Will Libs dump Iggy before an Election?

I disagree. I think that if there were two parties in Canada - a centre-right-right party led by Harper against a centre-centre-right party led Ignatieff - the next election would be 100% "presidentialized" and Harper would win a majority.

Noah_Scape wrote:

I agree that Iffy doesn't appear to even want his job anymore as leader of the Libs. He might have thought that he appealed to voters just by being there, but now that the reality has sunk in [he is not popular] why would he want to stay? Only to salvage some sort of reputation of "not being a quitter", in his own mind.

If the Libs were to get to the next leadership convention before a national election is called, I predict that Iffy would be turfed. "Trudeau the Younger" might be their choice, but it is a little too soon for him perhaps.

The NDP is in a similar boat. Jack has also failed to ignite much of a popular fire, and he doesn't get much airtime [he doesn't seem to try to get much airtime?]. The fact that the NDP have risen in the polls has as much to do with Iffy as it does Jack.

If Canada had only two federal parties, a left and a right, the left would win the next election because only about 35% of Canadians are Right Wingers. I do enjoy the freedom of having as many political parties as we do now, but it has fractured the left vote.

What about the idea of electing independants? If there were 400 ridings that did that, it would be a revolution!! They would serve their constituents or be turfed - our voices would be heard. Could it work??

According to the latest EKOS poll, the NDP has not risen at all.

Ryan1812 wrote:

What is needed for the Liberals is to stop trying to take ground from Harper, start standing firm on some policies, which will upset some people, and start winning back the left.

"Standing firm" is never in the Liberal playbook. But as far as [trying] to win back the left- they are already spending most of their energy on that.

[a.] Its not a winning strategy in the first place

[b] its not working [but thay are already trying]

"Its not a winning strategy" requires some qualification that I've only recently fully realized.

It isn't a winning strategy. Because the winning strategy has to centre on fighting the Conservatives for swing voters. Without that, they are not in the game. And they haven't had a strategy for it, let alone any success, for years.

Dion also spent an inordinate amount of time posuring and positioning for the left side of the electorate. While ignoring doing anything about the main front for them. Which led me to beleive they were just in a hloding pattern- not even trying to win.

Now we see Iggy doing the same thing. Which puzzles me even more. Iggy is senseless, but Donolo- whats up?

Then we see Kinsella being the first major figure to oepnly talk about a majority not being possible, and we have to start thinking about cooperating with the NDP more and beating them less.

It really never occurred to me that the brain trust was still after that impossible outright majority. As Donolo said when he came in, part of the game plan is pushing the NDP back to 10%. I just took this as the usual bravado.

But no, if you think its majority or die, and its still attainable for you.... then an important part of your strategy does have to be beating down the NDP... way down.

Problem with that: important part of your strategy is still only part. But the Liberals cant even get it together to put anything on the ground for the main meal of fighting for the Cons/Lib swing voters.

Since all they've ever needed in the past in the contention with the NDP is to feignt and posture, they can get it together to put that much into play. Mind you, it keeps not working, but at least they can go through the motions. against the Conservatives, they don't even know how to go through the motions. "They aren't nice, you need us" is awefully lame.

At any rate, I suspect more of the bright lights are going to see that at a minimum, putting a lot of your eggs into wooing NDP swing voters [and Iggy touring arond to woo the lost rural vote] is a distraction. Yes, you need those constituencies to get a majority. But a majority is o super longshot. And by trying to cover all those bases you are just doing everything poorly- not to mention, figuring out how to compete with the Cons not at all.

Thats a recipe for disaster. Duh, maybe we should be looking at Plan B.

ottawaobserver wrote:

I think Donolo is trying to train Iggy ... I'm not sure there's any other rationale I can discern for the kind of schedule they have him on..

Thats another take. And would show them as merely lame, as opposed to outright stupid if the reason they are sending him around to court the boonies is because they are still delusional about investing scarce resources into setting up for a majority that does not exist.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Geez, Augustus, you're not invoking that "biased Liberal" pollster now are you?

I've never said EKOS was biased.

Don't ascribe the opinions of others to me.

KenS wrote:

Ryan1812 wrote:

What is needed for the Liberals is to stop trying to take ground from Harper, start standing firm on some policies, which will upset some people, and start winning back the left.

maybe we should be looking at Plan B.

I thought going After the swing votes was Plan A, and then trying for the lefties was B. Does that mean we are on C KenS? I've totally lost track.

Stockholm wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

I'm thinking that it might focus on announcing a bunch of new blood early in the summer, after the inevitable spate of retiring incumbents they're going to get once the June pension threshold passes.

 

I doubt if the June pension threshhold will mean much to the liberals - they hardly have anyone in their caucus who was first elected in 2004 since they lost so many seats that year.

Actually nearly 20% of their caucus (15/77) were first elected in 2004. Looking at the list I'm not sure how many of them would want to pension out (I had originally been thinking of Dryden and maybe Dosanjh), but I think some of the older ones who may want to go may at least wait to coordinate with the party about how and when that's done.

Here are the 15:

SIMMS, Scott Bonavista – Gander – Grand Falls – Windsor
SAVAGE, Mike Dartmouth – Cole Harbour
D'AMOURS, JC Madawaska – Restigouche
RODRIGUEZ, Pablo Honoré-Mercier
SCARPALEGGIA, Francis Lac-Saint-Louis
MCGUINTY, David Ottawa South
HOLLAND, Mark Ajax – Pickering
RATANSI, Yasmin Don Valley East
DRYDEN, Ken York Centre
SILVA, Mario Davenport
WRZESNEWSKYJ, Borys Etobicoke Centre
BAINS, Navdeep Mississauga – Brampton South
DHALLA, Ruby Brampton – Springdale
ROTA, Tony Nipissing – Timiskaming
DOSANJH, Ujjal Vancouver South

500_Apples wrote:

The liberals' lack of traction has nothing to do with Iggy.

During the Chretien-years, the MSM was pro-liberal. Now it's pro-tory. Any other liberal leader would fare the same.

It has quite a lot to do with Iggy actually.  A leader with the ability to actually connect and resonate with voters would be doing better in the polls.

Having a leader who is an effete, detached and incompetent fool has hurt them a great deal.  

Someone like Justin Trudeau would be doing a lot better in the polls - I've met him a couple times and whether one likes him or not, he has the ability to connect with people in the way Iggy does not.  He is always surrounded by mobs of fawning voters, particularly lovestruck women.  He has a natural political ability that is lacking in Iggy.

Even Bob Rae is more charismatic and articulate than Iggy.

KenS wrote:

Plan A for the Liberals is what they have always done: be all things to all people. That includes eyes straight on that huge block of swing voters in the centre, but at the same time posturing to the left to scoop those people who would otherwise vote for the NDP. You said that the Libs should make more of an effort to win over the left. I pointed out that in the first place thats not a winning strategy for the Liberals- that in fact they were already in practice ignoring the main part of a winning strategy [the centre] and spending what little energy they had on what is becoming a futile pursuit of the 'left end' of the winning strategy [which in terms of what we want is never more than posturing anyway]. Plan B for the Liberals would be to wake up to realizing there is no possible majority for them, give up on the distraction of battling with the NDP [that they aren't winning anyway], and focusing on what they can do: do the best they can in battling the Conservatives [at the ballot box, which is NOT the "fighting Harper" drama]. Then know that when the dust settles after the election, come to some kind of governing arrangement with the other opposition parties.

Very well summarized Ken. I'm in complete agreement actually. But the one thing Harper has over Iggy, and perhas you might agree with this or not, is fear. Not fear in the sense of "oh my that Harper is scary, better vote for him" kind of fear, but the fear he puts in the other parties that any election will reduce their share of votes. All parties, with the exception of the Cons, definatly look to lose seats in the next election, and the Liberals will look completely redundant (if looking more redundant is even possible) if they force an election and even lose so much as one seat. So every party, while making look as if they are working for the interest of Canadians, is working to fight the inevitable election which will see them lose seats.  I think that, true to form, people prefer the devil they know in Harper, to the devil they don't in Iggy. But I propose a different description: the devil they hate in Harper, to the devil they feel nothing for in Iggy. At least Harper brings about some form of emotion, even if that emotion is negative.

Thoughts?