Liberal leadership race

1044 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

autoworker wrote:

Is there really much difference between Rae and Mulcair?

To begin with one is over the hill and the other is still trying to climb up it.

Wink

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
Is there really much difference between Rae and Mulcair?

You know something Autoworker, I am completely familiar with the "Rae record'. And, I have actually bothered to learn about Tom Mulcair; and I will say here publicly, I voted for Tom and donated to his campaign. What you want us to believe is that people like myself are simply too stupid, and too niave to see things for what they are. I would wager that I have life experience equal at least to you own. To say the least, your implication that people like me are simply too stupid to see things for what they are is to say the least, insulting and, patronizing.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Dear Arthur Cramer: Since you claim to know what I want people like you to believe, you should also know what I'd like you to do with yourself. I trust you won't find that patronizing.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Look Autoworker, you posted previous to me and that implication of your comment was clear. To say the least, my impression of you is that you are frankly, a jerk. I didn't deserve your reply. You painted with a broad brush, buddy, and don't think that you can get away with it without being called on it. Get over yourself.

autoworker autoworker's picture

...returning to the thread topic: It seems to me that Rae has backed out of the spotlight, leaving space for caucus members to step forward on individual issues. I wonder if he will leave prospective leadership candidates in their critics roles, rather than weaken the caucus in debate. Doing so may also indicate a preference for sitting members to run for leadership, by providing them with a greater profile.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

autoworker wrote:
pookie wrote:

I think Dominic Leblanc would be an interesting choice (tho I understand his weaknesses) and certainly better than Justin Trudeau.

I agree. LeBlanc as a French Canadian federalist, with Parilamentary experience (and a Commons seat), but without the political baggage of being Quebecois (not necessarily a weakness), would make an interesting candidate for leadership. Trudeau, as a close personal friend, and a Quebecois, could be a trustworthy, and popular, Quebec lieutenant. Such a partnership might present a viable alternative to the opposing federalist visions currently on offer.

Didn't know anybody still used the term "French Canadian".

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

autoworker wrote:
Is there really much difference between Rae and Mulcair?

Uh yes, there is.  Rae has moved away from principles, while Mulcair has moved towards them.  That, and the voters still LIKE Mulcair.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Is there really much difference between Rae and Mulcair?

Uh yes, there is.  Rae has moved away from principles, while Mulcair has moved towards them.  That, and the voters still LIKE Mulcair.

Which principles, to and fro, are you speaking of?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

social justice and green values...neither of which exist in the Liberal Party any longer.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

social justice and green values...neither of which exist in the Liberal Party any longer.

I don't know how far Mulcair will go in promoting social justice, but if his recent conversion to the upgraded, value-added virtues of what he now refers to as the "oil sands" is indicative of a trend, then he's taken the first step down the slippery slope of 'jobs vs the environment', and towards a downgraded green policy.

mark_alfred

As I see it, the difference between Mulcair and Rae is one of reliability.  Rae came into power with the Ontario NDP promising public auto insurance but did not deliver.  Mulcair came into power as Environment Minister within the Quebec Liberals, and promised reduced greenhouse gases, along with protected parklands (both delivered).  When Charest screwed around with the latter promise, he resigned.  He could have went to the PQ, but he's a committed federalist, and so he went with the less promising NDP.  Rae, on the other hand, became less committed to social democracy, and began espousing the idea of flexibility and centralism.  So, the main difference is commitment.  That said, there are some similariities. It appears that both are quite pro-Israel.  And both seem a bit closer to the centre than I would like.  But, regardless, between the two of them, I feel that Mulcair is more reliable.  Anyway, it's not an issue since Rae is close to retiring.

autoworker autoworker's picture

After being rebuffed by Mulcair on the Iran embassy issue, perhaps Dewar can take his leader's example of principled commitment, and cross the floor, and, as a sitting MP, throw his hat into the Liberal leadership race. No doubt Rae would give him a warm welcome.

janfromthebruce

That Mulcair decided that he didn't want to be in the PC (prov lib party) govt anymore and resigned as a cabinet minister. Dewar doesn't want to become a liberal and nor run for the leadership. And who cares what Rae thinks.

autoworker autoworker's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

That Mulcair decided that he didn't want to be in the PC (prov lib party) govt anymore and resigned as a cabinet minister. Dewar doesn't want to become a liberal and nor run for the leadership. And who cares what Rae thinks.

Well, I'm not sure Mulcair would have been embraced by the Pequistes, after his slut remark. The thought of Dewar taking his leadership aspirations, not across the floor (as I erroneously suggested), but within arms length of Elizabeth May and Justin Trudeau, on the same side of the House-- call it a lateral move, may not be all that facetious. As for Rae, given his status as interim Liberal leader, and the thread topic at hand, I believe any thoughts he might have are germane to this discussion.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Why would Dewar possibly want to join the party that's doomed to be in third place AGAIN after the next election?  It's not as though anybody who voted NDP last time has any good reason to switch to the Liberals, or will have, no matter who wins the leadership.

You have no reason to be pushing for a Liberal revival.  That party has no core values and nothing to offer the country.  And it's differences with Harper are too trivial to matter(especially on economics and social justice, which are the only truly important national issues).

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Why would Dewar possibly want to join the party that's doomed to be in third place AGAIN after the next election?  It's not as though anybody who voted NDP last time has any good reason to switch to the Liberals, or will have, no matter who wins the leadership.

You have no reason to be pushing for a Liberal revival autoworker.  That party has no core values and nothing to offer the country.  And it's differences with Harper are too trivial to matter(especially on economics and social justice, which are the only truly important national issues).  And their arrogant, essentially right-wing position on federalism will make them unelectable in Quebec for the rest of eternity.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Why would Dewar possibly want to join the party that's doomed to be in third place AGAIN after the next election?  It's not as though anybody who voted NDP last time has any good reason to switch to the Liberals, or will have, no matter who wins the leadership.

You have no reason to be pushing for a Liberal revival autoworker.  That party has no core values and nothing to offer the country.  And it's differences with Harper are too trivial to matter(especially on economics and social justice, which are the only truly important national issues).  And their arrogant, essentially right-wing position on federalism will make them unelectable in Quebec for the rest of eternity.

Are we not in a thread about the Liberal leadership race? As for "pushing" for a "revival", I didn't initiate the topic, but, since you mention third party status, your apparent hubris has blinded you to the fact that the NDP (which seems to be listing starboard, of late) was exactly where the Liberals are now. As for their electability, in Quebec or out, it would be arrogant to presume who voter's will choose. Besides, who's to say that the NDP won't fracture in the meantime.

Ippurigakko

https://www.facebook.com/questions/366805440061638/

 

do you think trudeau will win if he seeks lib leader? Ugh! he remind me of Mexican 2012 elections PRI Enrique!

will trudeau revive liberals??

autoworker autoworker's picture

Ippurigakko wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/questions/366805440061638/

 

do you think trudeau will win if he seeks lib leader? Ugh! he remind me of Mexican 2012 elections PRI Enrique!

will trudeau revive liberals??

Justin Trudeau is an asset to his party, but I don't believe he's the one to lead it out of the wilderness. He will, however, attract popular interest to the leadership race, and generate a degree of renewed interest in the Trudeau legacy of federalism.

janfromthebruce

Autoworker, there was one poll with the NDP not leading or tied with the Cons and you are stating "listing starboard of late"! Wow, liberal fantasy is working overtime.

autoworker autoworker's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

Autoworker, there was one poll with the NDP not leading or tied with the Cons and you are stating "listing starboard of late"! Wow, liberal fantasy is working overtime.

That may be why their ballast has shifted.

Caissa

The long wait for Justin Trudeau's difficult decision appears to be over: Radio-Canada is reporting that the Quebec MP and son of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau will announce early next week that he will run for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party.

Trudeau is expected to make the announcement at a news conference in his Montreal riding of Papineau on Tuesday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/26/justin-trudeau-liberal-leadership.html

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Of course, after all, his last name is Trudeau, and therefore he is THE ONLY ONE who can save Canada, right? He just can't resist, talk about ego.

felixr

My first question for Trudeau is, should the Liberal Party merge with the NDP? He seems to be of the type that has suggested this before.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

felixr wrote:

My first question for Trudeau is, should the Liberal Party merge with the NDP? He seems to be of the type that has suggested this before.

Sure they can, just give up their LPC memberships and join the NDP. If they are lefties, what's the problem. Dont' expect it; Trudeau and the Libs ARE CORPORATISTS BEHOLDEN TO OLD MONEY AND BAY STREET!

Sean in Ottawa

I am not sure that a two party system is the best for Canada. Also I am not inclined to say there is no difference between the Liberals and the Cosnervatives. I think it is possible and even appropriate to see a difference even while rejecting them both and acknowledging where they are similar.

I also don't think it is appropriate to bank on the continued weakness of the Liberals to defeat the Conservatives. I also do not accept the concept of reducing electoral choices through merger and deals between parties.

There must be another strategy.

For starters, Trudeau and the Liberals say they are open to what Canaidans have to say. They should be lobbied to commit now to voting at every opportunity to change the first past the post system to a proportional system. In such a system the NDP would also not likely ever enjoy a majority but the benefits are massive: the Conservative woudl not be able to govern with absolute rule with a third of the vote; every vote would count and people would be encouraged to participate; all choices for all parties would have some weight and value; voters woudl not see their electoral chocie shrink but rather they woudl grow in viability; parliament woudl be dragged into an era when parties woudl have to cooperate to get their agenda passed rather thanimpose their agenda or simply campaign incessently until they can. I won't support Trudeau. But he could, if he wants to, lead to a more democratic system than what we have and he should be lobbied to that end. now that his party is more likely to be the loser in the FPTP system, perhaps that reality will convince him to do the right thing. The NDP, for its part, must keep the proportional vote promise even as it may mean a little less power should we be in a position to win a false majority.

autoworker autoworker's picture

In a popularity contest, Trudeau may do quite well in attracting interest to the Liberal brand. He's most compatible with reality t.v., and celebrity journalism. As a product of popular culture, he can certainly edge out the competition for front page photo-ops. Who needs policy when you have star power?

mark_alfred

felixr wrote:

My first question for Trudeau is, should the Liberal Party merge with the NDP? He seems to be of the type that has suggested this before.

 

If the NDP continues to grow in popularity, perhaps the Liberals and the Conservatives will consider merging.

Ippurigakko

Mulcair opposed Libs merge with the NDP... So I glad...

I agree Lib should merge with Conservative. lol

NorthReport

Bien dit.

mark_alfred wrote:

felixr wrote:

My first question for Trudeau is, should the Liberal Party merge with the NDP? He seems to be of the type that has suggested this before.

 

If the NDP continues to grow in popularity, perhaps the Liberals and the Conservatives will consider merging.

mark_alfred

Hebert suggested that Trudeau's name appeal still runs deep with immigrants in Ontario, and these are voters that the Conservatives successfully courted in the last election.  So, his leadership could help reduce Conservative votes, allowing a greater chance of an NDP win.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Mark Carney is being toted as another dream candidate for the Libs. No indication yet as to whether he's interested or not. Justin Trudeau running against Deborah Coyne would be an interesting match-up. Smile

felixr

Another thing the Hebert article says is that none of the potential candidates are great political thinkers, so we shouldn't expect any great policy any time soon. Trudeau supposedly has a policy guru in his shop and has been trying to get out in front of this perceived weakness but I am very doubtful it will work. The guy is a flake.

The Liberals badly need a candidate of substance to get back in the game. With Trudeau, all they get, is back in the headlines.

As for an NDP-Liberal merger, that makes about as much sense as running a vegetarian butcher shop, but Trudeau has danced dangerously close to saying it. What's more, he is elected in Quebec and Quebeckers overwhelming want to see the NDP and Liberals cooperate. In fact, it's a pretty popular sentiment in other pockets of Canada as well (like the GTA and Vancouver). As the Liberal base implodes, a lot of Liberal-NDP swing voters don't want to split their vote. I wish I had a maple dip donut for every time someone said to me, "the Liberals are led by an ex-NDP and the NDP are led by an ex-Liberal, so why don't they just [merge, work together, etc]"

We've got to get used to this strategic reality that Canadians want us to cooperate and figure out how to cope with it. Clearly, I don't want the Liberals onside but until they fully collapse people will want cooperation and Justin is likely to get himself in trouble every time he talks about it. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think if Trudeau does win it, it would hasten the end of the Liberal party. So, yeah, let's cheer him on! Laughing

mark_alfred

I don't think there's any chance of Mark Carney running.

NorthReport

Trudeau will run and win the LPC Leadership - the LIberals are on the ropes, desperate to return to their glory days of old,  so he/they have no other choice.

Ippurigakko

please let Trudeau quits on race before april..

TheArchitect

Liberal MPs Scott Simms and Massimo Pacetti are endosing Trudeau.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2012/09/26/grit-mps-pacetti-simms...

janfromthebruce

Greg Weston: Can the Liberals really snag Mark Carney for leader?

A group of influential federal Liberals is trying to convince Mark Carney to quit his job as the governor of the Bank of Canada to run for the leadership of their party. Seriously.

So I'm thinking that the corporate/business liberals who run the show aren't thinking that Justin is ready for prime time.

I was trying to think about anything Trudeau has done, policy wise that is memorable. For the life of me, there is none - nada. He got elected 4 years ago, and his claim to fame is critic of sport, telling someone they are a piece of sh_t, Vicileaks, and defending Katimavik.

I'm thinking that the group of influential federal Liberals are thinking the same thing as me, but of course in a different sense.

Anyway, I agree with this about Carney and posted by a commenter on that article:

Keeping interest rates low and scolding Canada for not exploiting our natural resources fast enough, make him a candidate for political leadership? We know nothing about his stance on healthcare, education, the environment, our troubled Native people, Veterans Affairs, The Military, the Fisheries,etc. Wonder if he discusses these issues at the Bilderberg secret meetings? Do we want a continuing New World Order controlled by Corporations or do we want a Canadian leader who will work for all Canadians?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Jan, great post!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Canadian democracy would benefit from PR and somewhere between three and five parties in the House of Commons.  The last thing the left needs is a two party system.  It always means that the policy of the left party tilts to the centre right as it tries to grow beyond its natural base.  One only has to look south of the border to know that if the Liberals disappear the NDP are now as left wing as they ever will be in the future.  That is just straight electoral politics.  To attract the people who have always voted Liberal they must not be too left wing and anything from the NDP's left past was too left wing for those voters.

josh

Boom Boom wrote:

I think if Trudeau does win it, it would hasten the end of the Liberal party. So, yeah, let's cheer him on! Laughing

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

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

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

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/27/with-justin-trudeau-as-their-leader-liberals-could-easily-win-federal-election-exclusive-poll/

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I don't believe that poll. I think if Trudeau wins it, the Liberal Party will disintegrate. Trudeau is a nobody, although he's a nice guy.

felixr

There was a similar poll conducted previously. It showed the Liberals in first and the NDP and CPC tied around second. I think the poll is based on people's show biz image of Trudeau. In that area he truly excells, in the rest he is deeply gaffe prone. The Ottawa Liberal establishment does not have faith in him and that is as big a reason as any that you will see him run with a young campaign team.

JeffWells

The Liberals know him better than anyone. That's why he was given the showcase shadow cabinet role of critic for Post Secondary Education, Youth and Amateur Sport.

Once he has to prove himself an equal to Mulcair and Harper I'm not expecting a lengthy honeymoon.

mark_alfred

It would be good if Trudeau became the leader of the Liberals.  He seems progressive and open to a coalition.  He would get much of the immigrant vote due to the allegiance to his father for increasing immigration during his reign, which would steal votes from the Tories (who previously took many votes from some socially conservative immigrants).  So, the Liberals would win more seats from the Tories AND be willing to form a coalition with the NDP.  Tories would still come first, but with less seats, with the NDP second and the Liberals in a stronger third (thus a minority).  So, Canada would have its first social democratic government in coalition with the centrist Liberals who would be led by a (presumably) relatively progressive leader.  Sounds very good to me.

Stockholm

I'm not sure i agree with you...first of all Justin's father was last PM 27 years ago...today's immigrants virtually all came to Canada after the Trudeau had already ended. Secondly any immigrants who are attracted to a Justin led Liberal Party because he seems so progressive are not going to be socially conservative types - if anything just on a superficial level Justin would come across as much more "post-modern" and "trendy" than Tom Mulcair does - so I cannot see Justin attracting anyojne who is currently a Conservative. If Justin exceeds expectations and is a "hit" (which I very much doubt), the support he attractes will come 100% from the NDP and he will not draw ANYONE from the Conservatives. For that reason i think the Tories will be very nice to him and will secretly want him to succeed. More likely he will suffer a Christy Clark style flop and the NDP will soon be the clear alternative to the Tories.

Very Far Away

If he runs he will be the leader of LP. That`s for sure. I don`t think Liberals can choose anyone else as their leader when the party has been going down since Jean Chretien (polls and elections).

In the next election, he will be stealing votes (a lot of votes) from NDP, not from Conservatives. We have to admit: This is not good news for NDP. Having said that if we don`t have a majority government, a coaliton between NDP and LP with a progressive agenda could be something to think about.

Stockholm

Very Far Away wrote:

In the next election, he will be stealing votes (a lot of votes) from NDP, not from Conservatives. We have to admit: This is not good news for NDP. Having said that if we don`t have a majority government, a coaliton between NDP and LP with a progressive agenda could be something to think about.

I don't think we should jump to that conclusion at all. By all accounts Justin Trudeau is as dumb as a post and very gaffe prone. People are project a lot on to him that simply is not there. The point I was making was that IF (a huge IF) he defies all expectations and turns out to be incredibly shrewd, intelligent, politically adept leader - it would be dangerous for the NDP - but more likely the bloom will fade very quickly and the Liberals will be back in the teens.

Sean in Ottawa

Trudeau should not be underestimated he has a lot going for him and the things going for him matter in politics more than any negatives he has.

His positives include that he is likeable both by a crowd and one on one; he has very good contacts; he has strong party support including the kind that writes cheques; he appeals to an emotional side of voters; he represents a civil past and future unlike the current nastiness; his association with his father is near mythic-- Canadians remember the outpouring at his father's funeral, they know his father "brought home the Charter" which is extremely popular. They do not remember much of the things people hated about Trudeau. They have the impression of a man who was strong but kind and humorous-- unlike the petty nastiness governing Canada today. In fact I would argue that generally the public history has been overly kind to Trudeau and the current context plays in his favour.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trudeau carries with him an enormous potential to split the anti-Conservative vote perhaps so evenly that the Conservatives could win with an appallingly low level of support.

The NDP leader is known to be crusty and nasty rather than likeable. It is the caricature that he has. People are seeing through this caricature but the portrayal that is presented by his enemies is this caricature.

It is early yet to be able to predict how the dynamics will go in a three way race and it is difficult to predict how Trudeau will fare.

Those who say that Trudeau is bound to fail because he is too green don't understand the role of the machine, the amount of support and advice leaders have and how much of what you see is backroom and how little is the actual candidate. Trudeau is capable of taking advice and that is all he needs to be in order to bring a lot of power to the table. They don't take account of how shallow Canadians are. They don't take account of the intense cribbing politicians can do-- leaders get a lot of training that the public does not become party to.

Pages