# New Parliament, New Leaders?



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> Dion must go – but it’s not obvious that either Ignatieff or Rae have broad enough support in the Liberal Party to be the ‘leader’ who can unite the party and beat Harper in, say, 2010 or, maybe, even 2011. The Trudeau/Turner and Chrétien/Martin ‘wars’ still rage – and an Ignatieff vs. Rae, right vs. left war may be is the last thing the Liberals need. Several morning radio news reports suggested that John Manley might want to jump in, for a few years, to oversee the restoration of Liberal fortunes.
> 
> _Caveat lector_: I know John Manley; I like and respect him, too.
> ...



According to his morning’s papers pretty much everyone, maybe even including Celine Stéphane Dion agree that *“Dion must go.”*

But Lawrence Martin offers a broader look at all the leaders (not including Ms. May who is not, really, a Canadian political leader) in this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081015.wcomartin16/BNStory/politics/home


> The forecast: Dion out by year's end, Harper before the next vote
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



I think Martin might be on the right track.

In my opinion Harper is unlikely to be able to win a majority unless, miraculously, this government last for four years, and, during that time, the economy rebounds to something better than late spring 2008 levels (when the TSX was at an all time high). He might decide, over the next year or so that it is better to step aside and allow another, more _charismatic_ (or at least less disliked) Conservative to lead the party to another term in office – Jim Prentice comes to mind as one likely leader, but it isn’t just the Conservatives who have, as Martin says, a “formidable front bench” – if one could use only the Conservative MPs from BC and Alberta one could build a very good cabinet.

Also, I think Martin is right about Layton. His challenge was to duplicate Ed Broadbent’s seat count (in a smaller parliament) and vote share: he failed. But he did better, twice, than Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough could manage so he can leave on a “high note” and make room for e.g. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (who I think is the ‘best’ NDP MP), Joe Comartin or Tom Mulcair.


----------



## time expired (16 Oct 2008)

Watched a report this morning on France 24,an English language news
station,on the Canadian election.A French Canadian reporter and the CBC
journalist in France,were interviewed by a French  TV reporter,the consensus
 seemed to be that the Conservatives would stay in power for the foreseeable
future as the opposition parties have no money and will need time to rebuild after
 their defeats.It was also mentioned that the Canadian public had quite enough
 of elections for a while.It was also interesting to hear the Quebec reporter
 refer to Harper supporter from the West as rednecks without a single word of
protest from the CBC guy,most enlightening.

                                          Regards


----------



## Yrys (16 Oct 2008)

La Presse, a french paper, made an article about Frank McKenna, who is seen as a good alternative 
to another dividing war (Ignatieff vs. Rae) that scares liberals.

Des libéraux rêvent à Frank McKenna


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

Rona Ambrose for MND!! (Kidding!!)


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> La Presse, a french paper, made an article about Frank McKenna, who is seen as a good alternative
> to another dividing war (Ignatieff vs. Rae) that scares liberals.
> 
> Des libéraux rêvent à Frank McKenna



_National Post_ saying the same here:


> Frank McKenna, the former premier of New Brunswick, is said to be seriously considering a bid for the Liberal leadership should Stephane Dion step down.  "Frank still has the bug and is open to lobbying from some of Canada's most senior businessmen that the party needs him and the country needs him," said a Liberal source who is understood to have been in contact with the former Canadian ambassador to Washington ....


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

Seriously now, I think McKenna would be deadly as a LIberal leader....he has charisma, charm and the political instincts. I like him and I'm not even a Liberal, nor would I ever be one.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Seriously now, I think McKenna would be deadly as a LIberal leader....he has charisma, charm and the political instincts. I like him and I'm not even a Liberal, nor would I ever be one.



Certainly would sort out the "most people could see him as a leader" thing...


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is more on the manoeuvrings in the Liberal Party of Canada’s (not quite official, yet) leadership race:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081016.liberals17/BNStory/politics/home


> Key Liberals send out feelers for Dion's job
> 
> MICHAEL VALPY
> 
> ...



I see the _aspirants_ in three groups:

•	The trusted outsiders: including Manley and McKenna, if he (McKenna) is even interested, These would be seen as re-builders;

•	The current leaders: e.g. Hall-Findlay, Ignatieff and Rae; and

•	The too young guard: especially, Kennedy and Trudeau.

It seems to me that:

•	Selecting any of the “current leaders” will just perpetuate the Trudeau/Turner and Chrétien/Martin wars – that’s the last thing the Liberals need;

•	The “young guard” are not sufficiently _centrist_ – although we know exactly *nothing* about young M. Trudeau’s political philosophy – which also bodes ill for the Liberals. The political left is already overcrowded in Canada, the Liberals are going nowhere until they move back to the centre; thus

•	The Liberals ought to pick one of the “trusted outsiders” – a list that might also include Brian Tobin and Bill Graham.


----------



## GAP (17 Oct 2008)

I think, when the dust has settled, the Liberals will pick a "do no harm" leader....

They are in desperate need of rebuilding and that is a multi-year task. Whomever they pick the Conservatives will try to pigeon hole almost immediately, as they did with Dion.


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2008)

Manley OR McKenna..... interesting alternatives - in spite of no declared leadership race.....
Stephane Dion should recognize his defeat & do as his predecessor Paul Martin did..... step down!


----------



## Greymatters (17 Oct 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> It was also interesting to hear the Quebec reporter refer to Harper supporter from the West as rednecks...



I'm actually Ok with that... 

Back to topic, I'm surprised how many people out here in the West were willing to vote non-Conservative, not because there was a better candidate from another party, but simply 'to keep the Conservatives from getting a majority'...


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Oct 2008)

The Liberal party is faced with some harsh realities, whether the members wish to acknowledge them or not.

First, the Liberals are essentially isolated in two large cities with the barbarians moving their siege lines up to the walls. Take away, especially, the Toronto MPs and the party is reduced in numbers to NDP status.

Second, despite what the president of the Thornhill federal Liberal riding association wrote in a letter in today's National Post, a simple move to the centre will not restore them to the status of what he called the natural governing party. In my opinion the party has lost touch with the mainly decent, hardworking and honest people than were its grassroots base. In round figures the Liberals in my riding saw their vote plummet from 17,000 in 2004 to 13,000 in 2006 and 8,000 in 2008. The CPC and NDP both saw their vote grow in the same three elections.

Third, and the lash marks are beginning to overlap on the dead horse, the party faces an uncertain financial future. An interim leader might gain them time to reorganize, but will he or she be able to attract the grassroots donations of 50 or 100 bucks from many tens of thousands of supporters to pay off the debts, run the day to day operations and fill the war chest? If the party decides to regain power in the next election under the leadership of a heavy hitter, and the bids fails, then what? Will the grassroots be inclined to keep pumping money into a failing enterprise? The Tories and the Dippers were, but this is something unknown to the Grits.

And as a gee whizz, will the young, politically ambitious types in high school and university wish to trust their ambitions to what is seen as a moribund enterprise?


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2008)

Let's not forget that the mean Blue conservative machine that Brian Mulroney had, was blown to smitherines.
Today's conservative party draws it's roots from the Canadian Reform Alliance Party that Preston & Stockwell built.

If the Liberals self destruct.... someone will take it's place.  If it happens - it happens


----------



## dapaterson (17 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It seems to me that:
> 
> •	Selecting any of the “current leaders” will just perpetuate the Trudeau/Turner and Chrétien/Martin wars – that’s the last thing the Liberals need;
> 
> ...



Graham's past will disqualify him - whispers can be deadly in Ottawa, and he knows that there are sufficient skeletons in his closet to preclude his effective functioning as leader.

A decent man, but the chattering classes would have a field day.


Geo:

The current Tories took on a significant amount of support from the old PCs - their reduction to a rump of 2 seats under Campbell was not representatitve of their popular vote.  I'll try to dig out an essay I wrote that the Montreal Gazette accepted for publication, then never ran, after Jean Charest brought the party back - it was essentially an elegy for the PC party, knowing they were done for.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Oct 2008)

As dapaterson noted, the PCs did not disappear into thin air. Most merged with the Alliance into the CPC, and time (and the prospect of power) healed the wounds. Others went to the Liberals and a tiny rump became the Progressive Canadians party or PCs.

This could also happen to the Liberals with the centrists joining the Tories in time and the left gravitating to the NDP. There would be some, indeed many, who would hang onto the old name and traditions and slowly wither away. Thus we might, I say again, might see strengthened CPC and NDP parties with a fading Liberal presence. What this would do to the NDP is anyone's guess. Does the party moderate in an attempt to gain power, or does it go through another schism as it did in the seventies with the Waffle movement flying off from an organization it considered too moderate and mainstream?

Maybe some will take a leaf from the CF's playbook, you know the one that reads, "if in doubt, form another headquarters," and a new political movement will arise.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> •	The “young guard” are not sufficiently _centrist_ – although we know exactly *nothing* about young M. Trudeau’s political philosophy – which also bodes ill for the Liberals. The political left is already overcrowded in Canada, the Liberals are going nowhere until they move back to the centre;



Actually, the Young Dauphin made a speech in Windsor which atacked capitalism, and the plodding speech I attended was also full of socialist nostrums. If I were to guess at his political philosophies, I suspect they are heavily influenced by Uncle Fidel. We should also remember the late departed "Sun King" was also a socialist, only moving to the Liberal Party as an expedient means of achieving power. (Bob Rae also would fit in that category).

As for the future of the Liberal Party, it seems clear to me that the idea of a brokerage party has finally reached its expiry date. If you want socialism, there are real socialist parties to vote for (NDP, BQ and Greens all espouse various forms of "social democratic" platforms). The business wing of the Liberal party will see the CPC as the vehicle to achieve their goals. Environmentalists will gravitate to the Greens and so on. Many of Canada's minor parties might also see a small increase in support as the Liberals disintigrate. The brand name might still have some value; a center left "Liberal-Democrat" party would be viable, but I suspect the hard core "Progressives" will split from that party and reform under a new name. (Social Democratic Party of Canada?).

Reality will take some time to sink in, so I expect the Liberal Party will still be around to contest several more elections before the lights go out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Actually, the Young Dauphin made a speech in Windsor which atacked capitalism, and the plodding speech I attended was also full of socialist nostrums. If I were to guess at his political philosophies, I suspect they are heavily influenced by Uncle Fidel. We should also remember the late departed "Sun King" was also a socialist, only moving to the Liberal Party as an expedient means of achieving power.
> ...




Very true, he was also part of the Kennedy team that moved to give Dion the leadership - so that puts him on the left wing of the Liberal Party: the *wrong* wing according to some Liberals. 

The traditional myth is that the Liberals _"campaign left and govern right"_ - and that was true of King, St Laurent, Pearson and Chrétien – but it was not true of Trudeau and would not, I suspect be true of Dion or Kennedy or Trudeau.

Canadians cannot complain overly much about St Laurent or Chrétien (Pearson did nothing, much, having had nothing but minorities) and King did both some good and some ill, but, as lawyer-poet F.R. Scott memorably said he (King) _“never did anything by halves that could be done by quarters”_ and Canadians have good reason to wish that we had a bolder leader _waaaaaay_ back when.

The Liberals will need to vacate the left, leaving the NDP and Greens to scrap over the scraps, and move back to the centre, before the Tories get a firm grip on it, if they want to get back into power any time soon. 

I think Bob Rae is, by now, probably a _bona fide_ ‘centrist’ – but he still carries a lot of left wing baggage from his days in the NDP. Despite my admiration for the message* Ignatieff brought to the Liberals I doubt that he has a deeply held economic philosophy. I think he, like Trudeau, is what Berlin described as a hedgehog (after _Archilochus_) – he has “one big idea” whereas a good politician ought to be a fox – with many ideas about a wide range of issues.

As a true blue Conservative, I hope the Liberals use their hearts rather than their heads and stay on the left. As a Canadian, who values the Liberal Party of Canada as a great national institution, I hope they finally, after over 40 years, get their act together and move back to and stay back in the political centre – where both parties belong.


----------
See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27392/post-177428.html#msg177428


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2008)

As those who follow the letters to the editor and on-line comments will know most _active_ readers of the _Globe and Mail_ are on the political left.

Here, from the _Good Grey Globe’s_ web site is the readers’ highly unscientific expression of preference for Liberal Leader:

•	Martha Hall Findaly: 4%
•	Michael Ignatieff: 22%
•	Gerard Kennedy: 8%
•	Dominic LeBlanc: 1%
•	John Manley: 11%
•	Frank McKenna: 25%
•	Bob Rae: 15%
•	Justin Trudeau: 14%


----------



## GAP (17 Oct 2008)

Bob Rae: 15%


Hmm....doesn't bode well for Bob Rae off the hop...

Michael Ignatieff: 22%
Frank McKenna: 25%

I think, if I remember correctly, McKenna will make mincemeat out of the debating/political skills of Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff has been running against the B team so long, he thinks they are the standard....


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2008)

Latest on "Is Dion on the ramp?"

Canadian Press:  "Dion expected to call it quits Monday"

National Post:  "Dion to signal leadership plans Monday"

Toronto Star:  "Dion to speak Monday"

Countdown to the news conference here....


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2008)

This blogger makes a good point; if Mr. Dion is to go, what about is palace guard? (of course the number of byelections soon after the general election would be soemwhat entertaining....)

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2008/10/when-stphane-dion-goes-silently-into.html



> *When Stéphane Dion goes silently into the night, will he be alone?*
> 
> When Stéphane Dion goes silently into the night, will he be alone? Or will those staunch defenders of his like *Martha Hall Findlay* follow him into political retirement?
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This blogger makes a good point; if Mr. Dion is to go, what about is palace guard? (of course the number of byelections soon after the general election would be soemwhat entertaining....)
> 
> http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2008/10/when-stphane-dion-goes-silently-into.html




Actually, I think Russ Campbell has it just about 90% _back-asswards_. Brison, Hall Findlay and Rae all get _brownie points_ for exerting themselves in a lost cause, for _going the extra mile_ and so on.

Those who will suffer are Joe Volpe and  Jim Karygiannis who have been too quick to demand Dion’s head on a platter.

Dion has to go, that's for sure,* but Liberals prize (and reward) loyalty. +1 (Party loyalty points) for Scott, Martha and Bob, -1 for Jim and Joe.


------------------
* But my true blue Tory heart hopes that it is a long, slow, divisive and expensive farewell - complete with knives protruding from many, many Liberal backs.


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2008)

and when all the dust and blood settles, we can hope for another pseudo Dion, Gerrad Kennedy perhaps? Someone the CPC can pigeonhole for the election in 30 months.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2008)

Kennedy would be the worst possible choice for the Liberals. He is too far left, father left than Dion.

The only hope for the Liberals is to recapture the centre. For that they need Manley or McKenna, but I am confident than neither will be in the _final four_ because the Liberal _grass roots_ have moved left – leaving most Canadians (including the really smart Liberals) behind.


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2008)

That is why I was suggesting Kennedy.  

Not likely though, the Liberal Party generally does not shoot itself in the foot twice in a row.....but there's hope


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Oct 2008)

Today there was rumblings that John McCallum will be the interim leader come Monday.  :blotto: He just might make Dion look like Patton! ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a column by Jeffrey Simpson that, I think neatly and fairly sums up the Liberals’ dilemmas:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.wcosimp20/BNStory/specialComment/home


> The Liberal Party needs more than a new leader
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...



Just to add a bit, and at risk of repeating myself: Lester B Pearson reshaped the Liberal Party and, consequently, Canadian politics by:

 -  Changing the _’style’_ of the political processes by bringing e.g. Jim Coutts and Keith Davey into the _centre_ and, thereby, changing how *politics* is done – in a much more American manner, and

 -  Bringing Québec’s _three wise men_, very left of centre 'wise men,' Marchand, Pelletier and Trudeau to Ottawa and, explicitly, changing the very nature of the country by recognizing Québec as one of the _deux nations_.

In so doing Pearson broke with Laurier, King and St Laurent who always recognized Québec as _special_, maybe even as _primus inter pares_ but who recognized _French Canadians_, all of them, not just those in Québec, as one of the _founding_ peoples.

Trudeau took all that Pearson had done, politically, and then, effectively, repudiated (in his disastrously ill-conceived and stupidly drafted 1970 white paper _A Foreign Policy for Canadians_) all of the St Laurent/Pearson foreign policy and economic/fiscal ‘heritage.’ He steered the Liberal Party sharply to the left and, thanks to his charisma, he inculcated a generation of Canadians with simplistic left wing and anti-American ideas.

John Turner fought back, hoping to move he Liberal Party back to the St Laurent/Pearson fiscal and foreign policy _centre_ but Trudeau’s _machine_ was much too powerful. The Trudeau/Turner _war_ ‘morphed’ into the Turner/Chrétien battles which, in their turn, evolved into the Chrétien/Martin mêlée.

I will repeat my view that the Liberals are LOST, *lost*, lost if they cannot end this war – in favour of the St Laurent/Pearson/Turner/Martin position - and move the Party well back into the _centre_. The left, even the centre-left is too crowded, and who wants pretend-left-Liberals when a real-_no-shit_-left-NDP is there?

Am I blaming it all on the long dead Trudeau? Yes!

Am I, a card carrying Tory, gloating? No! (Well, honestly, maybe just a wee, tiny bit.  :-\ ) Repeating myself again: The Liberal Party of Canada is an important national institution; we need it to be a 'government-in-waiting.' But we do not want a loony-left government-in-waiting, we want a sensible, centrist party ready to take the reigns of power.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Oct 2008)

In general terms I agree with your assessment of what the Liberals should do if they are acting in both the national and their own best long term interests. It remains to be seen if they opt to keep on their left wing path, especially if the next leader is from that part of the spectrum. I suspect given the preponderance of candidates of that genre - Rae, Kennedy and possibly Dryden and Hall-Findlay with a dunno about Leblanc - that they are apt to reinforce failure. I may be hopelessly pollyannaistic but given slow economic times over the next little while, the country is not apt to embrace loony economics.

If that happens, and it should not for the good of Canada, then we are apt to have a choice between two parties, one (the CPC) on the centre-right and the other (a united Liberal rump and the NDP) on the left wing. When, and it always happens, the people toss out the CPC rascals, we are going to be faced with a wildy socialistic, anti-american, anti-establishment cabal.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2008)

Not if the "United Liberal Rump" grows into the centre-left "Liberal Democrat" party!


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> If that happens, and it should not for the good of Canada, then we are apt to have a choice between two parties, one (the CPC) on the centre-right and the other (a united Liberal rump and the NDP) on the left wing. When, and it always happens, the people toss out the CPC rascals, we are going to be faced with a wildy socialistic, anti-american, anti-establishment cabal.



Agreed. There is a left-of-centre route to power for the Liberals, *BUT* it involves some sort of coalition with the NDP and that, effectively, means writing off the Liberals as a _national_ party able to govern on its own. I'm guessing (maybe hoping?) most Liberals can see that logical conclusion and will react accordingly - by moving back to the centre, starting with the *rejection* of Kennedy _et al_ at the May 2009 leadership contest.


----------



## GAP (20 Oct 2008)

The one thing going for the Liberals is going to be the depression of the population in a few years.

Right now we have an Economic Crisis, the CPC is holding steady, this is comfortable to the population......but like normal people, the population as a whole will want to go out and spend once they are sure nothing bad will happen. The Liberals are great at thinking up ways for the population to feel it is spending without really spending. (eg: Universal DayCare, kelowna Accord, Universal Pharmacare....I know, I know, they all cost out far more than we can afford,) the Liberals are generally able to get enough people on the bandwagon to laud them loudly and clearly that this SHOULD be a UNIVERSAL RIGHT!!

Once people start believing the liberal lies, they will want the stick-in-the-mud CPC out, because that is what the Liberals will tell them they want....It matters not that the CPC saw the country safely through the today's crisis, it will be "What have you done for me today" type of attitude......


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2008)

No where did Jack Layton or Monsieur Dion state where the money would come from,.,,,oh sorry....make the rich pay.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2008)

The manouevre battle is already shaping up inside the Liberal Party ranks:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/276068.php



> *Are we all staring at a major element of the Liberal Party leadership race and not recognizing it for what it is?*
> 
> If Stephane Dion announces his intention not to remain as Liberal Party leader, conventional wisdom has it that Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff are lined up to battle it out once again.
> 
> ...



An even stranger idea is Stephan Dion might get the last word in after all:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/276068.php



> Something just occurred to me.  Could Stephane Dion be planning to lead the Liberals through a second election?
> 
> This is absurd, but in today's Globe and Mail article, there are hints of a strange plan taking shape:
> 
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (20 Oct 2008)

Hmmm... hoping to defeat the budget, discredit the Conservative government, force a new election, and ride the white horse to a Liberal victory?

That is one long chain of hopeful thinking...


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Oct 2008)

Well, Dion has decided to stay on as Liberal leader until the party can convene a leadership convention. However he will not enter the contest. What are the implications? Can he influence the leadership race by favoring some over others? What does this do to his personal financial situation and to the party's finances and prospects to retire its debt?

At first blush this seems to me not to be the best choice for the party, although it might allow him to exit with a bit of dignity and less debt. However he may be able to influence the process towards picking a leader from the left, which is where I feel he had his natural home. Perhaps that is his goal. We have already discussed the implications of the party steering left, which is a very crowded route. This also, I think, implies that there is an attitude that the Liberals as the natural governing party need not cater to the mob, who will come to its senses and vote the way it should, for the Grits.

Ultimately I suggest this was the choice of a proud, arrogant man who will not accept responsibility for the party's failure. Listen to his speech for any signs of contrition. He may be hoping against hope that the CPC government will fall on the budget and he will be poised to gain power and implement his brilliant policies.


----------



## geo (20 Oct 2008)

Gawd... more NDP than the NDP ???
Don't think Canada needs or deserves this...


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2008)

I would suggest that his staying on as Liberal leader is a combination of two things; the lack of money in the Liberal War Chests at the moment to finance another Leadership Convention, and the desire to retire with a very good Pension.  What is the Pension like for a Party Leader, and how many years does it take to accumulate the "points", as Leader, to have a larger pension than the everyday Member of Parliament?


----------



## geo (20 Oct 2008)

Dunno...reduced penisons didn't seem to bother Paul Martin, Stockwell Day or Preston Manning...

They all went into leadership camapigns & took their seats with the rest of the troops in the house.


----------



## GAP (20 Oct 2008)

This is all about Dions ego...


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Oct 2008)

The Liberals would have had a leadership review in any case after the election, probably followed by a separate leadership selection. They will save some money this way, quite a bit actually, but some expenditure was coming anyway. As for the extra in his pension, I am sure some smart folks are figuring that out at this time.

I fear the party is getting into the same state as Custer at the Little Bighorn; whether one goes for a left flanking, a right flanking or a frontal really doesn't change the outcome all that much. Custer tried all three at the same time, by the way.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2008)

As mentioned earlier, here's an essay I wrote the morning after the 1997 election, announcing the death of the Progressive Conservatives.  A few rough spots I'd re-work were I to do it again, but overall, I'm happy with how it turned out.  I'm not yet ready to write a similar eulogy for the Liberals; I think they still may be able to move back towards the centre.


*Death of a Friend*

June 3rd, 1997

I’ve had to say good-bye to an old friend.  It’s never easy, seeing them go from a robust, powerful force to a mere shadow of their former self, kept alive by only the most extraordinary of measures.  But now I must admit it: the Progressive Conservative Party is dead.

It’s difficult to believe that the party of Sir John A. Macdonald, of John Diefenbaker, even of Brian Mulroney is now in the throes of rigor mortis.  However, the election of a mere twenty Tory members of Parliament on June 2nd is the final nail in the coffin of one of Canada’s oldest political parties.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.  Two consecutive terms of majority government under Mulroney, a feat last performed by Louis St Laurent some forty years earlier, should have brought in a new, dominant era for the Tories.  Their backrooms were filled with smoky conversations suggesting the Liberals had finally been displaced as Canada’s natural governing party.

But public distaste for the Mulroney government lead to the disastrous 1993 election, where the Tory campaign suffered from daily collapses and flip-flops.  Overnight, Kim Campbell went from being Canada’s first female Prime Minister to an unemployed political scientist.  And the descent began in earnest.  The Tory long knives last used against Joe Clark were brought back, with Campbell unceremoniously dumped for Jean Charest, one of two Tory MPs to survive the 1993 massacre.

Jean Charest spent the next three and a half years trying to rebuild the party.  No potluck supper was too small, no bus ride too long in his constant quest to shore up the fading Tory fortunes.  Criss-crossing the country, rousing dispirited members: these were the jobs of Jean Charest.

In 1995, Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s mishandling of Quebec’s referendum rocketed Jean Charest to national prominence.  He became the voice of federalism in Quebec.  Even Chretien’s fit of pique, cutting off Charest’s speech following the narrowest of victories, couldn’t diminish the accomplishment.  Jean Charest became Canada’s favourite political leader, and Quebec’s favourite federalist voice.

But this was all for naught.  The same Tory strategists who lead the party from a majority government to obscurity brought forward two more self-destructive strategies for the 1997 campaign.  First, they shifted party policy to the right to compete with the Reform party. This pushed offstage the left-of-centre “Red” Tories, who could otherwise have appealed to disenchanted Liberal supporters.  Second, in a desperate attempt to distance the party from its two most recent terms in office, they sold voters Jean Charest instead of the party, referring only in small print to the PC Party, trying to distance themselves from the hated Mulroney Progressive Conservatives.

The 1997 election results were an unmitigated disaster for the Tories.  Their gains in Atlantic Canada came from previously Liberal ridings repudiating the right-wing economic policies of the ruling Liberal party.  Their move to the right was ignored in the vote rich regions of Ontario and the West, areas crucial to the survival of the party.  Selling the leader rather than the party means all the work of the ‘97 campaign will be lost when Jean Charest leaves federal politics in the next few years.  The Tories will thus be left with no identity, nor policy, nor leader.

Canada used to be a nation of two founding political parties.  Today the Liberal Party is all that remains.  As for the Progressive Conservatives?  Requiescat in Pacem.


----------



## Rodahn (20 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> The one thing going for the Liberals is going to be the depression of the population in a few years.
> 
> Right now we have an Economic Crisis, the CPC is holding steady, this is comfortable to the population......but like normal people, the population as a whole will want to go out and spend once they are sure nothing bad will happen. The Liberals are great at thinking up ways for the population to feel it is spending without really spending. (eg: Universal DayCare, kelowna Accord, Universal Pharmacare....I know, I know, they all cost out far more than we can afford,) the Liberals are generally able to get enough people on the bandwagon to laud them loudly and clearly that this SHOULD be a UNIVERSAL RIGHT!!



GAP;  

Not sure if I'm reading the above correctly.

But I think that you should remember that it was a Liberal government that started producing a balanced budget and surplus' after the mess the Mulroney conservatives got us into. The past Conservative Government has/had a surplus of $2 billion, (approx according to the last announcement) in comparison to the previous Liberal governments $11 billion.

To me that would suggest that the Liberals fiscally, are more responsible.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Oct 2008)

Whoa.  Stop right there.

Firstly, it was the Trudeau Liberals who "got us into this mess", not the Mulroney Conservatives.  While Mulroney ran 40 Billion deficits, he was headed in the right direction.  Chretien accomplished surpluses by off-loading the Federal Deficit onto Alberta, Ontario and BC.

It should also be noted that running 11 Billion/year surpluses means that 11 Billion/year of your and my money is being taxed, IN EXCESS of what is required to run the Government.

If you think that the Federal Government can do a better job than you can of spending your own money, feel free to write CRA a cheque for an extra $1000.00 at tax time...


----------



## Rodahn (21 Oct 2008)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Whoa.  Stop right there.
> 
> Firstly, it was the Trudeau Liberals who "got us into this mess", not the Mulroney Conservatives.  While Mulroney ran 40 Billion deficits, he was headed in the right direction.  Chretien accomplished surpluses by off-loading the Federal Deficit onto Alberta, Ontario and BC.
> 
> ...



Sorry Seaking, but your numbers just don't add up. Using your figures, the Mulroney government through it's eight years in office accumulated $320 billion in deficit. Granted some of the deficit is due to the  Trudeau era, the majority (again using your figures) is based upon the Mulroney rule.

I agree that government should not over nor under spend, however the cost of servicing the current deficit is I think about 25% of every dollar that you and I pay in taxes. Therefore reducing the deficit is very much in the the Canadian public's interest.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> ...
> But I think that you should remember that it was a Liberal government that started producing a balanced budget and surplus' after the mess the Mulroney conservatives got us into.
> ...



To add to SeaKingTaco's entirely correct assessment: the Conservatives balanced the _programme budget_ when Mike Wilson was still Finance Minister. They (Mulroney, actually) lacked the political courage to go the next step and "make the rich pay" by re-jigging the equalization system to, effectively, rob Alberta, BC and Ontario to pay for everything and still run a surplus. The Liberals had no such problem with political courage or conscience and did what was necessary. The work is not done, though as we still pay $33 Billion + in public debt charges (See Table 2.3here.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would suggest that his staying on as Liberal leader is a combination of two things; the lack of money in the Liberal War Chests at the moment to finance another Leadership Convention, and the desire to retire with a very good Pension.  What is the Pension like for a Party Leader, and how many years does it take to accumulate the "points", as Leader, to have a larger pension than the everyday Member of Parliament?




Actually, Dion can use the leader’s office to:

•	Help with is own big, personal ($200,000) fundraising chore. He must raise that by end 2009 to pay off his costs from the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign. He needs to do that before he starts raising any money for the Liberal Party of Canada; and

•	Help or hurt leadership candidates by e.g. appointing some to highly desirable _front bench_ critic positions and appointing others to more difficult or less desirable posts.


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> GAP;
> 
> Not sure if I'm reading the above correctly.
> 
> ...



Wrong....as has been pointed out by others far more adept than I.

I lived through those Trudeau years as a taxpayer along with many others, and it was Trudeau and only Trudeau that started the high deficits.....

Mulroney, the first few budgets, continued, then when public opinion and other things turned south, he and Michael Wilson started cutting back. ER explained it best. 

The liberals in 93 simply hacked and slashed to the point provinces could not pick up any more slack and it slid down to the people. Those were lean years for anybody in the workforce.

Chretien and Martin didn't take care of the people through their expertise and management....they simply cut and taxed to the point they didn't have to, then taxed some more to give healthy surpluses, that when added on to the increased income of a rebounding economy, made them the darlings that would give you what you wanted come election time.....A lot of Liberals still think in that mindset.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Oct 2008)

+1 GAP. I'd rather the gov't run near the line. That to me, shows they know what their doing. The liebrals, plain and simple, stole uneeded money from the taxpayer  to create the huge surpluses and pat themselves on the back. Typical robber barons.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2008)

To be fair, large surpluses today mean paying down the debt, which reduces outyear interest charges.  If the economy can bear some additional pressure, repaying debt when times are good is prudent fiscal management - but that also implies that when times are bad, it may be warranted to run a deficit.


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2008)

I would agree with maintaining some of the high taxation to pay down the debt.....in 2 1/2 years the CPC paid down 40 Billion, verse the Liberals paying down 17 Billion (I think) in their last four years....The interest $$ we save is phenomenal.....and it's ours.


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Oct 2008)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Chretien accomplished surpluses by off-loading the Federal Deficit onto Alberta, Ontario and BC.
> 
> It should also be noted that running 11 Billion/year surpluses means that 11 Billion/year of your and my money is being taxed, IN EXCESS of what is required to run the Government.



It is easy to balance a budget if you get someone else to foot the bills. Your last statement nails it for me. Surpluses means we the taxpayer have been over-charged, end of story.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Oct 2008)

Remember that Chretien et al did not come to power in 1993 on a platform of balancing the budget and eventually paying down the debt. As I recall the Red Book, the promise was to reduce the annual deficit to 3% of GDP. It was not until the awful truth sunk in circa 1995 that the drastic cuts in spending were made and the budget was balanced. Even then, the cuts were made to transfers to the provinces and in the non-touchy feelly departments like DND, the Sol Gen and National Revenue. There also was a freeze of government wages. This allowed program spending in social services to continue and even grow.

To suggest that the Liberals came to power with the aim of putting our fiscal house in order is wrong, wrong, wrong. They also took the easy route to balancing the budget by slashing things that they believed would not harm their popularity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2008)

I attended an event, yesterday, at which John Manley spoke, I only had a chance to exchange a few sentences with him, but, my guesstimate is: Yes, he’s interested, but raising both money and support from a left-leaning *base* will be very, very hard for him and for Frank McKenna, too. I’m also guessing that he will not run unless he has a very good chance of winning and he will make that assessment quite early. Therefore, I would not be surprised if he sits this one out and, _de facto_ retires from partisan politics.

Ten years ago money would not have been a problem: the Liberal Party of Canada was, always, the party of big money, *big* business, BIG banks and big labour – money, bags of money, went to those _endorsed_ by the _Mr. Bigs_ and today that would be, in no particular order, Inatieff, Manley, McKenna and, maybe, Rae (who will likely have Paul Desmarais’ support thanks to his brother John Rae who is a VP at _Power Corp_). Chrétien changed all that for reasons that I find hard to fathom.

The party ‘base’ – those committed Liberals who work “in the trenches” in good times and bad - has changed. It has shifted far away from the _centrist_ base of the St Laurent/Pearson era (20 years from 48 to 67) and has, now, a left wing base created by Pierre Trudeau and nourished by Jean Chrétien – despite the fact that he (Chrétien) was a very _conservative_ fellow.

Chrétien moved the party leftwards because he thought that he no longer needed to placate the Liberal ‘right’ thanks to the PC/Reform split. He felt secure enough to be able to ignore the Graham/Manley/Martin/McKenna wing and to use Canadians’ innate (albeit juvenile) anti-Americanism and _soft-socialism_ to try to take voters away from the NDP. He misjudged. Harper and McKay reunited the right faster and more firmly than Chrétien thought possible and the NDP _faithful_ saw through him.

Without rehashing the history of the Liberals’ _internecine_ wars, Ignatieff, like Manley, will have serious trouble with the base; Rae will have trouble with some of the ‘leaders;’ Kennedy will have Dion’s visible support, I think and I’ll guess that Dion will give him a nice, high profile critic’s job that will allow him to polish his image on TV every day – attacking harper and the Tories in areas where they are vulnerable. Ignatieff and Rae, I’m guessing, will be stuck with _portfolios_ for which Canadians have little affection – defence and foreign affairs, or little interest - such as industry and trade.

It will be interesting to see who _shadows_ Flaherty in Finance (I’m assuming he stays there). The Liberals have to be careful there. They will have to walk a fine line between the BQ and NDP who will be screaming an whinging for handouts for _Main Street_ and the media who will blast them for anything that looks even remotely _irresponsible_ but who will also blast them for being ‘too close’ to the Tories. If it was me I would appoint Ralph Goodale.

If I was a betting man I might bet on Dominic LeBlanc.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2008)

LeBlanc would be an interesting choice- but begs the question whether an Acadian counts as an English Leader or a French one.  I suspect we'll see the alternation continue this time, with an English leader selected .  Which of course opens the door on the next go 'round for the Dauphin to ascend to his throne.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2008)

Obviously, everyone is going to weigh in with free advice, especially since the economic crisis is (or should be) changing all underlying assumptions. Here is a call to shift dramatically to the right. While I agree in principle, I am not sure that this is feasible in practice without some compelling "cover". Using the economic crisis and global unwinding of debt *might* be an opportunity to eliminate business income tax in Canada as a non inflationary means of providing liquidity and maintaining productivity and jobs, for example. 

On the other hand, the reaction that a rather paltry $40 some million cut to the Federal Budget elicited, or the ongoing fear of tackling issues like the abuse Human Rights Commissions do to free speech would seem to mean that reaching for real change might be a poisioned chalice

http://www.canada.com/opinion/story.html?id=896579



> *Time for Tories to drop incrementalism*
> Gerry Nicholls ,  National Post
> Published: Tuesday, October 21, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2008)

Apparently we have right wingers craving leadership.  Or is this rather a case of someone who wants to lead but doesn't seen inclined to risk it himself?

Correct me if I'm wrong but were there any CPC ads hyping Harper as Leader?  I recall the CPC saying Dion was NOT a leader.  I recall NDP ads accusing Harper of being a Strong Leader.  

But I don't recall a Tory "Harper-Leader" meme.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2008)

If, as he self describes, Gerry Nicholls is “one of Canada’s top five political minds,” then one must hope and pray that the other four have something, anything, useful in them because if Nicholls shakes his head the rattling noise will wake the dead.

The Liberals are not going to revitalize themselves in a year – it will take three, five, even ten before they are ready and able to govern again.

Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper are right, and Nicholls is dangerously wrong: Canadians do not want a ‘conservative’ Canada and offering them one is the one sure way to revitalize the Liberals quickly.

Nicholls says, correctly, that Harper must: _”cut taxes, make government smaller, reduce government spending, promote and protect individual freedoms.”_ I don’t think to many people argue with too many of those aims. But, Nicholls – “one of Canada’s top five political minds, remember – then goes on to say that Harper must stop being ‘nice’ (as ‘nice’ as he can be, anyway) and become some sort of _inspiring_ leader. Please, please gods - small and mighty, send out the other four “top political minds!”


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (23 Oct 2008)

Just to go with the post on the eulogy for the Progressive Conservatives from 1997, I would offer that the party that Sir John A MacDonald founded had already died decades  prior.  This merger of the Progressives with the Conservatives in 1942 to form the Progressive Conservatives gives an illustration of how Canadian politics work.  The old-school Conservatives faced a crisis when rural farmers, with many from Western Canada, splintered off from the Conservatives after World War 1 to the Progressive Party.  The Conservatives were reduced to a fairly minor status in the house for a bit.  The rift was healed when a former leader of the Progessives came to be the Conservatives and the party was renamed the Progressive Conservatives.

The Western (and rural) vote split off again with Reform/Alliance in the 90s, making Liberal majorities a certainty for a time.  The rift was healed again and a new name came about.  Finding a balance that can appeal to the regions and the centre at the same time is certainly difficult.


----------



## Jed (23 Oct 2008)

So if we get a combination of a strengthening BQ, with Danny Williams pushing the ABC concept and Taliban Jack grabbing the lefty vote; will we see a resurgence of the Western Canada Concept agenda?


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2008)

A view from the United States. The long term prognosis (Conservatives will be badly damaged by the coming economic hard times) is hardly "news", but nevertheless true (even if you and I know that Liberal/NDP/Green policies would have made things far worse, that is in the realm of "what if" while the cold hard truth of the real government's record is there for everyone to see).

Like Gerry Nicholls, I am moving more firmly to the idea that now is the time to take some radical steps, but not for narrow partisan purposes but because we really need to do something very different to weather the economic storm. Grounding the Titanic on the iceberg really isn't going to save us....

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810u/canada-election



> *North America's Other Election*
> 
> Canada has weathered the global economic crisis with noteworthy grace. Last month, its economy created over 100,000 new jobs, more than in any month in decades. Wages keep growing, and Canada's banking sector is, according to the World Economic Forum, "the soundest in the world." So it shouldn't be surprising that last week, Canadians returned Stephen Harper's Conservatives to power and granted them 19 new seats in Parliament. Harper called the election because he thought he could win it. But the five-week campaign featured wild oscillations—and offered a few glimpses of Canada's fragmented future.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2008)

>repaying debt when times are good is prudent fiscal management - but that also implies that when times are bad, it may be warranted to run a deficit.

Usually the Keynesians phrase it the other way, to emphasize the importance (to them) of "investment".  Add to that the probable increase in social spending as the means of people constricts.  But when good times arrive there is almost nothing to be heard but the chirping of crickets from the parliamentary benches, muted by the thunder of whinging from special interests.

There should never have been a "surplus" if past governments had properly paid every unbudgeted penny to buy out federal debt.  The Liberals, however, used part or much of the windfall (if you believe it was truly unexpected) to shower a few gifts on voters.  (The Conservatives have not been entirely immune to the temptation.)

The Liberals are responsible for every penny of the federal debt, which is the sum of their spending (principal) and the interest on that spending.  You can't run up the credit card and then blame someone else when you hand off the household finances for a few years.  Any future Liberal government still owes Canadians an effort to use revenues in excess of program spending to pay down debt - and to keep program spending modest.

The current government can not easily cut spending in some non-essential quarters.  It is clear that immense investments - time, money, "face" - in Quebec can be quickly wiped out by trivialities.  One alternative is to transfer program responsibility to the provinces.  It would not be playing "headwaiter to the provinces" to shift grant and subsidy programs to the provinces, eliminate some federal tax points equivalent to the necessary funding, and tell the provinces to fill their boots.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2008)

The problem on the macro scale is the amount of credit and debt is far beyond what the available supply of savings and liquid wealth can support (overleveraging). The farms and factories remain, but are illiquid and thus become "dead" assets when unwinding.

The cries to increase spending, run deficits and "inject credit" into the markets are fundamentally wrong, since they ignore and indeed amplify the root cause of the crisis. Increasing spending and running deficits is putting a call on the savings and credit of the future (when the last 20 or so years of deficit spending and debt are vacuuming up all the wealth of today!), while injecting credit is just another word for devaluing money (AKA inflation), which also devalues the savings and wealth of the people who were smart enough to save and invest (further damaging the recovery)

What is needed is an non inflationary way to create new wealth. I proposed a "simple" solution (in that it is a singular project rather than an intricate interconnected scheme) of simply abolishing business income tax, and paying for that by concurrently abolishing subsidies to business as well. This releases resources back into the productive economy, favors no industry or region at the expense of others, and to get an idea of the magnitude of the change, the $50 billion of business tax cuts that Jack Layton will fight against in parliament this session is the resources to create 1,000,000 full time jobs. That's a lot of kitchen tables! The concurrent reductions in spending should prevent a deficit from occurring, but the economic activity of reviving business will take up the slack, and the deep spending cuts will keep the books balanced far into the future (as well as allowing the debt and unfunded liabilities like pensions to be dealt with).


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2008)

The Liberal Party discovers one saviour takes a pass:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/526141



> *McKenna passes on the Liberal leadership*
> 
> JIM YOUNG/REUTERS
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (28 Oct 2008)

McKenna makes too much money to run for public office.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2008)

Former Liberal Party of Canada president Stephen LeDrew (he's the guy who called Chrétien’s campaign financing reforms “dumb as a bag of hammers”) has some thoughts, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, on the Liberal leadership candidates, ending with a surprise choice:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/01/stephen-ledrew-liberal-leadership-race-cries-for-a-real-winner.aspx


> Stephen LeDrew: Liberal leadership race cries for a real winner
> 
> Posted: November 01, 2008, 10:36 AM by Kelly McParland
> 
> ...




Danny might as well switch to the Liberals – there’s no way he’s going to mend fences with the Conservatives.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2008)

Well at least  McGuinty, Kennedy, Finlay, Manley, LeBlanc, Cauchon, Coderre and  Dhalla are "honest" Liberals.  They may be colourless members of the coterie but at least you know which cot they came from.

Unfortunately they don't seem to have much background in, or understanding of the world outside.  And they seem to be subject to accepting wise men from afar who can tell them of it.

Danny Williams would continue in this vein - a self-serving businessman sailing under a Tory flag of convenience

As opposed to:

Michael Ignatieff - a defacto American conservative sailing under a Canadian Liberal flag
Bob Rae - a Canadian socialist sailing under a Canadian Liberal flag
Scott Brison (he also challenged for the leadership last time) - Tory sailing under a Liberal flag
Pierre Trudeau - a socialist sailing under the Liberal flag

And the ultimate Liberal - MacKenzie King - a non-entity sailing under a Liberal flag.

It has been a very comfortable dovecot but what makes these doves fly?


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2008)

> Danny might as well switch to the Liberals – there’s no way he’s going to mend fences with the Conservatives.



Williams is going to pay and pay and pay.....there will be mild smiles, handclasps, jokes, but the knives are out and they won't be put away until he's gone.....

Charest falls into the same league, but the conservatives won't be as forthright about hurting him.

McGinty is just a Liberal, and will be treated as such....

These are the only Premiers who can/have hurt the Conservatives....others seem to have taken note of how McGinty was treated and don't pick fights, except Williams who thought he was invincible....


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> ....others seem to have taken note of how McGinty was treated and don't pick fights, except Williams who thought he was invincible....



Ontario can't be ignored.  Newfoundland can.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Nov 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act is an interesting column by Lawrence Martin – a fellow to whom we should pay attention when he talks _politics_, specially Liberal politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081031.wcomartin03/BNStory/specialComment/home


> *Lawrence Martin*
> With McKenna out, make room for John Manley
> 
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...




_Caveat lector_: I must repeat that I know, not too well, and like John Manley. I think that he was an excellent minister – in a series of tough portfolios – and that he is an excellent man and can be a first rate political leader, too.

I also repeat that I think neither Ignatieff nor Rae can lead the Liberals to electoral victory – although either might do a good job of rebuilding the party. On balance, if I was a Liberal, I would find Rae the (marginally) better choice because he is more likely to be willing and able to lead from the opposition benches while the requisite rebuilding happens.

I have often said that I will not vote Liberals again until the last vestiges of Trudeau are wrung out of the party.  Now, no Liberal leader, and certainly not John Manley, is ever gong to say, “Goodbye and good-riddance, Trudeau!” He (Trudeau) has a near divine status in the Liberal Party but, in Finance and in Foreign Affairs, Manley moved the party and the country sharply away from Trudeau’s _vision_ and, solidly, back towards the St Laurent position. Could Manley entice me to vote Liberal again? It’s unlikely, soon, but who knows?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have often said that I will not vote Liberals again until the last vestiges of Trudeau are wrung out of the party.  Now, no Liberal leader, and certainly not John Manley, is ever gong to say, “Goodbye and good-riddance, Trudeau!” He (Trudeau) has a near divine status in the Liberal Party but, in Finance and in Foreign Affairs, Manley moved the party and the country sharply away from Trudeau’s _vision_ and, solidly, back towards the St Laurent position. Could Manley entice me to vote Liberal again? It’s unlikely, soon, but who knows?



+1

Manley is one who I've come to respect as someone nearing the role of "elder statesman".  I wouldn't vote for him simply because he was running, as I would expect some "navigational correctiongs" to be proclaimed loud and clear by the Liberal Party, but at least he wouldn't have me saying "Well, I hope Mr Harper gives us something good to justify the fact that he's getting my vote anyways...."


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Nov 2008)

Saddly Mister Manley is well behind the curve in the vital area of organization, which means committed members firmly in one's camp, which translates into delegates at the convention. This takes time, just as it took Paul Martin years to get his supporters into control of local riding associations. If one controls the associations, then one can control who are elected as delegates. 

For an example of how riding politics works, here is a war story. Harken back to when the right was split into the PC and Canadian Alliance parties. In our riding there was a deep schism at the federal level, while the provincial PC party had members of both camps cooperating quite happily. The PC convention that eventually selected Peter MacKay as its leader was coming up, and the David Orchard wing of the PC party had wiggled its way into a position where it threatened to sieze control of the local riding association, and thus stack the delegates with members violently opposed to any truck or trade with the Canadian Alliance. (Just to thicken the plot, one of the leaders of the local Orchard faction was none other than the sitting Liberal MP's sister.) There was a desperate phone call, several of we Canadian Alliance members were hastily signed up as PCs and our names added to the membership list. At the delegate selection meeting the old and instant Tories outvoted the Orchard wing and named delegates who ultimately realized the two parties must merge. (And if you don't think that we 'conspirators' of both parties weren't working towards the same ultimate objective, then I have some beach front property in Spin Boldak for sale.) And that, boys and girls, is how political organization works.

He may have all the attractive ideas in the world and be an inspiring leader and a brilliant orator, but unless he can get his supporters selected as delegates, he is up the proverbial creek without a paddle. To attract the level of grass roots support, he must be able to convince the rank and file that they want him to lead the party. Given his age, lack of perceived hunger for the job, bland presence on a podium and collaboration with the Great Satan, that is not going to be easy. That takes time and that takes money for travel, mailings, shmoozing and all the rest. John Manley may have the money, but he is short of time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Nov 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Saddly Mister Manley is well behind the curve in the vital area of organization, which means committed members firmly in one's camp, which translates into delegates at the convention...
> 
> He may have all the attractive ideas in the world and be an inspiring leader and a brilliant orator, but unless he can get his supporters selected as delegates, he is up the proverbial creek without a paddle...



Mr. Manly is almost certainly behind in organization, and many (most?) of the 'top' Liberal organizers and campaign managers are already committed to _Iggy_ or Rae; further he is neither an _inspirational_ leader nor a brilliant orator. He does have plenty of good, solid, pragmatic ideas - many of which I suspect I will find 'good' for Canada, but some others of which I will right roundly reject.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Nov 2008)

"collaboration with the Great Satan"

And that is one reason why he will NEVER be a Liberal party leader.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a letter to the editor that pretty much sums up almost everything that is wrong with almost all Liberals - and with most Canadians, too:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081104.COLETTS04-6/TPStory/Opinion/letters


> Where's our Obama, eh?
> 
> ARMIDA SPADA-MCDOUGALL
> 
> ...



Armida Spada-Mcdougall “thinks,” and I suspect most Canadians agree, that:

•	61 is old;

•	New is better than ‘old;’ and

•	Charisma is more important than policy.

Is it any wonder Canada hasn’t “punched above it weight” since 1967?


----------



## GAP (4 Nov 2008)

They are all sitting around waiting for young Trudeau to grow up, hoping he will be the vote magnet his father was......based on what I have seen, nowhere near.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2008)

Well, according to is report, reproduced under he Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, I will not have to worry about having to switch allegiances because John Manley will not seek the Liberal leadership:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081104.wmanley1104/BNStory/politics/home


> Manley won't run for Liberal leadership
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...



Too bad for the Liberal Party; perhaps too bad for the country, too.

But, Armida Spada-Mcdougall's wish comes rue.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2008)

Liberal blood letting begins:

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/11/07/are-ignatieff-backers-trying-to-marginalize-kennedy/



> *Are Ignatieff Backers Trying To Marginalize Kennedy?*
> November 7, 2008 · By Adam Dyck
> 
> According to this story from the Globe, the Quebec wing of the federal Liberals (which is largely dominated by Ignatieff’s supporters) is trying to keep anyone with outstanding campaign debts from 2006 from running this time around. Combine this with their seeking to move the convention from Vancouver to Central Canada, and I start to see a pattern.
> ...



and OMG  

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2008/11/dion-threatens-quick-return-to-polls.html



> *Dion threatens quick return to polls*
> If Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion walks the talk, Canadians will be returning to the polls soon.
> 
> *Dion says his MPs no longer have the stomach for abstaining from, or not showing up for, confidence votes. Dion said Thursday:*
> ...



_Hubris_ in action.

"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich Schiller


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Nov 2008)

The Liberals might tempt the fates when they get a new leader but I doubt before and I doubt the NDP will wish to put some of their new seats on the line.

I can see at least 2 years of semi 'cooperation'.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is some good advice for the Liberal Party of Canada:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/uselection/story.html?id=942417


> Tips for a successful Liberal leadership contest
> *From a self-confessed 'party hack'*
> 
> John Mraz, National Post
> ...




I agree with pretty much everything he says, and some ideas – like party registration rather than paid memberships – are policies that the *Conservatives* Party should pioneer.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2008)

A look at the potential Liberal leadership race. The Liberal Party really needs new ideas and new blood:

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/11/liberal-party-making-same-mistakes.html



> *Liberal Party making the same mistakes, leadership heading for another bust*
> 
> 
> In Canadian politics, it seems like the Liberal Party is still stuck in 2006. Another leadership race has been kicked off. Key candidates have taken a pass. MPs haven't sat a day in the House, yet Liberals are already threatening an election they cannot afford to fight. Financing remains a serious problem. The great red machine that considers itself Canada's natural governing party is fighting for survival and relevance West of Ontario and in most of Quebec. Its traditional strongholds like new Canadians and the GTA are threatened by Conservatives. Since being in opposition, the party has failed to generate any meaningful new policy ideas and is consumbed by internal political battles as oppose to solutions that address the challenges everyday Canadians face. Even after the historic win of Barack Obama, Liberals seemed silent and without reaction to the victory that will have an impact on Canadian politics. The issue of leadership is important, but for the Liberal Party of Canada, it should be the least of concerns.
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (12 Nov 2008)

I think it's quite telling that credible heavyweights such as McKenna and Manley have no willingness to lead and re-build the Liberal party.  Only they could credibly challenge Harper, IMHO.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2008)

*New* leaders?

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=1336



> *The Return of Mr. Dithers?*
> 
> I suppose you could consider it a sign of desperation on the part of long-time Liberals unimpressed with either Bob or Iggy. Sheila Copps officially assumes “old fogey” status in this week’s Hill Times, by suggesting that the time might be right for Paul Martin to come back:
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2008)

I'd love to see Bob Rae win also. That would be the straw that finally breaks the lieberal lock on Ontario. He hasn't faded from memory enough here for people to forget how he ran Bantario into the ground.  I dare say Harper would end up with a strong majority running off against this fiscally incompetent boob. I can hear the rally cry now:

*"Ontario isn't special! Rae days for the whole country!"*


----------



## GAP (17 Nov 2008)

Don't ever underestimate the stupidity of the voting public......


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'd love to see Bob Rae win also. That would be the straw that finally breaks the lieberal lock on Ontario. He hasn't faded from memory enough here for people to forget how he ran Bantario into the ground.  I dare say Harper would end up with a strong majority running off against this fiscally incompetent boob. I can hear the rally cry now:
> 
> *"Ontario isn't special! Rae days for the whole country!"*



Whoa there RG,......haven't you noticed that even OPSEU seems to have forgotten that Mr. Rae did something even that 'big bad Union hating' Mike Harris didn't do?
They have totally forgotten [and want us to forget] that the NDP is the only Ontario party to completly violate a Collective Agreement before it expired.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2008)

And now some more about candidate # 3:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/20/don-martin-the-advantage-of-being-a-lousy-premier.aspx



> *Don Martin: The advantage of being a lousy premier*
> Posted: November 20, 2008, 7:01 PM by Kelly McParland
> 
> The chutzpa of his campaign launch was breathtaking.
> ...



And also the candidate for more openness:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/278465.php



> *Bob Rae: Open to just some of the media [updated]*
> Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 11:45 AM
> 
> The Liberal Party leadership campaign opened with a spat between Bob Rae on one side, and Michael Ignatieff and the Ontario wing of the Liberal Party on the other, with Rae refusing to participate in a private Q&A session because the media was not invited to participate or even observe.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is some background on Dion’s resignation which was announced earlier today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081208.wPOLliberals1208/BNStory/National/home 


> Liberal battle lines drawn
> *Dion resigns, effective as soon as successor 'is duly chosen'; LeBlanc pulls out of race and backs Ignatieff; Rae digs in, saying he wants a contest not a coronation*
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI and CAMPBELL CLARK
> ...




If I understand what I’ve been told by some pretty senior Liberals – and, as I’ve demonstrated over the past week, I’m quite able to ignore salient facts – the new leader can, according to the LPC constitution (which is available on the Liberal Party’s web site) be only  an _*interim*_ leader until a National Convention is held and a leader is confirmed by the membership.

As has been pointed out elsewhere this is an inflexible system, ill suited to a Westminster style parliamentary democracy which demands flexibility of thought and action.

I read reports that the Conservatives had very slick, professional anti_-Iggy_ and anti-Rae advertizing campaigns at the ready two years ago, during the Liberal leadership campaign, but they were caught flatfooted by Dion’s election and the famous _shrug_/”You think it’s easy to set priorities?” ads were hasty, albeit very effective, responses to a surprise. We can expect, I think, a massive barrage of attack ads showing the next leader, likely _Iggy_(?), to be quite detestable to all Canadians but especially to the pinko Liberal base in Toronto – the aim being to drive those voters into the arms of the NDP, thus allowing Conservatives to ‘come up the middle’ in a few Toronto and Vancouver ridings and in more and more 905 ridings. They are also likely to attack the right wing of the Liberal Party by reminding them that _Iggy_ doesn’t really appear to have much in the way of a firm philosophical base – he’s hardly a McKenna and certainly not a Manley.

_Iggy_ is, however, very popular in Québec – that will mean that Harper will need to give, Give GIVE to Québec to buy their votes.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2008)

> ... that will mean that Harper will need to give, Give GIVE to Québec to buy their votes.



C'est toujours le meme chose.  Il y a toujours les causes a donner a Quebec. Il n'y a pas de quoi.

I just heard on CTV news an interesting footnote to this affair.  

Some of Bob Rae's "friends and advisors" are surprised at how bitter he is.  He apparently felt that he was destined to be a Liberal PM and upset that this is being taken from him.  Makes you wonder if that is just hubris, or a reflection of his deep-seated rivalry with Ignatieff, or did his brother John tip him for the job?

This article from Rosemary Speirs of the "Red Star" in October  (I found this article via a link from a link from a link and I'm blowed if I can remember the chain now.  My apologies to the people that did the real work finding this article).



> Coalition games could start when counting votes ends
> 
> Minority outcome would open door to grand bargain between Liberals, NDP, Bloc
> 
> ...


  Source

Bob's coalition all along?
Bob and Jack and Gilles and Socialist International.

And no, I don't wear a tinfoil hat  

Edit: Credit where it's due


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Bob's coalition all along?
> Bob and Jack and Gilles and Socialist International.
> 
> And no, I don't wear a tinfoil hat



Nope. I could see these two NDP hacks sleeping together and planning this, probably before the last election results were counted.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2008)

Here is some ‘breaking news,’ reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site: 

--------------------​http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081209.wPOLliberals1209/BNStory/politics/home

 Rae bows out of Liberal race

CAMPBELL CLARK and BRIAN LAGHI

Globe and Mail Update
December 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM EST

OTTAWA — Former Ontario premier Bob Rae is bowing out of the Liberal leadership, leaving Michael Ignatieff to take hold of the party's reins before Parliament resumes in the new year.

CTV News and The Canadian Press reported Tuesday morning that Mr. Rae told confidantes during a teleconference call that he is withdrawing from the race. A press conference is scheduled for 3 p.m. ET.

It now rests with the party executive to find a way to install Mr. Ignatieff that meets with the approval of the majority of Liberal party members.

On Monday night, the party forestalled efforts to immediately install Mr. Ignatieff as leader, setting up a wider consultation of party officials over the next week after protests from Mr. Rae.

With Stéphane Dion announcing he will step down as Liberal Leader before Parliament resumes, Mr. Rae and his supporters had sought to block a move to have MPs choose a successor at a meeting Wednesday, instead hoping to delay it until next month and give party members a say.

Late Monday, the party's national executive chose a middle option for selecting an interim leader by Dec. 17 — allowing the party's riding association presidents, club presidents, and defeated candidates to weigh in, in addition to Liberal MPs and senators.

It was a compromise between the leadership camps, but it fell short of the broad vote of party members that Mr. Rae had called for. The party executive's decision is intended to delay MPs from voting on a leader until next week, although the caucus is not bound to put off their own vote.

The third candidate in the Liberal leadership race, New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc, pulled out Monday to support Mr. Ignatieff, arguing that circumstances require Liberals to rally behind the "consensus" choice as leader — tacitly pressuring Mr. Rae to follow suit.

"The ideal scenario for me is that the Liberal caucus is united behind Michael Ignatieff as the leader," Mr. LeBlanc said.

While the Liberal Party's constitution technically requires that the choice now is for an interim leader, not a permanent one, it is clear that whoever is chosen will almost certainly keep the job, with a scheduled leadership convention in May probably serving only to ratify it formally.

But Mr. Rae insisted that party members must have a say in the choice, and whoever was chosen by caucus would have an unfair advantage.

"I just happen to have a view that says it's better to have the party as a whole involved in finding a solution than it is to having a solution imposed from above," he said.

"No other democratic party would do it this way, and I think we have to think very carefully about finding the right process."

MPs who support Mr. Rae trooped out in front of television cameras to argue that message, knowing that if the caucus moves to decide the matter in its meeting tomorrow, Mr. Ignatieff will almost certainly emerge as leader.

"If we pick somebody now, it will have the effect almost of being a coronation," Liberal MP Hedy Fry told the CBC.

That, in effect, was what Mr. Ignatieff's team was preparing — a move to have the caucus of Liberal MPs and senators vote to select him tomorrow, and then have the choice ratified by the national executive.

In an e-mail to supporters yesterday, Mr. Ignatieff gave no signal that he was supporting a role for rank-and-file members before that choice, arguing that if he was chosen by the caucus and executive, his leadership would be "confirmed" at the party's May convention.

But many Liberals argue that the party's members must be given some kind of say now — led by Mr. Rae's supporters, but including some MPs who support Mr. Ignatieff. Mr. Rae has garnered the support of MP Gerard Kennedy, the fourth-place finisher from the 2006 leadership race, whose convention-floor backing helped propel Mr. Dion to victory.

The party's executive held a conference call last night to discuss precisely how, and when, the new leader will be chosen.

Mr. Rae's suggestion that the party speed up the leadership race through an electronic vote in January was rejected by members of the executive as a violation of the party's constitution, which requires that a leader be chosen at a convention by elected delegates.

The party's constitution does allow the executive to choose an interim leader, in consultation with the caucus, but finding a way to give party members a say, too, was part of the conference-call discussion.

One of the options to be considered by the national executive was a proposal to speed up the election of leadership-convention delegates, now slated for March 6 to 8, so they are chosen by January. That would effectively substitute as the first-ballot result of the convention, but it could be difficult to organize so quickly.

Other ideas include having the party's 308 riding presidents canvass members and vote on their behalf, possibly along with defeated candidates from the last election.

Mr. Ignatieff's advisers said Monday night they would accept a form of grassroots consultation, such as the vote by riding presidents and defeated candidates.

What is now clear is that the Liberal Party that a week ago planned to have Mr. Dion take office today in a coalition with the NDP is now set to replace him before the next survival test of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government in late January, with the coalition plan uncertain.

Mr. Dion, who faced mounting pressure to step down after a bungled video address to the country last Wednesday, issued a statement saying Mr. Harper's move to prorogue Parliament created a logical time for Liberals to review the way forward.

"There is a sense in the party, and certainly in the caucus, that given these new circumstances the new leader needs to be in place before the House resumes. I agree," the statement said.

Meanwhile, supporters of Mr. Ignatieff began wrestling with the thorny process of what to do about the coalition with the NDP and whether it should be maintained. One key Ignatieff backer said Mr. Ignatieff should use the coalition idea as a weapon to keep the Tories from engaging in bullying tactics.

"The coalition if necessary, but not necessarily the coalition," said the backer.

Several New Democrats pointed out yesterday that Mr. Ignatieff signed his name to the document supporting the coalition.

"I think it's something that will be difficult for anybody in the Liberal Party to want to climb down from," said New Democratic MP Charlie Angus.

NDP Leader Jack Layton issued a statement Monday saying he is looking forward to working with the next leader of the "Liberal-New Democrat coalition" on proposals for the economy.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, who had agreed to support a Liberal-NDP coalition for 18 months, praised Mr. Dion's willingness to put aside his own personal interests to allow the Liberals to choose a new leader, and said that change won't affect Bloc support for a coalition.

_With a report from Bill Curry_
--------------------​
This is, probably, good news for Harper and the Tories. Rae is a much, much better parliamentarian that _Iggy_. It is likely, also, that the long (40 years and counting) _war_ between the Trudeau/Chretien/Rae faction and the Pearson/Turner/Martin/Ignatieff crew will continue, unabated, within the Liberal Party of Canada – keeping it, always, less that properly unified and, consequently, less able to fight and win elections.

_Iggy’s_ dithering on the coalition should give Harper a few more days, even weeks before he engineers a defeat and goes to the polls again – this time, hopefully (for me as a partisan Conservative), able to win a majority, albeit one with very limited Québec representation.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Dec 2008)

Bad news for the Liberal party.  A leadership race, coupled with policy renewal was their best bet to define themselves - and drum up media attention and interest.  A coronation won't get the chatteringclasses engaged, nor will it permit buy-in from the different groups under their "big tent".  The Bob Rae supporters will move to their ideological confreres in the NDP to get away from the "American tainted" Ignatieff; and the Blue Grits wilhave to decide whether to stay in opposition or move to the Tories and try to deflect them somewhat left.

So the question:  Will Ignatieff be the Kim Campbell of the Grits, plumbing new depths, or the Jean Charest, making slight progress but still leaving behind only a rump of a party to be taken over in a merger?


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...
> So the question:  Will Ignatieff be the Kim Campbell of the Grits, plumbing new depths, or the Jean Charest, making slight progress but still leaving behind only a rump of a party to be taken over in a merger?



My *hope* is: neither.

For reasons I hope I need not repeat I (a card carry Tory) think we need a good solid 'government in waiting' provided by a centrist party - a niche the NDP or a Liberal/NDP Alliance is intellectually unable to fill.

Ignatieff will face a (broadly but not not too deeply) centre left/left of centre party base which he will have to reconcile to his (fairly broad and deep) centre right/right of centre 'world view.' That's going to be a lot of work - work that Harper is unlikely to allow him the luxury of time to complete before the next general election. But he needs to drag the Liberals back from the loony left wing precipice, back to the political _high ground_ of the centre and he needs to do it before Harper's Conservatives solidify their hold over too much of it.

I hope he loses a bit to the NDP; and he can afford to give up a few ridings and a few tens of thousands of the 'party faithful' in order to position himself to pick off the Conservative's left wing - which is uncomfortable with Harper _et al_.

I maintain there is room 'under the arch' (see below) for both the Conservatives and Liberals to compete for the centre - by offering good, solid, centrist defence, economic, foreign, fiscal, health, industry, social and trade policies.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Dec 2008)

I agree with the need for two centrist party, one leaning right, one leaning left.  But the rapid nature of this handover means the Liberal tent is going to empty out some more, causing further pain and agony.

Ignatieff is being handed a sword by the Lady of the Lake, as it were - and as everyone knows, supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical acquatic ceremony.

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


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2008)

The CPC will ensure "The Count" wears this one as well. (Actually, I was hoping for Bob Rae to win the Poisoned Chalice, since "*Rae Days for Everyone!*" would have been the best election slogan ever):

http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/hooped/



> *Hooped*
> December 7th, 2008 | Tags: Canadian Politics, Liberals
> 
> It means if you’re a Liberal looking to escape from the coalition — and virtual extinction at the next election — Iggy’s not your boy. He is implicated up to his ears, only without even the virtue of conviction. When the Tories come to remind voters, as they will, who tried to “steal” the election, who was “in bed with the separatists,” who would have let Jack Layton loose in the cabinet, they will make Iggy wear it just as surely as they would Rae or Dion. andrew coyne
> ...



Like Edward, I would prefer the "Government in Waiting"to be composed of serious individuals who have something more than "grabbing the keys to the treasury" as a plan for governing. Rebuilding the Liberal Party or founding a new "Liberal-Democratic" party from scratch will be the challenge of a lifetime, and perhaps the only person who can do it is the Stephen Harper from an alternative universe (the one where Spock has a beard), or at least someone with the vision, tenacity and drive to do so. (Most people know my political philosophy, so unless you are interested in the founding of the Libertarian-Democratic party, I am out of the running  ;D)


----------



## GAP (9 Dec 2008)

I think Ignatiaf, of all the Liberals, is actually closer to Harper than Treadeau'esk (you know what I mean damn it!!). I think he's actually going to make a politically correct effort to work with Harper re: the economy, just so that that Harper doesn't do to him what was done to Dion....

Is he the best man for the times.....there's not much to choose from, so he's got it by default....


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Dec 2008)

A lovely, biting post by Terry Glavin:

The Rise Of Mephistopheles 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/12/rise-of-mephistopheles.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2008)

Who will the Liberals choose as their "new", "NEW" leader after this process flames out?

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=1421



> *Libloggers Mad About The Iggy Process: The Second Batch*
> 
> The Scott Ross:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2008)

According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, it’s a done deal:
--------------------​http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081210.wPOLliberals1210/BNStory/politics/home

 Ignatieff takes Liberal reins
*Toronto MP named interim leader; fate of coalition with NDP unclear; news conference scheduled for 3 p.m. ET*

Globe and Mail Update
December 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM EST

The Liberal Party named Michael Ignatieff as interim leader Wednesday, but it remains unclear whether it will go forward with a plan to topple the Conservative government with the help of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Ignatieff has scheduled a news conference for 3 p.m. ET.

A day earlier, Stephen Harper reached out to the incoming Liberal leader and asked for co-operation on the economy, as the Grits sealed a quick leadership change that would strengthen their hand for a possible election, but leave the door open to compromise.

Mr. Ignatieff enters the post with a mission to rebuild his party's readiness for an election as his priority, while keeping the option of a coalition with the NDP in his back pocket as a means to extract budget concessions in January.

His quick ascension to the leadership was hastened Tuesday when his last rival, Bob Rae, decided that new party rules for choosing an interim leader left him with no hope of winning. He gracefully urged his supporters to rally to Mr. Ignatieff, who as the only candidate left will be acclaimed leader.

Mr. Ignatieff did not speak to reporters, as his advisers scrambled to prepare for a sooner-than-expected takeover of the Opposition leader's office and looked ahead to staffing jobs, uniting the Liberal Party, and preparing for a possible showdown with Mr. Harper in January.

"In difficult economic times, and with a parliamentary crisis at hand, the Liberal Party has responded quickly to changing circumstances to offer stability and leadership to Canadians. Our leadership contest has had to change as well," Mr. Ignatieff said in a statement, praising Mr. Rae and New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc, who withdrew from the leadership race on Monday.

Mr. Harper, while unwilling to express regret for the recent political chaos, greeted his new opponent with an offer to be a "willing partner" on the economy.

"The government is willing to make changes to accommodate the opposition," Mr. Harper said in a rare television interview with CBC anchorman Peter Mansbridge.

"I think the big national parties should be working together to fix the economy, and we're more than willing to do that, and I hope the next Liberal leader, the first thing he'll do is be willing to sit down with me to have that discussion."

Mr. Harper said his Conservative government will return to Parliament in late January with a budget that will contain the significant economic-stimulus package demanded by the opposition.

But he rejected the notion that he stoked the crisis by placing partisan measures in his economic statement, arguing the opposition parties always planned to defeat him. Mr. Harper, whose minority government was re-elected just eight weeks ago, prorogued Parliament last week to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition, backed by the Bloc, from defeating him in a no-confidence vote over his Nov. 27 economic statement.

And his campaign team was more bellicose.

Conservative campaign manager Doug Finley sent an e-mail to supporters attacking the Liberal-NDP coalition as undemocratic, and warning they now want to install a prime minister, Mr. Ignatieff, who "might not even be elected by members of the Liberal Party (or any other party.)"

Mr. Ignatieff has been reticent about the coalition drive to defeat Mr. Harper's Tories in a confidence vote. And his words - "a coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition" - were repeated over and over by Liberals yesterday.

"It's a club in the bag," said Liberal whip Rodger Cuzner. "If the Prime Minister hasn't learned from the economic update, you reach for Big Bertha."

However, the Liberals' rapid move to replace outgoing leader Stéphane Dion - who just a week ago was preparing to lead a coalition government - was mainly driven by fear they might face an election in January, or soon after.

The NDPand Bloc Québécois, meanwhile, did their best to overcome doubts about whether the coalition with the Liberals will hang together through January to defeat Mr. Harper. "We're not going to give him a second chance," said NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair.

Mr. Rae said he feels that Mr. Harper has already irrevocably lost the confidence of opposition parties through excessive partisanship and divisiveness and a lack of economic action.

"I think that those are two good enough reasons to say, 'Time's up, chum,' " he said.

At 60, Mr. Rae acknowledged that his quest to lead the Liberal Party is now over for good. He gracefully heaped praise on Mr. Ignatieff, his former university roommate, and declared him the party's legitimate leader.

Mr. Rae had hoped to delay a rush to select an interim leader by calling for an electronic vote of party members in January. But he said when the party executive called for 800 party officials and defeated candidates to decide the leadership in a week, he knew he could not win.

"I know how to count," he said.

"And I look at things, and I say, 'This doesn't make sense.' "

_With reports from Campbell Clark, Gloria Galloway and Bill Curry_
------------------​
So the deed is done: Dion joins Edward Blake in the (small) pantheon of Liberal leaders who did not become PM. Rae is reduced to the status of footnote and _Iggy_ must restore Liberal fortunes – not, in my opinion, a quick, easy task.


----------



## GAP (10 Dec 2008)

Now if Iggy could only engineer an election which gives the Tories a small majority.....without creating his own downfall in May. That would give him four stable years to rebuild the party.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Dec 2008)

It's not merely a case of rebuilding - it's a case of redefining and reinvigourating the party.  His ascension to the top has rankled many of the rank and file, and has had no intellectual life breathed into the party.  A good leadership competition forces a party to discuss its past, present and future, and build a common front towards the future.

For the health of the party, he'd better set up some sort of policy renewal forum or fora, to force the party to clearly define itself.  For the past several years the Libs have permitted others to define them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2008)

Well, given this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _CTV News_ web site, I’d say that: the coalition is dead and buried and we’re due for another general election in the spring:
--------------------​
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081210/iggy_leader_081210/20081210?hub=TopStories
Tories will be defeated at first chance: Ignatieff

Updated Wed. Dec. 10 2008 12:18 PM ET

_CTV.ca News Staff_

The Liberals will defeat the Tories at the first viable opportunity but will support next month's federal budget if it's acceptable, Michael Ignatieff told the party's caucus on Wednesday.

The caucus meeting ended shortly before noon, set up to endorse Ignatieff as interim party leader.

In the meeting, Bob Rae, who withdrew from the Liberal leadership race Tuesday, nominated Ignatieff for the position.

The nomination was then seconded by another former leadership contender, Dominic LeBlanc.

After the nomination, Ignatieff delivered a speech saying the Liberals would respect the coalition but that voting down the Jan. 27 budget was not absolute, CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Wednesday.

"He said that if the Conservatives listen to the Liberals and bring in a budget that they can accept it would defy logic for the Liberals to defeat the Harper government on a budget if it's not necessary," Fife said.

"He's leaving all options open for himself."

Fife also said senior Liberals have told him that they may not need a coalition to form a new government.

"If they do defeat the Conservative government... Ignatieff will go to the Governor General and say 'We think we can form the government but we don't have to do it with a coalition,'" Fife said.

"In other words we don't have to give the NDP any seats in a Liberal government."

He said the NDP and Block would have to support the Liberals because they already have expressed their hatred towards the Conservative government.

In early January, the Liberal caucus will again come together for a three-day strategy meeting.

Then Ignatieff will travel across Canada to try and raise money to help fund the cash-strapped party.

Ignatieff will be named as permanent leader at the Liberal convention in Vancouver next May.

Fife said Ignatieff is a real "game-changer" and the Tories are worried about him.

"He's an international scholar, international well-known journalist, he's smart and he has around him hard-nosed political operatives who know how to play the game of politics," Fife said.
--------------------​
If the budget passes in early Feb, with Liberal support, then Harper will not give the Liberals much to work with until he is absolutely certain that the GG will not refuse a general election – which she will be advised that she cannot do if he stays in power until about May 09.

Harper’s budget has to provide some stimulus – partly through infrastructure spending in Québec, which it sorely needs it thanks to decades of inept, corrupt provincial and municipal administration.

Harper’s campaign will be:

•	A repeat of: “_slow and steady (economics) wins the (turnaround) race_;”

•	Ignatieff is an American who supported Bush and the war in Iraq;

•	Duceppe gambled and lost; and

•	Layton betrayed the NDP’s values in a crass grab for power.

_Iggy_ and Duceppe will, likely, reduce Tory seats in Québec to five, maybe fewer.

The Tories should be able to gain one or two in Atlantic Canada, one or two more in the West (there aren’t many left to win) and quite a few more in Ontario – maybe even enough for a slim majority. 

If, however, Harper goes to the polls again and gets another minority then I think he’ll be out on his ear.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Dec 2008)

Has anyone pondered how this might have turned out were it not for the influence of the blogosphere? In the old world the MSM would have reported the emergence of the coalition, the usual friendly academics would have droned on about the Westminster tradition, the Bloc would have lurked in the background unnoticed by the press gallery and one or two voices would try to get their cries of protest heard.

It is quite possible that the PM may not have dared advise the GG to call a time out and his government would have fallen on Monday. Today Dion would have emerged from a combined Liberal-NDP caucus to unveil his new cabinet.

Instead many widely read conservatives blogs provided a rallying point for the grass roots and an alternate point of view to the MSM. Much of the organization of the anti-coalition rallies originated on stephentaylor.ca, a popular blog site and it soon spread through the net. All at once, the isolated voices crying in the wilderness found they were not alone. It may or may not have influenced the polling companies to test public opinion, but the results could not have been welcome by the coalition and the Liberal caucus.

Just a thought.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2008)

Quite right!

Blogs, and the Internet in general, have brought us (back) to a situation reminiscent of England and the Netherlands in the late 17th century when William of Orange, amongst many others, used _pamphlets_ and _broadsheets_ to wage his campaign against James II.

There is a chapter plus on it in this excellent book by Michael Barone.

Information, with its potential for _opinion making_, is a powerful weapon in the political wars – even when there is little truth in the information being traded in the _free market of ideas_.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2008)

I have trouble believing that the GG would allow Iggy to be PM. He's unelected by Canadians, unelected by his own grassroots and is to be acclaimed at the national convention. He would be appointed PM without having to work for a single vote. If he's so sure he should govern, send us to the polls and WE'LL  decide.

BTW, I watched him on TV today saying his piece. Side by side with Harper, he'll definitely come of as the more arrogant, wooden and aloof of the two. He also has a habit of using words an english professor, let alone normal Canadians, would have trouble understanding.

The libs are going to play up his huge, supposed, intellect but I think that'll backfire with the normal man on the street.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Dec 2008)

The Liberals have had good luck with a pseudo-intellectual dilettante before; maybe they're hoping it will work out again.


But what about the inevitable TV movie?  I'd cast Sam Waterston as Mr Ignatieff - if only to watch the squirming of the Liberal Party when they realize an American (Horrors!) was cast as their saviour  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Quite right!
> 
> Blogs, and the Internet in general, have brought us (back) to a situation reminiscent of England and the Netherlands in the late 17th century when William of Orange, amongst many others, used _pamphlets_ and _broadsheets_ to wage his campaign against James II.
> 
> ...



So would that make this site, and similar meeting places, the equivalent of Jonathan's, Garraway's, Lloyd's and "The Lodges"? 

Interesting - and we have our own printing presses.

I hadn't really looked at it that way.


One thing all those clubs did was allow Britain to peacefully (generally speaking) manage radical political change while still making a lot of money.  Vice our continental counterparts who stifled the conversation and ended up with unmanageable radical change, deposed crowns and huge debts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Liberals have had good luck with a pseudo-intellectual dilettante before; maybe they're hoping it will work out again.
> 
> 
> But what about the inevitable TV movie?  I'd cast Sam Waterston as Mr Ignatieff - if only to watch the squirming of the Liberal Party when they realize an American (Horrors!) was cast as their saviour  ;D



Once again, standing them side by side, I can't help remembering the Kennedy\ Nixon television debate of the '60's, for the way it made the physical appearance of the candidates look. Nixon had been running the most popular until his sweat and five o clock shadow showed up under the TV lights, then he tanked. Iggy reminds me of Nixon.


----------



## armyvern (10 Dec 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Once again, standing them side by side, I can't help remembering the Kennedy\ Nixon television debate of the '60's, for the way it made the physical appearance of the candidates look. Nixon had been running the most popular until his sweat and five o clock shadow showed up under the TV lights, then he tanked. Iggy reminds me of Nixon.





Thanks for making me feel so young today. You rock!!

 ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2008)

My pleasure Vern


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 Dec 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Once again, standing them side by side, I can't help remembering the Kennedy\ Nixon television debate of the '60's, for the way it made the physical appearance of the candidates look. Nixon had been running the most popular until his sweat and five o clock shadow showed up under the TV lights, then he tanked. Iggy reminds me of Nixon.



I was listening to Glenn Beck last week (or maybe it was Rush) and he mentioned that people who listened to the Kennedy\ Nixon debate _on the radio_ overwhelming choose Nixon as the winner. Just a little tidbit I thought I would throw in.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2008)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ web site, is a bit old but still useful:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081211.WBSteele20081211110020/WBStory/WBSteele/

 Who will replace Stephen Harper?

Andrew Steele

December 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM EST

With a critical vote in January, whispers are turning to open conversation among Conservatives about who will replace Stephen Harper if the Prime Minister falls.

Here is a look at the potential candidates.







*Jim Prentice*

The first name on everyone's lips for a potential successor to Harper is the current environment minister and de facto Deputy Prime Minister.

Prentice has an attractive biography. Born in Northern Ontario and raised in Alberta, he worked seven summers in a coal mine to pay for university. A lawyer by training, he is a leader in his local Presbyterian church.

He can also claim a history of uniting the party. While a candidate for the PC Party leadership in 2003, Prentice drew support from both the social conservative and Red Tory factions, and ran calling for a merger with the Canadian Alliance.

Prentice may be too far outside the Conservative Party mainstream on social issues, however. He voted in favour of same sex marriages and is pro-choice.

A capable political administrator, Prentice won applause for his handling of the difficult Indian and Northern Affairs file, before being moved to Industry and then Environment.

If the Conservatives want someone who can easily step into Stephen Harper's shoes, Prentice is the obvious choice. As chair of the Operations committee, he is in effect the COO of the government and would be able to smoothly step into the CEO job as PM. He could be marketed as a friendlier version of Harper, without the rough edges that prevented the PM from getting a majority.

However, Prentice may prove divisive among the grassroots for his PC party origin and his social liberalism. He also is clearly tied to Harper, and if the "Harper team"; is rejected, Prentice may be a casualty as well.

*Jean Charest*

Ten years ago, Charest was the great right hope, the guy who would bring the PC Party back to prominence. Then he was drafted by public opinion to go to Quebec City to fight the separatists. But he has always kept an eye on Ottawa and the advice of Brian Mulroney that he was a future PM rings in his ears still. 

Coming off the heels of a third election victory in Quebec, Charest is a formidable candidate for the Conservative leadership.

He could instantly revive the Tory fortunes in Quebec, without sacrificing much of the party's base in the West. Perhaps more importantly, he would likely be more adept at navigating the shoals of Quebec nationalism than the Liberals, supplanting them as the party of national unity and removing the trump card from the Liberal deck.

Charest's social liberalism and championing of Quebec's interests would likely turn off a wide swath of the Tory base in the West. But the leadership is decided by 308 ridings, and what Charest would lose in Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan, he would make up with complete dominance in Quebec, New Brunswick and Northern and Eastern Ontario.

The real question is the transition from Premier to Prime Minister, running a leadership while in office. The last sitting Premiers to run for a party leadership were Stanfield and Fulton in 1967, and no Premier has ever moved directly to the job of Prime Minister of Canada.

Charest may be tempted by a draft movement, and would certainly be a formidable opponent and the best bet for the Conservatives to form a majority government.

*Stockwell Day*

For a guy who used to be a punchline, Stock Day has done a remarkable job of rebuilding his credibility.

Day was a solid Minister of Public Safety, a portfolio known for chewing up past Ministers.

While he is not likely to win, Day could be a standard bearer for the social conservative wing of the party.

However, it is more likely that Day will choose discretion as the better part of valour and allow someone else to lead that campaign.

*Peter MacKay*

The former leader of the PC Party, MacKay has a solid record in two difficult senior portfolios: Foreign Affairs and Defence.

He is young, attractive and well known among Canadians.

However, his controversial pact with David Orchard at the 2003 PC leadership, and the tensions from the Conservative Party merger that follow may have put too many Conservatives' noses out of joint for MacKay to win this round.

With years in politics ahead of him, MacKay might remain tomorrow's candidate if a leadership is held in 2009.

*Tony Clement*

The Industry Minister is the only former leadership candidate from 2004, giving him a head start organizing against the others.

As a former provincial minister, Clement has a strong organization in his home province of Ontario, and has had time to lay down roots across the country. Clement's new portfolio of Industry also gives him a potent ability to fundraiser.

Clement is an able administrator, solid organizer and good public speaker.

However, he does carry baggage from the Ontario Conservatives, including the hidden $5.6-billion deficit under Ernie Eves.

*James Moore or Lisa Raitt*

If the Conservatives decide to completely change the face of their party, they could hardly do better than James Moore or Lisa Raitt.

Moore is young, bilingual, British Columbian and smart. Raitt is young, bilingual, Ontarian and smart.

While both are low profile in the party, either one could prove the dark horse victor in a multi-candidate leadership contest.
--------------------

Prentice was my first choice last time, when Harper won, and he remains my choice today. Charest might be a good second choice but there are, likely, also a few good names not on Andrew Steele’s list.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Dec 2008)

I am a little disappointed at the lack of depth of the analysis, but maybe I am just in a snarky mood this morning. How is Charest going to improve Tory fortunes in Eastern Ontario for example, when the CPC holds all but four or five seats in the 613 area code? Prentice would be my choice and as we elect our MPs in a general election, voters will choose from their available candidates. He may cause a few voters in a number of ridings to stay home, but his pluses outweigh his minuses. Certainly he is unlikely to make many Tories support Iggy or Layton or May. As for the MacKay and Orchard bit, the latter out-ratted the former by a wide margin by switching to the Liberals and then pulling his loose cannon trick there.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Prentice was my first choice last time, when Harper won, and he remains my choice today. Charest might be a good second choice but there are, likely, also a few good names not on Andrew Steele’s list.



If this whole Liberal Party thing doesn't work out, there's always Michael Ignatieff...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2008)

A week or so back I said that I thought that Harper had reached his market potential.  I also offered that I thought Jim Prentice might be a good front man for the Conservative Party, offering a face that might be perceived as a kinder, gentler persona.  I still think that Prentice would make a good replacement for Harper.

BUT ;D

I was surprised to see the vehemence of the reaction to the Coalition and the impact that had on Tory numbers.  I don't think Canadians like Harper any more than they did but apparently they are quite willing to overlook that given their disdain for everybody else.

That gets Harper a stay of execution and another shot at a majority.  

With the majority then Harper could have a very long career indeed.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2008)

Well some new leaders are apparently collecting old baggage:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/scoop-ignatieff-aide-improperl.html



> *Scoop: Ignatieff aide improperly ordered crown corp to switch to Liberal ad agency*
> By Ezra Levant on December 15, 2008 1:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (26) | Trackback
> 
> One week after Jean Chretien and the Liberals took power in 1993, Warren Kinsella, now Michael Ignatieff's campaign aide, was already pressuring a crown corporation to fire their ad agency and replace them with a Liberal-friendly firm.
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Dec 2008)

I think part of the PMs current problem is that he is a bit of a cold fish. He's not all that charismatic,  but he is competent. We seem to hang on to "charisma" over "competence" when we choose politicians. Or is that just me?


----------



## Greymatters (17 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I think part of the PMs current problem is that he is a bit of a cold fish. He's not all that charismatic,  but he is competent. We seem to hang on to "charisma" over "competence" when we choose politicians. Or is that just me?



I dont think he's a cold fish so much as having been advised to be a cold fish.  Too many US political advisors up here advising our elected officials to 'say nothing unless you really have to', as part of the strategy that a leader cant be criticized if they havent said anything to criticize...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2008)

Elizabeth May certainly knows how to get people's attention, a bit less about raising support:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/279900.php



> *Elizabeth May: Friends and Enemies*
> Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 04:14 PM
> Comments: 7
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (21 Dec 2008)

Money to Peter MacKay from London?  Likely the old GM Diesel/General Dynamics types who know to support their sugar daddy.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2008)

The tea leaves are not looking too good for the Liberals in the short to medium term:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/557582



> *Liberal tactics need a rethink*
> 
> Dec 23, 2008 04:30 AM
> Rob Mitchell
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2009)

Lawrence Martin, whose column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, would be right IF the economic turnaround, which many (most?) economists predict for the 2nd/3rd quarter of 2009 in Canada, fails to materialize:
------------------
 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090101.wcomartin0102/BNStory/specialComment/home

 The smart money says Harper exits this year
*If he does, he'll join a tiny club of Tory achievers who've gone out a winner, leaving the party in a united, salutary state*

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 1, 2009 at 10:35 PM EST

To look at the history of the Conservative Party is to find few success stories — leaders who've gone out a winner, leaving the party in a united, salutary state.

Among the chief reasons we could see Stephen Harper take his leave this year is that, if he does, he'll join that tiny club of achievers. If he doesn't, he risks a denouement common to predecessors — the big tumble into the Tory trash can.

After unifying the party with Peter MacKay in 2003, Mr. Harper has appreciably upped the Conservatives' standing in three successive elections. Despite all the animosity he's generated, he has them leading in the polls, unified and bankrolled.

By anyone's standards, that is political success. Political success, of course, doesn't necessarily equate with successful governance. Other criteria, less favourable to Mr. Harper, must be weighed before any such determination can be rendered.

But as has been noted many times, all that seems to count with this leader — it being one of his prevailing infirmities — is political vindication. That being the case, he could step away contentedly this year and enjoy his soda pop.

Several other factors appear to be steering him toward the exit. If he has a conservative agenda to implement, he probably realizes the hour has passed. The pendulum, as seen in the United States and elsewhere, is swinging to the other side. To govern as a conservative in the next few years would likely require more turning away from conservative ideals, as he just did in the case of an elected Senate and the running-up of deficits. If continued governance means doing the opposite of what you stand for, who needs it?

Leaders wishing to stick around are often driven by one big goal not yet achieved. This incrementalist prime minister doesn't appear to have one. If he did, circumstances would likely prohibit its deliverance.

No one wants to govern in a deep recession. The sudden ebbing of the age of abundance is another reason he's likely considering his options. He may recall the early 1990s and what that recession did to Brian Mulroney's government and Bob Rae's in Ontario. He may recall the 1930s and R.B. Bennett.

A fourth reason for not wanting to stay to fight a fourth election is that he no longer has a punching bag for an opposition leader. A more stalwart Liberal captain, in combination with the economic tailspin, means the odds against Mr. Harper winning a majority are stacked high.

What has strongly contributed to his political success over the past many years has been a remarkable streak of good fortune. The quick collapse of Stockwell Day opened the Alliance Party leadership to him. Peter MacKay's backdoor dealings with David Orchard then paved the path to the Conservative Party crown. No strong opponents came forward. Then Mr. Harper was given the gift of the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry; then came the RCMP commissioner's calling of an investigation into the Grits in the middle of an election; then came Stéphane Dion.

Mr. Harper is a leader who has sucked the well of good fortune dry. He should bear it in mind. The gods owe him nothing more. Which is reason No.5 for not plowing forward.

Mr. Harper has some time to work with. Though not well liked by his conservative legions, he is feared. No one, even after his government's brush with death over his boneheaded economic statement, dares challenge him publicly.

There is a chance that, given his current lead in the polls owing to public anger with the coalition option, he may see an opportunity and push for an election in the next few months. That would be a hazardous roll of the dice. More likely, he will get his budget passed by the Liberals, who need time to showcase their new leader and then move on into the summer. At that time, Michael Ignatieff will make his decision on whether to seek another mandate or call for a leadership convention.

Mr. Harper will then have served seven years as a party leader and close to four as Prime Minister. Given his enjoyment of power, his first wish would be for more of it. But he will assess the odds and, most likely, realize that the probability of his overcoming the ominous portents and enhancing his standing in his party and the country are hardly high.

As well, he may look at history, at the many leaders before him who didn't know when to leave, who sought to defy the odds. If he does, he'll see they've never stopped regretting it.
--------------------

I think Martin’s big problem is that he fails to understand Harper’s *hidden agenda*™ which has nothing at all to do with importing the dreaded Bush regime but, rather, is all about reshaping the Canadian political landscape so that the Conservatives have a fim grip on the *moderate* centre – all of the moderate centre – leaving the Greens, Liberals, NDP to fight over the centre-left and left wings.

I think Harper is less afraid of the recession that many might think. If his private and public sector advisors are telling him what they are saying in the media then he probably believes that Canada will lead the world out of recession – with renewed growth starting in summer 2009. Renewed growth brings renewed optimism and it is a good time for an election.

I also think that _Iggy_ is a less formidable leader than Martin hopes. The divisions within the Liberal Party are deep and Harper is moving the Conservatives into Ignatieff’s _natural_ political territory – the Liberal’s right wing/the general moderate centre. Most Canadians are going find it more and more difficult to see the big difference between Harper and Ignatieff; Canadians on the Liberal left will be mightily discomfited because they will see _Iggy_ as a selling out their values.

My guess is that Harper fights and wins another election in summer 2009. (The last summer general election was on 28 Jun 2004 (Paul Martin won a minority), the one before that was 4 Sep 84 (Brian Mulroney won a majority) – Jean Chrétien won a majority in a late spring (2 Jun) election in 1997 – fall elections are not mandatory.) That being the case I suspect Duceppe, Layton and perhaps even Ignatieff to go before he does.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jan 2009)

I think Martin’s big problem is that he has a near apoleptic fit anytime he even thinks that Harper and the CPC might be right.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Jan 2009)

Quote from recceguy: “I think Martin’s big problem is that he has a near apoplectic fit anytime he even thinks that Harper and the CPC might be right”.

I agree, plus he now has to toil several times a week to produce 766 words of copy. Before his LPC cronies just phoned him up and gave him the story to repeat.

However, 766 words of copy are fairly undemanding to produce if you have 148 words or so that you can use as stock phrases. That cuts down the work to approximately 500 words. Not too much for a well connected columnist.  Some of these stock phrases are:

-tiny club of Tory achievers;
-find few success stories;
-Despite all the animosity he's generated;
-Political success, of course, doesn't necessarily equate with successful governance;
- one of his prevailing infirmities — is political vindication;
- If continued governance means doing the opposite of what you stand for;
- This incrementalist prime minister doesn't appear to have one;
- a remarkable streak of good fortune;
- given the gift of the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry;
- Mr. Harper is a leader who has sucked the well of good fortune dry;
-he is feared;
- No one, even after his government's brush with death over his boneheaded economic statement, dares challenge him publicly; and
- probability of his overcoming the ominous portents and enhancing his standing in his party and the country are hardly high.

It was wonderful for all of us taxpayers that Mr. Harper and the CPC was “given the gift of the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry”. That was just wonderful of the LPC. Maybe the LPC will do it again to lift the stature of the CPC.

And, “given his enjoyment of power, his first wish would be for more of it”, perhaps Jim Prentice will be the next PM ala Dmitry Medvedev, with Mr. Harper in Vladimir Putin’s role as say, Minister of Finance. 

Mr. Harper could then scare the Cabinet to do as he wishes, thus retaining power, and the Canadian public would see a kinder and gentler, more electable CPC.

This post is just drivel and I will probably throw it in my Tory trash can.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2009)

And see here for more Lawrence Martin - this time on _Iggy's_ 'image' problem: specifically his lack of any visible image at all.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Jan 2009)

The smart money says Lawrence Martin is very biased in his reporting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a flattering portrayal of MND Peter MacKay by oft’ reviled _Good Grey Globe_ columnist Lawrence Martin:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090107.wcomartin08/BNStory/politics/home 

How Peter got his groove back

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 8, 2009 at 2:43 AM EST

The situation in Afghanistan gets grimmer. Despite Ottawa's stay-the-course confidence of recent years, there's no halt to the perdition. The government, some would think, should be paying a price.

But such is not the case and it's due in part to the steady hand of Peter MacKay at the Defence Department. Under Gordon O'Connor, the well-meaning stumblebum who got canned in 2007, the department lurched from one controversy to another. The young Mr. MacKay, adept at dodging bullets, has set it right.

He came to Defence after heading up Foreign Affairs. With precious little experience abroad, he made some early missteps there. He was such a greenhorn, one wag cracked, that he mistook Mozambique for a calypso band. But he got a handle on the department, something his successor, Mad Max Bernier, was unable to do.

In the recent federal election, rugby-player MacKay was supposed to face stiff competition from Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. Stiff, it hardly was. He ate her granola, emptied her cranberry-juice canteen, moved on.

He's 42, two decades younger than Michael Ignatieff. Highly articulate and TV-friendly, he's arguably the best communicator in the Conservative Party. He easily doubles the charisma of Stephen Harper and Jim Prentice.

The credits don't stop there. Mr. MacKay is the player, along with Mr. Harper, who made today's conservative success happen. He played a pivotal role, some say even greater than Mr. Harper, in the 2003 unification of the party.

All this poses the question. Why is Mr. MacKay, in a party short on front-bench talent, not being touted as the next leader? The explanation isn't hard to find. Chalk it up to those old dark shadows that chase him even into his Nova Scotia church on Sundays.

Many still recall his duplicitous display with David (The Walking Time Bomb) Orchard in the Tory leadership convention of several years ago. To win the prize, Mr. MacKay signed a secret pact with the left-leaning Tory, only to renege on it later. Many will not forget or forgive.

Then there was his hitch-up with Belinda Stronach, who bolted Peter and the party in the black of night to join Paul Martin's Liberals. Being a ladies' man works in politics sometimes, other times not. Bachelor Peter has never been in a league in the stud department with the fabled Charles Tupper, the Nova Scotian who earned the moniker "The Ram of Cumberland." But his image was further tarnished.

Although fast on his feet, Mr. MacKay has also been portrayed as policy-lite. You can walk through his deepest thoughts, critics suggest, without getting your feet wet. They said the same of Ronald Reagan - never noted for being excessively encumbered by mental equipment. At times, Brian Mulroney and Jean Charest got similar knocks.

The setbacks laid Mr. MacKay low and, seen as a rival to Mr. Harper, he wasn't about to be showcased by the Prime Minister's Office. But in the three years of Conservative rule, he has slowly but steadily regained credibility. Away from the cameras, he's chafed a bit at his treatment, once complaining to Mr. Mulroney that he was being left on the sidelines. But for the most part, he's been a loyal soldier, doing his job, staying out of trouble, learning French and gaining valuable experience in important portfolios.

On the East Coast, he's emerging as the dominant political force. David Angus, the highly influential lobbyist, who has noticed the turnaround at the Defence Department, put it this way: "I think Peter's got the opportunity to be the regional powerhouse in taking an area of Canada from shithouse to lighthouse."

MacKay admirer Bob Plamondon, author of the Tory history _Full Circle_ and another, _Blue Thunder_, which is about to be published, maintains that Mr. MacKay has never been rightly recognized for his role in unifying the party. "I would give him more credit than Harper."

Mr. MacKay's Tories were in better shape than Mr. Harper's Alliance party back then and in a merger, suggests Mr. Plamondon, Mr. MacKay had the most to lose. To go ahead with it, he had to renege on the Orchard pact and sink a Tory party with more than a century of history. Leading the Alliance in the polls at the time and being a strong campaigner, Mr. MacKay might have been able to post a decent showing in an election. "But he accepted the inevitability of unification."

The merger turned out to be a gold mine for Stephen Harper, hardly the same for the Maritimer. But he's begun to work his way out of the shadows, to recapture his once promising image and the ultimate reward may one day come. Father Time - a couple of more decades in politics should he wish it - is on Peter MacKay's side.
--------------------

I agree that MacKay can become the Tory’s leader but I suspect 52 year old Jim Prentice will be the next one.


----------



## GAP (8 Jan 2009)

Mulroney was a dark horse before being selected.....both McKay and Prentiss are possibles, but not for awhile, and not for sure.....


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jan 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> He easily doubles the charisma of Stephen Harper and Jim Prentice.



In math, two times zero is still zero.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2009)

Smiling Jack's smile is a bit strained these days...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Layton+will+surely+loser/1149584/story.html



> *Layton will surely be the big loser*
> 
> By Lorne Gunter, The Edmonton JournalJanuary 7, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2009)

Although the article is about Ignatieff, it tells the larger story of the Liberal's move to the Left:

http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/569245



> *Liberals ponder merits of a shift left*
> 
> Chantal Hébert
> 
> ...



The one thing that the author hasn't mentioned is that so long as the "Coalition" exists; any Liberal party leader will have his room for manoeuvre severely constrained by the demands of the coalition partners. Dumping the coalition might not be too simple either; the NDP and Bloc can campaign against the Liberals in the urban ridings for their lack of principle and snatching away the keys to the treasury (although they certainly won't word it that way), meaning the Liberals will be caught between the "Progressives" and "Classical Liberals" in the next election; they can't offer a chance to grab the levers of power and they have no substantive platform or philosophy to campaign on.

Sucks to be them


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2009)

Steven Harper interviewed:

http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2009/01/15/pm-harper-tspeaks-with-john-ivison-of-the-national-post/
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/01/15/q-amp-a-prime-minister-stephen-harper-speaks-with-the-post-s-john-ivison.aspx



> PM Harper speaks with John Ivison of the National Post
> 
> Don’t miss the Q & A posted at the National Post between John Ivison and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a fine bit of _pot stirring_ about political pot stirring by long-time Army.ca favourite Lawrence Martin:
-------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090121.wcomartin22/BNStory/specialComment/home

 Talk of drafting Hillier stirs the political pot

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 22, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

"Have you heard about the movement to draft Rick Hillier?" Someone popped the question at a gathering this week at Ottawa's Rideau Club of the think tank 20/20. "It's serious," the well-connected source added. "It's really happening." A quiet thing, the source said. Too early to get out front on.

Military luminaries, fans of the retired general, attended the event along with many Liberals, who are only too happy to sow uncertainty among Tory ranks. On the same day, an Ekos poll showed Stephen Harper's popularity considerably down and Michael Ignatieff's considerably up. John Manley, looking unusually jaunty with closely cropped hair, commented enthusiastically on what a difference a new leader makes: clarity, direction, organization.

Rory Stewart, a specialist on Afghanistan now at Harvard, gave the gathering a non-optimistic assessment of the war. The military men vowed that Canada will definitely be out of there in 2011, adding that President Barack Obama will not be exerting pressure to change that date.

Mr. Hillier, the former head of our armed forces, has been quiet lately. He's on the sidelines, writing a book, professing little in the way of political ambition. It is readily agreed that he is politically gifted, possessing a splendid way with words, national name recognition and a leadership aura. Moreover, he has a quality that Mr. Harper has never enjoyed in abundance: charm.

With Mr. Harper's future unsettled, it's not surprising that some would want to talk up potential stars, such as Mr. Hillier. It stirs the pot, exerts pressure on a PM who faces challenges he didn't have a short time ago. There's a new Liberal leader, a slumping economy and some dismay in Conservative ranks over Mr. Harper's needlessly hurtling his government into crisis with November's loopy economic statement. Given the Obama example, the push is for dynamic leadership. And given that the Conservative front benches are not exactly overburdened with talent, Mr. Hillier, comes to mind for some.

But any talk of pressing Mr. Harper is premature. His exit is very likely to be of his own volition. He'd either have to suffer a quick election defeat or decide before another campaign that it's best to hand over the reins.

With regard to Mr. Hillier, there are questions. To be considered alongside his many flattering qualities is his paramount role in the Afghan conflict. It is, from a Canadian standpoint, his war more than anyone's. He pressed the Paul Martin government into committing to it, and, with his encouragement, the Harper government upped the ante. Many years and Canadian deaths later, the consensus is that little progress has been made.

How would he sell that in a leadership fight or in a campaign?

Mr. Hillier is popular, but Canadians don't have a big tradition of turning military men into political stars. Another popular soldier was Lewis MacKenzie. The retired major-general was drafted by the Tories but defeated, albeit during the Chrétien years, when winning an Ontario seat as a Tory was next to impossible. He was recently overlooked for a Senate seat.

Some are pressing Mr. Hillier, who is also thinking of setting up a think tank on leadership, to succeed Danny Williams in Newfoundland. That might be a better place to start, should he choose the political route.

We don't know what he thinks of Mr. Harper's leadership. The two men didn't get along spectacularly well when he was chief of the defence staff. That some now wish to promote him for federal leader is a further sign of restlessness in the Conservative camp. There is disagreement over whether Mr. Harper should be allowed a fourth election bid, since he failed to win a majority against an easy opponent in the last one.

For the Liberals, any news of dissent among the Tories is a welcome change. For years, they have been racked by leadership quarrelling. They'd like nothing better than to see the roles reversed.

In the past half a century, there has seldom been respite from destructive leadership wars. In the 1960s, the John Diefenbaker-Dalton Camp traumas dominated. Later came the rebellion against Joe Clark. The Liberals followed, with the John Turner-Jean Chrétien rivalry. Conservatives then split into two parties, and the infighting became particularly bloody when Stockwell Day was overthrown as leader of the Canadian Alliance. Then came the brutal Martin-Chrétien hostilities.

It's one ugly constant in our politics: overstuffed egos - incumbents staying too long or challengers moving too early - dragging their parties down.
-------------------------

Martin revisits the *lie* that Afghanistan is _Hillier’s War_ – but it’s a lie that ardent Liberal supporters must tell because, otherwise, they would have to admit that Liberal PM Jean Chrétien committed troops to Afghanistan, twice, Liberal Paul Martin selected Kandahar as a base for operations and current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff voted (in 2006) for an extension of the mission. Liberals need their lies for their own, ever shifting, _internal consistency_.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jan 2009)

Well, *Lawrence Martin * has certainly stated the obvious about himself:  *"one ugly constant, overstuffed egos - incumbents staying too long"*

This phrase was about him was it not? 

I hear there are to be layoffs at the G & M due to lost circulation/revenues.

If the G & M ever got out of the GTA/LPC a__, then possible it could achieve the status of Canada's national newspaper.


----------



## GAP (26 Jan 2009)

Nanos-Policy Options Poll - Canadians see recession lasting into 2010; Support deficits and Infrastructure spendingTom Good 
Article Link

Canadians expect a severe economic downturn lasting into 2010 rather than a mild recession ending by the summer of this year. A majority of Canadians also support federal and provincial governments going into deficit to stimulate the economy, with infrastructure spending and personal tax cuts being the preferred course of action to jump start the economy. There is very little support in the country for industry bailout programs.

These are the principal findings of a Nanos Research poll conducted exclusively for Policy Options in a random telephone survey between January 3 and January 7. The margin of error, in the sample of 1,003 Canadians, is plus or minus 3.1 percent, 19 times out of 20.

The poll clearly reflects a deepening pessimism in the country about the prospects for economic recovery in the near term, as well as a consensus that governments should prime-pump the economy, even though there is no great enthusiasm for a return to deficit spending.

In our poll for Policy Options, 57.8 percent of respondents expect a more severe downturn lasting into 2010, while only 34.1 percent of Canadians expect a mild recession ending this summer (question 1). A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. The pessimistic mood on the prospects for an early recovery is shared in all regions of the country, though it is least prevalent in the Atlantic (47.5 percent) and most apparent in Quebec (61.7 percent), possibly because Premier Jean Charest has just sought and received an electoral mandate to deal with the coming economic crisis.

While Canadians support (33.1 percent) or somewhat support (23.5 percent) deficit spending to stimulate the economy, that still adds up to only 56.6 percent, while 25.4 percent of Canadians oppose deficit spending and another 12.5 percent are somewhat opposed, for a total of 37.9 percent (question 2). This is a lukewarm endorsement of deficits as a necessity in the current economic emergency.

In terms of fiscal stimulus, we asked Canadians to indicate their first and second ranked options from a menu of four items (questions 3a and 3b). There is strong support for infrastructure and public works programs (the first choice of 39.6 percent of Canadians, and second choice of another 24.5 percent). Three Canadians in four support infrastructure spending as their first or second choice. 

The next preferred option is personal tax cuts to stimulate consumer spending, the first choice of 23.4 percent of Canadians, and the second choice of another 27.2 percent. Half of Canadians like the idea of personal tax cuts.

Canadians’ third choice from the menu offered by Nanos Research was investment tax incentives for industry to create jobs, the first choice of 19.8 percent of respondents and the second choice of 26.9 percent. That’s an idea that finds approval with nearly half the population.

The least popular option, by far, is rescue packages for industries such as the auto sector, which is the first choice of only 12.8 percent, while another 17.8 percent put it as their second choice. In other words, only 3 Canadians in 10 support industry bailouts of the kind Washington and Ottawa have approved for the North American auto industry.

Support of rescue packages as a first choice is actually weakest in Ontario, home of the Canadian auto industry, with only 11 percent of respondents favouring rescue packages. In other words, only 1 Ontarian in 10 favours government coming to the aid of the most important industry in their own province as their first choice for addressing the economic crisis.
More on link


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2009)

Oh well.... the XMass break is over and the dog & pony show is about to start.
Iggy is upset because Mr Harper & his gang have been going around the country selling everything they have in their new budget ... BEFORE the budget has been passed.  

If the budget now passes, all to the good - the Conservatives will say that the "alliance" was a dismal failure.  
If the budget does not pass.... then all the promissed relief will STOP, the government will shut down when we need it the most AND we'll be back into election mode (if Mr Harper has it his way) OR the Governor General could ask the Leader of the oposition if he is able to assemble and lead a government.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Jan 2009)

Well not sure where to post this.......

[sarcasm] And so the great Coalition that was set to bring down Harper is now dead (maybe) [/sarcasm]

Ignatieff demands budget reports as price of support
If Tories fails to meet these targets, 'it will not survive for long,' Liberal leader says
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 | 11:53 AM ET CBC News  

The Liberal Opposition will only support the Conservative government's federal budget if Prime Minister Stephen Harper agrees to an amendment calling for a "clear marker" of regular updates to Parliament on the impact of economic stimulus projects, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said on Wednesday.

Speaking to reporters from the National Press Theatre in Ottawa, Ignatieff lambasted the Harper government's record in handling the current economic crisis and said the Opposition will be "watching like hawks" to ensure the "investments Canadians need actually reach them."

"We are putting this government on probation," Ignatieff said. "For their failure to plan and act as a government, we hold them responsible."

The amendment, which will be tabled in the House of Commons later Wednesday, will require regular reports to Parliament on the budget's implementation and costs, to be delivered in March, June and December of this year.

Each report would be an opportunity for the opposition to express confidence in the government, he said.

"We've put down a very clear marker; this money has to get the money out the door," the Liberal leader said.

"If this government fails to meet these targets, it will not survive for long."

With the NDP and the Bloc Québécois set to vote against the government, the Conservatives need the support of Ignatieff's Liberals to ensure the budget passes and prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition — or another election.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has not yet commented on whether he's willing to change elements of the budget.

Flaherty's budget promises billions of dollars in new spending — ranging from money for infrastructure projects to aid for worker training and cash for more EI benefits — to help the country ride out the economic downturn.

But it also projects a total of $85 billion in deficits by the spring of 2013.

Ignatieff said the budget doesn't go far enough to protect Canadians who have lost or will lose their jobs and also fails to extend employment insurance eligibility. 

He also said Flaherty's plan opens the door for a tax on pay equity for women and provides no new child care spaces.

With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jan 2009)

Aside from the push to spend - and let us not forget that there was no noise of this prior to last December's parliamentary machinations, so let us please stop pretending this is entirely a Conservative undertaking - I found one comment of Flaherty's interesting: "The stimulus package is a use-it-or-lose-it deal, he said."  May there be many delays.

Meanwhile, I see the US has voted to f*ck itself.


----------



## wannabe SF member (28 Jan 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I see the US has voted to **** itself.



How do you mean?


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jan 2009)

The House of Reps passed the "stimulus" bill.  The deficit will be very large; the amount of spending in the bill which truly constitutes "stimulus" is very small.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The House of Reps passed the "stimulus" bill.  The deficit will be very large; the amount of spending in the bill which truly constitutes "stimulus" is very small.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2009)

Maybe Jack Layton is smarter than we give him credit for (naaahh.... )

http://splatto.net/blog/?p=953



> *Other Parties Should Take Lesson From Layton’s Messaging*
> Posted on January 29th, 2009 by Matt, proud member of the Blogging Tories
> Listen Now to the latest podcast.
> 
> ...


----------

