Liberal leadership race

1044 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bluegreenblogger

@Wilf: Pretty interesting links. This week I have seen references to a number of third party supporter recruiting drives on behalf of Liberal candidates, or specific issues. I believe that the supporter catagory is going to dramatically re-shape the Liberal's prospects over the coming two years. These types of third party campaigns are a pretty powerful tool, and the conversion to 'supporter' is so simple they cannot fail to load their databse up with actionable contacts.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I've been watching the "debate" today (strange format) and Hall Findlay is saying all the good things, but I strongly suspect she will run on the left and govern from the right.

None of the candidates really stand out in this dumb format.

 

ETA: H-F wants to remove 'supply management' - but it's a crucial part of Quebec, so right away she's going to cause conflict.

ETA: Supply management and collective marketing

Quebec and Canadian producers control their (milk) production level based on the needs of the domestic market. The representatives of producers in all provinces, in consultation with the industry, set an annual production target known as the market sharing quota. When production exceeds that target, the surpluses must be sold in other markets, especially the animal feed market, at a much lower price than the average price received in the planned domestic markets.

ETA: H-F sets her sights on the end of supply management

 

 

jjuares

Hall Findlay sid some pretty pointed things about how the Liberal Part voted for some of Harper's crime bill simply becuse they didn't want to seem soft on crime. Essentially accusing them of political cowardice. She is talking about you too Justin.

Several candidates made veiled attacks against Trudeau talking about getting beyond platitudes and moving to substance.

Trudeau tried to put some substance in by talking about contested nominations. He is absolutely as vacuous a politician as I have seen. However, that does not mean he will simply implode. Trudeau just has to maintain his reality show act for less than 3 years. You don't see the Khardasians simply disappearing and they have kept their act together longer than that.

jjuares

Boom Boom wrote:

I've been watching the "debate" today (strange format) and Hall Findlay is saying all the good things, but I strongly suspect she will run on the left and govern from the right.

None of the candidates really stand out in this dumb format.

 

ETA: H-F wants to remove 'supply management' - but it's a crucial part of Quebec, so right away she's going to cause conflict.

ETA: Supply management and collective marketing

Quebec and Canadian producers control their (milk) production level based on the needs of the domestic market. The representatives of producers in all provinces, in consultation with the industry, set an annual production target known as the market sharing quota. When production exceeds that target, the surpluses must be sold in other markets, especially the animal feed market, at a much lower price than the average price received in the planned domestic markets.

ETA: H-F sets her sights on the end of supply management

 

 

I disagree.I believe that H-F wants to run on the right wing of the party. Usually I find her annoying. Today I thought she was strong and even charming.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Live: The Liberal Not-A-Debate in Winnipeg

3:14pm. Martin Cauchon warns that dumping supply management means eating unsafe food. (That's a shot at H-F)

3:24pm. Martha Hall Findlay defends ending supply management. This is a fun debate. Ms. Hall Findlay is smart to make it about the cost of food for families.

2:46pm. Mr. Trudeau explains that he has been to Sweden and that Canada needs its own Ikea (I’m paraphrasing). So there’s Scott Feschuk’s next column.

2:48pm. Deborah Coyne’s personal anecdote is that it’s Groundhog Day and she loves the movie, Groundhog Day, and that the movie is sort of an analogy for the Liberal party’s present challenge. Idea alert: What the Liberal party needs is Bill Murray.

2:59pm. David Bertschi comes out wearing a Liberal party scarf. In case there was some doubt about which party he supports.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

jjuares wrote:

I disagree.I believe that H-F wants to run on the right wing of the party. Usually I find her annoying. Today I thought she was strong and even charming.

You probably missed the part earlier this month where H-F said she supports the goals of Idle No More and wants better infrastructure in the North, and a National Transportation Initiative. 

Trust me, she's campaigning on the left - and will go right if elected.

jjuares

Boom Boom wrote:

jjuares wrote:

I disagree.I believe that H-F wants to run on the right wing of the party. Usually I find her annoying. Today I thought she was strong and even charming.

You probably missed the part earlier this month where H-F said she supports the goals of Idle No More and wants better infrastructure in the North, and a National Transportation Initiative. 

Trust me, she's campaigning on the left - and will go right if elected.

Yes, I did miss that and they would be described as "left" policies. I made my point on her marketing board stance. And yes in the end she will follow the old LPC playbook, campaign from the left and govern from the right.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

They're having a press conference (on CPAC) after the "debate", and, in response to a question about Idle No More, H-F brings up the Liberal record of the Kelowna Accord - the Liberals did a hell of a lot of work with aboriginals to get an agreement, which collapsed when the NDP joined the Cons to bring down the government, and Harper killed Kelowna altogether.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

You know of everyone posting about today's debate, I think Boom Boom's reads are pretty on. It worries me a little. The first thing is the NDP seems to not really have a good Explanation about why the party killed the Kelowna Accord, and I have spoken to Manitoba MPs about this. Secondly, it is VERY obvious the Libs are setting up an Obama like supporter infrastructure and the NDP, especially Mulcair, seems to have no response to this of which I can tell. As a matter of fact, I am more and more coming to believe that Mulcair is too routed in "old" ideas regarding how you grow the base and fight the day to day fights. I am feeling frustrated. I am not sure my beiief in him makes sense now, but I don't think anyone stepped forward with the potential to lead. I think Niki Ashton has some real potential; but I wish she was a better speaker. I am thinking the NDP's strategy now is to ignore the Libs during the Trudeau Cornonatin, but I don't think they realize this is not necessariy a good idea. The Lethbridge Declaration stuff is a good idea; I was at the meeting here in Winnipeg, but that debate is NOT penetrating the media either here, or elsewhere. Their was virtually no coverage of it after we met here in Winnipeg. So, does anyone have some thoughts, and do you think the LPC is already solidly gaining the upper had. I feel we are losing our place in the national debate, and as I have said before, I am not convinced the national NDP braintrust is aware of what is going on and how the public is reacting.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Well, I think there's a bit of distortion going on with regard to Kelowna. Yes, it was an amazing , reat opportunity for First Nations; but, the Liberals were so mired in scandal that they needed to be turfed out. The poroblem, as I see it, is that Jack Layton did NOT make implementing Kelowna the price of his support for the Cons in voting down the liberals. Imagine if Kelowna had been implemented. Frankly, I don't know who I'm pissed at most - Jack Layton or Harper.

jjuares

I have worked as a teacher since the 1970's and in the last deade and a half as an inner city principal. During that time I have seen the aboriginal comunity ravaged by despair,hopelessness, poverty, inadequate funding for education and many other ills. While all these problems have afflicted the community the federal government has been almost criminal in their neglect. And for most of that time it was a federal Liberal government. Yet we are now to believe that it is Jack's fault because of his role in not supporting Martin.

 

My goodness this is one of the most unethical arguments ever put forward by a political party.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, I think you hit on the head Boom Boom. I know the NDP has been a real voice for Aboriginal Candians, but the fact remains that this seems to not really been penetrating the public concious. The other thing is my perception is the vast majority of that Community's leadership remains tied to the LPC. I agree with you; the NDP is ignoring a real opportunity to show how it is different from both old line parties. Its like they see the opportunities being provided but are adverse to them. I simply don't understand it. I mean, the NDP is clearly disposed in sincerity to do the right thing here; you hear it anytime New Dems meet, but I just don't see this sentiment manifesting itself where it is needed. Tom, for example, should have gone to see Chief Spence, he is the LOO for crying out loud!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

jjuares wrote:

 Yet we are now to believe that it is Jack's fault because of his role in not supporting Martin.

 My goodness this is one of the most unethical arguments ever put forward by a political party.

Are you not aware that the Kelowna Accord was about to be implemented? At any rate, why didn't Jack force Harper to implement it?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

With all their faults, though, I'd absolutely prefer to see Mulcair and the NDP governing this country than either the Cons or Libs. Without question or hesitation.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I don't know why Jack didn't force Harper to do the right thing. Maybe the KA wasn't every going to actually come to fruition, I don't know. One NDP MP told me Jack told Martin that if Marting would sign a pledge to penalize provinces introducing private health care, Jack (blessed be his memory) would sustain the government. Its something to think about. If this is true, Martin obviously wasn't willing to come against privitization, and thought not signing this was more important then implementing the KA. I am inclied to believe this. I think Martin is a fiscal extremist, a mark neo-lib, and that he would never want to box himself in from introducing "market reforms", if he got the chance. Call me a cynic if you want, but I am not so sure I'm wrong. By the way Boom Boom, it doesn't really matter, but I never have ever doubted your progressive bona fides. I dont' think you need to explain yourself to anyone.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Don't get me wrong - I think the Liberals are pond scum. But the Kelowna Accord would have redeemed them a bit.

jjuares

Boom Boom wrote:

jjuares wrote:

 Yet we are now to believe that it is Jack's fault because of his role in not supporting Martin.

 My goodness this is one of the most unethical arguments ever put forward by a political party.

Are you not aware that the Kelowna Accord was about to be implemented? At any rate, why didn't Jack force Harper to implement it?

The Quebec premier was consulted in the process and he spoke to aboroginal leaders. However, no aboriginal leaders from Quebec were part of this process . This was a deliberate decision on their part due to their misgivings about the process. It did not include all of Canada's aboriginals in the process. This alone limits it's value.

Secondly, it's use of aspirational rather tha contractual language makes it difficult to believe it was evne meant to be binding. No mechanisms for funding, no concrete measures around governance or accountability.

But I am absolutely sure had the Liberals retained power they woud have without a doubt kept their promise and implemented it in just the same manner they did with the elimination of the GST and their committments under Kyoto.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The Liberals can kiss off some Quebec seats - I can't guess how many - if Hall Findlay becomes Liberal leader and continues to press for killing off "supply management". Even the Conservatives aren't that dumb. In its campaign platform and Throne Speech, the government vowed to continue to defend supply management.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thank God the NDP is on the right side of this issue!

The milk warsBy Aaron Wherry - Friday, June 22, 2012 at 4:22 PM - 6 Comments

The Dairy Farmers of Canada are not impressed with Martha Hall Findlay. The Conservatives at least attempted to register their dismay yesterday, while the New Democrats issued the following release this morning.

Conservatives have put Canada’s supply management on the table in trade talks – and now we see some Liberals openly opposing our supply managed sectors, according to NDP International Trade Critic Don Davies. “New Democrats have a clear and strong policy: Canada’s supply managed sectors provide clear benefits to Canadians and will not be compromised, in trade talks or otherwise”, insisted Davies. He pointed out that supply management in Canada’s dairy, poultry and egg industries is a tested system for efficient delivery of safe, local food to Canadians. Davies said that, unlike other countries who subsidize their producers, Canada’s supply management policy doesn’t cost taxpayers a cent.

NDP Agriculture Critic Malcolm Allen added his concerns of what any concessions could mean for these important industries. “By putting supply management in the cross hairs of these negotiations, the Conservative government is attacking the livelihood of dairy, poultry and egg farmers right across the country; farmers who expect this government to live up to its word.”

Deputy NDP Agriculture Critic Ruth Ellen Brosseau added that supply-managed products are competitively priced, with Canadian milk costing less than Australia and New Zealand – and in the US taxpayers subsidize milk. “New Democrats will continue to stand up strongly for the dairy, poultry and egg sectors, important industries that employs thousands of people,” said Brosseau.

theleftyinvestor

Boom Boom wrote:

jjuares wrote:

 Yet we are now to believe that it is Jack's fault because of his role in not supporting Martin.

 My goodness this is one of the most unethical arguments ever put forward by a political party.

Are you not aware that the Kelowna Accord was about to be implemented? At any rate, why didn't Jack force Harper to implement it?

I find it to be a rather cowardly argument for the Liberals to keep swiping at the NDP regarding Kelowna. The Liberals had 11 years of majority government. If this was so fundamentally important to Liberals, why did it fall so far to the bottom of the pile that they couldn't accomplish it until they were knocked down to a minority?

Had the minority been propped up any longer, it's hard to believe the Liberals would have done any better in polls in a 2007 election. So the Cons would have taken over... and then where would Kelowna be? Judging by the actions of Cons in power, how can Liberals be so confident they wouldn't have just discarded it like Kyoto? When has a prior accord ever meant anything to Harper?

And as long as we're talking co-operation, had the Liberals supported the NDP in 2008, there's all sorts of stuff that could have been accomplished. Sure the Liberals would have been massacred at the polls later on... oh wait, that already happened, so I guess Iggy made the wrong choice.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Kelowna Accord took a hell of a long time to negotiate, and there was a change in prime ministers, to boot. That's my best guess.

theleftyinvestor

AFAICT, the first roundtable started within a few months of Martin becoming PM. So yes, it was related to a change in leadership, because the Chrétien government never engaged in that process.

I just can't get behind the logic that letting the public vote equates to the NDP throwing out the Accord. We are opposed to the outcome of that vote, but pinning everything the Conservatives have done on the NDP is terribly disingenous. Conservative voters and Conservative MPs did these things, not the NDP. Not to mention that Liberals tacitly helped the Conservatives for four years.

But ultimately for the sake of Liberals there is one highly pragmatic reason they have to stop hammering this line about Kelowna. When Liberals remind Canadians about Kelowna, they remind us that they were voted out of government, which means thinking about why they were voted out of government. If the new leader is supposed to be all about renewal and change, reminding Canadians about what's wrong with you at every step of the way is not going to get you back in their good graces.

Brachina

The NDP didn't have the votes to save the Liberal minority government anyways so the point is mute.

theleftyinvestor

Brachina wrote:
The NDP didn't have the votes to save the Liberal minority government anyways so the point is mute.

With the independents and the conversion of Belinda Stronach they did, just barely.

jjuares

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Brachina wrote:
The NDP didn't have the votes to save the Liberal minority government anyways so the point is mute.

With the independents and the conversion of Belinda Stronach they did, just barely.

Brachina is right. The NDP had 18 seats at dissolution. (They had won 19 in the last election-where did that one go??) The non confidence motion passed by 171-133. Even if the NDP caucus had switched sides, the vote still would have been 153-151.

clambake

Trudeau posted on his website that he does not support proportional representation, but rather preferential voting. Interesting to see how that issue will play out leading up to the 2015 election.

janfromthebruce

Boom Boom and others, the Cons did not need toe support of the NDP to bring down the govt. So let's stick with the facts and numbers:

Pure math shows how wrong the liberal myth is.
Go to Wiki for number of seats at desolation of parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2006

So if Layton NDP had decided to prop up and support the corrupt Liberal govt this would have been the outcome:

VOTE OF CONFIDENCE
Liberals: 133 members
NDP: 18 members
independent: 1
Total votes: 152

VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE
Conservatives: 98
Bloc: 53
Independents: 3
Total votes: 154

Thus the Liberals would have lost the vote of confidence no matter how the NDP voted. However, if the NDP had been seen by the Canadian public supporting this corrupt Liberal govt in power, they would have gone into that snap election without any credibility. Thus it was better politically to be seen in not "supporting corruption" (sponsorship scandal) unless of course one thinks that political corruption is okay when only certain parties do it. 

theleftyinvestor

clambake wrote:

Trudeau posted on his website that he does not support proportional representation, but rather preferential voting. Interesting to see how that issue will play out leading up to the 2015 election.

I think if push came to shove, should the Liberals and NDP find themselves post-2015 in a position to pass electoral legislation, they would sit down and hash out an approach.

I know that preferential voting is not particularly proportional, and is contentious with NDPers because "middle ground" Liberals might benefit more than the NDP... but a study of the second-place preferences in 2011 shows that both parties would have taken more Conservative seats in that election under ranked voting, resulting in a Conservative minority that could be replaced with an NDP-led coalition. Given the choice between no reform and preferential voting, I am guessing the NDP could be persuaded to take the latter.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Given the choice between no reform and preferential voting, I am guessing the NDP could be persuaded to take the latter.

Let us hope that you are mistaken. For reasons posted many times in other threads, most supporters of fair voting, including me, would rather stick with the current, obviously unfair system, than see the false reform of preferential voting enacted. In brief, the main virtue of P.R. is that it allows people who support 3rd, 4th or 5th parties to receive appropriate representation in parliament. Preferential voting makes this even more unlikely than FPTP.

 

theleftyinvestor

Michael Moriarity wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Given the choice between no reform and preferential voting, I am guessing the NDP could be persuaded to take the latter.

Let us hope that you are mistaken. For reasons posted many times in other threads, most supporters of fair voting, including me, would rather stick with the current, obviously unfair system, than see the false reform of preferential voting enacted. In brief, the main virtue of P.R. is that it allows people who support 3rd, 4th or 5th parties to receive appropriate representation in parliament. Preferential voting makes this even more unlikely than FPTP.

 

I don't think preferential voting makes it less likely than FPTP. Certainly EMay would have kept SGI under preferential voting. You're right that it would not provide them the same kind of representation as PR, but what it would do is remove the incentive FPTP gives to completely abandon smaller parties and independents to play for one of the likely winners. This would work well if the per-vote subsidy still existed. A party could build their ground game by capturing lots of first-ballot votes, and thereby having results to show in order to build further momentum.

carpenter

Now's the time for electors to start lobbying progressive MP's to put PR on the front burner.

 

carpenter

Now's the time for electors to start lobbying progressive MP's to put PR on the front burner.

 

autoworker

Michael Moriarity wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Given the choice between no reform and preferential voting, I am guessing the NDP could be persuaded to take the latter.

Let us hope that you are mistaken. For reasons posted many times in other threads, most supporters of fair voting, including me, would rather stick with the current, obviously unfair system, than see the false reform of preferential voting enacted. In brief, the main virtue of P.R. is that it allows people who support 3rd, 4th or 5th parties to receive appropriate representation in parliament. Preferential voting makes this even more unlikely than FPTP.

 

I agree, preferential voting isn't half a loaf.

DSloth

The Liberals new found affection for preferential voting (since they became a third place party) is a naked attempt to game the system for the benefit of the Liberal Party. They'll soon learn like their yellow bellied friends accross the pond that it is ridiculously easy for Conservatives to attack a voting system where the person with the most votes doesn't win the election. 

 

 

Brachina

http://blunt-objects.blogspot.ca/2013/01/is-lpc-leadership-race-over.htm...

Justin's slaughtering his oppentants in fundraising, no surprise given Trudeaumania, unpopular oppenants, and Justin's rightwing positions and the possible threat to the NDP's chance at government he represents.

This so called Leadership campaign is a joke, there is no contest, no one really wants to challenge Justin.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

theleftyinvestor wrote:

I don't think preferential voting makes it less likely than FPTP. Certainly EMay would have kept SGI under preferential voting. You're right that it would not provide them the same kind of representation as PR, but what it would do is remove the incentive FPTP gives to completely abandon smaller parties and independents to play for one of the likely winners. This would work well if the per-vote subsidy still existed. A party could build their ground game by capturing lots of first-ballot votes, and thereby having results to show in order to build further momentum.

The per-vote subsidy is irrelevent. What I would like is to be able to vote for a truly socialist party with the expectation that if I were part of 5% of voters who supported it, then there would be 15 truly socialist MPs in Ottawa. Preferential voting makes this even more unlikely than FPTP.

JKR

Supporting Joyce Murray in the Liberal leadership contest is one way to help out the fair voting/proportional representation movement in the coming few months. I've been telling people who aren't members of political parties that they can advocate for fair voting/ p.r. by becoming a Joyce Murray "supporter" and advocating for pr in the Liberal leadership contest. If I wasn't currently a member of the NDP I would join up as a Murray supporter and make p.r my single issue for the Liberal leadership vote.

theleftyinvestor

Ah yes Joyce Murray, who believes in cooperating with Conservatives to keep the NDP out of power :)

Brachina

Of all the possible champions of cooperation between the NDP and the Liberals she is the strangest, on the surface, given her background.

Till one realizes that the one constant is opportunism.

JKR

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Policywonk

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Given the choice between no reform and preferential voting, I am guessing the NDP could be persuaded to take the latter.

Let us hope that you are mistaken. For reasons posted many times in other threads, most supporters of fair voting, including me, would rather stick with the current, obviously unfair system, than see the false reform of preferential voting enacted. In brief, the main virtue of P.R. is that it allows people who support 3rd, 4th or 5th parties to receive appropriate representation in parliament. Preferential voting makes this even more unlikely than FPTP.

 

I don't think preferential voting makes it less likely than FPTP. Certainly EMay would have kept SGI under preferential voting. You're right that it would not provide them the same kind of representation as PR, but what it would do is remove the incentive FPTP gives to completely abandon smaller parties and independents to play for one of the likely winners. This would work well if the per-vote subsidy still existed. A party could build their ground game by capturing lots of first-ballot votes, and thereby having results to show in order to build further momentum.

Preferential voting only helps small parties if they can concentrate their vote enough in one or more districts. It hurts even larger parties if their vote is spread out and they don't have enough second and subsequent choice votes to get over 50% in particular districts. Preferential voting can be more or less proportional than FPTP depending on how first choice and subsequent choice votes for each party are distributed district by district and thus offers no real advance over FPTP. 

JKR

One important difference between preferential voting and FPTP is that preferential voting would end the FPTP problem of vote splitting and eliminate the arguments for:

- strategic voting between the NDP, Liberals , and Greens
- electoral cooperation at the riding level between the NDP, Liberals, and Greens.
- a merger of the NDP, Liberals, and Greens

For these reasons, given the choice between FPTP and preferential voting, the NDP would likely choose preferential voting over FPTP. So if the Liberals attain a minority government, the NDP would likely be happy to go along with a move to preferential voting.

The NDP would clearly benefit from a switch to preferential voting because the NDP, Liberals , and Greens share a large portion of the same non- Conservative voting pool.

Proportional representation is in the interest of social democrats and all other groups who make up relatively smaller proportions of the voting public. If the NDP lead the next government, it will be interesting to see if the NDP supports social democracy and implements proportional representation.

If the NDP ends up leading the next government the Liberals would most likely go along with a switch to proportional representation as it would benefit them more than FPTP. It could be argued that the liberals would be greatly served by proportional representation, especially if their popular support remains under 30%.

addictedtomyipod

Wow. Justin Trudeau certainly hates the NDP.  I have twice read that he will never be able to work with this party due to the issue of his precious Clarity Act alone.

What a divisive guy.  Looks like he is only looking to fill his vote bank from the right.

Brachina

I love forward to the real nonfantasy Trudeau being revealed to the public.

adma

Brachina wrote:
I love forward to the real nonfantasy Trudeau being revealed to the public.

His name is Alexandre (more familiarly "Sacha")

Ippurigakko

Ignatieff's endorses list

- 9 liberal mps endorses justin trudeau
- 2 liberal mps endorses marc garneau

 

 

felixr

Ippurigakko wrote:

Ignatieff's endorses list

- 9 liberal mps endorses justin trudeau
- 2 liberal mps endorses marc garneau

MPs sure love a winner. I bet if there were poll numbers all of a sudden shifted to Garneau those numbers would reverse in a matter of 1-2 weeks.

adma

And if a couple of points shifted to the Liberals in the 2011 election, MHF--as incumbent, rather than as defeatee--would also have more endorsements, I suspect.

Socialist Feminist
Ippurigakko

So i predict LPC leadership race will same in Ontario Liberal Wynne vs Pupatello

Like

1st and 2nd round - Justin vs Garneau then 3rd round Garneau elected. lol

Pages