberal Party," this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is not god news for Liberals:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-fall-and-rise-of-the-liberal-party/article26710825/


> The fall and rise of the Liberal Party
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I haven't got into _Big Tent Politics_, yet, but I will.

I need to reiterate that I wish the Liberal Party of Canada well. I do not want a UK style (or modern US style) two part Left of Centre* <> Right of Centre split. I want a multiparty system in which there is a left wing party and a large centre left party opposing an equally  large centre right party which has a right wing party on its flank.

My reading of Canadian history is that Laurier built the recently deceased Big Tent Liberal party on a solid base of: Quebec support (after the execution of Riel); free trade capitalism (which earned the party the loyalty of the Big banks, Big Business and, later, Big Labour); immigration; and moderate socio-economic pork barrelling. Laurier was an Anglophile imperialist, a Canadian nationalist and a capitalist. That model worked well for him, for Mackenzie-King and for Louis St Laurent and (albeit less well) for Lester Pearson, too). Two _"events"_ caused the collapse of Laurier Liberalism:: the Kingston Conference in 1960s, in which journalist, silk stocking socialist and "public intellectual" Tom Kent proposed ~ and almost everyone, including Mike Pearson, agreed ~ that the party should take a sudden "lurch to the left" and co-opt much of the CCF's positions on social and domestic economic issues; and (and as a consequence of the first event) the arrival of Pierre Trudeau, a young, bright, charismatic (made for TV) NDP stalwart from Quebec. Trudeau embraced Kent's ideas, and more and the Party began a massive shift away from Laurier, King and St Laurent. (In some very large measure Pierre Trudeau "gave birth" to modern, Stephen Harper style Conservatism because he moved the Liberals away from the "Middle Ground" over which the traditional _Big Tent_ could be pitched. The Conservatives of Trudeau's day (Stanfield and Mulroney, even MacKay) were, in many respect, just _Blue Liberals_: yes, there were some differences between Grit and Tory policies, but not too much (it is, in a way, the model of the system towards which I would like to see Canada evolve, albeit with some _*real*_ differences in opinion).) When the Liberals' century year long hold on power collapsed (1984) the political _centre_ was wide open. Both Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien were _unprincipled_, personality politics practitioners who cherry picked whatever policies they believed they could sell. Both were, to be fair, fiscal conservatives, but Mulroney was frightened off his plan to balance the budget** while Chrétien was frightened into it.

Stephen Harper knew in his head and in his heart that Preston Manning's style of right wing prairie populism could never work in Canada. He staged a double _coup_ and seized control of both the Reform/Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservatives ... _et voila_.

We now have a centre right party: the CPC. We *almost* had a centre left party in M Mulcair's NDP. M Trudeau has been campaigning to the left of the NDP but Liberals have often done that (think Chrétien in 1993) but they then govern from the centre or even centre right (Big Banks, Big Business and Big Labour influence).

_I believe_ that the LPC needs to _rethink_ itself again, as Laurier did _circa_ 1895 and as Tom Kent did in 1960. (It's been 55 years, it's time for a review.) But _I do not believe_ that Justin Trudeau can or will lead that rethink. I'm not sure who will play the Laurier and Kent role and, of course, I cannot be sure what the outcome will be: perhaps the LPC will, once again, after 55 years, want to reclaim a share of the _ideological centre_ or, perhaps, it will want to move even farther to the left (I hope it is the former, but   :dunno: ) In any event _I think_ that M Trudeau cannot lead it in any useful direction ... 

_____
* Left of Centre parties can swing sharply left, as the selection of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK shows, and as Ms Clinton's campaign in the US suggests the Democrat's base is shifting.
** Remember Solange Denis


----------



## Altair (8 Oct 2015)

Hey, the patient is barely out of deaths door,  give it time to recover before asking it to start doing strenuous exercise.

In all seriousness, trudeau has one job. Keep the party alive. I will repeat this over and over again, the party was one more bad leader and one bad election result away from death.

In reality canada is a two party country, then question in this election was which two parties would be the dominant ones. The CPC was set but the race was between the new democrats and Liberals. If the liberals finished third or god forbid did worst than they did in 2011 I imagine it would take a full generation before they could come back. If the ndp didn't swallow them up first.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2015)

I will bring up an idea which I have flogged before: political parties can die and die quickly if they no longer have relevant answers to the issues of the day. The collapse of parties like the US Whigs or the UK Unionist parties are fairly striking examples, and the sudden dissolution of the USSR shows this on a society wide basis in a one party state.

The particular problem for the LPC is that they have transformed from a Transformative party into a Transactive party. They can be extremely good at making deals with the electorate to gain and maintain power, but since they really don't stand for anything, it is a slim reed to be holding on to. Social, demographic and technological changes are remaking virtually every aspect of our society, and many of the governmental institutions that have existed for years, if not generations are becoming highly stressed as they are less and less relevant to the conditions in society or the expectations of voters and taxpayers. In many ways, this is a transitional election between the "Laurentian Consensus" and the New Canada. As Edward says, the Young Dauphin is not the man to lead change, and the Laurentian Elites in the back room of the LPC is prepared to fight to the last taxpayer to maintain the system that gives them power and perques (do you see the Ontario Liberals changing the course despite the ruins they have made of the province?).

How the Liberals should transform is an interesting question, but it looks like they have managed to kick the can down the road for another election cycle or two.


----------



## CougarKing (27 Feb 2016)

O'Leary merely being pragmatic by choosing the party in power?

CBC via Yahoo News



> *Kevin O'Leary hints at possible run for Liberal Party leadership*
> 
> CBC
> February 27, 2016
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Feb 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> O'Leary merely being pragmatic by choosing the party in power?
> 
> CBC via Yahoo News


So, is that called "Pulling a Charest" or "Pulling a Bouchard"? ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Feb 2016)

Neither. If he does this, he will be coining his own manouevre- the O'leary!


----------



## Altair (28 Feb 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> O'Leary merely being pragmatic by choosing the party in power?
> 
> CBC via Yahoo News


Maybe he only wants to run 8 years from now [


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2016)

Kevin O'Leary is not a serious candidate for anything. He just wants to influence one, small, slice of the national policy debate.

What he does is bring "celebrity attention" to one issue ~ and that scares the Liberals, both on Parliament Hill and in Queen's Park because they know the "value" of celebrity, even when it is of the intellectually vacuous sort. It should, also, scare Conservatives because it's not clear, not to me, at any rate, that O'Leary's idea are sound ... they may be designed to protect his interests but it's not clear that they are good for the country. Worse, for Conservatives, O'Leary allows the _Laurentian Elites_, like Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail, to compare Conservatives to the US GOP and then O'Leary to Donald Trump, and, _*presto!*_ Rona Ambrose = Donald Trump. That is dangerous to the CPC and it's what the LPC and its fellow travellers are doing, right now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Feb 2016)

They do that anyways.  Whatever Republicans are currently active south of the border, the NDP and LPC will insist they are templates for contemporary Conservatives.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Feb 2016)

Which is funny as your typical US Democrat is likely in line with our Conservatives, possibly even to the right at times.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Feb 2016)

I haven't bought that "US Democrats are Canadian Conservatives" myth since Democrats started regaining power in 2006.

Obama and Harper were not in the same building, let alone on the same page.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2016)

Dems are now so far left they hardly resemble the Clinton era Administration (Hillary is often running _against_ the very policies that Bill put in place). JFK is probably closer to Ronald Reagan than Obama, and certainly the idea the Bernie Sanders is an even semi serious candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination would have been totally alien even 10 years ago...


----------



## George Wallace (31 Oct 2016)

It should be interesting to see how this Cabinet Minister's case develops:


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> A file’s been opened on Monsef, sources say
> Candice Malcolm
> Yesterday at 6:27 PM
> 
> ...




More on LINK.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Oct 2016)

That would be delicious if it went pear shaped.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Oct 2016)

This should be looked into, _big_ time, with said Minister off the bench for optics' sake alone.

And since it appears that "the Minister" takes away citizenship if found to be obtained fraudulently, the only way I can see getting around any potential or perceived conflict of interest is to ensure that the person being investigated is NOT a Minister while being investigated - or at least when the decision is rendered.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This should be looked into, _big_ time, with said Minister off the bench for optics' sake alone.
> 
> And since it appears that "the Minister" takes away citizenship if found to be obtained fraudulently, the only way I can see getting around any potential or perceived conflict of interest is to ensure that the person being investigated is NOT a Minister while being investigated - or at least when the decision is rendered.



But that would upset his "status quo" and filling "quotas"...... >


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> But that would upset his "status quo" and filling "quotas"...... >


Maybe, but even as someone willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, he can _ALWAYS_ pick another woman for The Cabinet Bench if he's that worried about quotas.

We'll see if he has that (some gadflies might say almost-Harper-esque?) quality of never being able to admit he's wrong  >


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2016)

Hmmmmm?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Liberals in denial about Monsef story
> BY CANDICE MALCOLM
> FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2016 06:36 PM EDT | UPDATED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2016 07:59 PM EDT
> 
> ...




More on LINK


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Nov 2016)

Just like the Lieberals, as always.  The more things change the more they stay the same.


----------



## McG (1 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> November 7, 1984 – Maryam Monsef was born ...
> November 7, 1985 – Date Monsef originally claimed she was born ...


Having worked with an Afghan interpreter to complete his family information on a US security screening form, I would say she is doing pretty good by Afghan standards if the discrepancy in her birth date is only off by a year.  It did not seem to be a date to which the culture attached much significance, and everyone's stated age had some margin of error in it.  It still seems odd to not know which country one is born in though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Nov 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Just like the Lieberals, as always.  The more things change the more they stay the same.



If you save up enough money you can partake in the liberals pay to play program and gain access to influential cabinet ministers.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If you save up enough money you can partake in the liberals pay to play program and gain access to influential cabinet ministers.



Foreign or Domestic?   >


----------



## QV (1 Nov 2016)

November 7, 1984 – Maryam Monsef was born ...
November 7, 1985 – Date Monsef originally claimed she was born ...


It must be terrible to learn you are actually older than you thought...


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2016)

His first 100 days are over.  Millennials are turning his back on him at gatherings.  Now immigrants and refugees are asking questions.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Justin Trudeau defends Maryam Monsef over nationality flap
> THE CANADIAN PRESS
> Thursday, November 03, 2016, 8:14 PM
> 
> ...




More on LINK.


Excuse me, Mr Trudeau, but people fleeing a conflict DO HAVE a fairly good knowledge of where they are fleeing from and to where they are fleeing; including over which borders they are crossing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> His first 100 365 days are over.


Even better ...

Sorry, Team Red, optics alone call for her to step aside until it's sorted out - one way or another.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Nov 2016)

Bet your a** if this were the last government (or a member across the aisle), the Liberals would be singing a completely different tune.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Nov 2016)

John McCallum and his staff are likely all over it...............


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2016)

G2G, I believe you omitted a sarcasm icon in your previous post...


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Nov 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> G2G, I believe you omitted a sarcasm icon in your previous post...



Guilty, although I was trying the discrete approach using four ellipses............  ;D


----------

