Ontario Liberals Leadership Race Commencing June 8, 2018

Del Duca, if he survives, is certainly planning for it

Otherwise, I think ti will be a federal MP

I could see a Catherine McKenna rallying the party back.  Maybe someone that had Cabinet aspirations, that's found themselves on a "special project" like Adam Vaughan or Bill Blair?  Bob Bratina?  Those are all wild guess, so info or intel to back that up at all

Gerard Kennedy

[quote=Pogo]

Bob Rae?

[quote=NDPP]

Another Zionist. Israel would be pleased.

Mike Schreiner would add an eighth seat for official party status, and he already has experience leading a provincial political party. You heard it here 1st.

I like Mike. I’m glad he won instead of the Con in Guelph. IMO a three way split on the left is going to be a big and ongoing problem though. 

I think there is more accountability in a multi-party system. I support PR. I am delighted that the Greens after millions of votes in Ontario got a Member for all that. I suspect he will be a strong and vocal addition. I also suspect that while the Conservatives may not listen he will make both the NDP and the Liberals better on the environment as they listen to him and wish to not lose ground to him.

NorthReport wrote:

I could see the Greens moving ahead of the Liberals as the 3rd party in the next election.

I doubt that. The Liberals may have as many activists as the Greens have members.

NorthReport wrote:

Well I think the Greens to a certain extent are the future. Maybe the right-wing future, but part of the future for sure.

Where's PR when we need it!

I think they are half the equation. Logically they are not right wing and many are not. Sustainability has to be both environmental as well as social in order to be either. Sometimes the NDP needs a reminder on this as much as the Greens do.

ETA: The Greens have definitely made the NDP more forceful on the environment. This is part of the political dynamic where parties are affected not just by inside but by the parties they are afraid of losing support to. The Green party in Canada has been extremely effective: they have made the NDP more consistently pay attention to the environment which in turn has made the Liberals as well. This existence of the Green party has pushed policy on both NDP and Liberal governments and arguably at times even made conservatives moderate. This is what political fear does.

I do not vote Green but I am glad that they are there. I also know that they ahve some right wing support but it is a smear to suggest that they are particularly ideological. They are in many ways like the PQ was in Quebec - a party with an agenda that was both left and right with an internal division. The Greens at times draw centre and right becuase the NDP competes more strongly for the environmental vote. This is not about the leadership so much as competition. But in that, they are influencing the NDP.

This is not to say the NDP would not have an environmental conscience but that having one is a political calculation as well as a right thing to do. Political calculations have a lot of power when the rubber hits the road. You can say the Greens keep the NDP honest as they provide an implicit threat of loss of votes any time the NDP compromises on the environment.

Given the priority of the environment to the ultimate survival of humans, this is not at all a bad thing.

The fact that the Greens are often acceptable to the right and able to deal with the left also allows for potential cross ideology agreement on environmental policy. If we had PR this would be driving the country to more sensible solutions.

progressive17 wrote:

You don't go from one seat to 3rd party in one election. If Schreiner does a good job and keeps the profile high, they may elect 2 or 3 more next time. 

The silver lining on the cloud is that the NDP are the opposition rather than the Liberals. If OO staff can keep up good practises in research, they will be able to keep the PCs' feet to the fire, and hopefully not let them get away with as much as the Liberals might have.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So says the guy who posted his analysis of the 1993 election. Maybe you need to do some research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

Before 1

After 51 seats for third party.

Only one seat from being second party.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

You don't go from one seat to 3rd party in one election. If Schreiner does a good job and keeps the profile high, they may elect 2 or 3 more next time. 

The silver lining on the cloud is that the NDP are the opposition rather than the Liberals. If OO staff can keep up good practises in research, they will be able to keep the PCs' feet to the fire, and hopefully not let them get away with as much as the Liberals might have.

Slow down you post to fast

you got to make the logic last

Just kicking down the actual facts

looking for fun and feelin' groovy

Ba da da da da da da, feelin’ groovy

 

"The Queens Park Bridge Song"?

Debater wrote:

Sean --

The huge sweeps of the Reform and the BQ were unusual.

They happened because of the complete collapse of the Federal PC's, as well as the Federal NDP, in 1993.

Plus, Reform & the BQ were able to win large amounts of seats because of their regional strengths.

It's much harder for a party like the Greens to make major gains.  Look at how tough it has been for Elizabeth May to move beyond one seat for the Federal Greens.

It doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's a more challenging situation for the Greens.

I agree with some of this -- although not all. I think you have it backwards -- the rise of those parties was the reason for the collapse of the PCs not the other way around. It was the most right wing that went to Reform -- those who would ahve stayed and gone down with the PCs that left. This is the reason the PCs got only two seats. they lost their most captive audience and strongholds so there was nothing to shrink down to. In Quebec it was a different dynamic that was much bigger than the PCs except they had a lot of seats there.

The part I agree with is certainly the difficulty for a small party to grow but this is really a function of FPTP as it is also a heavy burden for a party to go above 3rd. It takes something unusual to happen.

Regional strengths as a requirement are in fact an illustration of the FPTP distortion. Just watch the next federal election and you might see the Greens benefit from that as their vote could concentrate due to opinions about the pipeline.

Generally for a party in third place or worse in a FPTP system to improve you need a major disaster to happen to all the parties ahead of them except one. They have to get to second as the alternative. In 1993 you had the first party and the third party implode and the fourth and fifth parties got to become second and third while the second party got to be first. It is rare but not impossible -- it is happens for a government to implode, having this happen when a main opposition party does at the same time sets this up.

My point was you cannot say this cannot happen when you just posted about when it did.

Olivia Chow as the next Liberal leader is my wild guess. 

SJ101, it was a joke. Why are we worrying about who will be the next Liberal leader when there are bigger issues at hand. 

Isn't the Alberta NDP centre-right?    Their budget was essentially PC.    

Debater wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I could see the Greens moving ahead of the Liberals as the 3rd party in the next election.

Yes.

I can see the Greens overtaking both the Liberals and the NDP in the next election.

And perhaps the Conservatives afer that.

I don’t know about that. But notwithstanding my slightly facetious suggestion of Mike Schreiner for Liberal leader I can see some logic in an alliance between the Greens and Liberals in the incoming legislature. (A “Red-Green Alliance?" Held together with duct tape? Rimshot. I’m here all week folks...). In addition to achieving official party status it would be a good way for both parties to avoid getting squeezed by the NDP on the left and Cons on the right. 

It was actually a mistake on the part of Ford's organizers.    It was agreed that Wynne would give her concession speech first.

robbie_dee wrote:

Apropos of my above comments:

Jackie Rosen, "Will there be a Green Party-Liberal merger," Newstalk 1010, Sunday, June 10, 2018

what a load of liberal garbage!?!?!

the federal liberals pulled the same crap in 2011. Talking about forming a merger with the NDP. This was and still is a ploy to bullshit gullible leftists into believing that the liberals are a socialist party. 

And once the liberals bounce back in the polls, the merger talk vanishes 

We can get TVO here in Montreal. Last night Steve Paikin interviewed Schreiner, the Ontario Green Party leader. He gave a flat NO to any talk of merger with the Ontario Liberal Party. Schreiner has spent hundreds of hours in the gallery at the provincial legislature as a spectator, and estimates he knocked on almost 100,000 doors on this campaign alone. Schreiner was able to get out voters who had never voted before in their lives. Joining with the OLP would be a complete betrayal of Guelph and the OGP. He said with one member, Greens can make a stink. Yes, the guy is quite head-strong, and probably a bit of an egotist. Which is probably even more reason he will have no truck nor trade with Liberals.

I remember when Dion was leader of the federal Oil Liberals, there was some talk of playing footsie with the Greens. 

Social justice means healing the sick, feeding the poor, and punishing the wicked who prey on the innocent, in my book. It does not mean dividing and conquering disadvantaged groups for political profit while letting economic injustice (the greatest part of social justice) hang out to dry. The OLP should hang its head in shame.