# "The Liberals shall rise again," says Conrad Black



## Edward Campbell (4 Dec 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is an excellent analysis by Conrad Black:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/04/conrad-black-the-liberals-shall-rise-again/ 


> Conrad Black: The Liberals shall rise again
> 
> Conrad Black
> December 4, 2010
> ...




Now, essentially, Black is telling the Liberals that if they will just follow *his* policies then all will be well. Wel, maybe, but ...

If we read a bit deeper, however, we can see that Black is right. The Liberals *have been* the “great reformers” of Canadian politics; they only abandoned that position in 1967. They have only 40 years of bad policy to erase if they want to be Canada's _natural governing party_ yet again. They have, already, abandoned many of Trudeau's bad policies but there are still several to go – beginning with foreign and defence policies.

Every party has a left, centre and right. The party that will most often govern Canada will be the one with biggest, 'best' centre – a centre that sits, squarely, on top of the Canadian centre. That *can* be the Conservatives but it can, just as easily, be the Liberals, too. I think that the first thing the Liberals need to do, in order to regain its centre, is to shed their 'hard left' wing and let it migrate to the NDP. Then they can absorb a fair bit of the Conservative Party's left wing. 

The Liberals, like the Conservatives, must figure out how to form a majority government without Québec; the first of them to figure out how to do this (hint: the answer surrounds Toronto and includes Alberta and BC and involves more HoC seats for all three places) will govern Canada most often.


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2010)

I think that if the Conservatives can get a decent sized majority (not just 1 or 2 seats) and with their majority coming in the senate, they would likely strike out in this direction....before the Liberals would. You're asking the Liberals to disenfranchise a large part of their backroom power base by getting rid of the left within the party.Trudeau brought them in and they are rooted....


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (4 Dec 2010)

In my opinion, the Liberals have more to gain on the right than on the left.  It strikes me that the shrill leftist rhetoric of Dionne and Iggy is totally unlike the positions taken while the Liberals were in government.  Canadians do care about an impotent justice system and an almost 100 % fraudulent refugee system.  As a true blue conservative I can tell you that while Chretien spouted liberal rhetoric, he governed quite conservatively.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2010)

The current Liberal party stands for nothing, and only seems to be a vehicle for Bob Rae and Justin Trudeau (and their supporters and backers) to achieve their personal quest for power and glory. No wonder their electoral strongholds are dwindling away.

If the party can come up with new ideas and a coherent platform, then there is still a chance for the Liberal brand, but I am having serious doubts that the current Liberal Party establishment has the time or energy to do that, being consumed with infighting and hanging on to their perques and privileges (such as they are). 

Political parties can and do dissolve rapidly, so there are several potential ways this story can end, most of them unhappily for the LPC


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Dec 2010)

Yup, and it's going to snow in hell and the Leafs are going to win the Stanley Cup 8)


----------



## hold_fast (5 Dec 2010)

They're bound to rise again, it's just a matter of when and how.

I wouldn't be surprised if something came out in WikiLeaks documents that looks badly on either the Libs or the Conservatives, which would influence our next election.


----------



## Sapplicant (5 Dec 2010)

... That's like saying that the sun will rise again without specifying which day, or what time. Of course they will!!! Heck, within the next 100 years, the NPD MIGHT even end up rising to the position of opposition  ;D


History repeats itself. This stuff more or less follows cycles, much like solar flares, hurricanes, ice ages, and impact events.


----------



## Thompson_JM (5 Dec 2010)

At this point I'll just be happy to support a party that has any kind of REAL leader..... 

Peter McKay must throw up in his mouth some days when he sees some of the backwater hillbilly's from the Reform Party who are now the PC's  

I mean, am I the only one who thinks John Baird is a Giant Troglodyte? He reminds me of a Grade school bully who would steal kids juice and cookies...

Granted, Iggy is a tool, Jack is a Moron...  I mean really... We could probably do one hell of a school yard analogy on the guy at the Hill....  Except at least the school yard has adult supervision...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Dec 2010)

Tommy said:
			
		

> At this point I'll just be happy to support a party that has any kind of REAL leader.....
> 
> Peter McKay must throw up in his mouth some days when he sees some of the backwater hillbilly's from the Reform Party who are now the PC's
> 
> ...



Ralph Goodale is just as big a bully. He just finesses it more. Instead of talking straight, he employs bafflegab. 

Your post also won't be taken seriously if you judge people on their physical stature. It's immature and wrong. As such, I've already given more time to this response than I should have.


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The current Liberal party stands for nothing, and only seems to be a vehicle for Bob Rae and Justin Trudeau (and their supporters and backers) to achieve their personal quest for power and glory. No wonder their electoral strongholds are dwindling away.
> 
> If the party can come up with new ideas and a coherent platform, then there is still a chance for the Liberal brand, but I am having serious doubts that the current Liberal Party establishment has the time or energy to do that, being consumed with infighting and hanging on to their perques and privileges (such as they are).
> 
> Political parties can and do dissolve rapidly, so there are several potential ways this story can end, most of them unhappily for the LPC



Nah....they're all sitting around waiting for the new second coming.....Justin.....yeah, right, there's a winner.... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Nah....they're all sitting around waiting for the new second coming.....Justin.....yeah, right, there's a winner.... :




I'm not so sure that's the case.

First: there is a pretty solid *right wing* in the Liberal Party that is fiscally responsible and, therefore, anxious to wring the last vestiges of Trudeau _père_ out of the Party - promoting Trudeau _fils_ will not sit well with them. Think e.g. Scott Brison and Keith Martin - Martin is leaving politics, largely I think, over a fiscal issue: paying for universal health care.

Second: Justin Trudeau appears, to me anyway, to have "blotted his copybook" in the recent Vaughn by-election. His intervention seems to have backfired; he may have helped Fantino mobilize the Conservative base to get out and vote - something supporters of the governing party often fail to do in by-elections.

Third: there is plenty of potential opposition to young M. Trudeau; think Domonic LeBlanc and the aforementioned Scott Brison from Atlantic Canada, a big team from Québec - it is, after all a French Canadian's 'turn' to lead, and many others. Justin Trudeau is  not a shoo-in.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Third: there is plenty of potential opposition to young M. Trudeau; think Domonic LeBlanc and the aforementioned Scott Brison from Atlantic Canada, a big team from Québec - it is, after all a French Canadian's 'turn' to lead, and many others. Justin Trudeau is  not a shoo-in.



But which Quebec Liberal hasn't already shot themselves in the foot? Arguably the best Quebec candidate isn't from the Liberal party, he's from the NDP. That being said, I don't see Mr Muclair changing parties.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2010)

If you would like a young, attractive, _ethnic_ candidate, try: Anthony Rota. I think someone can make an argument that the _rotation_ needs to be Anglo - French - Ethnic. (But _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ is an Amglo because you cannot get much more WASP than the Grant family.)


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2010)

Perhaps the Blue wing of the Liberal party should consider the lesson of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the UK; caucus with the CPC and create a "coalition of the winners". I don't know how big the Blue wing actually is or how many Liberals would actually cross the floor, but given the alternatives are electoral extinction or the takeover of the party by the political left (Rae, Dion and the rest of that gang) or people pining for the past and willing to throw behind the Young Dauphin there may be something to consider here.

A coalition of the winners would certainly bring the government close to or into majority territory, which would also bring stability to our political system and allow some more action than nibbling around the edges.

Worth thinking about


----------



## Thompson_JM (5 Dec 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Blue wing of the Liberal party should consider the lesson of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the UK; caucus with the CPC and create a "coalition of the winners". I don't know how big the Blue wing actually is or how many Liberals would actually cross the floor, but given the alternatives are electoral extinction or the takeover of the party by the political left (Rae, Dion and the rest of that gang) or people pining for the past and willing to throw behind the Young Dauphin there may be something to consider here.
> 
> A coalition of the winners would certainly bring the government close to or into majority territory, which would also bring stability to our political system and allow some more action than nibbling around the edges.
> 
> Worth thinking about




That would be nice to see.... Moderates from the PC's and the Libs banding together for some sort of Common Sense Party.... 

That I could get behind...


----------



## Thompson_JM (5 Dec 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ralph Goodale is just as big a bully. He just finesses it more. Instead of talking straight, he employs bafflegab.
> 
> Your post also won't be taken seriously if you judge people on their physical stature. It's immature and wrong. As such, I've already given more time to this response than I should have.



I'm not saying one is better then the other.... I just cant understand why Baird is always the go to person for the media, et al, when he is so inarticulate...  especially considering there are enough other conservatives who are far better spoken then he is.

And that was what I meant when I referred to him as a troglodyte... the way he sounds, his lack of emotional control when he speaks.... He sounds uneducated, uncouth... There are plenty of ways to speak your mind without loosing ones cool.... I don't like the way he works... not when I feel there are better members for the job.

I will attempt to word my posts more clearly in the future.

And for the Record, I vote Conservative... I support the Party, I just don't like some of the choices they make.


----------



## hold_fast (6 Dec 2010)

First off, I've been a card-carrying Lib for 4-5 years now - which is about how long I've been able to vote. I've stepped back from even bothering with politics lately because, to me, there is no good choice between the two parties. It used to be clear to me who was the better candidate, but now it's just picking between the lesser of two evils.

I've sat across from Dominic LeBlanc at the pub, where he focused on partisan politics and just demonized the Conservatives - making it far too red vs. blue for me. I've sat behind Ignatieff while he was speaking (here, behind him in black and white), and I feel like he's a fencesitter and opportunist who invents policies when the media gets upset about something. While he /did/ stand strongly on some issues and raise some good points, they seemed to be primarily the ones he knew he could stand behind safely. He also couldn't account for where money was coming from to fundraise and had no solutions to tuition problems for students - which, yes, is an issue to me.

I've shaken hands with Keith Martin and talked with him, he's a genuine guy, mostly. But, as mentioned, he's retiring and he was primarily focused on his own constituency to the point of voting against the party at times. While this is great for the constituents, it's not how one leads a national party that combines many constituencies.

As for Justin Trudeau? I saw him speak a couple months ago... and I'll be honest, I consider him the real deal. He's not just charismatic and a natural orator, but he understands that we're facing a lot of issues in the next decade that we're currently avoiding facing. He also comes off as someone who values others' opinions, especially when they disagree with him. He's a natural leader who will, one day, lead the Liberal party - if he wants to. In the next decade? Doubtful. I'd gladly vote for him one day, but it doesn't come off as if he's after power. I'm just not sure who could step in as a proper leader in the meantime.



As a side note - even as a Lib, I have more respect for Peter Mackay than nearly all of the Liberal cabinet, and I sincerely wish he was either a Lib, or leader of the Conservatives. I'd gladly vote blue if he was (and dominated the policymaking).

Just my  :2c:.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2010)

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.

I attended a speech by the Young Dauphin and found him to be a very unengaging speaker, and the content of the speech was nothing to write home about either (except for the fact that the way he was dealing with economics and Capitalism would not have been out of place coming from Jack Layton's mouth).

I have also been to small events with the Prime Minister in attendance, and he is far more engaging in person. I have also met Peter Mackay and had a favourable impression as well. While I am not a card carrying Conservative (by inclination I would be a small l libertarian, but know what I am dealing with WRT the Libertarian Party), I do have access to some of these functions through friends and contacts, and have a fair idea of the ideas which animate the CPC. My contacts with people in the Liberal Party mostly confirm the overall impression of an institution in disarray; some of these people have very good ideas but no means of influencing the party's "machine", which views them somewhat like a baron would view serfs in the Middle Ages ("pay your dues, sell memberships and keep your mouth closed"). All in all, very disheartening.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> As a side note - even as a Lib, I have more respect for Peter Mackay than nearly all of the Liberal cabinet, and I sincerely wish he was either a Lib, or leader of the Conservatives. I'd gladly vote blue if he was (and dominated the policymaking).


I think that if Mr. Mackay were the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, their stock would go through the roof.  I believe him to be more centrist than right, and it doesn't hurt that he's a fit, attractive bachelor either.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> it doesn't hurt that he's a fit, attractive bachelor either.



Not the first thing that would have caught my eye, but to each his own, I guess. Not that there's anything wrong with that 


C'mon, you know someone was going to pick it up :rofl:


----------



## PanaEng (6 Dec 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> I feel like he's a fencesitter and opportunist who invents policies when the media gets upset about something. While he /did/ stand strongly on some issues and raise some good points, they seemed to be primarily the ones he knew he could stand behind safely. He also couldn't account for where money was coming from to fundraise and had no solutions to tuition problems for students - which, yes, is an issue to me.


I have to agree with your view of Iggy. When he first entered politics, I thought it was a godsend for the Libs. But he has been unable to translate academic credentials into anything resembling leadership or charisma. Is there hope for him/them? maybe, if he gets his act together and starts sticking to the message.

I voted conservative but the right wing of the party makes me nervous...


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Dec 2010)

>promoting Trudeau fils will not sit well with them.

If heredity carries any meaning, it must be borne in mind that Justin is not merely the son of Pierre; he is also the son of Margaret.


----------



## PanaEng (6 Dec 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >promoting Trudeau fils will not sit well with them.
> 
> If heredity carries any meaning, it must be borne in mind that Justin is not merely the son of Pierre; he is also the son of Margaret.



Perfect!  :


----------



## Redeye (3 May 2011)

I wonder who'll stand up to replace him.

My bet: it won't be Bob Rae - he's probably already suckholing to get himself in with the newly reinvigorated federal NDP.


----------



## dapaterson (3 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I wonder who'll stand up to replace him.
> 
> My bet: it won't be Bob Rae - he's probably already suckholing to get himself in with the newly reinvigorated federal NDP.



By custom, the next leader should be a francophone.  Following the 2015 election the party will have to decide whether 2011 was an abberation or their 1993.  If that is the case, I would look for Bob to pull a Peter, depose the franco leader while promising never to merge with the NDP, then turn around and do it.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> By custom, the next leader should be a francophone.  Following the 2015 election the party will have to decide whether 2011 was an aberration or their 1993.  If that is the case, I would look for Bob to pull a Peter, depose the franco leader while promising never to merge with the NDP, then turn around and do it.



If that happens then I wager half or more of their current MPs will cross the floor to the Torries. It's probably reasonable to presume that the majority of the Liberals elected last night are the "blue" kind, rather than the "orange" kind.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 May 2011)

Tom Young the host of the afternoon show on 95.7 FM newstalk radio here in Halifax said last spring " mark my words, in 5 years, Justin Trudeau will be the next PM".  Now, maybe he might not be the next PM but I'll bet he will make a run for the leadership of the Pary now that Iggys gone.


----------



## Container (3 May 2011)

Will people really vote for that guy? Ugh. It would be like electing a rock star as Prime Minister......except the rock star has a skill.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Will people really vote for that guy? Ugh. It would be like electing a rock star as Prime Minister......except the rock star has a skill.



There are plenty of Liberals who believe in the Great Man theory and will sell their souls to get his name up as the Liberal leader in the expectation that everyone will swoon at the sound of his name.

First problem is that a great man needs to be, you know, great. A guy with no visible accomplishments should not be in contention at all (although people like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashien and Barrack Obama would seem to refute this theory). Of course when the rubber hits the road buyers remorse will kick in very fast.

The second problem is the LPC has no coherent platform. since they wanted to be all things to all people, they ended up representing nothing at all. Another empty suit with no platform? Recipie for disaster.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (3 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The second problem is the LPC has no coherent platform. since they wanted to be all things to all people, they ended up representing nothing at all. Another empty suit with no platform? Recipie for disaster.



I think part of the problem is burned bridges.  Trudeau made a decision to alienate the West as a part of an us against them type of thing.  Seizing billions in oil wealth is remembered as if it were yesterday.  Trudeau's handling of Quebec re: the Constitution broke the Liberal's stranglehold on Quebec.  The Liberals are fighting elections in half of Canada, Ontario and the Atlantic.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 May 2011)

>It would be like electing a rock star as Prime Minister

Justin is the son of Margaret as well as the son of Pierre.  You might get the groupie rather than the rock star.


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> First problem is that a great man needs to be, you know, great. A guy with no visible accomplishments should not be in contention at all (although people like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashien and Barrack Obama would seem to refute this theory). Of course when the rubber hits the road buyers remorse will kick in very fast.



Barack Obama was the first black President in a country with a long history of racial issues (including a Civil War) and comes from an academic/political pedigree similar to Harper (graduate degrees, background in politics prior to taking on leadership).  Thoughts of your favorite blogs aside, I'd consider him "somewhat" accomplished (as in, he'll have a legacy) and in a different league than Hilton or Kardashian.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 May 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a good look at 'what went wrong?' and 'where to next?' from a well known Liberal:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/the-liberal-party-what-went-wrong-and-where-to-next/article2008011/page3/ 


> The Liberal Party: What went wrong and where to next?
> 
> ROBERT SILVER
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




Silver presents an interesting list of “groups”/options for the Liberals.

I repeat my hope that a “New Liberal Party” emerges – pushing back towards the 'big spending centre' and shoving the “nationalize the banks” fringe of the NDP out and back to the _loony left_ fringe where they belong. That outcome would force the Conservatives to the 'small government' centre, too: fiscally conservative and disinterested in “social' issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc), and shoving the 'radical right' out to the fringes where they, too, belong.


----------



## Haletown (4 May 2011)

With a Harper majority, the Liberals now have the time, years of time to do what they should have done  . . .  rebuild.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 May 2011)

This story from The Hill Times website is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. It highlights how a couple of Grits view the election results. The statement by Stephen Clarkson that the NDP has replaced the Liberals as the only national party reveals a certain attitude that has much to do with the Liberal failure, sort of an entitlement attitude. If one looks at the NDP growth outside Quebec, it was hardly spectacular.

Politics a 'blood sport' that Ignatieff didn't understand
Liberal Party's 43-seat loss a 'typhoon,' says Grit Jim Karygianis. 'Unless the leader and everybody else understands that this is a blood sport, the Liberals are going to be wiped off the face of the earth,' he says.

By TIM NAUMETZ
 Published May 4, 2011 12:52 AM   
           
PARLIAMENT HILL – The devastated Liberal caucus is meeting next week to come to grips with the unknown territory at the “rump end” of the House of Commons, the scarce resources and money the party will have available to get back on its feet over the next four years, and examine campaign wreckage to determine what led to the Liberal decimation when the electorate shifted like an earthquake in Monday’s election.

“The prospect is grim,” Stephen Clarkson, the University of Toronto professor best known for his expertise on Canada’s Liberal party, told The Hill Times. "It is no longer a national party, it can't claim to be."

Two Liberals made comments suggesting the open wounds the party is suffering now, down to a historic low of 34 House of Commons seats after winning only 18.9 per cent of the popular vote, its 12 Atlantic MPs now forming the largest regional caucus in the House, only five MPs left in Toronto’s 416 area code, only seven in the entire province of Quebec, may have been festering for years.

One longtime Liberal insider, who did not want to be identified, said the party “has been rotting for quite some time,” as it allowed the structures of its fundraising programs and membership, now apparently only 34,000 across the country, volunteer programs and grassroots engagement lapse since well before the Jean Chrétien government, and corrosion that “eroded” further in the decade-long wars between Mr. Chrétien and his loyalists and former prime minister Paul Martin.

Jim Karygianis, the down-to-earth trench fighter and combative Liberal MP who was re-elected in his Scarborough-Agincourt riding in Toronto, openly displayed pent-up frustration at the way he says some caucus members have been treated in the past, with limited consultation, exclusion of MPs unpopular with the last two leaders, Michael Ignatieff and Stéphane Dion, and a “dictatorial” approach Mr. Karygianis said has to end if the party expects to rebuild.

He expressed open discontent serving under Mr. Ignatieff’s leadership in the past two years, something other MPs have also hinted at privately during that time.

“We’ll give a plaque like he gives the rest of us and we’ll say ‘thank you for being here,” Mr. Karygianis said when told the Liberal leader announced he is returning to academic life. Mr. Karygianis blamed the humbling defeat on Mr. Ignatieff.

“It’s called a typhoon, and it’s all on account of the leader,” he told The Hill Times.

“There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it, we should have come out swinging when they said ‘just visiting and all that stuff.’ There’s no Mr. Nice in this business. This is a blood sport and unless the leader and everybody else understands that, this is a blood sport, the Liberals are going to be wiped off the face of the earth.”

Mr. Karygianis, whose gruff style apparently did not win brownie points in the caucus, even though he was one of the only five Toronto MPs re-elected, said the new caucus must be more inclusive, or the party will pay the price again at the ballot box. “When you want stuff, why should I go out of my way to help you, when you don’t look after me. When you call up and say ‘Can you come out to a rally,’ and the only thing that you do is come out to a rally, and you’re not the favourite person of the leader, why should I? Why should I get my 300 people out?”

Mr. Ignatieff resigned as leader of the Liberal Party on Tuesday, after losing his own Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont., seat to Conservative MP Bernard Trottier.

Prince Edward Island MP Wayne Easter, re-elected in his Malpeque riding, also expects a sobering readjustment once the new Parliament is convened. Liberals now sit at the far end of the Commons from the Speaker, beyond the new sea of 102 New Democrats occupying the official opposition centre stage.

“It’s going to be an awful shock to some who’ve been in there for a while, when we sit in the House, we’re down in the rump end, and we’ve only got one MP on each committee, there’s reality,” he said.

As the Liberal Party begins rebuilding, it faces a massive financial challenge, losing $1.3-million in Commons financing for the opposition leader’s office, more than $1-million for caucus research support and, just in the short term, $1.7-million in voter subsidies over the next year from Elections Canada because of its plunge in support. Mr. Harper made a campaign pledge to scrap the electoral allowance entirely, saying he would give the parties a phase-in period to adapt, and fundraising will only be more difficult for the Liberals as they move further from power.

The party must now sketch out a road map to replace the departing Mr. Ignatieff, and both Mr. Karygianis and Mr. Easter said an interim leader should be selected by the caucus, set to meet next weekend, for a period of up to one year, or even two, in Mr. Easter’s mind, before a new leader is chosen.

“The last thing we want to do is be hasty. Let’s sit back, let’s not get all excited over here, and plan our strategy well, and give our party the best chance at renewal,” he said.

Mr. Easter favoured Saskatchewan MP Ralph Goodale, the former finance minister and House leader who won re-election in his Wascana riding in Regina, who was also Mr. Ignatieff's deputy leader, while Mr. Karygianis said he would prefer Bob Rae, the former Ontario NDP premier who won re-election as a Liberal in Toronto Centre, Ont.

Mr. Clarkson, whose latest book on the Liberals was published in 2005 and titled How The Liberal Party Dominates Canadian Politics, said the NDP’s takeover of the bridge between Quebec and the rest of Canada, once predominantly held by the Liberals, and the huge chasm between its third-party status and the chance to form government again, is perhaps more important than the financial problems it will face.

“It means [the NDP] have replaced the Liberal Party as the only national party, the way the Liberals could [in the past] say, ‘We’re the only ones that can bridge the bicultural divide,'” said Mr. Clarkson.

Out of power already for the past five years, the next four years of Conservative government will only take the Liberals further away from the allure of government, power, Cabinet posts and patronage, that are essential to maintaining party strength and organization between election battles.

“They’ve got the potential to rebuild, but it’s going to be very tough,” Mr. Clarkson said. “They need an organization and members who are willing to work even though they’re not going to be made Cabinet ministers, and they’re generally only willing to work for that reason if they’ve got something to believe in."


----------



## dapaterson (4 May 2011)

[tangent]
I'd argue that Dr Clarkson is best known as the ex-husband of a governor general...
[/tangent]


----------



## vonGarvin (4 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Barack Obama was the first *half-black, half-white* President in a country with a long history of racial issues (including a Civil War) and comes from an academic/political pedigree similar to Harper (graduate degrees, background in politics prior to taking on leadership).  Thoughts of your favorite blogs aside, I'd consider him "somewhat" accomplished (as in, he'll have a legacy) and in a different league than Hilton or Kardashian.


Obama is light years ahead of Hilton and Kardashian, I agree.   I just changed a little thing in your quote, because although he's advertised as black, he's only half-so (not that it matters).


----------



## ModlrMike (4 May 2011)

The real task for the Liberals is to regain their losses, not from the Conservatives, but rather the NDP. They have to violently and decisively steer the party back to the center, while showing the public that the NDP really is the lunatic fringe. Leave Harper alone most of the time. Set up the NDP rookies, and watch them perform. They need to choose a leader who resonates with Canadians, who has real commonality with them, not some reedy academic that no one outside the party knows. They need to get over Trudeau, both senior and junior. They need to accept that the public *doesn't* hate Stephen Harper as much as they do. They need a real policy revolution, not some 20 year old rehash of universal child care and R2P. Burn the Red Book, start again. They need to recognize that Canada's armed forces are fighters and peace-makers; forgetting the failed and outdated concept of traditional, blue beret, peacekeeping that's no longer relevant. They need to stop trying to appeal to every special interest, potential vote caucus group out there, and champion the message that we're all Canadians first. They need to get over the idea that "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others". They need to give up their money for nothing appeal to voters. Everything has a cost attached, and the government has no money of its own - it has lots of other people's money, which is finite and needs to be managed carefully.

However, in order to steer towards the center they need to put the car in gear. It's not so much they've lost their way, but rather that they used their map to start a fire and are now almost irrevocably lost.


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2011)

True.


----------



## GR66 (4 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The real task for the Liberals is to regain their losses, not from the Conservatives, but rather the NDP. They have to violently and decisively steer the party back to the center, while showing the public that the NDP really is the lunatic fringe. Leave Harper alone most of the time. Set up the NDP rookies, and watch them perform. They need to choose a leader who resonates with Canadians, who has real commonality with them, not some reedy academic that no one outside the party knows. They need to get over Trudeau, both senior and junior. They need to accept that the public *doesn't* hate Stephen Harper as much as they do. They need a real policy revolution, not some 20 year old rehash of universal child care and R2P. Burn the Red Book, start again. They need to recognize that Canada's armed forces are fighters and peace-makers; forgetting the failed and outdated concept of traditional, blue beret, peacekeeping that's no longer relevant. They need to stop trying to appeal to every special interest, potential vote caucus group out there, and champion the message that we're all Canadians first. They need to get over the idea that "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others". They need to give up their money for nothing appeal to voters. Everything has a cost attached, and the government has no money of its own - it has lots of other people's money, which is finite and needs to be managed carefully.
> 
> However, in order to steer towards the center they need to put the car in gear. It's not so much they've lost their way, but rather that they used their map to start a fire and are now almost irrevocably lost.



They need to become the Progressive Conservative Party?   ;D

In all seriousness while my great hope is that the Liberal Party of Canada can re-discover it's historic (not recent history) role as a centrist party, I'm not very confident that it will happen.  Liberals on the left side of the party (Bob Rae, etc) may be much more inclined to try and merge the left into a single "socialist-lite" party.  On the other hand there's another core of people that cling to the myth of Trudeau's (the Sr.) "Camelot".  This group would simply try and reinstill in the Canadian public the idea of the Liberal Party as the "natural governing party" of Canada and the only REAL alternative to the Conservatives.  While a faltering NDP opposition _might_ do their part in helping restore the Liberals to official opposition status they will never (in my opinion) get enough support in this way to realistically present an honest challenge to the Conservatives without redefining themselves based on a clear ideology rather than resting on their historical laurels (or sins depending on your point of view!).  

Perhaps the Liberals have too much bad history behind them to rebuild under the Liberal banner.  Will they ever regain the support of the Francophone Quebecois that abandoned them after the repatriation of the Constitution?  Will Albertans ever bring themselves to support a Liberal government after the National Energy Policy?  

Maybe the best solution IS to leave the rump of the Liberal party to a new Liberal-Democrat Left-Centre opposition party and for the right wing of the former Liberals to join the Conservatives and through their presence continue the moderation of the social conservatism of that party that began with the merger of the Reformers and the PC's.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (4 May 2011)

Perhaps not now, but down the road I would be extremely surprised to NOT see Justin Trudeau as the leader of the Liberal party.


----------



## larry Strong (4 May 2011)

In my view their classic mistake was to force an unwanted election on us


----------



## dapaterson (4 May 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> In my view their classic mistake was to force an unwanted election on us



[Princess Bride]

The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! 

[/Princess Bride]


----------



## Old Sweat (4 May 2011)

Here is an oped piece by Thomas Axworthy from the Toronto Star on the way back for the Liberals. It is reporduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.


The Liberal Party of Canada is a tough old beast and predictions about its imminent demise are premature. But there can be no gilding of the lily that falling to third place in the 2011 election, with only 34 seats, 68 behind the NDP, and 133 behind the victorious Conservatives, is a monumental defeat. Michael Ignatieff did the honourable thing by taking responsibility for the loss and resigning with speed and grace.

Liberals are still feeling the extent of the carnage, but two central questions have to be answered if the party is to have any future: What went wrong, and what to do?

Explanations abound for so rapid a decline from a majority government, but one essential reason is captured in the question I was asked more than any other in knocking on doors: “What does the Liberal party stand for?” Answering that question is the first step on the road back.

Not so long ago, the Liberal party had a clearly defined and understood mission: the Pearson Liberals gave us the welfare state, the Trudeau Liberals gave us a Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Chrétien-Martin Liberals gave us a balanced budget and financial freedom after decades of deficit spending. There were national projects enjoying a consensus within the party and support from the public.

But after 2000, the Liberal imagination faltered. In government, we created a surplus but didn’t know how to use it for lasting change. In opposition, the party emphasized employment insurance, then education (the passport), then health, then democracy. Ideas have been picked up, given a test run, then if controversial, dropped. Can anyone imagine Pierre Trudeau dropping the Charter because it was unpopular the first time out?

The Conservatives have stayed on a consistent low-tax, less-government message. The NDP has the similar consistency, though opposite in direction — more government and more equity. To succeed, the Liberal party must have the same consistency, which in turn requires hard thought over the long term.

What needs to be done to fix a party that can’t define itself? Ignatieff was right to make democratic governance a central theme, and the Liberals should prove to Canadians that they are sincere by making relevant the one institution they own — the party itself.

 Liberal ridings should keep much of the money they raise, an ongoing party think-tank should be created, and the membership as a whole should vote on key strategy or platform issues, not leaving it to the leadership or caucus. For a sick party in a waning democracy, the first rule should be: Physician heal thyself.

Next, the party has to change its strategic focus. As Andrew Jackson once said “Elevate those guns a little lower.” 

The self-delusion of “The Government Party” must be thrown in the ashcan. Three straight election defeats should wake up even the most self-satisfied Liberal. The goal of the Liberal party is now to aim for second. It must become the opposition before it can effectively compete for government. It will take at least two elections (maybe more) for the Liberals to again form a federal government. 

Here the Liberals can learn from the traditional third party — the NDP. Early in my career, I spent time in the House of Commons listening to David Lewis, leader of the NDP. Lewis argued that his true opponents were the Liberals, not the Conservatives. Over the next four years, issues should be viewed through the prism of whether it will help the Liberal party attract back the progressive base from the NDP. Some argue for union with the NDP — with today’s weakened Liberal party, that would be a surrender, not a merger.

Last, the leadership battle to replace Michael Ignatieff must be placed on hold. The party should appoint an interim leader like Ralph Goodale for the next several years while rethinking policy, reforming its structure and developing a strategy to exploit the weaknesses of the NDP.

The Liberal party’s Renewal Commission, established in 2006, was undercut almost right away when the national executive decided to hold a leadership convention in the same year. Liberals gave up the hard work of renewal in favour of the delights of a leadership fight. 

That mistake should not be repeated. The Liberal party needs time for leadership candidates to emerge. Fix the strategy, the policy and the structure, then pick a new leader about a year out from the next election in 2015. This will also have the advantage of giving the Conservatives only a year to demonize the new leader.

Tommy Douglas, the first leader of the NDP, when defeated by the Liberal party in the heyday of the “Big Red Machine” quoted a traditional folksong to his disappointed followers: “I am hurt but I am not slain, I’ll lay me down and bleed awhile, then I’ll rise and fight again.” Douglas’s advice should be a prescription for a Liberal party that now faces the strategic challenge of replacing the NDP as the opposition.

Thomas S. Axworthy, senior distinguished fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs, was principal secretary to prime minister Pierre Trudeau.


----------



## Cdnleaf (4 May 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This story from The Hill Times website is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. It highlights how a couple of Grits view the election results. The statement by Stephen Clarkson that the NDP has replaced the Liberals as the only national party reveals a certain attitude that has much to do with the Liberal failure, sort of an entitlement attitude. If one looks at the NDP growth outside Quebec, it was hardly spectacular.
> 
> Politics a 'blood sport' that Ignatieff didn't understand
> Liberal Party's 43-seat loss a 'typhoon,' says Grit Jim Karygianis. 'Unless the leader and everybody else understands that this is a blood sport, the Liberals are going to be wiped off the face of the earth,' he says.
> ...



 :nod:  Great recommendation from Mr. Karygianis - if you support any other party than his own.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 May 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> ... That's like saying that the sun will rise again without specifying which day, or what time. Of course they will!!! Heck, within the next 100 years, the NPD MIGHT even end up rising to the position of opposition  ;D



A quote to die by. 

Sorry, couldn't resist it!  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2011)

I'm sure the NDP will change the face of daily business in the Commons, but I'll go out on a limb here. I think the Liberals best bet is just to let Canadians watch the shenanigans that ensue when NDP acts like giddy school kids and full attention of the public gets turned to what their actual platform truly is. Now that they will have to stand up and actually start explaining all the stuff they want to push, I _think_, they will quickly start to disenfranchise a lot of the support that just came on board to punish the Liberals or Bloc. Once they actually listen, I think there's going to be a lot of 'WTF?' happening at 6 o'clock news time.

On another note, I hope the PM yanks the official status from the Bloc and does not do the same thing the Liberals did when the PC was decimated and let them retain party status.


_edit - spelling_


----------



## Haletown (4 May 2011)

"The devastated Liberal caucus is meeting next week to come to grips with the unknown territory at the “rump end” of the House of Commons"


So they did find an available phone booth near Parliament Hill.


----------



## Scott (4 May 2011)

Conrad who?

 :boring:


----------



## Cdnleaf (4 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sure the NDP will change the face of daily business in the Commons, but I'll go out on a limb here. I think the Liberals best bet is just to let Canadians watch the shenanigans that ensue when NDP acts like giddy school kids and full attention of the public gets turned to what their actual platform truly is. Now that they will have to stand up and actually start explaining all the stuff they want to push, I _think_, they will quickly start to disenfranchise a lot of the support that just came on board to punish the Liberals or Bloc. Once they actually listen, I think there's going to be a lot of 'WTF?' happening at 6 o'clock news time.
> 
> On another note, I hope the PM yanks the official status from the Bloc and does not do the same thing the Liberals did when the PC was decimated and let them retain party status.
> 
> _edit - spelling_



Agree with the first part; the political version of 'be the grey man' comes to mind for me for the liberals, sit back / regroup / await the right time to come out.  That's why I had a LMAO moment when I read about potentially nominating Mr. Ray for the leadership position.

IMHO, there's nothing to be gained in yanking official status from the Bloc / the results of the election did that to them; and not worth giving attention to.  Interesting to see if the ADQ comes alive again w/Mario Dumont.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sure the NDP will change the face of daily business in the Commons, but I'll go out on a limb here. I think the Liberals best bet is just to let Canadians watch the shenanigans that ensue when NDP acts like giddy school kids and full attention of the public gets turned to what their actual platform truly is.



And so it starts:

Shared with the usual caveats

NDP deputy leader doubts bin Laden photos exist
By Laura Payton, CBC News
Posted: May 4, 2011 6:58 PM ET 

The deputy leader of Canada's new Official Opposition party says he doubts the U.S. has photos of Osama bin Laden's dead body.

More at link.


----------



## Container (4 May 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/04/pol-mulcair-osama.html

The NDP doubts that the US has photos and wants a full investigation into the killing. Needing to know if Bin Laden was holdinga weapon or not...... Its been like two days and they are already making my jaw drop. Where is he basing his opinion? Amazing.


*edit* you beat me to it! But Im first with this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/04/pol-ndp-brosseau.html



"Questions raised about rookie NDP MP's papers"


----------



## mariomike (4 May 2011)

Perhaps the Liberals started slipping in this town when the late Joe Foti stopped hosting his BBQ's. I did a Paid Duty at one ( can't remember the year ) and never saw anything like it. It was in an already congested inner-city neighbourhood, but that did not keep people away. They partied like it was 1999.

Toronto 1999:
"JOE FOTI "THROWS THE BEST BBQ IN CANADA:
The redoubtable Signor Joe Foti has done it again--with a Liberal dose of la dolce vita. On July 24, for the 19th year in a row, he threw a massive backyard BBQ at his four houses on Winona Dr. that attracted a who's who of Liberals from all three levels of government, including Mayor Mel, Defence Minister Art Eggleton and MPP Mike Colle, not to mention an estimated 3,000 of Joe's closest friends, family and fellow paisans from Calabria. On the menu were 500 kg of spicy Italian sausage and an equal amount of Argentine-style sirloin steak, along with copious amounts of salad, pasta, beer and vino rosso. Since moving to Canada after World War II, Foti--today a retired 80-year-old City Hall janitor--has served as a fixer and go-between between Toronto's 500,000 residents of Italian origin and their political representatives. Other notables at the event, which Foti called "the best BBQ in Canada," included CHIN multicultural radio's legendary personality Johnny Lombardi and Honest Ed Mirvish. No slouch at throwing a festa, Mirvish put on a great birthday bash for himself the next day on Markham Street beside his Bloor St. bargain emporium. Mirvish is 84 years young.":
http://www.canadafreepress.com/1999/9906a2.htm


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2011)

cdnleaf said:
			
		

> IMHO, there's nothing to be gained in yanking official status from the Bloc / the results of the election did that to them; and not worth giving attention to.  Interesting to see if the ADQ comes alive again w/Mario Dumont.



If they don't have status, they can't join the Leader's Debate(s) in four years, unless the other parties take pity.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If they don't have status, they can't join the Leader's Debate(s) in four years, unless the other parties take pity.


Lizzy will probably get invited with one MP, so the Bloc will no doubt also appear.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 May 2011)

In my mind, they need to understand the importance of intermediate objectives.  They should be focusing on setting the conditions for success for the election in 2019.  The election in 2015 will merely be about securing their final attack position.  By the same token, they need to understand that they need a different type of leader for each of the two campaigns as well.  Part of me wants to burst into their backrooms and shake some people, then brief them on the plan.  The rest me is enticed by the spectacle of them flailing around for 6 or 7 years before they finally get it right.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> In my mind, they need to understand the importance of intermediate objectives.  They should be focusing on setting the conditions for success for the election in 2019.  The election in 2015 will merely be about securing their final attack position.  By the same token, they need to understand that they need a different type of leader for each of the two campaigns as well.  Part of me wants to burst into their backrooms and shake some people, then brief them on the plan.  The rest me is enticed by the spectacle of them flailing around for 6 or 7 years before they finally get it right.



I'll set up the map board for you. Just make sure we are all wearing our Blue Berets before entering the room, or you'll never get a hearing!  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## dapaterson (4 May 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> In my mind, they need to understand the importance of intermediate objectives.  They should be focusing on setting the conditions for success for the election in 2019.  The election in 2015 will merely be about securing their final attack position.  By the same token, they need to understand that they need a different type of leader for each of the two campaigns as well.  Part of me wants to burst into their backrooms and shake some people, then brief them on the plan.  The rest me is enticed by the spectacle of them flailing around for 6 or 7 years before they finally get it right.



So they need a Charest for the rebuilding, then a Mackay to bow to the inevitable NDP merger?


----------



## a_majoor (5 May 2011)

Rebuilding the LPC would be an interesting intellectual exercise, but since I have a core small l libertarian set of values it would end in tears...

The first and most important thing any prospective Liberal needs to do is define the core values of "Liberalism" and then work everything outwards to be based on and reflect these core values; however imperfectly.

Conservatives have a fairly easy task; their core values are derived from the Classical Liberal traditions of the enlightenment; Individual Liberty, Rule of Law and the State as the protector of liberty and the provider of Courts of Law to arbitrate disputes.

Socialists also have a relatively easy task; the core ideas of socialism are the State is the arbitrator of production (either directly or indirectly) and the bounty of the state accrues to a group or groups of people defined either by "class" (economic socialism) or ethnicity (national socialism). Other subsets and distinctions exist, but the basic ideas are the core of every form of socialism.

So what should the Liberals stand for? Interesting question.


----------



## a_majoor (5 May 2011)

Another view:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=9092



> *Unpleasant Truths For The Liberals*
> 
> Having looked at the Liblogs page today, I see that quite a few of them are already taking steps in the right direction, talking about the need to renew their party. The thing is, though, I’m not really all that sure that they’ve fully grasped the magnitude of the task ahead of them. I think that, in order for them to get a handle on things, it’s time for them to face what I’d call a few “unpleasant truths,” statements that they’ve so far tiptoed around but that they’re going to have to openly confront, if they want Canadians to truly believe that the Liberal Party of Canada has renewed itself. Here we go:
> 
> ...


----------



## Cdnleaf (5 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If they don't have status, they can't join the Leader's Debate(s) in four years, unless the other parties take pity.



Seen - was thinking about that this am.  Definitely in the interest of the NDP to pursue; kind of a win/win for the conservatives either way now and in the future.  I.e. they can argue it's not democratic without the Bloc/GP at the debate(s) or pursue removing their status depending on the terrain.  I'll go you a Tim's they (conservatives) won't be lead on initiating the Bloc Status removal  :cheers:

 :facepalm: with the OBL article - I thought he would atleast get moved into Stornoway.....


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 May 2011)

Does the Liberal Party still have the overwhelming support of the Canadian broadcasters?  If they do, I envision the Conservatives will continue being reported as Neanderthal knuckle draggers while maybe the NDP will be reported as being incompetent amateurs.  There still might be hope.


----------



## Container (5 May 2011)

Here is a followup to that NDP story about the Bin Laden photos:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/05/mulcair-explains-comments.html

I think basically it means "Oh my god....people are listening to us now?"

"We're new to the whole international relations stuff."


----------



## PanaEng (5 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> First problem is that a great man needs to be, you know, great. A guy with no visible accomplishments should not be in contention at all (although people like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashien and Barrack Obama would seem to refute this theory). Of course when the rubber hits the road buyers remorse will kick in very fast.


Your love of  Mr Obama seems to permeate every thread you post in...

anyway,
I reread the thread from the beginning and found many amusing comments that are now a reality; like an NDP official opposition when hell freezes over  :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2011)

Looking at where the Liberal Party evolved from isn't very promising for today's Liberals:

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2011/05/fall-of-liberal-party.html



> *The fall of the Liberal Party*
> 
> In 1896 the charismatic Wilfrid Laurier won a majority government for the Liberal Party. He was not the first Liberal Prime Minister, but there is a reason that his name is revered while the name of Alexander Mackenzie is largely forgotten. It was Laurier that built the Liberals into a united and focused party. It was Laurier who began the century of Liberal dominance of Canadian federal politics.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2011)

And a view from the Liberal party. Read carefully and you can see they _still_ don't get it:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/05/jeff-jedras-why-the-liberal-campaign-failed-on-the-national-level/



> *Jeff Jedras: Why the Liberal campaign failed on the national level*
> 
> Jeff Jedras  May 5, 2011 – 9:38 AM ET | Last Updated: May 5, 2011 10:42 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2012)

Some further thoughts on the future of the Liberal Party of Canada, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/lets-face-it-the-liberals-are-out-of-gas/article2299341/


> Let’s face it, the Liberals are out of gas
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> 
> ...




I agree with Peggy Wente that the Liberal Party of Canada, as currently organized and led, is "out of gas."

But so, given the challenges posed by Francis Fukuyama, is the Conservative Party of Canada - and the Democrats and Republicans in the USA, and the Tories and Labour in Britain and so on. 

To paraphrase Wente: _"How might society mitigate these flaws in capitalism in ways that are politically acceptable? Perhaps the Liberals Canadian leaders could get around to thinking about this one of these days."_

I agree 100% with her last sentence, and I am a loyal, card carrying, major contributing donor type Tory.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2012)

Post progressive society will see radical changes as people discover work arounds to the slow, barnacle encrusted bureaucracies (both public and private), and learn to live very "lean" lifestyes due to the destruction of wealth through government indebtedness and inflation.

Tying together observations from various threads:

Education will be incresingly self directed as internet based learning (like the Khan acadamy and MIT's free online courses) proliferate. STEM disciplines that require specialized equipment and lab work will likley be the sole remaining bastions of brick and mortar education. Low cost education and merit based testing will eclipse credentialism as students avoid high costs and debt, and employers look for lower cost, skilled workers (lower cost since their salary expectations are not driven by debt payments).

Many new technologies are close to fruition that will free people from the need to tie into the "grid". Local energy production, high efficiency devices that require less energy and small scale manufacturing using "3D Printers" (some which could be small and cheap enough to use in your home) wil obliviate the need to tap into large centralized systems. Even food can be divorced from the grid to some extent, using high intensity garden technologies.

Some things do need economies of scale, but this might not need a physical presence. Look at shoppers who use Amazon.com to buy everything from books to groceries on line to take advantage of economies of scale for low prices and wide selection.

Information will not need to go through gatekeepers either. The Bogosphere has damaged the legacy media's ability to craft and support "narratives". Cheap, studio quality recording and video equipment can be had that gives most people the potential to set themselves up as studios and content producers in their own right.

People are also discovering how counterproductive the progressive model of governance really is beyond the vast debts they have racked up. Shortages of drugs caused by regulatory agencies (as is increasingly happening in the United States) or the realization the reason we can't exploit vast reservours of cheap hydrocarbons because bureaucrats are blocking exploitation (to name two examples) will drive futher opposition to such overreach of bureaucratic power, and demands that these bureaucracies be dismantled.

With citizens fully empowered and quite able to live well on their own, what political philosophies would appeal to them? Classical Liberalism, embodying defense of individual freedoms of speech and assembly, property rights and unfettered use of your own property and the Rule of Law woud seem to be the best fit in this environment. In todays terms, these philosophies are expressed by Conservative (and small "c" conservative), Libertarian and Objectivist parties. The only palces left for Liberals and Socialists would be for the people unwilling or unable to be empowered (although the unable would have the alternatives of local charities to look after them). Based on real world experience the political battles will be mostly between the large and small "c" conservatives, with the Libertarians and Objectiveists as minor parties in the wings.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2012)

I don't think that most Libertarians or any Objectivists would qualify as classical *l*iberals - none of the latter have enough sense of a society and its needs.

That being said, I agree that classical *l*iberalism, with its emphasis on the individual versus the collective, is the best socio-political model for the 21st century.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2012)

The _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson, a died in the wool pink Trudeau Liberal - almost indistinguishable from a Layton _Dipper_, is dreaming in technicolour in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, but we must all hope he is right:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/dont-write-off-the-liberals-quite-yet/article2300564/


> Don’t write off the Liberals quite yet
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




Simpson, like so many Liberals, cannot get past the 1970s ~ but most Canadians can and have moved on. Trudeau only matters as a model of what we must not do, ever again. The country we had _circa_ 1970 was, already, headed down a long, slippery slope to _strategic_ irrelevance, our 1970 White Paper, _"A Foreign Policy for Canadians"_ was an piece of isolationist policy vandalism, written and approved by strategic nincompoops. We were, in 1970, already spending ourselves into deep trouble because the government would not, perhaps could not listen to its own economists. The civil service was also on a long, slow descent from which it has not yet recovered.

*But*: we _need_ the Liberal Party of canada; the Conservatives will grow lazy, tired, out of touch and corrupt; we will want, need to "throw the rascals out" of power and we must NOT ever consider replacing them with the NDP - not unless we want a repeat, here, of Britain in the '50s, '60s and '70s.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2012)

From my own experience with Libertarians (the large "L" variety anyway) and Objectivists (the Freedom Party), I don't expect them to suddenly rise up and become the natural governing party any time soon...

That said, the reason I include them is their philosophical roots are very clearly based on Classical Liberalism, so we can expect to see our share of Ron Pauls as time progresses. The will be shouting pretty loudly against a mass chorus of small "c" parties like the Wild Rose Alliance and the Saskatchewan Party, I note numerous movements like "Reform Ontario" in the start up stage here, so there is reason to believe these movements will grow and spread in time (although in fairness I can also see these parties growing and thriving in "New Canada, but not doing very well in "Old Canada").

Where does that leave the Liberal Party? They have moved decisively Left (no one in the media ever talks about Blue Liberals or the possibility that Liberal voters could move en mass to the CPC) and fight in the same voting pool for Socialist and Green voters. I have really heard nothing from their convention that suggests "renewal" or even a clear outlining of what the Liberal Party actually stands for (unless it is the flexibility to make Bob Rae the permanent leader of the party). While an NDP government would be an absolute disaster, at least there _is_ a clear choice before voters in a stand up CPC/NDP election.

I'm not sure what they can do to change, and if they are unwilling to take the steps needed to change, then they will morph into a rump party like the British Liberals, if they don't vanish altogether like the Whigs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2012)

_'Tit Jean_ Chrétien can, apparently, sees the future "through a glass darkly," and it does not look good, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:



> Liberal-NDP merger would create ‘political stability,’ Chrétien argues
> 
> JOAN BRYDEN
> 
> ...




IF M. Chrétien's dream came true then the big winners would be the Conservatives because the Laurier Liberals, the St Laurent Liberals, the Manley Liberals would abandon ship and move, _en masse_, to the Tories,  intending to reform that party.

There is hope for the Liberals and it lies on reclaiming the political centre, and that can be done only by abandoning the left to the NDP.

This country will be governed by centrists, that's why Harper and Mulcair want to move there.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> IF M. Chrétien's dream came true then the big winners would be the Conservatives because the Laurier Liberals, the St Laurent Liberals, the Manley Liberals would abandon ship and move, _en masse_, to the Tories,  intending to reform that party.



If that is the case, then I hope it happens.


----------



## GAP (16 Apr 2012)

Just remember.....this is all coming from a jail cell....


----------



## Sythen (16 Apr 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If that is the case, then I hope it happens.



But you're missing the key part of his quote.. 



> intending to reform that party.



So should this happen, how long til the CPC is the LPC of the 90's?


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Just remember.....this is all coming from a jail cell....



So did the Letter from Birmingham Jail. Many writers have been incarcerated for reasons good or ill, I'd rather focus on the character of their writing than the colour of their overalls...

As for the move of "Blue Liberals" to the CPC, that would be an interesting exercise, especially since the "Junior A" team of conservatives from out West (with roots in the Wild Rose Alliance and Saskatchewan Party) would also be moving into the Federal level as the years go by, and they will have a solid political, economic and demographic base to build on. I'd be betting on the West to prevail...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is an analysis of the Liberal Party's dilemma:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/18/andrew-coyne-liberals-fail-to-grasp-direness-of-their-situation-nearly-a-year-after-collapse/


> Liberals fail to grasp direness of their situation, nearly a year after collapse
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




I think that the Liberals' problem is deeper than Coyne suggests: the Party needs to rebuold its philosophy, its very _raison d'être_.

The political centre in Canada is HUGE and there is room for two parties, maybe three there: a right of centre/centre right party, a true _centrist party_ and a centre left/left of centre party. Stephen Harper is staking a claim to the right of centre/centre right/centre and Thomas Mulcair wants to occupy the centre/centre left/left of centre but there is room in the centre right/centre/centre left area for the Liberals. But, first, they have to repudiate 60+ years of policies going all the way back to Tom Kent and the Kingston "thinkers conference" of 1960; it means admitting, at least in private, that Pierre Trudeau was wrong in almost everything he said and did.

It seems to me that the Liberals need to do two things:

1. Embrace the NDP's social agenda; and

2. Embrace and expand the Conservative's economic agenda.

The Liberals should aim to be the most fiscally prudent of the three parties but they should distance themselves from the Conservatives on one fundamental issue: the _nature_ of government. The Conservatives, Harper's Conservatives, believe in very limited government, they accept, grudgingly, that government is necessary and that it must involve itself in a few 'businesses' like the national defence and foreign affairs. But they, the Conservatives, are of a fundamental view: government is not 'good.' The Liberals can say that while they want to keep government as small as Harper will make it, they believe that government can be 'good' and that it can lead.

My guesstimate is that:

1. The Liberals will elect the wrong leader in 2013: Bob Rae. He is 'wrong' because he is very much "yesterday's man" - he is too old and he comes with too much baggage;

2. Harper will balance the budget in 2014 and he will campaign in 2015 on a promise of "more of the same:" that he will keep _trimming_ government, not slashing, not burning, just careful, gradual trimming. He will promise to balance the budget again and again and to lower the employer's share of EI premiums to encourage Canadian companies to hire more workers and to lower corporate taxes to encourage more companies to do business in Canada and to trim individual taxes, too. (He might even be boldly _*c*onservative_ and buy up $1 Billion of the debt of Canada's most indebted province (which is either ON or QC, depending on how you measure) and, symbolically, liquidate it.) Harper's Conservatives will win the 2015 election;

3. Mulcair's NDP will finish second and will remain the official opposition, but they will be much reduced in numbers, having lost seats to both the Liberals and one or more Québec parties;

4. The Liberals will replace Rae with a younger man: maybe Scott Brison, maybe Dominic LeBlanc, maybe someone we haven't heard about yet - but it will be a "Manley Liberal," not Justin Trudeau; and

5. Harper's 2016 budget will redefine government - despite his election promises of just _trimming_ it will be like taking Harry the Happy Hippie and giving him short back and sides. Harper will retire in 2017 allowing his replacement to have a full year and a bit to redefine the Conservatives in his or her _image_. That's when the Liberals will need to be ready to topple the NDP and the Conservatives and retake the government: in 2019 when the party should have rid itself of embarrassments like Denis Coderre, Stéphane Dion, Wayne Easter, Hedy Fry and so on.


Edit: spelling  :-[


----------



## Journeyman (19 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberals will replace Rae with a younger man: maybe Scott Brison, maybe Dominic LeBlanc, maybe someone we haven't heard about yet - but it will be a "Manley Liberal," not Justin Trudeau;


Given that the scenario places the decision fresh on the heels of the "natural governing party's" second third-place finish, I suspect the thinking may be coloured by some clutching-at-straws. While it may be best for them to select a "Manley Liberal," I wouldn't rule out the Young Liberals pushing through the Dauphin......to the further detriment of the party's future.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Apr 2012)

I think the party is still looking for another "Trudeau" to mesmerize the nation and restore them to their rightful place at the top. Some thought Paul Martin would do it; remember the line that once the Canadian people saw him in action, he would be returned with the largest majority in history. Ignatieff was really selected in the same vein, but the people were unable to recognize what was good for them. And now we get Mr Carney being touted as the choice. I guess the brain trust could not grasp that he might not seize the mantel, or might not even be a Liberal.

Note that their past and perhaps choices are all Eastern Canadians. Can anyone think of a Western Canadian who might be willing to take a turn?


----------



## exabedtech (19 Apr 2012)

They should really try to get Conrad Black to lead the Liberal Party.  He's the embodiment of everything they believe in!  Criminal meglomaniac.... yup, perfect!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2012)

The young Liberals need to herd the old liberals into an old building, throw in all the old polices and books, lock the doors and burn it to the graound, plow the soil and toss salt on it. Then take the CPC history book and study it closely. Focus on building a grassroots based organization. forget the "white Knight" riding to the rescue, once you have healthy roots the leaders will come.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Apr 2012)

First salt, then plough.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2012)

I think Edward has probably thought harder and more deeply about how the LPC can revive itself than most Liberals. Since he is a confessed card carrying Conservative Party supporter, it is a sad commentary about the nature of the Liberal party leadership as it exists.

I also think he has outlined how Canadian politics will unfold between now and 2020 (which is an even more amazing feat since a week is a long time in poitics. For soemone with strong libertarian tendencies, I approve of the direction we are heading in, especially since balancing the budget and trimming the size and reach of the State is a prerequisite to recapitalizing Canada (eliminating the national debt and unpaid liabilities, which total over a trillion dollars), and reducing the tax burden of Canadians, which allows us to produce and build our own stock of wealth, not just for us, but for our children as well. Contrast this to the progressive project, which has saddled each and every one of us with over $16,000 in debt ($32,000 when we add the unpaid liabilities) regardless of our circumstances, desires and ability to pay. This massive opportunity cost is probably the biggest millstone around Canada's collective neck, and needs to be eliminated as quickly as is practial.


----------



## Redeye (20 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> For soemone with strong libertarian tendencies, I approve of the direction we are heading in, especially since balancing the budget and trimming the size and reach of the State is a prerequisite to recapitalizing Canada (eliminating the national debt and unpaid liabilities, which total over a trillion dollars), and reducing the tax burden of Canadians, which allows us to produce and build our own stock of wealth, not just for us, but for our children as well.



It's funny - I could swear the Liberals balanced the budget when they were in power, and ran massive surpluses which were used both to invest in the country and pay off debt. And I think they started cutting taxes a bit while they were at it. Maybe I'm just remembering that wrong? I definitely have a little bit of voter's remorse for voting Conservative for so long.

Mr. Campbell's assessment is fairly correct, I think - the track the Liberals will need to take, anyhow. If, as he suggests, they go for a "Manley Liberal" type leader, and try to fuse socially liberal ideas from the more left leaning end with a little more prudent economic policy, they'll probably be able to strip more disenchanted "red Tories" from the Conservative voter ranks, and probably convince some Dippers to hold their nose and vote for them too. That, regardless of their leader, will likely be the clarion call in the next election campaign - they'll be looking to highlight a lot of things the Conservatives have done to piss a lot of people off. I think, however, the Conservatives don't seem to care about things like robocalls, or the F35 debacle, or anything else, because they know right now there's no one who can bother them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's funny - I could swear the Liberals balanced the budget when they were in power, and ran massive surpluses which were used both to invest in the country and pay off debt. And I think they started cutting taxes a bit while they were at it. Maybe I'm just remembering that wrong? I definitely have a little bit of voter's remorse for voting Conservative for so long.
> 
> Mr. Campbell's assessment is fairly correct, I think - the track the Liberals will need to take, anyhow. If, as he suggests, they go for a "Manley Liberal" type leader, and try to fuse socially liberal ideas from the more left leaning end with a little more prudent economic policy, they'll probably be able to strip more disenchanted "red Tories" from the Conservative voter ranks, and probably convince some Dippers to hold their nose and vote for them too. That, regardless of their leader, will likely be the clarion call in the next election campaign - they'll be looking to highlight a lot of things the Conservatives have done to piss a lot of people off. I think, however, the Conservatives don't seem to care about things like robocalls, or the F35 debacle, or anything else, because they know right now there's no one who can bother them.




You are right that the Liberals did balance the budget, but they did so in a very sneaky way: they did make some deep, even painful cuts - mostly to national defence and "high culture," things most Canadians always want to see cut, but they also offloaded HUGE expenses to AB, BC and ON - and Dalton McGuinty's Ontario Liberals are, in 2012, paying for decisions Jean Chrétien made 15 years ago; chickens do come home to roost. In my opinion Harper's _trimming_ is better economics and even better politics.


----------



## Redeye (20 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You are right that the Liberals did balance the budget, but they did so in a very sneaky way: they did make some deep, even painful cuts - mostly to national defence and "high culture," things most Canadians always want to see cut, but they also offloaded HUGE expenses to AB, BC and ON - and Dalton McGuinty's Ontario Liberals are, in 2012, paying for decisions Jean Chrétien made 15 years ago; chickens do come home to roost. In my opinion Harper's _trimming_ is better economics and even better politics.



That is somewhat true - and the provincial governments - at least in the case of Ontario - just downloaded their own costs to municipalities. I agree about Harper's cuts side - I just wish he hadn't made decisions like cutting consumption taxes.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's funny - I could swear the Liberals balanced the budget when they were in power, and ran massive surpluses which were used both to invest in the country and pay off debt. And I think they started cutting taxes a bit while they were at it. Maybe I'm just remembering that wrong? I definitely have a little bit of voter's remorse for voting Conservative for so long.



Yes, he did...by lying about his Little Red Book's three promises, and only cutting the EH-101, whilst keeping Brian Mulroney's GST and NAFTA.

So yes, you're right, Chretien lied, then used Conservative tools to increase Canada's financial solidity.


Regards
G2G


----------



## exabedtech (20 Apr 2012)

Cretin was a lying bastard who would sell his mother for a vote.  We'd have been better off with my dog running the country.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Apr 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yes, he did...by lying about his Little Red Book's three promises, and only cutting the EH-101, whilst keeping Brian Mulroney's GST and NAFTA.
> 
> So yes, you're right, Chretien lied, then used Conservative tools to increase Canada's financial solidity.
> 
> ...



You mean like spending the pension surplus instead of using it to offset unfunded liabilities? Or perhaps stealing the EI surplus instead of returning it to the taxpayers? I don't recall the Conservatives ever doing, or saying they would do either of those.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2012)

The Enron like accouting of the 1990's only served to eliminate the deficit, and the overtaxation that occured later was simply used to restart the spending to pander to special interests, rather than actually pay down the debt or unfunded liabilities. And of course the Liberals party led the charge for the $30 billion "stimulus" spending in 2008 that put us back into deficit (then of course howled that there was a deficit again). 

While I am very unhappy with the Conservatives for ramping up soending during minority and also for the mildness of their trimming today (I would have been most pleased to see the trimming start at $10 billion), at least the trimming is being done via spending cuts, and is sustainable. Getting to broad based tax relief and revving up the economy *shoud* be the next item on the agenda, and if the forecast to 2020 is anywhere near correct, then the opportunity presents itself after the budget is balanced (which would fit nicely with the "short back and sides" prediction for 2016). 

Paying down the debt and unpaid liabilities is a matter of urgency, since the fundimentals of the global debt crisis have not really been resolved (indeed the extra 5 trillion dollars the US Admininstration ladled onto their debt has only made the conditions worse), and the mismanagement of Ontario and to a lesser extent Quebec have landed a ticking time bomb in the Canadian economy as well. Deleveraging the national debt and providing the population with the opportunity to deleverage and build up their own wealth is really the only way to provide long term protection.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Apr 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You mean like spending the pension surplus instead of using it to offset unfunded liabilities? Or perhaps stealing the EI surplus instead of returning it to the taxpayers? I don't recall the Conservatives ever doing, or saying they would do either of those.



Yes, it was $13 billion dollars, if I recall correctly.


----------



## GAP (21 Apr 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yes, it was $13 billion dollars, if I recall correctly.



I remember the controversy was over a 40B figure....can't remember the details....


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> I remember the controversy was over a 40B figure....can't remember the details....



I recall that figure too, GAP.  Maybe the $13B was the CFSA alone, and the $40B included it and the PSSA and RCMPSA all together?


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Apr 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I recall that figure too, GAP.  Maybe the $13B was the CFSA alone, and the $40B included it and the PSSA and RCMPSA all together?



Kinda makes the F-35 like a drop in the bucket...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2012)

Here is a rather useful reminder that parties, even Liberal Parties, can wither and die. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Opinion/Columnists/6487141/story.html


> A British history lesson for Canada’s Liberals
> 
> By Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




I have a well thumbed copy of _The Strange Death of Liberal England_ in my library; so too, I suspect, does Stephen Harper, most likely John Manley has one, too; I wonder if Bob Rae has read it? If you haven't you should get it from your local library.


----------



## a_majoor (29 May 2012)

The LPC is not exactly showing signs of life; this is probably good news for the CPC and excellent news for the NDP, OTOH the idea of them dissapearing and creating a united Left is a bit unsettling. The list of "illustrious names" who have abandoned the LPC now that it no longer serves their purpose is also telling; their loyalty to the Party is only in proportion to what they could gain by belonging to it:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/05/26/19802586.html



> *Liberals struggle with identity*
> By Mark Dunn, QMI Agency
> 
> OTTAWA - A spate of recent polls suggest Liberal pallbearers should send their mourning suits to the drycleaner.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2012)

The Liberals will do well to ditich the old guard, read the Conservative history for lessons learned, look at the long view and build the grassroots. Head for the centre borrowing slightly from left and right. The BIA (bill C-38) in front of the house right now is going to haunt the Conservatives, making up law on the fly always bites sooner or later and as much as Canadians like to say "deregulate" what they are saying is; "cut regulations I don't like, but make sure you regulate that guy down the street" As Canadians start hearing more of "Sorry we can't help you" when they call government departments, they will be pissed. If the Liberals were smart they would start to build on the unease people have about the scope and breadth of bill C-38. However I don't think the Libs have clued in to what they have to do. Fire first, then rise out of the ashes.


----------



## dogger1936 (14 Jun 2012)

I don't think bill c-38 will have much effect on the next election. This will be old news that I believe the average Canadian really doesn't care about. Conservatives are "smart" to get this out of the way early in their term.

Unless the NDP leans much more towards the center ( Which I believe is what Mulcair is trying) the Liberals will lose ground next election to the NDP; not in numbers to have any change onm the CPC majority.

While I don't agree with bill c-38 at all; I find most people really just don't care.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jun 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I don't think bill c-38 will have much effect on the next election. This will be old news that I believe the average Canadian really doesn't care about. Conservatives are "smart" to get this out of the way early in their term.
> 
> Unless the NDP leans much more towards the center ( Which I believe is what Mulcair is trying) the Liberals will lose ground next election to the NDP; not in numbers to have any change onm the CPC majority.
> 
> While I don't agree with bill c-38 at all; I find most people really just don't care.



I'll agree with that synopsis. C-38 will be a dead issue in 2015.

Mulcair is just going through the motions (opposing everything) with the Government. His real, behind the scenes operation is to give all the disgruntled and disaffected liberals a new home and present a centre to far left party to oppose the centre to far right one of the Conservatives.

He's trying for a two party system.

As far as Bill C-38, I think there are as many people for it as oppose it, polls notwithstanding, which kind of nullifies any sort of an advantage for either side.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jun 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll agree with that synopsis. C-38 will be a dead issue in 2015.
> 
> Mulcair is just going through the motions (opposing everything) with the Government. His real, behind the scenes operation is to give all the disgruntled and disaffected liberals a new home and present a centre to far left party to oppose the centre to far right one of the Conservatives.
> 
> ...




The Conservatives will be tempted to use omnibus bills whenever they want to get two or three or even five or six years' work done in one - and budget bills are prime candidates. I expect another _big_ and _bad news_ budget in 2013, albeit not a much 'bad news' as in 2012. I expect 2014 to be a bit 'kinder' and the 2015 budget will be (relatively) full of 'goodies,' it being an election year and all.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2012)

The problem is that the effect of the bill will coming home to roost around election time. Much of the laws were written in haste, which rarely works out well. The effects may be the galvanizing issue to bring the left together and swing centre votes away from the  CPC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jun 2012)

I can't see that happening.  I was only a kid in the '70s and teenager/young adult in the '80s, but I remember how violently the pendulum used to swing and how much the adults complained about the immediate post-election period whenever government changed hands (NDP vs Socreds).  Anything done in the first two years is a distant or fuzzy ("doesn't seem like it was that bad) memory by the next election.  What is going to matter is whether voters like the vector on which the country is travelling in 2015.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jun 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The problem is that the effect of the bill will coming home to roost around election time. Much of the laws were written in haste, which rarely works out well. The effects may be the galvanizing issue to bring the left together and swing centre votes away from the  CPC.



Most Canadians now think we've been out of Afghanistan for years, and we're still in until 2014.

Three years from now is a third of a decade...that's en epoch on a political time scale.  C-38 will be just as much a faint memory in 2015 as when Jean Chretien promised to scrap NAFTA and the GST....


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2012)

Sometimes the _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson gets it almost exactly right, especially when he stays in his lanes: politics in Canada (Canada East of Saskatchewan, anyway). He does so in this column which is reproduced, without further comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/liberal-problems-run-deeper-than-who-will-be-the-next-leader/article4264962/


> Liberal problems run deeper than who will be the next leader
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...


----------



## dogger1936 (15 Jun 2012)

Mr Rae would still require Ontario and wouldn't get the votes required there. I believe he done the right thing for his party by stepping down.

The liberals should not even considering looking at Trudeau (as some last ditch savior to the party it seems)and collectively deciding who has a personality and a good record.

Jack Laton didn't bring the NDP to the forefront with policy and attack ad's; he did so with personality and a great ability to debate.


----------



## Redeye (15 Jun 2012)

Rae getting out of the way is a good thing, but I agree with the Grope's assessment of Trudeau... though, quite honestly, the name and that legend might actually be enough to gain him some traction, particularly if the Liberals are well positioned to attack Conservatives on their emergent scandals - this last bill, the F-35, robocalls, Del Mastro's overspending (I'm so glad to see that guy get thrashed, I've never met someone quite so... I can't even come up with the word... distasteful?), and so on. The Liberals will have to court NDP supporters to reduce their impact and also draw over a lot of those Red Tories who are finding the CPC increasing more embarrassing (and they exist) in order to cobble together enough support to make things work. I don't think it'll be easy and there's lots of ways they can screw it up, but there is indeed a way forward for them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jun 2012)

I think Trudeau being placed as leader is the best thing that could happen to the liberals


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jun 2012)

Watching how the Liberal leadership plays out will also show which faction is in charge:

The faction that advocates for the Young Dauphin believes all they need is a charismatic leader to regain power (and the unspoken assumption is the party does not need to stand for anything besides the assumption of power). If they win the party remains irrelevant and doomed to extinction.

The obviously smaller faction that believes the LPC needs to define what they stand for and renew the party apparatus to operate in a 21rst century fashion. Sadly, there is no obvious leader to gather around (although based on the thin bios offered in the Toronto Star's Thursday edition, Marc Garneau is probably the best choice in terms of accomplishments). If this faction wins, look for a long hard grind as they renew on the one hand, and bayonet the old guard out of the party executive and riding associations on the other. The next time they will be competative will be 2019, probably the best they can hope for is to make some gains at the NDP's expense in 2015.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The obviously smaller faction that believes the LPC needs to define what they stand for and renew the party apparatus to operate in a 21rst century fashion. Sadly, there is no obvious leader to gather around (although based on the thin bios offered in the Toronto Star's Thursday edition, Marc Garneau is probably the best choice in terms of accomplishments). If this faction wins, look for a long hard grind as they renew on the one hand, and bayonet the old guard out of the party executive and riding associations on the other. The next time they will be competative will be 2019, probably the best they can hope for is to make some gains at the NDP's expense in 2015.



They tried that with Iggy and Stephan, but hey, third times a charm, right?


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Jun 2012)

Here is an opinion piece from the National Post's site that more or less trashes the idea of the Young Dauphin as the immediate saviour of the Liberal Party. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Den Tandt: Justin Trudeau is smart, talented and nowhere near ready to redeem the Liberals
Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News  Jun 14, 2012 – 2:30 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 14, 2012 2:34 PM ET 

Justin Trudeau should, after a suitable period of introspection, politely thank those who would have him press-ganged into taking on the Liberal leadership. Then he should tell them to heave off. And enjoy the summer.

He’s not ready. Neither is the Liberal Party of Canada.

This latest effort to resurrect Trudeau-mania, prompted by Bob Rae’s decision to bow out of the leadership rather than fight like a junkyard dog over the scraps of power, is manic. Trudeau says he’s under intense pressure to run. That can only grow now that he’s opened the door. But this is a mug’s game. The effort to drive the 40-year-old to jump before his time is a sign, not of his suitability, but of the party’s desperation. Through three election cycles, now, the Liberals have clung to their Biblical myth of return, whereby a hero emerges from the mists, takes up his sword and leads them back to the Promised Land. At what point does it get old?

It began with Paul Martin, who’d slain the deficit but peaked too soon. Then came Stephane Dion, by mistake; then Michael Ignatieff. The internationally renowned author was in many respects a perfect Liberal candidate, with a political lineage drawn directly back to Lester B. Pearson. Marvellous! He fizzled.

Then, for a while, Rae was the One — Rhodes scholar, gifted orator, passionate political warrior. But upon reflection, that wasn’t going to work either. Rae was too old, his record as Ontario premier too polarizing. Faced with his coronation, the party was already preparing to rip itself apart. Rae saw the lay of the land and did the intelligent thing. As he stepped back he may as well have said to Trudeau: You’re up. Have fun, kid — if you think you can hack it.

In what way is a centre-left-leaning Liberal Party different from a centre-left-leaning New Democratic Party?Here’s a question, for fun. Is there a single plank in the Liberal platforms of 2006, 2008 or 2011 that the party would now repudiate? Here’s another: In what way is a centre-left-leaning Liberal Party different from a centre-left-leaning New Democratic Party? Let’s acknowledge that the 35 Liberals in the current parliament, many of them former cabinet ministers, are an able lot. But how is their current political posture, vis-a-vis the Harper government, different from the NDP’s?

Next question: What has Justin Trudeau ever said or written that is substantive, original or politically powerful, in the sense that it compels people to rally to his side? Of course he has spoken about inclusion and the end of apathy, of the need for reasonable compromise and political engagement. Good. But these are bromides. What has he said that’s new?

The charity boxing match in late March has been cited by Trudeau’s admirers as evidence of steel, behind the Hollywood looks. I was ringside. I saw him beat up Senator Patrick Brazeau, as the crowd roared its approval. It was a political masterstroke. But what happens when you marry ambition and determination to inexperience and mercurial judgment?

Trudeau has talent to burn. He has the capacity to acquire an intellectual spine and then articulate a coherent political philosophy. He hasn’t yet done so. Until he subjects himself to that kind of discipline, he is no match for Stephen Harper, or Thomas Mulcair. In head-to-head debate, either of them will eat his lunch.

There is one scenario — if Trudeau is secretly very crafty, and plotting to pull a Prince Hal, whereby he uncloaks his ruthless gravitas at just the right time — under which his candidacy would make some sense. That is, if he intends to to lead the Liberals into a merger with the NDP, before the 2015 election.

If the Liberal Party is to have any hope at all as an independent entity, it must develop ideas that set it apart from the other two national partiesThis would be Shakespearean in its irony — the eldest son of P.E. Trudeau presiding over the dissolution of his party, in the service of a progressive vision for Canada. Justin could contest with Tom Mulcair and others for the leadership of the New Democratic Liberals; he would lose; he would become a minister, possibly, in a Mulcair government. Eventually he might become prime minister. Merging with the New Democrats removes the need for a new intellectual spine, because the Dippers have one.

But even here, the logic for moving now is flimsy. If he wishes, Trudeau can work toward a merger as an MP — he needn’t be leader to do so. Moreover, a union — say it happens in 2014 — would require a leadership race. He could jump then. In the interim he could stick to his knitting, burnish his chops and acquire some grey hair.

If the Liberal Party is to have any hope at all as an independent entity, it must develop ideas that set it apart from the other two national parties. Paul Martin did this, with help from some very clever strategists, in advance of the publication of the famous Red Book, which won the 1993 election. That’s what Liberals should be working through now. Who will write that book? And never mind their latest Moses.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jun 2012)

My sympathy for the LPC is aprox 0%, but there are still issues that need to be dealt with, such as keeping the NDP out of power (and as an Ontarian yourself, you hardly need to be reminded why).

The problem with Dion and Ignatieff was they were also sold to us as "Philosopher Kings" in the Trudeupian mold. Dian and Ignatieff were undoubtedly smart, but Dion's smarts were applied to something that few Canadians were interested in or supportive of (the Green Shift and radical tax increases for all Canadians), and Ignatieff was simply unable to articulate what exactly he was all about. Canadians were apparently supposed to simply be satisfied with the Philosopher King cred...

Marc Garneau has a record of accomplishment as an astronaut and director of the CSA, which is head and shoulders above the other presumptive leadership candidates mooted so far (I am exempting Mark Carney, who's name has been raised but who isn't even known to be a member of the LPC), so while I doubt he has an alternative vision of Canada to Stephen Harper or Thomas Mulcair, he is at least capable of doing the work to manage the transformation should a coherent platform be created and adopted.

So if (big IF) the LPC is able and willing to make the real changes to become a party organized along and representing 21rst century values, then someone like him is needed to manage the change. The real danger to the Liberals (and long term danger to us) is that they decide the Philosopher King/Star Candidate approach is the correct COA; which means the LPC declines further into irrelevance and eventually dissapears.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Jun 2012)

It is my opinion that the lure of the philospher king/star candidate may prove too much for the party apparatchiks, even those who realize a rebuilding is in order. I guess it could be called the Animal House approach - the Dean was going to shut down the frat, so the members had a toga party - instead of getting serious about fixing their problems. The appeal of such an approach is that it worked, at least in the movie. After all, the platform is not important. What matters is finding somebody who can pull a Jack Layton and return the LPC to power.


----------



## fraserdw (15 Jun 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think Trudeau being placed as leader is the best thing that could happen to the liberals



Completely agree, the sooner Braid gets to grind up that Trudeau whelp and sprinkle 'em on his morning eggs, the sooner the LPC can be merged in the NDP and the soon will we enjoy good Conservative government for a few decades.


----------



## dogger1936 (15 Jun 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> They tried that with Iggy and Stephan, but hey, third times a charm, right?



Agree. I find Harper is a very weak speaker unprepared. Last leaders debate Iggy and Harper got ate alive.

Liberals need to find someone with charm and who can argue in a respectful way; and actually answer questions. I found Laton didn't sound like a "platform" when he debated. He answered questions unlike most politicians who stick to the "party line" form of talking (which I believe annoys the **** out of most people.)

Or depending on your political stance as recceguy said...Trudeau would be a true "saviour" to the party. ;D


----------



## Redeye (15 Jun 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Completely agree, the sooner Braid gets to grind up that Trudeau whelp and sprinkle 'em on his morning eggs, the sooner the LPC can be merged in the NDP and the soon will we enjoy good Conservative government for a few decades.



Actually, I think merging those two parties would put an end to the CPC's time in office - it's the split of those votes that keep the CPC in office - the Liberals enjoyed the same sort of scenario in the 1990s and onward. I'm still wondering where this "good conservative government" is. Haven't seen much to write home about.


----------



## GAP (15 Jun 2012)

Said like a dyed in the wool liberal......phyyt... ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jun 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It is my opinion that the lure of the philospher king/star candidate may prove too much for the party apparatchiks, even those who realize a rebuilding is in order. I guess it could be called the Animal House approach - the Dean was going to shut down the frat, so the members had a toga party - instead of getting serious about fixing their problems. The appeal of such an approach is that it worked, at least in the movie. After all, the platform is not important. What matters is finding somebody who can pull a Jack Layton John Belushi and return the LPC to power.



There, fixed that for you ;D


----------



## fraserdw (15 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Actually, I think merging those two parties would put an end to the CPC's time in office - it's the split of those votes that keep the CPC in office - the Liberals enjoyed the same sort of scenario in the 1990s and onward. I'm still wondering where this "good conservative government" is. Haven't seen much to write home about.



My scenario would be the LPC splitting into the Conservatives and the NDP, bringing the Cons to the centre right and the NDP further left.  Combine that with new BQ riding on the student insurrection in Quebec and you have an even stronger Con Government in 2015.  The current budget hurts the NDP and left leaning LPC supporter more than it hurts the soft conservative support so it really is a non-issue in 2015.  Good conservative government is the economy and nothing but the economy, in the end that is the only thing that mean anything to the great unwashed...food in their bellies and 2 cars in their garage.  Environment, welfare, EI, Veterans are all meaningless to the middle class if they are not able to collect "things".  Conservatives are governing for the Right-Centerist with lip service to Rightest and it works.  Jean Creeptan did the same style of government in the 90s (excepting he choose the Centerist and Left-Centerist) with budget cuts to the military, social programs for the have nots and gun control, all issues the middle class believed were affecting their safety and ability to collect things.

Appeal to the personal greed of the largest voting block and you will always win.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Actually, I think merging those two parties would put an end to the CPC's time in office - it's the split of those votes that keep the CPC in office - the Liberals enjoyed the same sort of scenario in the 1990s and onward. I'm still wondering where this "good conservative government" is. Haven't seen much to write home about.




The resulting _New Liberal Party_ would be considerably smaller than the total of the two merging partners: the hard left would abandon it as would the so called Manley Liberals. The later would, sooner rather than later, migrate to the Conservatives. A Liberal NDP merger would produce at least one new party - a socialist party - and would reinvigorate one or more Quebec nationalist parties. The end result: another Conservative majority.

"Good Conservative (not conservative) government" is here in exactly the same ratio as we was "good Liberal government" and, in provinces, "good NDP governments." Stephen Harper is no worse a PM than was Jean Chrétien or Brian Mulroney ~ he's probably accomplished more than the former and less than the latter. He's infinitely superior to Pierre Trudeau (but Sir John Thompson and Sir Mackenzie Bowell were better prime ministers than was Pierre Trudeau) and he's no where near as good as Louis St Laurent; he's probably on a par with Lester Pearson.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jun 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Appeal to the personal greed of the largest voting block and you will always win.



Very well said.  I believe you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jun 2012)

Someone tell Andre Coyne his proposed free market party already has a name: the Libertarian Party....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/15/andrew-coyne-plenty-of-room-for-a-tell-it-like-it-is-third-party-sadly-the-liberals-arent-that/



> *Andrew Coyne: Plenty of room for a tell-it-like-it-is third party. Sadly, the Liberals aren’t that*
> Andrew Coyne  Jun 15, 2012 – 6:51 PM ET
> 
> Coyne: The Liberal Party needs to be bold to define themselves as a worthy third party. But don't bet on boldness.
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jun 2012)

In reading the above, this stuck out:

"We live at a time of growing economic inequalities, which separate classes and groups. We live at a time of growing regional disparities, as Alberta and Saskatchewan leave the rest of the country behind. We live at a time of widespread economic uncertainty, with high debt levels, stagnant per capita incomes for the middle class, the fear of unemployment and no shelter from international economic storms."

That describes pretty much all of our recent history going back four or five decades.  Just change the names of the provinces as needed.

I am amused by the usual blanket claims that the NDP have "ideas".  They have one idea: spend more.  Health care management?  Spend more.  Education?  Spend more.  The only exceptions are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the maintenance of a country or society: defence and security.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2012)

This is the key element of Coyne's analysis[/size]:




> If there is a coalition in Canadian politics more unwieldy than the Liberals, it is the Conservatives: less an alliance than a contradiction, between economic libertarians championing relentless change, and social conservatives whose raison d’etre is their hatred of change. It has been the formula for conservative success for decades, but that does not mean it is not ripe for the plucking.
> 
> The more natural modern coalition, it seems to me, is between economic liberals (in the European sense) and social liberals; between free marketers and environmentalists (it’s all about minimizing waste), between advocates of consumer power and voter power. There are free marketers who vote Conservative only because they have to — who are uncomfortable with their so-con bedfellows, dismayed by the party’s indifference to environmental issues, and appalled by its assault on parliamentary democracy, but who can find no other party they trust on the economy.




The Conservatives are not _right_ (meaning correct) because they call themselves _conservative_ and Stephen Harper is not _right_ (meaning correct, again) just because he keeps the so-cons under their rocks. Stephen Harper and the (some) Conservatives are _right_ because they want less and less and less government and they want what little is left to not intrude into our lives - that is what pisses off the so-cons: they are natural _busybodies_ who want, because they are fundamentally anti-democratic _theocrats_, to tell you and me how to live our private lives. 

If the Liberals had half the brains the gods gave to green peppers (and they don't) they would draft John Manley to be their leader - no damned convention where the mentally unfit (young lefties) are allowed to have a say - and he would draft Scott Brison as his deputy and they would scourge the party of the Left-Liberals (who would flee to the NDP) and then they would then offer themselves to the *real liberals* who currently find a home in the Conservative Party. If a Manley-Brison-Pacetti (a Manley Liberal from Quebec) team took over and reshaped the party, having scoured off the image of Pierre Trudeau, I might even jump ship.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If the Liberals had half the brains the gods gave to green peppers (and they don't) they would draft John Manley to be their leader - no damned convention where the mentally unfit (young lefties) are allowed to have a say - and he would draft Scott Brison as his deputy and they would scourge the party of the Left-Liberals (who would flee to the NDP) and then they would then offer themselves to the *real liberals* who currently find a home in the Conservative Party. If a Manley-Brison-Pacetti (a Manley Liberal from Quebec) team took over and reshaped the party, having scoured off the image of Pierre Trudeau, I might even jump ship.



I would agree Edward, but the Liberals are so hell bent on finding a messiah that they can't think straight. They seem to have learned nothing from the Dion, Ignatieff debacles. Until they give up this foolishness, shrug off their socialist cloaks, and return to classic liberal doctrine, they're doomed to wander the wilderness - and perhaps perish in it.


----------



## Redeye (17 Jun 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I would agree Edward, but the Liberals are so hell bent on finding a messiah that they can't think straight. They seem to have learned nothing from the Dion, Ignatieff debacles. Until they give up this foolishness, shrug off their socialist cloaks, and return to classic liberal doctrine, they're doomed to wander the wilderness - and perhaps perish in it.



I can't disagree to much, though I don't know what the "socialist cloaks" are. Vaguely social democratic ideas appear to appeal to a pretty broad swath of Canadians, given that the parties that won a substantial majority of Canadian voters subscribe to various forms of them, and the Liberals to a fairly moderate vision of them. But they are essentially wandering. Pinning all their hopes on either Rae or Young Trudeau is a foolish course for reasons we need not rehash. The thing is I think the party has a lot of decent ideas it could build on (and C-38 gives them a treasure trove if they can keep it in the public's mind long enough), and it seems that the Conservatives keep stumbling into scandals which also could be of use to them. But only if they can find a leader who actually appeals to people and can be seen as a leader. I don't watch the party close enough to know who's in their ranks along that vein, but I do know that they're swooning over the wrong people.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jun 2012)

C-38 in the media dies the next time the Opposition gets a sniff of something they can get a headline with. Whether it was one big bill or 900 little bills it means nothing. Conservatives have a majority and were going to get every single measure passed anyways. The Opposition just wanted to make it look like they weren't totally impotent in the process.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jun 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> C-38 in the media dies the next time the Opposition gets a sniff of something they can get a headline with. Whether it was one big bill or 900 little bills it means nothing. Conservatives have a majority and were going to get every single measure passed anyways. The Opposition just wanted to make it look like they weren't totally impotent in the process.




There was a bit more to it ... breaking C-38 into many, dozens, maybe even hundreds of bills, as the opposition wanted, and then moving each through parliament would have required many, many months - likely years. The Conservatives wanted to move a whole bunch of (loosely) elated measures through at the same time so they adopted a well established (by the Liberals) technique: the omnibus bill.

But the issues were just 'loose' enough - how are old age pension qualifying age and environmental reviews related? - to attract media attention. In fact the speaker ruled, correctly and based on precedents from Liberal days, that the bill did not need to be 'deconstructed' because all the measures were tied together into three related packages.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Conservatives are not _right_ (meaning correct) because they call themselves _conservative_ and Stephen Harper is not _right_ (meaning correct, again) just because he keeps the so-cons under their rocks. Stephen Harper and the (some) Conservatives are _right_ because they want less and less and less government and they want what little is left to not intrude into our lives - that is what pisses off the so-cons: they are natural _busybodies_ who want, because they are fundamentally anti-democratic _theocrats_, to tell you and me how to live our private lives.
> 
> If the Liberals had half the brains the gods gave to green peppers (and they don't) they would draft John Manley to be their leader - no damned convention where the mentally unfit (young lefties) are allowed to have a say - and he would draft Scott Brison as his deputy and they would scourge the party of the Left-Liberals (who would flee to the NDP) and then they would then offer themselves to the *real liberals* who currently find a home in the Conservative Party. If a Manley-Brison-Pacetti (a Manley Liberal from Quebec) team took over and reshaped the party, having scoured off the image of Pierre Trudeau, I might even jump ship.



For the CPC I would hope that John Baird or Jason Kenney have leading roles in the Post Harper era; I can't think of too many others who have the ideas and ability to reshapeand renew the CPC. Perhaps the only issue here is (so far as I have been able to determine) the two men have rather different ideas of which way the party should go; Baird seems much more "libertarrian" in his approach than Kenney.

As for the  Manley-Brison-Pacetti combination, yes, that would be an excellent choice, but the probability of that happening is very slim. It might be much more worthwhile for the CPC to court them to cross the floor and bring their supporters with them; better for them (a real ability to affect change), for the CPC (an infusion of new ideas, people and resources) and for all of us (a strengthened government).


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> For the CPC I would hope that John Baird or Jason Kenney have leading roles in the Post Harper era; I can't think of too many others who have the ideas and ability to reshapeand renew the CPC. Perhaps the only issue here is (so far as I have been able to determine) the two men have rather different ideas of which way the party should go; Baird seems much more "libertarrian" in his approach than Kenney.
> 
> As for the  Manley-Brison-Pacetti combination, yes, that would be an excellent choice, but the probability of that happening is very slim. It might be much more worthwhile for the CPC to court them to cross the floor and bring their supporters with them; better for them (a real ability to affect change), for the CPC (an infusion of new ideas, people and resources) and for all of us (a strengthened government).




The CPC cannot get Brison back - and he's the real prize and the best long term hope for the Liberals - without discarding, formally, the social conservatives. My guess is that, despite Prime Minister Harper's evident distaste for their politics the _political calculus_ says that he needs them, the so-cons, more, right now, anyway, than he needs Brison - but trust me: he wants Brison.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2012)

Here is a person who had fallen off my radar; kudos for being forthright and advancing a real policy plank. Sadly, Martha Hall Findlay is advocating a position that would be characterized as "Conservative" (if not actually taken by the Conservatives as part of entering the TPP), which makes the idea of her actually leading and renewing the LPC a very long shot at best. If she were to run, I'd be looking very closely at her policy ideas to see what I could steal...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/22/andrew-coyne-martha-hall-findlays-attack-on-supply-management-is-good-for-her-better-for-the-liberals/



> *Andrew Coyne: Martha Hall Findlay’s attack on supply management is good for her, better for the Liberals*
> Andrew Coyne  Jun 22, 2012 – 7:44 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 22, 2012 7:48 PM ET
> 
> There are issues that are more important than supply management. There are parties that have more support than the Liberal party, and there are people with a higher profile than Martha Hall Findlay. How is it, then, that an academic paper by a former Liberal MP on an issue that remains obscure to most Canadians has raised such a fuss? I can think of a few reasons.
> ...



The other thing to do would be for Prime Minister Harper to inviter her to come over along with John Manley...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2012)

Probably a stupid oversight, but the impact is negative. This sort of thing shows the LPC really is no longer a serious organization:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/26/jeff-jedras-how-many-people-just-supported-the-liberals-without-meaning-to/



> *Jeff Jedras: How many people ‘supported’ the Liberals without meaning to?*
> Jeff Jedras  Jun 26, 2012 – 9:54 AM ET | Last Updated: Jun 26, 2012 9:56 AM ET
> 
> Courtesy Jeff Jedras.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2012)

Oh wow; a Trudeau family bunfight for leadership of the Liberal Party. (Even more amusing is she is related to Andrew Coyne of NP fame...)

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



> *Deborah Coyne enters Liberal leadership race*
> 
> JOAN BRYDEN
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2012)

Liberal Leadership candidates finally told they have no more extensions to pay their leadership campaign bills. (I wonder how long Elections Canada would allow CPC leadership hopefulls to pay their bills?). Still, no word on what sort of sanctions they will face, if any:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/court-rejects-indebted-liberal-leadership-candidates-pleas-for-extension-161271145.html?device=mobile



> *Court rejects indebted Liberal leadership candidates' pleas for extension*
> 
> By: Heather Scoffield, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...



I suspect the $1000 fine will be all they actually face, and maybe the debts will be written off as uncollectable (anyone who is owed money usually will have written off debts after six years). It will be tough to convince people burned by these unpaid leadership debts to support the LPC, and a well known marketing rule of thumb is that while a satisfied customer will tell 8 people, an unsatisfied customer will tell 16 people...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2012)

Liberals continue to demonstrate they are not ready for prime time. If they believe that voters are not turned off by this sort of behaviour, then they are very much out of touch with the electorate. When the _Ottawa Citizen_ calls them out, then you know they are in epic "fail" territory:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=15333



> *Adam Carroll Upsets The Ottawa Citizen*
> Posted on 5 August 2012 by PhantomObserver
> 
> When news broke that Adam Carroll, he who had to resign from the federal Liberal Party research bureau after confessing he’d launched a social media attack on the not-very-astute-but-still-undeserving-of-personal-data-exposure Public Safety Minister, had been re-hired, of course you’d expect the usual howling from the usual partisan suspects. But not, however, from the Ottawa Citizen’s editorial board.
> ...



And the editorial in question:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/Carroll+hire+reveals+cynical+side+politics/7038204/story.html



> *Carroll re-hire reveals cynical side of politics*
> 
> THE OTTAWA CITIZEN AUGUST 3, 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2012)

Here is the _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbittson's somewhat less that cheery look at the Liberals prospects, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/will-the-liberals-have-a-brand-outside-green-gables/article4496153/


> Will the Liberals have a brand outside Green Gables?
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




For me, the critical number is not the 20,000 new (and very loose) Liberal 'supporters,' it is: _"... about four voters in 10 agree with this statement: Government policies usually do more harm than good. About six in 10 believe government can help ... those 4-in-10 pessimists generally vote Conservative. The other six vote Liberal, NDP, PQ, BQ or Green. Increasingly, they appear to be inclining to the NDP ... this is what is killing the Liberal brand."_

If Stephen Harper _at al_ wish to govern Canada well past their "best before" date (as did King & St Laurent in the '30s, '40s and '50s and as did Pearson & Trudeau in the '60s, '70s and into the '80s) then they need to *help* the Liberals to hang on to a good, solid share of the 60% who _"believe government can help"_ because if those big-government _statists_ (6 in 10 Canadians) ever coalesce behind one party - as they did behind the Liberals for most of the 20th century - then it will become the "natural governing party." Prime Minister Harper is often said to want the demise of the Liberals, as happened, early in the 20th century in Britain, leaving a two party system(Conservative/NDP) à la Britain's two party (Conservative/Labour) model. But: as any fair reading of electoral history will show, the Brits are less "polarized" than are Canadians (perhaps because we are overexposed to American politics) and so they (the Brits) tend to vote more pragmatically, dividing the results more evenly (but leaning, broadly, Conservative) between the two main parties since the end of the First World War.

In other words: unless we look forward to a NDP government, maybe successive NDP majorities then we (the non _statist_ minority) need to help the Liberals survive and split the majority's votes.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2012)

Here is one potential candidate (perhaps the only one) who comes across as a serious, well rounded and thoughtful person. If the LPC is to have a cahnce at revival, they need someone like this at the helm for 2015 and 2019 to do the serious work of rebuilding and renewal, rather than place all their hope on yet another PR exercise in leadership:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/11/michael-den-tandt-marc-garneau-could-be-the-adult-in-liberal-leadership-race/



> *Michael Den Tandt: Marc Garneau could be the adult in Liberal leadership race*
> Michael Den Tandt | Sep 11, 2012 4:41 PM ET
> 
> Marc Garneau isn’t certain yet whether he’s ready to run for the leadership of the Liberal party. But he talks like a man working very hard to make it happen. “I’m going to go right up against Stephen Harper on the economy,” Garneau says. “I’m not ceding that ground to him. He doesn’t deserve that ground.”
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Sep 2012)

Garneau should run. However the LPC should be denied a leadership election until the previous contestants pay their long overdue loans back.


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 Sep 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Garneau should run. However the LPC should be denied a leadership election until the previous contestants pay their long overdue loans back.



Agreed 100%!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2012)

I think Trudeau should get it. He's one of the best hopes the CPC has of retaining a majority.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2012)

And the jockeying begins:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/16/liberal-infighting-begins-in-debate-over-who-should-enter-leadership-race/



> *Liberal infighting begins in debate over who should enter leadership race*
> 
> Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News | Sep 16, 2012 3:48 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 16, 2012 3:50 PM ET
> More from Postmedia News
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Sep 2012)

The Prime Minister nails it:

http://hatrockscave.blogspot.ca/2012/09/harper-ndp-brings-bad-ideas-where.html



> *Harper: "NDP brings bad ideas.. where Liberals bring none"*
> Full story here.
> 
> In the 90's, back in my U of A political club days during the annual Model Parliament, I noticed how easy it was for us on the Reform/Canadian Alliance opposition bench to debate the Liberal gov't (who were the gov't in power during that time).  They lacked any real passion other than happy they were in power.  But more significantly, they lacked ideas.  They even admitted it to me in the evening parties that their party was not about original ideas, it was about taking them from the left or right and being pragmatic to the n-th degree.  It was classic linear ideology 101.
> ...



and the article here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-go-on-the-attack-after-harper-says-they-stand-for-nothing/article4554914/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



> *Liberals go on the attack after Harper says they stand for nothing*
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Oct 2012)

I'm putting this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, here because, while it covers a lot of ground, some of its key points regard the Liberal Party of Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulroney-unplugged-a-former-pms-thoughts-on-quebec-trudeau-and-the-legacy-of-free-trade/article4587805/


> Mulroney unplugged: A former PM’s thoughts on Quebec, Trudeau and the legacy of free trade
> 
> SANDRA MARTIN
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I have argued, very often in these pages, that the Liberal Party of Canada has a long standing and very deep _division_ that opened in the 1960s when Pierre Trudeau repudiated the policy positions that had, albeit loosely, united Laurier, King, St Laurent and Pearson. John Turner, in his turn, repudiated Trudeau while Chretien, although one of Trudeau's loyalists, carried on with what, as Mulroney correctly asserts, was a Conservative view of Canada's economy: Chretien was a classic Liberal retail politician, he "campaigned left" (scrap free trade, scrap the GST, no helicopters) and "governed right" (we still have free trade and the GST, etc, but we still don't have new helicopers). But what Mulroney says seems, to me, to speak more to the Liberal backroom brain trust: Turner's 1988 campaign themes were, indeed, proven to have been completely wrong, but they appealed to two constituencies: big labour and the big cities. The Liberals were, traditionally, the BIG party, _friends_ of Big banks, Big labour, Big business and Big cities, but they always had serious competition: the new NDP was a creature of Big labour and made inroads into the Big cities while the Conservatives always had some support from Big business (although small business is the _natural_ Conservative base - but the ambition of all small business owners is to get Big) and the Big banks. By opposing free trade at all costs the Liberal _strategists_ sacrificed the Big banks and Big business but did not secure either of the Big cities or Big labour. It was a serious blunder.

My guess is that Justin Trudeau, or his team, anyway, has learned a lesson: the NEP was, indeed, *wrong* as both a policy and as a political position.

Quebec is an interesting problem. Most pundits say, and I tend to agree, that the Liberal road back to contention and power begins in Quebec; but the Liberals have no hope, none at all in my or even your (much longer) lifetimes, of going back to the 74/75 position in Quebec ~ not unless it sacrifices Ontario which, electorally, matters so much more.

The Liberals should be able to regain most of the Montreal area seats they lost in Quebec (they won 7 seats in, 2011, down from 14 in 2008, 13 in 2006, 21 in 2004 and 36 in 2000) without tacking too far left, they are then (with, say, 30+ Quebec seats and 65+ in the rest of Canada) ready to tackle and even defeat the Conservatives in 2019. But, their gains in Quebec will come at the expense of the NDP and as a result of _nationalist_ and _socialist_ vote splitting between a revitalized Quebec Party (maybe the BQ, maybe a new one) and the NDP. If they tack too far left they will look like pale imitations of the NDP and the vote split will favout the new Quebec (_nationalist_) Party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2012)

More on the Liberals in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _MacLeans_:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/19/a-centrist-party-that-has-lost-its-centre/


> A centrist party that has lost its centre
> *Paul Wells on Dalton McGuinty stepping down and the Liberal party’s climb ahead*
> 
> by Paul Wells on Friday, October 19, 2012
> ...




This is the issue: "[the]_ Liberals’ enduring wish for an imaginary fight that would be easy to win instead of the one they’re in. In fact, Liberals’ problems would vanish if the other parties would oblige them by behaving as ideologues. Conservative and social-democratic parties have sharply moderated their messages. There is no longer anything the NDP wants to nationalize, and the party likes to brag that it has delivered more balanced budgets where it has formed governments than Liberals have. Meanwhile, Stephen Harper repeatedly votes against his own backbenchers when they propose measures that would reopen the abortion debate. If Harper and Tom Mulcair were wild-eyed freaks, there would be acres of room for a centrist party. They aren’t, so there isn’t._"

The _centre_, as Paul Wells says, is already overcrowded, but my guess is that Conservatives will lose an election before the Liberals find a way to win one. The Conservatives *will lose* when, inevitably, they become too arrogant, too used to the idea that they have a _right_ to govern; my wild guess is that happens _circa_ 2020. By then the Liberals must have found a way to differentiate themselves from the NDP - one way to do that _might_ be to push the NDP farther and farther towards the Quebec _nationalist_ side, setting them up for fights with both the Liberals and a resurgent Quebec Party.* The risk is that it lets the Conservatives have a too easy run a few more Quebec seats.


-----------
* Might be the BQ, might be something new


Edit: two embarrassing typos (*1920* becomes _2020_ and *father* becomes _farther_)  :-[ thanks to a member for pointing it out by PM rather than showing my errors to the whole world.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2012)

We should not be surprised that Liberal attack dog Warren Kinsella agrees that the Liberals will be back; he tells us why (hint: it's leadership conventions) in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/19/predictions-of-liberal-doom-are-dead-wrong


> Predictions of Liberal doom are dead wrong
> 
> BY WARREN KINSELLA, QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...




While I agree that three leadership races will produce _'bounces'_ for the Liberal brand and while I hope he is right that the Liberals will recover (because I think Stephen Harper is wrong to want a dramatic, UK style, Left <> Right split because you *must*, too often, end up with destructive left wing governments), I believe that the Liberals must find a new _purpose_. It is not good enough to be against Stephen Harper (or even Thomas Mulcair); Stephen Harper projects a _vision_, an inarticulate, maybe even a _'hidden agenda'_™ sort of vison, but a vision, all the same; so does Mulcair (even as we suspect that his _vision_ will differ from his party's policies); they, Harper and Mulcair, stand *FOR* something. Can anyone tell me what the Liberals are *FOR*?


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2012)

How sad for a party when their strength is described by one of their respected own as an event.  At least in that regard, the LPC has had a fair bit of practice.  That said, the danger is that the convention morphs inappropriately into yet another coronation...


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is not good enough to be against Stephen Harper (or even Thomas Mulcair); Stephen Harper projects a _vision_, an inarticulate, maybe even a _'hidden agenda'_™ sort of vison, but a vision, all the same; so does Mulcair (even as we suspect that his _vision_ will differ from his party's policies); they, Harper and Mulcair, stand *FOR* something. Can anyone tell me what the Liberals are *FOR*?



Power at all cost. They will promise anything, say anything, do anything to return to Government. That they name themselves the "Natural Governing Party" should be evidence enough.

(I know that was a rhetorical question... but in this case it deserves an answer.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2013)

The _Ottawa Citizen_ reports on a debate between lifetime Liberal insider John Duffy and Canadian historian Michael Bliss in two companion pieces; both consider M. Trudeau's contribution:

John Duffy says that: The federal Liberals "are currently in first or close behind in every national poll ... [and] ... The demand for this new generation of leadership is immense. There are millions of Canadians — as there were Americans until recently — who have refrained from first-time voting longer into their lives than any before them. A consensus exists among pollsters and social scientists that if and when these people come into the electorate, it will shift radically away from the older, greyer, more conservative-complected political nation we know today. These are not just the young people on their interwebs; their ages now reach into the early 40s. Their numbers now outstrip those associated with the baby-boomer voting influx of the 1960s and ’70s ... Justin Trudeau is one of their candidates."

Michael Bliss, on the other hand, says that: "The Liberal party in Canada, like liberalism itself, has a great past, and very little future ... Political liberalism is in crisis because in much of the western world its job is done — over, finished. Classic liberalism was about advancing political liberty — the struggle against authoritarian rule, the expansion of parliamentary freedoms, expansion of the franchise, and, in the 20th century, expansion of the idea of inalienable human rights. The Canadian struggle involved our evolution from imperial rule through responsible self-government and then our gradual march towards independence, all the while trying to preserve and strengthen national unity. It was also the development of democracy and respect for individual autonomy as expressed in the expansion of human rights and the personal security guaranteed in the modern welfare state ... Will young, charismatic, pragmatic leadership, make a difference? Justin Trudeau might succeed in postponing for another decade the inevitable creation of the Liberal Democratic Party of Canada. His problem is much like that of recent descendants of the great retailers, Timothy Eaton. They tried in vain to save a once-impregnable Canadian institution, a mighty national brand, whose time was past ... The Liberal party is about to go the way of the Eaton’s stores."

I find both arguments a bit thin: John Duffy has *hope* and Canadians' fascination with celebrity/charisma on his side, but not much else. Prof Bliss suggests that the 'work" of _liberalism_ is done; I disagree - in fact, in the last 50 years, under the pressure of deeply _conservative_* American liberals, _liberalism_ has been pushed backwards in favour of less than real collective rights and particularism.

But: while I suspect that Prof Bliss is closer to the truth I believe that M. Trudeau has a very real prospect of a political _supernova_ - the stellar explosion that occurs just before a star dies. In M. Trudeau's case that _supernova_ could be one last Liberal government before the party disintegrates - think David Lloyd George and the British Liberal Party.

____
John Stuart Mill's famous quote ~ _I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative_ ~ applies to the post Truman liberals in the USA.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Mar 2013)

notwithstanding what appears likely to be JT's coronation, I think the best they can expect is to recover some of the seats lost to the Orange Crush in Quebec.  In that regard, Pauline Marois could help Justin Trudeau with some more pseudo-xenophobic behaviour that gives Quebecers pause for though as to what kind of statement they will make with their collective federal votes in 2015.  I still think the Liberals, if their collective ego will allow them, are best trying to consolidate and retake the official opposition in 2015, then make their move for the win in 2019-2020, as Mr. Campbell suggest, the CPC is likely to be stagnating and getting a bit full of itself.  That said, I think that one of the inherent weaknesses of the 'bold, new, young blood' that appears to characterize much of JTs support could be diagnosed with ADD/"I want it know" syndrome.  Time will tell, but Mr. Campbells supernova analogy is not a bad one if the Liberal voter base is superficial and tactical, vice profound and strategic.

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## GAP (24 Mar 2013)

I have heard very, very little on how well the QC NDP'ers are working out as MP's. That fact could put many/most of the NDP seats up for grabs. Mulclair has been an effective face for the party, but most of those seats were won because of Jack Layton, not Mulclair...

The Federal QC Liberals are as tied into the Provicial Liberals and all their corruption scandals, I think you will see a large BQ surge in the next election....


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Mar 2013)

If yesterday's "debate" is any indication of where the Liberals focus is, then number of times Quebec was mentioned vs the ROC: 49:0

Granted the "debate" was held in Montreal, but if you're working on the national stage, one would expect some mention of the rest of Canada. The Liberals return to government runs firmly through Quebec. They do not have the popular support, Trudeaumania notwithstanding to form a government from the ROC.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Mar 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If yesterday's "debate" is any indication of where the Liberals focus is, then number of times Quebec was mentioned vs the ROC: 49:0
> 
> Granted the "debate" was held in Montreal, but if you're working on the national stage, one would expect some mention of the rest of Canada. The Liberals return to government runs firmly through Quebec. They do not have the popular support, Trudeaumania notwithstanding to form a government from the ROC.


I did see a sound bite of the two women tussling over the northern pipeline/Fort Mac issue.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2013)

Army.ca member and _Sun Media_ journalist David Akin points out that we _may_ see a reversal of a Liberal "decade of darkness" today in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his _On The Hill_ blog:

http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politicsliberals/monday-could-be-a-day-the-liberals-havent-seen-for-a-decade/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


> Monday could be a day the Liberals haven’t seen for a decade
> 
> David Akin
> 
> ...




Edit: format


----------



## GAP (13 May 2013)

If I were a Liberal I would be shaking my head in despair at that track record. 


But the Dauphin will change things......won't he? :


----------

