Liberal leadership race

1044 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lord Palmerston
Liberal leadership race

*

Lord Palmerston

Between Justin Trudeau and Martha Hall Findlay who is preferable from an NDP point of view?  Ideologically Findlay comes across as more right-leaning which would likely drive the left flank of the Liberal vote to the NDP; however, there seems to be a belief among partisans that Justin will be such a "flake" that he'll lead to the destruction of the Liberals entirely.   

(But does MHF even have a chance?) 

autoworker

I think a new Liberal leader would have to hit the ground running, which means that that person would need a presence in the House from day one. That leaves Findlay out, For my money, Dominic LeBlanc should be the obvious choice. As an MP from the only officially bilingual province, he represents a concept more in keeping with the LPC legacy, and the original Trudeau vision that still enjoys traction in Ontario, where the next federal election will be won or lost.

autoworker

double post

PoliSciStudent

I think Dominic LeBlanc could be a very good choice for the Liberals, he's got good experience, well spoken, and fluently bilingual. As well being a French Canadian who represents a mostly rural riding in Atlantic Canada gives him an inter view point in my opinion. I remember in 2008 many Liberals were happy to see him being able to discuss rural Canada because it was area they have suffered in recently.

I think if his good friend Justin Trudeau endorsed him from the start, similar to Ed Broadbent endorsing Brisn Topp, he would have a very good shot and winning because it would boost his profile. I also think he could give Trudeau a more prominent role in caucus as well as use his fundraising abilities to help rebuild the party. Personally I think they could be a powerful duo in rebuilding the party.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Why the hell would we want the Liberals to rebuild their party? They need to close up shop and join other parties. Good riddance!

PoliSciStudent

Unlike most people here I'm not a hardcore partisan and I am not interested in the Liberals, or any part for that matter, dying. As well I was just giving a comment on what I think would be a smart strategy for them. People can have opinions on what would be best for other parties even if they don't support them, can't they?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Poli Sci Student, aside from the fact thay you basically insult many of us by calling us partisan, with the implicit assumption that somehow being partisan implies no objectively, lets ask the basic question. Have you ever voted for the Federal NDP? I am not interested in whether you vote Lib Provincially. So, how about it?

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Arthur Cramer]

Poli Sci Student, aside from the fact thay you basically insult many of us by calling us partisan, with the implicit assumption that somehow being partisan implies no objectively, lets ask the basic question. Have you ever voted for the Federal NDP? I am not interested in whether you vote Lib Provincially. So, how about it?

[/quote]
So most people here are not partisan New Democrats is what you are trying to tell me? Sorry for the mistake. :)

I've voted in two federal elections and happily voted for Jack Harris. As well provincially I have voted for the PC Party. I'd be interested in your full voting record now.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

No, I never said most people here have voted NDP. Read what I wrote, ok? As for my record, I think its pretty clear I've always voted NDP. So what? Don't try to be too smart, its unbecoming.

As for the LPC, who the hell needs them? They have ALWAYS run left, and governed right. If they were serious about defeating Harper, they'd get the hell out of the way. They are simply Corporatist who do whatever the hell Bay Street tells them. You're a PoliSci Student, right? You'd know that, right?

I said the inference of your commentary is that partisan commentary is uninformed commentary. That is simply an excuse to take shots at those of us here on this board, who are committed Social Democrats. If you want to discuss things fine, but learn to be nicer, and don't be so quick to dismiss the rest of us here. Your commentary is dripping with disdain. I've just been around too long to be willing take lying down what you're selling. Don't expect me, or anyone else to do so. If you don't like it, you aren't obligated to hang around.

Stockholm

I think the Liberals need a leader who can appeal to right of centre fiscal conservatives who are bit more socially liberal than the Tories are...they should give up on trying to win back votes they lost to the NDP and try to win back the "Paul Martin Liberals" that have drifted over the Harper. Maybe someone like Martha Hall Findlay would fit the bill. Leblanc is OK but has no "pizzazz"...I hope they pick him so the Liberals continue their slow downward spiral into irrelevance. His problem is that he represents a rural "have-not" part of the country, but he would be trying to lead a party that needs to go after urban professional affluent voters.The policies and image that get you elected in rural NB are NOT what keeps your party alive in Rosedale and Westmount and Shaugnessy.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Arthur Cramer]

No, I never said most people here have voted NDP. Read what I wrote, ok? As for my record, I think its pretty clear I've always voted NDP. So what? Don't try to be too smart, its unbecoming.

As for the LPC, who the hell needs them? They have ALWAYS run left, and governed right. If they were serious about defeating Harper, they'd get the hell out of the way. They are simply Corporatist who do whatever the hell Bay Street tells them. You're a PoliSci Student, right? You'd know that, right?

I said the inference of your commentary is that partisan commentary is uninformed commentary. That is simply an excuse to take shots at those of us here on this board, who are committed Social Democrats. If you want to discuss things fine, but learn to be nicer, and don't be so quick to dismiss the rest of us here. Your commentary is dripping with disdain. I've just been around too long to be willing take lying down what you're selling. Don't expect me, or anyone else to do so. If you don't like it, you aren't obligated to hang around.

[/quote]

So should the NDP have closed up shop after the 2006 election seeing at that time the Liberals were the only serious challenge to Harper?

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Stockholm]

I think the Liberals need a leader who can appeal to right of centre fiscal conservatives who are bit more socially liberal than the Tories are...they should give up on trying to win back votes they lost to the NDP and try to win back the "Paul Martin Liberals" that have drifted over the Harper. Maybe someone like Martha Hall Findlay would fit the bill. Leblanc is OK but has no "pizzazz"...I hope they pick him so the Liberals continue their slow downward spiral into irrelevance. His problem is that he represents a rural "have-not" part of the country, but he would be trying to lead a party that needs to go after urban professional affluent voters.The policies and image that get you elected in rural NB are NOT what keeps your party alive in Rosedale and Westmount and Shaugnessy.

[/quote]

I hope people don't criticize you now for giving an honest opinion of what you think the Liberals should do leadership wise.

Stockholm

I'm actually trying to be constructive. I think that by moving to the right and picking a leader who can appeal to fiscally conservative, socially liberal urban elites - it would be both good for the NDP AND good for the Liberals.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Stockholm]

I'm actually trying to be constructive. I think that by moving to the right and picking a leader who can appeal to fiscally conservative, socially liberal urban elites - it would be both good for the NDP AND good for the Liberals.

[/quote]
Very possibly. It would be nice to see Harper crushed in the polls. However, Chretien was basically a fiscal conservative who was also progressive on social issues and that crushed the NDP. That probably wouldn't be the case anymore though.

blairz blairz's picture

Findlay has a proven record of losing elections and not resolving debt, so I think she represents eveything the NDP wants in a Liberal Leader.

 

janfromthebruce

PSS, I agree with Stock here. As a economic and socially progressive individual, it drives me around the bend when the Liberals - strategically - fake left during election campaigns but always when they get into power, they rule to the right. Even on many social issues, they drag their feet and many of their MPs are not socially progressive at all.

Economically they are one part of the corportist agenda, and hence why big business loves them.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=janfromthebruce]

PSS, I agree with Stock here. As a economic and socially progressive individual, it drives me around the bend when the Liberals - strategically - fake left during election campaigns but always when they get into power, they rule to the right. Even on many social issues, they drag their feet and many of their MPs are not socially progressive at all.

Economically they are one part of the corportist agenda, and hence why big business loves them.

[/quote]

It worked for them for a long time.

I think they should be choosing policies on the left and right, though it all depends on who you ask if a policy is left wing or right wing.

socialdemocrati...

Maybe I have no evidence to back this up, but meddling in another political party has a lot of potential to backfire.

Part of me would like the Liberals to be a progressive party. It would be too little too late, but imagine if the Liberal party acknowledged the dutch disease, promised to raise taxes on the wealthy, paid for expanded social security and health care, and stuck their neck out on human rights issues like like transgender rights or aboriginal rights. (And then imagine you could trust them.)

Of course, if the Liberals had a candidate who even resembled those principles, we'd see some of the NDP votes go back to the Red Tent. And the Conservatives would probably run up the middle.

So the answer is to wish the Liberal party into right-wing heaven, right? Compete for those Red Tories, those former Progressive Conservatives. Divide the right, and let the NDP consolidate the left? (See: British Columbia, present day.)

You're assuming that won't backfire on us. You're assuming that we won't see the Liberals gradually gravitate towards a right-wing coalition like the Saskatchewan party. You're assuming that the Conservatives won't suddenly collapse, and the Liberals become the new right-wing standard bearer in 2015, and win in an election that re-aligns the political "center" further right than its ever been. You're assuming that the mainstream media won't point to a "mainstream consensus" between the Liberals and Conservatives that unions are greedy, and that the social safety net is "unsustainable" (and the corporate tax cuts that created the deficit are "highly necessary").

So maybe the answer is just to meddle directly in the leadership race and pick a "weak" candidate. For one, it would never work. For two, if it even came anywhere close to working, it would be detected, and would make Jack Layton's words that "hope is better than fear" ring hollow.

This is why I have no preference for the Liberal leadership race.

No matter what, whether the Liberals go left, right, or stick with the safety net slashes that they call "moderate", they ARE going to have the potential to reach new voters, and voters ARE going to be receptive to a Liberal redemption story.

No matter what, we're gonna have to work hard, and persuade voters to take their chance on a party that's never formed a Federal Government, and simultaneously push that party to make hard promises about real reforms.

Let the chips fall where they may.

adma

[quote=blairz]

Findlay has a proven record of losing elections and not resolving debt, so I think she represents eveything the NDP wants in a Liberal Leader.

[/quote]

Actually, that's a bit of a cheap shot--there are but three "lost elections" that matter: 2004 (where the bigger shock was that she nearly defeated the seemingly bombproof still-a-Con Belinda Stronach); the 2006 leadership contest (which was seen as quixotic, anyway, considering she was the only seatless candidate in the running--and once again, she overachieved); and 2011 (blame Iggy, not MHF)

PoliSciStudent

socialdemocraticmiddle makes good points.

I am not involved with any political parties and can discuss politics with people of all stripes, even if they don't like it. I don't really understand this idea of people wanting to vote in leadership races of parties they don't support just to vote for who they perceive to be the weakest candidate, because they think it's better for their party. Personally I would like to see all parties have strong leaders and then hopefully the vast majority of voters would get out and vote for the policies they most like, even if they're not necessarily policies I support. If Tom Mulcair and the NDP cannot beat the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the best leaders they have, then Mulcair doesn't deserve to be Prime Minister. Sorry if people don't like that statement.

Put the strongest leaders head to head and lets see who comes out on top!

janfromthebruce

Personally I would like to see all parties have strong leaders and then hopefully the vast majority of voters would get out and vote for the policies they most like, even if they're not necessarily policies I support.

 

Well that's the problem with the Liberals - they highlight the policies that many Canadians like, but once elected, they just don't find the time or inclination to fulfill their mandate. National childcare comes to mind here, starting in 1993, and concluding in 2011: Libs just figured folks were suckers for their warm fuzzy vote grabbing progressive National childcare - funny, folks just laughed - sure, sure.

Libs are full of giggles and laughs. I don't care who the libs elect and I didn't hear anyone here suggest that they'd bother voting in the Lib leader "free-for-all". It's just another lib gimmick - like a "shiny pony" - all glitter but no substance.

Stockholm

Who saidf anything about "meddling" in the Liberal leadership contest??? All I'm doing is being an armchair critic and expressing an opinion on what directiomn I think they should take as a party in picking a new leader.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Stockholm]

Who saidf anything about "meddling" in the Liberal leadership contest??? All I'm doing is being an armchair critic and expressing an opinion on what directiomn I think they should take as a party in picking a new leader.

[/quote]
I wasn't saying you were. I like that you're able to give an opinion that isn't that the Liberals should dissolve itself and join other parties. I have seen New Democrats, not neccessarily here, and Conservatives say they will be supporters just to vote for the weakest leader.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=janfromthebruce]

Personally I would like to see all parties have strong leaders and then hopefully the vast majority of voters would get out and vote for the policies they most like, even if they're not necessarily policies I support.

 

Well that's the problem with the Liberals - they highlight the policies that many Canadians like, but once elected, they just don't find the time or inclination to fulfill their mandate. National childcare comes to mind here, starting in 1993, and concluding in 2011: Libs just figured folks were suckers for their warm fuzzy vote grabbing progressive National childcare - funny, folks just laughed - sure, sure.

Libs are full of giggles and laughs. I don't care who the libs elect and I didn't hear anyone here suggest that they'd bother voting in the Lib leader "free-for-all". It's just another lib gimmick - like a "shiny pony" - all glitter but no substance.

[/quote]
That is an issue, though I don't think it's just something Liberals do. People still voted Liberal even though they didn't follow through on policies, for some reason.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

[quote=PoliSciStudent][quote=Arthur Cramer]

No, I never said most people here have voted NDP. Read what I wrote, ok? As for my record, I think its pretty clear I've always voted NDP. So what? Don't try to be too smart, its unbecoming.

As for the LPC, who the hell needs them? They have ALWAYS run left, and governed right. If they were serious about defeating Harper, they'd get the hell out of the way. They are simply Corporatist who do whatever the hell Bay Street tells them. You're a PoliSci Student, right? You'd know that, right?

I said the inference of your commentary is that partisan commentary is uninformed commentary. That is simply an excuse to take shots at those of us here on this board, who are committed Social Democrats. If you want to discuss things fine, but learn to be nicer, and don't be so quick to dismiss the rest of us here. Your commentary is dripping with disdain. I've just been around too long to be willing take lying down what you're selling. Don't expect me, or anyone else to do so. If you don't like it, you aren't obligated to hang around.

[/quote] So should the NDP have closed up shop after the 2006 election seeing at that time the Liberals were the only serious challenge to Harper?[/quote]

No. You appear to be purposefully ignoring a very important point. Their is a BIG difference between New Dems and Libs. Libs campaign left, and govern right, ALWAYS. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean it isn't true. Other posters have already dealth with this, so I am not going to.

Regarding Libs aren't the only ones who do it, your logic is faulty. We are talking about the Federal Government. The NDP has need governed federally, so you DON'T know what they are going to do. Again, you simply assume that basically "everyone does it". Well, the fact is, we DON'T know that is true, because we haven't had a NDP Federal government. You can continue to dismiss everyone who has posted to the counter that you want, but just because YOU say so, doesn't make it true.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Arthur Cramer]

[quote=PoliSciStudent][quote=Arthur Cramer]

No, I never said most people here have voted NDP. Read what I wrote, ok? As for my record, I think its pretty clear I've always voted NDP. So what? Don't try to be too smart, its unbecoming.

As for the LPC, who the hell needs them? They have ALWAYS run left, and governed right. If they were serious about defeating Harper, they'd get the hell out of the way. They are simply Corporatist who do whatever the hell Bay Street tells them. You're a PoliSci Student, right? You'd know that, right?

I said the inference of your commentary is that partisan commentary is uninformed commentary. That is simply an excuse to take shots at those of us here on this board, who are committed Social Democrats. If you want to discuss things fine, but learn to be nicer, and don't be so quick to dismiss the rest of us here. Your commentary is dripping with disdain. I've just been around too long to be willing take lying down what you're selling. Don't expect me, or anyone else to do so. If you don't like it, you aren't obligated to hang around.

[/quote] So should the NDP have closed up shop after the 2006 election seeing at that time the Liberals were the only serious challenge to Harper?[/quote]

No. You appear to be purposefully ignoring a very important point. Their is a BIG difference between New Dems and Libs. Libs campaign left, and govern right, ALWAYS. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean it isn't true. Other posters have already dealth with this, so I am not going to.

Regarding Libs aren't the only ones who do it, your logic is faulty. We are talking about the Federal Government. The NDP has need governed federally, so you DON'T know what they are going to do. Again, you simply assume that basically "everyone does it". Well, the fact is, we DON'T know that is true, because we haven't had a NDP Federal government. You can continue to dismiss everyone who has posted to the counter that you want, but just because YOU say so, doesn't make it true.

[/quote]
You only seem to not agree with me because you are a New Democrat. You say the Liberals should not exist because they haven't governed as they campaigned and because they supposedly can't beat Harper. Yet the NDP should not have gotten "the hell out of the way" when they didn't have a chance of defeating Harper because they have yet to govern. Is that not hypocritical?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

No, I don't feel like a hypocrite. The Libs will ALWAYS say one thing and do something else. That is what is so bad about them. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. As to beating Harper, I already explained the difference. Your response indicates that you either don't get it, or you disagree with it, or frankly, based on the tone of your writing, probably simply have disdain for it.

Don't go around calling me a hypocrite, and don't try to teach me something son/miss. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

 

mark_alfred

If the Liberals disappeared then a lot of their votes would go Conservative rather than NDP.  So, without the Liberals providing a split in the right-wing vote, it would be very difficult for the NDP to win.  Therefore, I think it's useful having the Liberals around so that the right-wing vote is split between the Liberals and Conservatives, allowing the social democratic NDP a chance to win.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Heh. I recall the days when everyone said the progressive vote is split between the Liberals and the NDP, allowing the  Progressive Conservatives (now just Conservative) to win. Laughing

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Arthur Cramer]

No, I don't feel like a hypocrite. The Libs will ALWAYS say one thing and do something else. That is what is so bad about them. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. As to beating Harper, I already explained the difference. Your response indicates that you either don't get it, or you disagree with it, or frankly, based on the tone of your writing, probably simply have disdain for it.

Don't go around calling me a hypocrite, and don't try to teach me something son/miss. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

 

[/quote]
Take a deep breath. :)

Caissa

Has anyone explained to you poliscistudent that this is a left-wing site?

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Caissa]

Has anyone explained to you poliscistudent that this is a left-wing site?

[/quote]
Yes. Does that mean people who don't believe in all NDP policies are not allowed to comment?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

[quote=PoliSciStudent][quote=Arthur Cramer]

No, I don't feel like a hypocrite. The Libs will ALWAYS say one thing and do something else. That is what is so bad about them. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. As to beating Harper, I already explained the difference. Your response indicates that you either don't get it, or you disagree with it, or frankly, based on the tone of your writing, probably simply have disdain for it.

Don't go around calling me a hypocrite, and don't try to teach me something son/miss. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

 

[/quote] Take a deep breath. :)[/quote]

You know you are being patronizing, right? There is another guy who posts here but usually only when he wants to gloat about how well the Libs are doing in the polls. I don't think he is really interested in having a discussion about anything but what is wrong with the beliefs and ideas of the majority of posters on this website. Frankly, you strike me as exactly the same. I don't mind debate but I mind being discounted and I mind being patronized.

Now here is what sounds like a rant. I spent 20 plus years in the Navy as a Ship's Officer and dealt with plenty of stress equal to or more likely much greater then anything you have experienced in your life. So don't come back and tell me to calm down. What you really are telling me is I am too emotional and not being rational. While the disciiplined side of myself says I should just ignore because you aren't worth interaction, my other side says no one, inlcuding me has to take the garbage you are handing out. I don't recall saying or otherwise implying the same where you are concerned. Watch the tone of your commentary, be polite and respectful. I have done this with you and I expect the same. Ever hear of the Golden Rule?

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Arthur Cramer]

[quote=PoliSciStudent][quote=Arthur Cramer]

No, I don't feel like a hypocrite. The Libs will ALWAYS say one thing and do something else. That is what is so bad about them. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. As to beating Harper, I already explained the difference. Your response indicates that you either don't get it, or you disagree with it, or frankly, based on the tone of your writing, probably simply have disdain for it.

Don't go around calling me a hypocrite, and don't try to teach me something son/miss. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

 

[/quote] Take a deep breath. :)[/quote]

You know you are being patronizing, right? There is another guy who posts here but usually only when he wants to gloat about how well the Libs are doing in the polls. I don't think he is really interested in having a discussion about anything but what is wrong with the beliefs and ideas of the majority of posters on this website. Frankly, you strike me as exactly the same. I don't mind debate but I mind being discounted and I mind being patronized.

Now here is what sounds like a rant. I spent 20 plus years in the Navy as a Ship's Officer and dealt with plenty of stress equal to or more likely much greater then anything you have experienced in your life. So don't come back and tell me to calm down. What you really are telling me is I am too emotional and not being rational. While the disciiplined side of myself says I should just ignore because you aren't worth interaction, my other side says no one, inlcuding me has to take the garbage you are handing out. I don't recall saying or otherwise implying the same where you are concerned. Watch the tone of your commentary, be polite and respectful. I have done this with you and I expect the same. Ever hear of the Golden Rule?

[/quote]
Yes I have heard of the golden rule, so I'll ignor your comments and hopefully you'll ignor mine.

adma

[quote=Boom Boom]

Heh. I recall the days when everyone said the progressive vote is split between the Liberals and the NDP, allowing the  Progressive Conservatives (now just Conservative) to win. Laughing

[/quote]

Well, that was the big argument re the 1988 Free Trade Election--an election which, arguably, gave birth to the Strategic Voting Era As We Know It Today.

Yet the irony is that upon close inspection, the outcome of that election had little to do with the "split left" per se--indeed, a lot of which motivated voters to vote "anti-free-trade" that year was not unlike what led many of the same voters to opt for ReformAllianceConservative after 1993.  If anything, 1988 marked the last gasp of a certain "Clear Grit populism" within the federal Liberal party (even if the actual c19 Clear Grits were pro-free trade)--that seats as unlikely as Leeds-Grenville went Liberal that year had little to do with raw "leftiness"...

addictedtomyipod

I'll gladly ignore you PSS.  You are so full of yourself that you must eat yourself for breaky, lunch and dinner.  Go and learn how to care about man, woman and country then come back here and debate.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=adma]

[quote=Boom Boom]

Heh. I recall the days when everyone said the progressive vote is split between the Liberals and the NDP, allowing the  Progressive Conservatives (now just Conservative) to win. Laughing

[/quote]

Well, that was the big argument re the 1988 Free Trade Election--an election which, arguably, gave birth to the Strategic Voting Era As We Know It Today.

Yet the irony is that upon close inspection, the outcome of that election had little to do with the "split left" per se--indeed, a lot of which motivated voters to vote "anti-free-trade" that year was not unlike what led many of the same voters to opt for ReformAllianceConservative after 1993.  If anything, 1988 marked the last gasp of a certain "Clear Grit populism" within the federal Liberal party (even if the actual c19 Clear Grits were pro-free trade)--that seats as unlikely as Leeds-Grenville went Liberal that year had little to do with raw "leftiness"...

[/quote]

It is to bad we don't know what would have happened if the Liberals were pro free trade in 1988. Would the NDP have surged ahead with the support of the anti free traders or would more people have not been so uneasy about free trade if both the LPC and PC were supporting it. It's a shame we can't change history.

clambake

[quote=Caissa]

Has anyone explained to you poliscistudent that this is a left-wing site?

[/quote]

I enjoy this forum and everything, but some posters here are a little too hostile to posters that don't necessarily tout the NDP line (which is surprising, being a progressive website and all). poliscistudent isn't trolling or anything - his or her points have warranted discussion

Stockholm

[quote=adma]

Well, that was the big argument re the 1988 Free Trade Election--an election which, arguably, gave birth to the Strategic Voting Era As We Know It Today.

[/quote]

It actually goes back much further than that...in 1974 the folk wisdom is that there was stampede of NDP voters shifting to the Liberals to stop Stanfield and his plan to bring in wage and price controls.

Caissa

[quote=clambake] I enjoy this forum and everything, but some posters here are a little too hostile to posters that don't necessarily tout the NDP line [/quote]

 

Touting the NDP line is certainly not left-wing.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

[quote=PoliSciStudent][quote=Arthur Cramer]

[quote=PoliSciStudent][quote=Arthur Cramer]

No, I don't feel like a hypocrite. The Libs will ALWAYS say one thing and do something else. That is what is so bad about them. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. As to beating Harper, I already explained the difference. Your response indicates that you either don't get it, or you disagree with it, or frankly, based on the tone of your writing, probably simply have disdain for it.

Don't go around calling me a hypocrite, and don't try to teach me something son/miss. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

 

[/quote] Take a deep breath. :)[/quote]

You know you are being patronizing, right? There is another guy who posts here but usually only when he wants to gloat about how well the Libs are doing in the polls. I don't think he is really interested in having a discussion about anything but what is wrong with the beliefs and ideas of the majority of posters on this website. Frankly, you strike me as exactly the same. I don't mind debate but I mind being discounted and I mind being patronized.

Now here is what sounds like a rant. I spent 20 plus years in the Navy as a Ship's Officer and dealt with plenty of stress equal to or more likely much greater then anything you have experienced in your life. So don't come back and tell me to calm down. What you really are telling me is I am too emotional and not being rational. While the disciiplined side of myself says I should just ignore because you aren't worth interaction, my other side says no one, inlcuding me has to take the garbage you are handing out. I don't recall saying or otherwise implying the same where you are concerned. Watch the tone of your commentary, be polite and respectful. I have done this with you and I expect the same. Ever hear of the Golden Rule?

[/quote] Yes I have heard of the golden rule, so I'll ignor your comments and hopefully you'll ignor mine.[/quote]

Cute, very cute. Well, so much for respect.

PoliSciStudent

Marc Garneau is trying to find a "dream team" to run his leadership bid. An interesting candidate, though not really the new generation many Liberals have said they wanted. Garneau has said via twitter he wants the party smack dab in the centre.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1242238--marc-garnea...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

In my opinion, Garneau is the type of very smart but boring technocrat who could have been an effective Liberal leader when they were still the "natural governing party" of Canada (sort of a smarter and less corrupt Paul Martin). Now that they are a poor third, both in Parliament and in public opinion, he is completely the wrong type of person to bring them back to prominence. If they choose him, I think they will have no chance at all of major gains in the next election.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Michael Moriarity]

In my opinion, Garneau is the type of very smart but boring technocrat who could have been an effective Liberal leader when they were still the "natural governing party" of Canada (sort of a smarter and less corrupt Paul Martin). Now that they are a poor third, both in Parliament and in public opinion, he is completely the wrong type of person to bring them back to prominence. If they choose him, I think they will have no chance at all of major gains in the next election.

[/quote]
Polling has shown he could improve their numbers but I agree with you. Maybe he could turn his dullness around during the leadership? If he could figure out how to make himself 10 years younger it would likely be a boost to his campaign.

adma

I can see Garneau-as-leader somehow not making it as far as the next election--a kind of Canadian Manzies Campbell, or something...

socialdemocrati...

I think Garneau has more integrity than the average Liberal. But even if they weren't the third party now, there lies the problem in being a party "of the center" as they define it. Where is the center on the defining issues of our time?

What's the center between being for marriage equality versus being against it?

What's the center between factoring in the real costs of tar sands, versus rolling along with Harper's plan to become a failed oil state?

What's the center between reforming the electoral system, or not?

What's the center between austerity, or not?

In the end, the Liberal party will have to take positions already staked out by Conservatives and New Democrats. Maybe they can find their idea of the "center" by adopting a mix. But either the Harper policies are benefiting you, or they aren't. A mix isn't really effective, and I doubt it's especially popular.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=socialdemocraticmiddle]I think Garneau has more integrity than the average Liberal. But even if they weren't the third party now, there lies the problem in being a party "of the center" as they define it. Where is the center on the defining issues of our time?

What's the center between being for marriage equality versus being against it?

What's the center between factoring in the real costs of tar sands, versus rolling along with Harper's plan to become a failed oil state?

What's the center between reforming the electoral system, or not?

What's the center between austerity, or not?

In the end, the Liberal party will have to take positions already staked out by Conservatives and New Democrats. Maybe they can find their idea of the "center" by adopting a mix. But either the Harper policies are benefiting you, or they aren't. A mix isn't really effective, and I doubt it's especially popular.[/quote]

Andrew Coyne had an interesting piece a while ago about how the party should be more conservative then the Conservstives on some issues and more to the left on some issues then the NDP. I think there are also ways to find a balance between austerity or not, and as for reforming the electoral system they already adopted a plan at their convention (though that doesn't mean much). It was also mentioned in articles I read last month saying that Bob Rae had found the middle ground with regards to the oil sands.

I think the idea of legalizing marijuana was a smart policy for them. No other party supports it, despite its popularity. I don't know of that's a left wing policy or a right wing policy though. The stupid thing Liberals do though is not always move forward with policies supported by the grassroots.

Stockholm

[quote=PoliSciStudent] I think the idea of legalizing marijuana was a smart policy for them. No other party supports it, despite its popularity. I don't know of that's a left wing policy or a right wing policy though. The stupid thing Liberals do though is not always move forward with policies supported by the grassroots.[/quote]

I predict that by election 2015 there is no difference between the Liberal and NDP policies on marijuana - unless the Liberals drop wanting to decriminalize altogether due to pressure from their laregely rural and socially conservative caucus.

PoliSciStudent

[quote=Stockholm]

[quote=PoliSciStudent] I think the idea of legalizing marijuana was a smart policy for them. No other party supports it, despite its popularity. I don't know of that's a left wing policy or a right wing policy though. The stupid thing Liberals do though is not always move forward with policies supported by the grassroots.[/quote]

I predict that by election 2015 there is no difference between the Liberal and NDP policies on marijuana - unless the Liberals drop wanting to decriminalize altogether due to pressure from their laregely rural and socially conservative caucus.

[/quote]
Well their current idea seems to be legalize, regulate and tax it.

janfromthebruce

Last I checked, that is where the NDP policy stands, and we have on utube, Jack Layton talking about it in (I think) a 2008 election campaign. I also believe that the Greens are also decriminalization and so on, so the Libs aren't "leading the charge" in this regard.

Pages