Liberal leadership race

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh
Liberal leadership race
TheArchitect

Deborah Coyne's strategy so far is interesting.  She's unlikely to have a great deal of insider support, so she seems to have decided to run as a policy-oriented underdog "ideas" candidate.  Her website already has, I think, more on policy than any of the NDP leadership candidates' sites had—even at the end of the NDP campaign.

A lot of the content on the website seems somewhat left-of-centre.  At times, she almost sounds like a New Democrat:

Deborah Coyne wrote:

From the Occupy movement to the streets of Quebec, one thing is clear: Canadian citizens are disengaged not from society or political action, but from the usual political institutions that produce neither inspiring leadership nor effective governance. The message to political parties is that they must listen and respond to all the people, not simply the select few in a closed party hierarchy, and not just at election time.

I see growing public unease with the degree of inequality within our society...Many Aboriginal citizens live in shameful conditions while governments argue about who’s at fault.

When one looks deeper, though, one finds quite a bit of right-of-centre Liberal content including opposition to supply management, and enthusiasm for a more subservient Canada under NAFTA.

socialdemocrati...

The Liberal party has always been excited about the Occupy movement from what I could tell, or at least silent on it. They see it as a potential new base of voters somewhere in the future, and an ally in opposition to Harper.

That doesn't mean that they're actually going to do anything progressive. I've seen same said Liberals oppose any tax increases, and argue that it would be right to cut social security if only we could find the "courage".

Force the Liberal party to take a stand. See what you get.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

TheArchitect wrote:

When one looks deeper, though, one finds quite a bit of right-of-centre Liberal content including opposition to supply management, and enthusiasm for a more subservient Canada under NAFTA.

Someone on P&P said dismantling supply management is right up there with dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board.

Brachina

Its easy to have a ton of policies when you never had any plans to keep your word, Liberals are good at offering up policies, keeping thier word is hard.

Stockholm

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The Liberal party has always been excited about the Occupy movement from what I could tell, or at least silent on it.

Except that Bob Rae made a dismissive comment lamenting polarization in politics saying that the Conservatives represent the Tea Party while the NDP represents the Occupy movement...so according to him the liberals regard the Occupy movement as being "just as bad" as the Tea party.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Stockholm wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The Liberal party has always been excited about the Occupy movement from what I could tell, or at least silent on it.

Except that Bob Rae made a dismissive comment lamenting polarization in politics saying that the Conservatives represent the Tea Party while the NDP represents the Occupy movement...so according to him the liberals regard the Occupy movement as being "just as bad" as the Tea party.

Boy he can be a smug bastard sometimes hey?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Martha Hall Findlay - a potential Liberal leadership candidate - is on P&P weekly, and she sounds really, really conservative now - her argument against keeping 'supply management' was one of the most right-wing arguments I've heard in weeks. Can't remember exactly what the substance of her argument was, but I recall when I heard it being quite taken aback. The panel that followed (including Ian Capstick)  shot her ideas down.

 ETA:

Martha Hall Findlay: Politicians need courage to dismantle supply management  Surprised

I like this comment following the article:

"Prices would initially come down, then rise up again, that's how the market has worked for decades. Why the hell does it take 'courage' to side with the top money people, that's ridiculous. You don't dismantle and give away control over our food supply while in the midst of climate change in the name of free trade. A review is in order to see if there is something salvageable. After a dismantling who would our farmers actually be working for?"

ETA:

NDP: Supply management is fair to farmers, good for economy

excerpt:
 
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."

(cross-posted to the TPP thread)

socialdemocrati...

Stockholm wrote:
Except that Bob Rae made a dismissive comment lamenting polarization in politics saying that the Conservatives represent the Tea Party while the NDP represents the Occupy movement...so according to him the liberals regard the Occupy movement as being "just as bad" as the Tea party.

And there's the other side of it.

Bob Rae is a great example of how Liberals react to actual change. When Rae first saw the Occupy ovement, he said it was a "powerful reflection of what happens when trust breaks down", and "that the government is not in their corner". It's the kind of statement that's meant to capitalize on the energy of the movement, without making any promises or proposals to change anything once in power. The Liberal party recognizes that the system is broken, but they refuse to propose fixes, because that would require them to recognize their role in breaking it.

And, of course, that type of Liberal sympathy leaves room to back off from their support, if it becomes convenient to triangulate.

I frequently see Liberals say "we are the moderate way between the NDP on the left and the Conservatives on the right". But when I ask them what that means in terms of policy, you either find someone who accidentally agrees with the NDP (e.g.: "sustainable development of the oil sands, not stopping it"), or someone who accidentally supports the Conservatives (e.g.: "we can't afford social security. And no, we can't raise taxes.")

There is no more "middle way" on this country's challenges.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

It's easy to have a tonne of policy and make huge promises when you have no hope of ever getting elected.

 

Pardon me, I just always wanted to say that to the Liberals. Tongue out

Unionist

Lou Arab wrote:

It's easy to have a tonne of policy and make huge promises when you have no hope of ever getting elected.

 

Pardon me, I just always wanted to say that to the Liberals. Tongue out

Made me laugh out loud! Thanks, Lou. But let's not make the same mistake they did (counting out the third party).

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Lou Arab wrote:

It's easy to have a tonne of policy and make huge promises when you have no hope of ever getting elected.

Pardon me, I just always wanted to say that to the Liberals. Tongue out

Ippurigakko

???? Why ppl put Elizabeth May on Liberal leadership in wikipedia? it say she on Prospective....

SHE IS GREEN LEADER NOT LIBERAL!

Doug

Wishful thinking on someone's part.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Coyne was discussed on P&P tonight, and, IIRC, everyone was pretty dismissive of her. I very much doubt there's anyone that can salvage that wreck of a Liberal party.

mark_alfred

Coyne's a non-entity.  Most Liberals are pinning their hopes on Trudeau running.

Stockholm

Latest lovely quote by Justin Trudeau:

"Addressing the current political situation in Canada, Trudeau said the NDP represents the flip side of the Conservatives, ideologically based, but heading toward the center and led by a “grumpy old man.”He added the attitude and perspective of NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair is much the same as Harper’s"

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Latest lovely quote by Justin Trudeau:

"Addressing the current political situation in Canada, Trudeau said the NDP represents the flip side of the Conservatives, ideologically based, but heading toward the center and led by a “grumpy old man.”He added the attitude and perspective of NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair is much the same as Harper’s"

Shorter meaning, "vote for me I'm  young and free"!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Latest lovely quote by Justin Trudeau:

"Addressing the current political situation in Canada, Trudeau said the NDP represents the flip side of the Conservatives, ideologically based, but heading toward the center and led by a “grumpy old man.”He added the attitude and perspective of NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair is much the same as Harper’s"

Do you have the link to this quote?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture
TheArchitect

Ippurigakko wrote:

???? Why ppl put Elizabeth May on Liberal leadership in wikipedia? it say she on Prospective....

SHE IS GREEN LEADER NOT LIBERAL!

There has long been a weird media interest in the idea that the leader of a smaller party should resign to run for Liberal leader.  I remember seeing a poll a few years ago saying that the most popular candidate for Liberal leader would be Jack Layton.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thanks, Arthur.

Ippurigakko

https://www.facebook.com/questions/10151013949614595/?qa_ref=qts

NONE 99 (40.8%)
Justin Trudeau 85 (34.4%)
Bob Rae 25 (10.1%)
Marc Garneau 17 (6.9%)
Gerard Kennedy 12 (4.9%)
Dominic LeBlanc 4 (1.6%)
David McGuinty 3 (1.2%)
Martha Hall Findlay 1 (0.4%)
Martin Cauchon 1 (0.4%)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Very happy to see Hall-Findlay at the bottom of that list - I think she's the most right-wing in the list. Can't imagine who would be idiotic enough to vote for her in a general election if, miraculously,  she becomes Dear Leader.

janfromthebruce

Well BB, at least she is "upfront" in not being a progressive, left leaning Liberal. The others fake left but let the right dominate in the party and go on their merry way of being token "progressives".

Brachina

Agreed, Martha represents the true face of the Liberal party, socially moderate, fiscal right.

Plus if Martha leads the Libs she'd divide the right instead of left, opening up the way for majority government for the NDP.

I'm thinking of voting for Martha and I encourage all over dippers to do so as well.

MegB

Stockholm wrote:

I guess some Liberals figure that if they can't have Trudeau's son, they can settle for supporting his mistress.

That's sexist and just plain offensive.  I suggest you apologize for the remark.

Stockholm

I guess some Liberals figure that if they can't have Trudeau's son, they can settle for supporting the mother of Trudeau's daughter. I wonder if anyone else from Trudeau's retinue will run? Maybe Margaret can throw her hat in the ring too?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Years ago when she first ran for the leadership, I thought Hall-Findlay was somewhere to the left of Dion. How wrong I was! Frown

Stockholm

I apologize for that reference. Deborah Coyne is very much her own person.

Just think if she became Liberal leader their "Quebec strategy" would consist of having a leader whose biggest claim to fame (apart from having a child with PET) was having been constitutional advisor to Clyde Wells when he singlehandedly killed the Meech Lake Accord and is widely viewed in Quebec as a francophobic bigot.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Brachina wrote:
Agreed, Martha represents the true face of the Liberal party, socially moderate, fiscal right. Plus if Martha leads the Libs she'd divide the right instead of left, opening up the way for majority government for the NDP. I'm thinking of voting for Martha and I encourage all over dippers to do so as well.

First, if you want an NDP government, vote for your NDP candidate.

Second, it's far from clear who will win the Liberal leadership.

Third, if Hall-Findlay wins the leadership, progressive Liberals (if there are any...) will be so thoroughly turned off by the prospect of her leadership that they'll go  NDP instead.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm wrote:

 Clyde Wells when he singlehandedly killed the Meech Lake Accord.

Picture of Clyde Wells opposing Meech Lake because he was a francophobe.

MegB

Stockholm wrote:

I apologize for that reference. Deborah Coyne is very much her own person.

Thank you.

Brachina

Boom Boom wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Agreed, Martha represents the true face of the Liberal party, socially moderate, fiscal right. Plus if Martha leads the Libs she'd divide the right instead of left, opening up the way for majority government for the NDP. I'm thinking of voting for Martha and I encourage all over dippers to do so as well.

First, if you want an NDP government, vote for your NDP candidate.

Second, it's far from clear who will win the Liberal leadership.

Third, if Hall-Findlay wins the leadership, progressive Liberals (if there are any...) will be so thoroughly turned off by the prospect of her leadership that they'll go  NDP instead.

I plan on voting NDP in the next election, I just plan to vote to for Martha in the liberal leadership race, because those idiots made it,easy to screw with them. It'll be my revenge for the disgraceful 90's.

Not that it will matter, the conbots will all vote for Justin Trudeau and the lead now types will vote for the merger candiate, its not even a contest for anyone else.

The Tories will see to it Trudeau wins, because of this nobody else except maybe a merger candiate will have a chance and even that is doubtful. I just don't know how the Liberals don't think the Tories will decide this race for them the minute they came up with it. We're talking about the party of Robocalls, the party that messed with leadership fincancing rules during the last liberal leadership race, they will not hesitate to pick the liberal leader for the grits.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Oh - I had forgotten that the Liberals have an open voting process for their leadership! In that case, every NDP member should try and skew the Liberal leadership vote. Laughing

Ippurigakko

in 2009 they had only 2,000 voter turnout on liberal leadership for iggy lol compare to last march over 60,000.

i think there will be 3,000 turnout next year, you guys should vote anyone but trudeau for stop him lol

socialdemocrati...

Ippurigakko wrote:

in 2009 they had only 2,000 voter turnout on liberal leadership for iggy lol compare to last march over 60,000.

i think there will be 3,000 turnout next year, you guys should vote anyone but trudeau for stop him lol

In the Liberal Party's defense... 2009 was an uncontested nomination. 2006 is a better comparison. They had about 6000 delegates there. And that was before they really knew what to do with the Internet.

Then again, the NDP when they picked Layton was a contest with around 60,000 delegates too.

I think that may actually be the source of the problem for the Liberals. The lack of turnout for their intra-party decisions isn't a symptom. They did that by design. They created a party run by a small cabal of experts, who thought they knew better than the voters. It even worked for a while.

Meanwhile, the CPC/Reform and NDP have always been grassroots parties, for better or for worse. I think people are increasingly mistrustful of politicians, so the idea of electing someone to do all the thinking and decision-making for you is behind the times. We want a more participatory system, which starts with representatives who maintain close ties with the grassroots.

Brachina

Oh I have no doubt the Liberals will do better this time, thier number of voters will go up. Sadly it will be mostly Tories messing with them and maybe some New Democrats. Oh and some Liberals may get around to voting too, although I don't know why they'd bother, the Tories will be solidly behind Justin.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

My memory isn't good tonight, so I'll just ask: wasn't there a poll recently that said Liberal fortunes would go up under a Trudeau leadership?

TheArchitect

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Ippurigakko wrote:

in 2009 they had only 2,000 voter turnout on liberal leadership for iggy lol compare to last march over 60,000.

i think there will be 3,000 turnout next year, you guys should vote anyone but trudeau for stop him lol

In the Liberal Party's defense... 2009 was an uncontested nomination. 2006 is a better comparison. They had about 6000 delegates there. And that was before they really knew what to do with the Internet.

Then again, the NDP when they picked Layton was a contest with around 60,000 delegates too.

The reason that the vote counts for leadership races are so much lower for the Liberals is that the Liberals still were using a delegated convention system, while the NDP was using one-member-one vote.  An OMOV election will have a much larger number of voters than a delegated convention.

The 1995 NDP leadership contest—the most recent NDP leadership race to use a delegated system—had only 1,735 ballots cast.

Doug

Boom Boom wrote:

Oh - I had forgotten that the Liberals have an open voting process for their leadership! In that case, every NDP member should try and skew the Liberal leadership vote. Laughing

 

I thought about that but decided it wasn't worth a lifetime of Liberal fundraising mail.

janfromthebruce

ditto what Doug said.

love is free love is free's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Agreed, Martha represents the true face of the Liberal party, socially moderate, fiscal right. Plus if Martha leads the Libs she'd divide the right instead of left, opening up the way for majority government for the NDP. I'm thinking of voting for Martha and I encourage all over dippers to do so as well.

First, if you want an NDP government, vote for your NDP candidate.

Second, it's far from clear who will win the Liberal leadership.

Third, if Hall-Findlay wins the leadership, progressive Liberals (if there are any...) will be so thoroughly turned off by the prospect of her leadership that they'll go  NDP instead.

i'm 100% certain to vote in the liberal leadership election, and i'll be voting for the weakest candidate i can identify.  hopefully thousands of others do the same and we set the liberals up with a kooky, unilingual anglophone, right-wing incompetent.  if we can score 70+ seats in quebec, we'll need only another 90 or so in the rest of canada (with the new parliament), which is totally doable with the complete liberal collapse that such a quebec sweep would indicate.

JeffWells

FWIW, I wouldn't have wanted Liberals to try "fixing" our leadership race, so I'm staying out of theirs.

Brachina

JeffWells wrote:

FWIW, I wouldn't have wanted Liberals to try "fixing" our leadership race, so I'm staying out of theirs.

Were not fixing thier race, fixing implies cheating or unfair practices, this is well with in thier rules, we'd count as "supporters". Besides that Tories will do the same, the minute the Liberals opened up the race to "supporters" it stopped being about the liberals. The race is just another battle ground between the Tories and New Democracts.

The liberals gave us a vote, were just exercising our vote, not hacking computer systems, buying fake memberships, or intimadating voters, or doing misleading robocalls.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

drift: I don't see the Pat Martin / Racknine apology at NDP.ca today! Smile

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Brachina wrote:

Were not fixing thier race, fixing implies cheating or unfair practices, this is well with in thier rules, we'd count as "supporters". Besides that Tories will do the same, the minute the Liberals opened up the race to "supporters" it stopped being about the liberals. The race is just another battle ground between the Tories and New Democracts. The liberals gave us a vote, were just exercising our vote, not hacking computer systems, buying fake memberships, or intimadating voters, or doing misleading robocalls.

This is not really accurate. The page where you sign up as a Liberal supporter is here. As you can see, it requires that you check a box which promises this:

LPC wrote:

I support the Liberal Party of Canada, and am not a member of another federal political party in Canada.

I do not support the Liberal Party of Canada, and I am a member of the federal NDP. I would be making 2 false statements if I tried to sign up as a supporter. While this is not likely criminal, to me it is clearly unethical, and something to be avoided. You are no doubt correct that the corrupt and unethical CPC will most likely not care, but is that a reason for us to be as unethical as they are?

janfromthebruce

And furthermore, the libs will brag about all these "new supporters" who support the Libs and are not members of other parties, and thus it could backfire because most Canadians are not members of any party and thus they may be "led to believe" that the libs are popular again, and vote for them "strategically".

Brachina

Fine, I won't do it, but sometimes taking the high road sucks ;p

janfromthebruce

I knew you would get Brachina! Kiss

Doug

The fallout of the last Liberal race isn't finished - Court rejects indebted Liberal leadership candidates' pleas for extension

 

 

Pages

Topic locked