Jody Wilson-Raybould & Jane Philpott: Where do they go politically from here?

277 posts / 0 new
Last post
jerrym

Debater wrote:

I don't think they have a future in the Liberal Party after the damage they have inflicted on their own party.  It's not just Trudeau who dislikes them -- the majority of their own caucus mates wanted them ejected.

Their opportunism and constant need for atention has also turned off a lot of the progressive voters they will need.  They have ended up helping the Conservatives.

You sound bitter. I don't doubt that many current Liberal MPs would not want them back because they have cost the party its lead in the poll and more important, for many of them, a greater chance of being personally defeated. But if a new leader said he wanted to broaden the party tent and end the internal disharmony, there is the possibility that they might be an attempt to recruit them, over the objections of some Liberal MPs I am sure. After all, Trudeau was the one who said we need to end the disharmony of the Chretien and Martin factions. 

As to opportunism, in a world where a gaffe, let alone a scandal, can send you tumbling rapidly downwards  in the polls or an election or do the opposite for the other side, politicians, by the nature of the job, are opportunity seekers. It is hard to find those who will take a risky stand on an issue, even when one does it with some calculation of how to minimize the damage to themselves or increase the risk to their opponent. Very few politicians, or people for that matter, make decisions that 100% pure selflessness, ignoring risks and not attempting to minimize negative consequences, in order to advance the cause. For that reason, I do admire JWR and Philpott for going well beyond the conventional approach in taking a stand. 

robbie_dee

Mackenzie Gray (CTV National News Producer) recently tweeted that EMay offered to step down as Green leader after the 2019 election if either JWR or Philpott wanted to run for the post. They both declined.

voice of the damned

robbie_dee wrote:

Mackenzie Gray (CTV National News Producer) recently tweeted that EMay offered to step down as Green leader after the 2019 election if either JWR or Philpott wanted to run for the post. They both declined.

So, in other words, the only reason Elizabeth May chooses to stay on as Green leader is because two people who were still Liberals a few weeks ago don't want her job?

If that is the case, it's likely that May has been planning to quit anyway, and thought that going out while holding the door for JWR or Philpott would have been a good way to make her exit. So, my hunch would be she's probably gonna be gone after the election in any event.

Debater

Mackenzie Gray clarified the first tweet by saying that May said the leadership decision would be up to Green Party members and that she also offered Paul Manly the opportunity of taking over.

Debater

Former Liberals play the long game with Independent campaigns

Chantal Hébert

Mon., May 27, 2019

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/05/27/former-liberals-play-the-long-game-with-independent-campaigns.html

Misfit Misfit's picture

Debater,

You can say that you are voting Green but I for one see you as being a Liberal. And you talk through the lens of a Liberal hardliner.

it doesn’t matter how you vote but you don’t come across as a Green to me anyway. 

Debater

Like many Canadians, there's an overlap in my political orientation -- I have voted Liberal, NDP & Green in my life.

And I think you'll find that hundreds of thousands of other Canadian voters do the same.

jerrym

Misfit wrote:

Debater,

You can say that you are voting Green but I for one see you as being a Liberal. And you talk through the lens of a Liberal hardliner.

it doesn’t matter how you vote but you don’t come across as a Green to me anyway. 

Nor to me. It seems you are hoping to suppress the NDP vote in the hopes of winning more ridings for the Liberals by encouraging lefties to vote Green, but that is a dangerous game, because growth in the Green vote will also come from the Greens. Since the Greens have so far to grow in most ridings, this could end up costing both the Liberals and NDP seat losses to the Conservatives more than any gains for the Greens, possibly helping them gain power. You hardly ever comment on issues, including green issues, just on the rise and fall of parties that always seems to end up favouring the Liberals. 

Debater

You're reading too much into it, as usual.  Sometiems a vote for the Greens is just a vote for the Greens. There's no plot behind it, and I'm not directly involved in politics anymore.

As for the NDP, the Liberals don't have to be very worried about a party that is down in support and is at risk of losing at least 12 of its 15 Quebec seats.  (See Fournier's polling analysis posted on the other thread).

Debater

Philpott and JWR: How the mighty have not yet fallen

The two MPs are attempting to pull off the Jerry Maguire of Canadian politics by running as independents. The odds are long.

by Paul Wells

May 27, 2019

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/philpott-and-jwr-how-the-mighty-have-not-yet-fallen/

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

robbie_dee wrote:

Well, I could see Wilson-Raybould at least winning her seat as an independent. Philpott I don't know, but I'd assume running as an independent is better than any of her alternatives. I'd guess the strategy here for both of them is to try to hold their seats, and then try to get back into the Liberal caucus if Trudeau loses.

JWR will not win if she tries to sit on the fence over Trans Mountain and the tank farm beside SFU. Given the Liberal position during the last election was that the whole NEB process was flawed and it would be fixed. On her watch the NEB was "reformed" and we still are getting a pipeline filled with a toxic brew being built through Canada's third largest metropolitan area. The NDP and Conservatives were virtually tied for second so it will be interesting to see which way the swing is going to go.

Seems to me if she equivocates she will lose all of the new Liberal voters that were attracted to the shiny new "Trudeau" pony. Also no NDP supporters from last time will be wanting anything less than a complete attack on the pipeline. As well the traditional Liberal voters in this higher income area might not like the fact that she has attacked their party or like her enough to switch from their traditional Liberal vote.

In 2015 the Libs got 44%, the NDP 27%, the Cons 26% and the Greens 3%

In 2011 the reshuffled numbers from the old ridings her new riding was formed from show that her seat is most likely going to go to the Conservatives and possibly the NDP.

Cons. got 35%, the Libs 30%, the NDP 24% and the Greens 9% Those numbers imply that the Liberal lies about the environment cost the Greens but didn't hurt the NDP. If the NDP becomes the Green Shift champion it could grab enough of JWR's vote from last time to eke out a win against the Conservatives.

Debater

Wilson-Raybould and Philpott begin their journey to obscurity

 Andrew Cohen

May 28, 2019

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/cohen/wcm/bef6ecb1-b137-4d2b-ac12-4b083eb6ba3f

jerrym

kropotkin1951 wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

Well, I could see Wilson-Raybould at least winning her seat as an independent. 

JWR will not win if she tries to sit on the fence over Trans Mountain and the tank farm beside SFU. Given the Liberal position during the last election was that the whole NEB process was flawed and it would be fixed. On her watch the NEB was "reformed" and we still are getting a pipeline filled with a toxic brew being built through Canada's third largest metropolitan area. The NDP and Conservatives were virtually tied for second so it will be interesting to see which way the swing is going to go.

Seems to me if she equivocates she will lose all of the new Liberal voters that were attracted to the shiny new "Trudeau" pony. Also no NDP supporters from last time will be wanting anything less than a complete attack on the pipeline. As well the traditional Liberal voters in this higher income area might not like the fact that she has attacked their party or like her enough to switch from their traditional Liberal vote.

In 2015 the Libs got 44%, the NDP 27%, the Cons 26% and the Greens 3%. ...

 If the NDP becomes the Green Shift champion it could grab enough of JWR's vote from last time to eke out a win against the Conservatives.

I agree with kropotkin on this. With JWR and a Liberal running as well as candidates from the other three parties, the winning percentage is virtually guaranteed to be reduced. JWR could win if she takes a strong environmental stance on BC issues, but if she does not it will likely be a fight between the NDP and the Cons. 

robbie_dee
Pondering

I didn't think they would run independently because they would be backbenchers. Happy to be wrong after reading that article. It would be wonderful if all our MPs were indenpendent. It is my ideal scenario. I disagree that they are walking into obscurity. They are both high profile and respected. If they have something to say the press will report it. They are easily as high profile as May and I would argue are more accomplished. 

They have reputations of integrity and honor. They are each personally accomplished outside of politics. They are genuinely likeable. Voters crave politicians they can have genuine respect for. 

They should start a party of Independents. They could band together logistically around the ideal of being able to represent their consituents without the interference of a party. It would have no ideology.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They should start a party of Independents. They could band together logistically around the ideal of being able to represent their consituents without the interference of a party. It would have no ideology.

Until the first Conservative gets turfed from caucus over a bozo eruption about refugees getting gay abortions and sits as an independent.  Then it would get an ideology.

Misfit Misfit's picture

If they have no ideology then they don’t stand for anything. Sounds silly.

And Elizabeth May is a very accomplisghed lawyer. 

JKR

I thought the Liberal Party already stood for nothing except getting elected.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Most swing voters aren't that aware. I think her reputation is fully intact with the public. She would be a feather in the cap of the Greens or NDP. It just occured to me she would make a great senator. 

The only way she could get appointed senator would be to join the Cons.  No way in hell would Justin or anybody who succeeded him as LPC leader ever give her the ultimate patronage plumb.

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

If they have no ideology then they don’t stand for anything. Sounds silly.

And Elizabeth May is a very accomplisghed lawyer. 

Didn't know that about May. I have only ever known her as the Green Party leader. 

It isn't necessary to have an ideology to make practical governing decisions. It is possible to decide pharmacare is a good option because it costs less. No ideology necessary. I think most Canadians would be relieved to have a government that makes all decisions based on logic and practicality rather than on ideology. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Misfit wrote:

If they have no ideology then they don’t stand for anything. Sounds silly.

And Elizabeth May is a very accomplisghed lawyer. 

Didn't know that about May. I have only ever known her as the Green Party leader. 

It isn't necessary to have an ideology to make practical governing decisions. It is possible to decide pharmacare is a good option because it costs less. No ideology necessary. I think most Canadians would be relieved to have a government that makes all decisions based on logic and practicality rather than on ideology. 


It looks as though you equate ideology with rigidity and dogma.  Ideology is simply another word for core values.  And you can't make all decisions on "logic and practicality"-empathy needs to come into it, too, as does a recognition that everyone deserves to be treated with a baseline level of respect and dignity, that everyone's intrinsic worth needs to be recognized.  Leave it just to "logic and practicality" and at some point somebody will decide that the practical, logical decision is to exterminate everyone who is not part of the dominant race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and immigration status.

It can't be logic and practicality MINUS empathy and decency.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It isn't necessary to have an ideology to make practical governing decisions. It is possible to decide pharmacare is a good option because it costs less. No ideology necessary.

Pharmacare could exploit the government's buying power, yes, but Pharmacare isn't just about buying in bulk, it's also about nationalizing prescription coverage.  I'm not arguing against it at all, but it's not as though there isn't a giant value judgement in there -- that everyone should pay for my meds because the cost to everyone would be less than the cost to me.  It's not the same simple economics as buying milk for $2/l instead of $3/l.

nicky

I thought May was a non-practicin* lawyer.

i am unaware of anything she has done of significance in the legal field.

Why do you call her “accomplished”, Misfit?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It isn't necessary to have an ideology to make practical governing decisions. It is possible to decide pharmacare is a good option because it costs less. No ideology necessary.

Pharmacare could exploit the government's buying power, yes, but Pharmacare isn't just about buying in bulk, it's also about nationalizing prescription coverage.  I'm not arguing against it at all, but it's not as though there isn't a giant value judgement in there -- that everyone should pay for my meds because the cost to everyone would be less than the cost to me.  It's not the same simple economics as buying milk for $2/l instead of $3/l.

Lack of ideology doesn't mean lack of values.

The general public isn't putting that much thought into pharmacare. Medicare=good therefore pharmacare would also be good. If you want to go farther Pharmacare is simply a collective insurance that lowers the cost of drugs. 

Pharmacare has broad public support and reduces inequality, one of the main challenges of our time. Even the IMF recognizes that inequality is bad for the economy. Poverty is not good for business. The key to a robust economy is keeping money in circulation. Children are the greatest resource or future burden a country has. Education in large part determines the future of the country as a whole and payback is fairly short term. Cities with clean air, great transportation, and educated citizens attract tech companies and head offices.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Nicky,

Well, it was Pondering who stated, “They are easily as high profile as May and I would argue are more accomplished.”

So I want to say that Elizabeth May was accepted into law school as a mature student. She practiced law at a law firm. She acted in a legal capacity for the federal government, and has been a high profile leader of a political party in Canada for many years. She also obtained a theology degree while working full time and I consider her entire career to be quite eemarkable, high profile, and accomplished.

She is not a Clayton Ruby or an Eddy Greenspan, but she had worked very hard and has used her law defeee remarkably well and has contributed to society tremendously with her degree. I consider her to be an accomplished lawyer but you are welcome to disagree. 

 

Mighty Middle

Poll in Jane Philpott riding

Liberals (35%) Conservatives (30%) Jane Philpott (19%) Green (4%) NDP (2%)

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jane-philpott-faces-long-odds-of...

Pages