Liberal Party of Canada Leadership

[Good2Golf]

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

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

Policy wonk Hall Findlay presents Trudeau with a challenge

By Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News

November 18, 2012

Liberal partisans can breathe a sigh of relief: They will get their long-awaited debate over substance, whether the favourite and heir apparent Justin Trudeau wishes to have one just now or not.

In 2006, when Martha Hall Findlay made her first bid for the leadership of the federal Liberal party, she was a plucky unknown. She quickly built a reputation as an idea-generator and spark plug in a party desperately short of fresh thinking. She was later elected to the House of Commons, but lost her seat in 2011.

Six years on, the Liberal party seems as devoid as ever of new ideas, judging by its official policy positions. And its leadership race, thus far, has been mainly about one very well known 40-year-old man and the question of whether he does, or does not, have what it takes to be prime minister of Canada.

To be fair, Trudeau has taken several clear positions on issues. But for the most part he’s done so on the fly. We know he’s in favour of developing the oil patch, while also protecting the environment, for example. We don’t have a clue about how he’d go about doing that.  This vagueness is deliberate: Trudeau’s team is gathering policy and says it doesn’t want to pre-empt its own process.

Hall Findlay’s entry throws a wrench into that plan. It ensures there will be detail – wonkish enough to satisfy the most avid policy geek – from all camps, including Trudeau’s, and that it will emerge sooner, rather than later. Hall Findlay already has a detailed position on blowing up supply management in dairy and poultry. She intends to put out another plank in two weeks, and twice monthly after that until the race concludes in April. Unless Trudeau emerges with a few signature policies of his own, in some detail, he’ll risk cementing the perception that he’s a lightweight, which is his greatest point of vulnerability.

Indeed, Hall Findlay is already not-so-subtly capitalizing on this. In her launch speech in Calgary, she remarked that “It’s not good enough to talk about values and principles,” a clear dig at Trudeau’s values-oriented speeches thus far. She also said, with a wink-wink, of her own campaign: “you all know there will be plenty of substance.”

Trudeau is seeking in this campaign to cast himself, ironically given his pedigree, as the outsider. Only someone with his unparalleled Liberal “street cred” goes the thinking, can have the freedom of movement to rip up the old party dogmas and start anew. But Hall-Findlay has already shown she’s no slouch in the ripping-up department.

Here’s her take on supply management, in a nutshell: In the 1970s, when the program was introduced, there were 145,000 dairy farmers in Canada, give or take. There are now fewer than 13,000. The average Canadian dairy farmer is a millionaire, with two million in assets. Meantime, she says, “the average Canadian family is spending hundreds of dollars more than they should be for staples such as milk, dairy products, poultry and eggs.” She adds: “ for dairy farmers is now coming at the expense of Canadians, and in large measure lower income Canadians.”

She’s right. Supply management in dairy in particular boosts the cost of living in invisible ways, because so many food products are made with milk derivatives. As the experiences of New Zealand and Australia have shown, Canada’s dairy industry could survive and thrive in an open system. Canada’s eventual entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership trading block guarantees reform will happen: It’s a matter of when, and how, and who leads it. Conservatives would like to but can’t, for political reasons. Liberals, until Hall Findlay came along, haven’t wanted to.

And her approach gets more intriguing still. Like Trudeau, she lays claim to being “post-partisan – that is the notion that traditional definitions of left and right are outmoded and that the classical spectrum itself is obsolete. Unlike Trudeau – at least so far – she has clearly articulated what that can mean: cutting left of the NDP on social policy and right of the Conservatives on fiscal issues, in ways that neither can now manage because of their respective political baggage.

“There are issues where a majority of Canadians are traditionally more socially progressive, and yet absolutely we appreciate fiscal prudence,” Hall Findlay says. “Nobody wants a government to waste our taxes and nobody wants huge bloated government. We want it small but efficient.”

Small? Efficient? Can this be a Liberal speaking?

Bright and capable though she may be, Hall Findlay is not likely a giant killer. What she is, though, is a credible voice, with a willingness to upset apple carts. She will push Trudeau to open up what has been, until now, a somewhat cautious front-runner’s campaign.

Twitter.com/mdentandt

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

I have considerable respect for the new Martha Hall Findlay ~ the one who emerged after she left parliament. I doubt she can win; I don't think she should win because I think the Liberals will be well advised to stick with tradition and select a Francophone for its next leader (Blake, Laurier, King, St Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, Turner, Chrétien Martin, Dion, Ignatieff ... (recognizing that McKenzie (1919), Graham (2006) and, now, Rae (2011-2013) have been interim leaders).

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

 

[Good2Golf]

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

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


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

 

[Edward Campbell]

Andrew Coyne suggests, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, that the Liberals are in the political penalty box for a a major misconduct, not just being offside:

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

The Liberals’ only chance of survival is as a forceful, effective third party

Andrew Coyne

Last Updated: Nov 20, 2012

Dear federal Liberals,

Congratulations on the recent launch of your leadership race! True, you have at time of writing just one officially registered candidate. And true, you appear to be making up the rules as you go along (for example, whether to charge non-members to vote under the party’s new primary-style voting system). But there are still five months to go!

Certainly there has been no shortage of people expressing an interest in running: as many as a dozen may, depending on who proves able to cover the $75,000 entry fee. And the ones I’ve heard of are all fine people with much to contribute; no doubt so are the others. So pay no attention to those cynics who dismiss this as a field of lightweights and also-rans, or sneer that the race is over before it has begun.

At the same time, Liberals, do not delude yourselves. You are not, whatever you may say to each other, electing “the next prime minister of Canada” here. If your checklist for assessing the candidates includes “ability to win the next election,” strike it now. Perhaps you have seen a couple of recent polls suggesting you would win if so-and-so were your leader. Resist this fantasy. You are not going to win the next election, no matter whom you choose.

This is partly a matter of the party’s enduring weakness, in the wake of the worst defeat in its history. Across much of western Canada and Quebec, you have virtually no organization. Your last two provincial governments (outside of Prince Edward Island) are likely to be defeated in the next year. Federal party subsidies are being wound down, while private donors are being tapped by provincial leadership races in Ontario and Quebec, with three or four others to follow.

Harden up the brand, persuade even 20% of the electorate that you are their party through and through, and you can build towards the day when you might contend for power once again

But what is also true, Liberals, is that it is hard to see any of the current or putative candidates for leader as a future prime minister. Are they decent, intelligent, well-briefed? Of course. But do they have the requisite qualities of cunning, ruthlessness, and guile? Do they have the experience, the acumen, the strategic sense to play the game of politics at that level? That is very much in doubt. The press likes to go on about a candidate’s charisma and vision, but when it comes down to it, what Canadians want is someone who knows how to stick the knife in at the appropriate moment.

So no, you are not choosing a prime minister, and if you allow considerations of that kind to cloud your judgement, you are unlikely to choose well. Rather, you are choosing a leader for a third party. And in that role it is quite possible to see any one of a number of the candidates. I say this with the greatest respect, for there is nothing wrong with being the third party. Get used to thinking of yourselves as one, and you can do much good, both for your party and your country.

Put it this way: that is your only chance of survival — as a forceful, effective third party, the kind that inspires a determined, loyal following. Harden up the brand, persuade even 20% of the electorate that you are their party through and through, and you can build towards the day when you might contend for power once again. Neglect that task, and you will be eaten alive by the other two parties.

Listen to which of the candidates challenges you to make such choices, and which try to pretend no choices need to be made

Both were once third parties themselves, of course. But unlike you, they started with a strong and distinct identity, a set of core beliefs, with which they were and are identified. A centrist third party is a harder act to bring off, not least because your two rivals seem bent on leaving as little room as possible between them. If the best you can say for yourself as a third party is that you are pretty much like the other two only less so, you are unlikely to get very far.

So what should be guiding your vote is who can best advocate the causes in which the party believes. Equally, by your vote you are deciding what those causes will be. Defining yourselves more sharply, taking clear stands where before you might have preferred ambiguity, will inevitably mean putting some people off, inside the party and out. So be it. Before you can broaden the tent you will have to narrow it. You have avoided doing so until now. You can avoid it no longer.

Listen to which of the candidates challenges you to make such choices, and which try to pretend no choices need to be made. Prefer the candidate who is willing to pick a fight — provided the cause is just! — for in politics you are known by your enemies. And as you consider these questions, do not fear to ask yourselves the existential question: What’s the point? Why does Canada need a third party? What do the other parties not offer that the Liberal Party could?

Put your third-party status to work for you. See it for the advantage it is: for it frees you to take risks that those closer to power will not. Ask yourselves: What difficult choices are the other two parties avoiding that the Liberal Party could embrace? What interests do they fear offending that the Liberal Party could confront?

Now, it’s perfectly possible — indeed, it’s probable — that you will fail to come up with a convincing answer for any of these questions, but will instead choose to carry on much as you have to date, striking out in no bold new directions, and electing the candidate you think will restore you to your rightful place in the firmament. In which case, let me close by wishing you a hearty good luck in all future endeavours.

Yours etc

Postmedia News

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Journeyman]

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

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

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

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

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

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

Good catch - milpoints inbound.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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

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

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

 

[Retired AF Guy]

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

 

[Retired AF Guy]

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

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

 

[ModlrMike]

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

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

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

She makes a few of good, obvious points:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ModlrMike]

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

 

[jpjohnsn]

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

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

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

 

[Old Sweat]

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

Trudeau tired of Albertans running Canada

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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