Liberal leadership race

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

Yes Doug, I saw that too. It's true in the article that the "rules" changed after the fact but fact is that these 3 have had lots of opportunity to fundraise. Their problem, it appears, is that they have  a few "donors" with big bucks but not many "donors" to give a thousand.

Seems to me, especially for Martha, is that she stupidly suggested she's drawing in lots of dough because she is willing to get rid of supple management. No mistaking her "conservative" credentials here and by extension the liberal corporate class bias.

So how can any Liberal keep saying they are "progressive" - I guess they just don't get progressive and hope Canadians also don't dig below the surface.

Brachina

Darksider have more fun, just saying :p

I think entering the race my end up as the only way to pay back the debt for Martha.

And changing the rules in the middle of the race was wrong, I hate Libs as much or more then anyone else, but changing the rules mid race is wrong and I'd allow the remaining Liberal candiates to funraise based on the previous rules that were in place at the beginning if I was the judge. Anything else is allowing Tories to cheat.

adma

Imagine if it boiled down to Justin Trudeau vs Amanda Lang--both early 40s, both photogenic, both of illustrious Liberal lineage, and both reflective of the party's present-day vacuity...

Ippurigakko

...please dont remind us if trudeau join the liberal leadership because he'd win in next election just like Mexico Enrique PRI!!!!

canadian cant vote who is handsome looks good!

Debater

Boom Boom wrote:

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.

The NDP was down to 9 seats and no official party status in 1993 and was able to re-build.

The Liberals have several times that level of support, so why shouldn't they be able to?

And there will be PLENTY of leadership candidates running - at least half a dozen, and you'll see a couple names who aren't even being discussed here yet.

Even when the NDP was in the single digits it had people running for its leadership, it will be no different in this case.

Debater

Brachina wrote:
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.

So why are some of you on this board sounding just as despicable as the Conservatives?  Some of you here are bragging that you are going to deliberately try to sabotage the next Liberal leadership by voting for the weakest candidate etc.  Many of you sound very hateful, and as I've said before, I don't understand why you hate the Liberals so much.  The Liberals have done a lot of good things for this country and are better than the Conservatives.  Sure they are corrupt in some ways, as all political parties are.

If this is who composes the new NDP, does it not say something about your ethical code as well?  Do you not relinquish your right to claim the moral high ground over the Liberals and Conservatives when you do that?

Ippurigakko

thats because we want change. we tired of cons and liberal control. they r same old same old. Look at different parties, they need seat and new govt! COn and LIB always win in ALL years! nothing change! just like Democrat vs Republican. pretty boring.

 

Debater

Understandable.

But can the members in the NDP transcend the frailties, temptations and imperfections of the human condition and rise above all corruption, malice and lust for power?

All political parties become victim to it over time, and if the NDP tries to set itself on a different plane of existence, it could come crashing down just like the Conservatives and Liberals.

(A bit of a melodramatic & Shakespearean philosophical rant on my part, I realize, but nevertheless I hope you see my point!)

clambake

Who are you liking, Debater?

Brachina

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:
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.

So why are some of you on this board sounding just as despicable as the Conservatives?  Some of you here are bragging that you are going to deliberately try to sabotage the next Liberal leadership by voting for the weakest candidate etc.  Many of you sound very hateful, and as I've said before, I don't understand why you hate the Liberals so much.  The Liberals have done a lot of good things for this country and are better than the Conservatives.  Sure they are corrupt in some ways, as all political parties are.

If this is who composes the new NDP, does it not say something about your ethical code as well?  Do you not relinquish your right to claim the moral high ground over the Liberals and Conservatives when you do that?

I already said I won't.

As for why I hate liberal party, that's a long,story. Maybe I tell you why later, I'm going to a party right now.

I will leave you with this for now. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/search/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpos...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well done Brachina!

mark_alfred

From the various media reports on Trudeau at the Calgary Stampede, I feel it's a safe bet that he is going to enter the race.  There was no mention of any other Liberal candidates being there, including Coyne who, I believe, is the only candidate who's officially in the race now (or who has officially declared that she will be).

Regardless, I don't think it really matters.  The Libs have a bit of sway still in Ontario, but generally in Canada they're seen as a spent force.

David Young

Mulcair still dressed better than Trudeau!!!

 

Sean in Ottawa

As attractive as it might be to vote in a leadership race for an opposing party to promote the worst candidate that's immoral. It is lying because you have to claim to be a supporter.

Voting for Liberal leader will actually help them as it will be promoted as support-- they will point to the number of electors so adding to that total is not a good thing if you are not a Liberal supporter.

Liberals have been adept at choosing the weakest candidate themselves for the last two outings-- why not trust them to screw themselves up on their own?

It is possible that the Liberals are not too much of a threat anyway-- if they grow smaller that could advantage the Cons as much as the NDP at this point. I'm not sure that there is a benefit in going after them now. If they manage to break the 20% range in the polls then they might deserve some attention but I'm ok to leave them alone as long as they poll in the teens as they have this last year.

Malcontent

Quote:
But can the members in the NDP transcend the frailties, temptations and imperfections of the human condition and rise above all corruption, malice and lust for power?

 

Sorry that Canada no longer exists. Playing nice will not get rid of Harper. It sucks Harper has caused politics to be so degenerated with his dirty politics and US Style attacking.  it is sad others have to fight back and stoop so low, since unfortunately taking the higher road no longer works in the New Canada (Post Jan 2006).

It is all that people seem to understand anymore. People haveextremly short attention spans.  Just look at how well  the attack ads for example worked for Harper, especially against the Liberals who seemed to just take it and play the high ground.

 

mark_alfred

[later edit] Didn't realize this had previously been posted in the concurrent forum "How the Liberals might save Canada, along with their own sorry butts". Sorry for the needless repeat.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/20/lawrence-martin-trudeaus-team-takes-shape/

I tell you he is running and will be leader. I can't help but feel this is bad news for the NDP. I am simply not convinced that the media won't help recreate Trudeaumania again.

 This sucks. If anyone can prove I am wrong, I'd welcome it, but this has me really, really worried. This is not good news.

 

 

Brachina

I understand your feelings, but I honestly believe Mulcair will eat Justin alive, assuming,Justin doesn't implode instead.

Look at how pathetic and out of touch the Liberals attacks against Mulcair have been from Justin. Grumpy Old Man, the flip side of the Harper coin, just ridiculas. To try and forge a position of thier own on the Oilsands they had to completely misrepersent the NDP position because thier is no room left for them in the debate on this and countless other issues.

Mulcair just has to keep marganalizing the Liberals.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

In my opinion, Arthur, Justin Trudeau is a celebrity, but Mulcair is the most talented Canadian politician of my lifetime (I'm 65). I would estimate his ability at about the level of Bill Clinton, but without the "bimbo eruptions" (quote from James Carville). I see almost no chance of either Trudeau or any other potential Liberal leader being more effective than Mulcair, regardless of what the media does.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, I really appreciate everyone's reply.

My fear is that the MSM will help the LPC sell this as JT picking up the mantel of his father to continue the movment toward "the great society", you know, the one that never did happen, and he never intended to attain. In actauality the Manley/Martin wing will be pulling the stings and the NDP will get co-opted on the left as everyone votes LPC to "save Canada". You know, JT knows, follow him. The LPC is the only party that can save Canada, JT is the only one who can stop Harper, blah, blah, blah.

I mean we are so close to electing a real left wing government. I would hate to see JT and his ilk co opt it again, smug in their assurance that Canadians will fall for all of the tired old saws. But worse yet, my bigger fear is that JT and the LPC will sell more privitization as good for Canadians and fiscally sound, after all the LPC balanced the budget the last time so they must know what they are talking about. And so the LPC will do even more damage this time around, as the "progressive LPC" as if that actually even exists, is pushed off to the corner in the name of fiscal soundness.

It'll be over before people know it and everyone will ask what happened? I know this sounds extreme, but there is no question that JT has strong Corporatist tendancies, and giving him the "keys to the car" would be a real disaster.

What do the rest of you think? I mean, I can really see this happening. I don't trust the LPC, and I certainly don't trust JT. He is starting to believe his own propaganda, and I think he is finding the urge to satisfy his ego is becoming just to large to ignore. He probably is beginning to think it is up to him to save Canada, the question is, which one is it going to be?

love is free love is free's picture

yeah, put me in the "haha, trudeau" camp.  the liberals did the same thing with the count, basically handing him the reins of the party to deliver them from the abyss.  justin trudeau will be eaten alive, and i think the cpc would relish nuking him on every conceivable point.  entitlement, superficiality, desperation, the works.  i'll still be voting for someone else (i think there could be worse candidates still) but i'm fine with this clown assuming the mantle.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Thanks love is free. But see, I don't get this. I haven't seen anything that makes me think he is a clown. What am I missing here? When people talk about this guy, its like he's the Messiah or something. What am I missing here? I just really don't get how it is that most of you aren't worried about him. I guess I don't know what the hell I am talking about.

Brachina

Justin also has a target on his back from all challengers for the Liberal leadership contenders. Think knives everywhere. The NDP leader race will look like a friendly handshake. Most of it won't be public of course, Liberal knives prefer darkness.

And I agree with Micheal, Mulcair has huge political instincts, even before running for the NDP, he's had a chance to learn from the hand of the master himself Jack Layton at his best, shoulder to shoulder as Mulcair likes to say and he's gone toe to toe with many of the NDP's best and brightest, such as Topp, Nash, amoung others for the leadership and come out on top, he's gone straight into Harper's backyard and in Harper's face and come off brillantly. On top of that Mulcair is surrounded by pure talent like his chief of staff, and many increbible MPs.

Trideau has popularity its an advantage, but you can't eat celebrity, can't breath it, and people while be looking for someone strong and capable and experienced to protect there families from Harper. Mulcair has all of the above, Justin none.

Jacob Two-Two

What you're missing is just how desperate Liberal supporters are, including many media pundits. Great expectations are not a good thing all the time. Martin and Ignatieff both suffered huge downfalls because they were touted as superstars. All you have to do is underperform slightly and it reflects much worse than it normally would.

adma

Michael Moriarity wrote:

In my opinion, Arthur, Justin Trudeau is a celebrity, but Mulcair is the most talented Canadian politician of my lifetime (I'm 65). I would estimate his ability at about the level of Bill Clinton, but without the "bimbo eruptions" (quote from James Carville). I see almost no chance of either Trudeau or any other potential Liberal leader being more effective than Mulcair, regardless of what the media does.

 

The Canadian Lula?  (beard and all)

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

My worry is that he will be more Clinton than Lula, but I hope I am wrong.

 

Brachina

Actually I think his style will be more President Johnson then Clinton, with oppentents but more charming, more consences seeking with cacus and the public. I also think he's a man of his word. That's not to say we agree with his every decisision, but at least he's honest and has a bunch of good policies to get excited about.

Anyways back to Justin, reluctantly, if his popularity proves to much of a distraction, we could put together an ad of all the times Justin has told the media he's not ready or its his time ect... and then at the end show how many times he voted for the Harper Agenda and a list of key issues and remind them that the Libs got nothing in return.

Stockholm

I have heard that the main reason Deborah Coyne is running is because she detests the first born son of the father of her daughter and her whole campaign will be about damaging him as much as possible.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Stockholm wrote:

I have heard that the main reason Deborah Coyne is running is because she detests the first born son of the father of her daughter and her whole campaign will be about damaging him as much as possible.

This is an example of the toxic partisan innuendo that discourages gentler folk from partaking in political blood sport. Actually, when it comes to the small-minded, nasty vote, Harper et al. are masters of making the political, personal. Things are getting nastier, it seems.

Brachina

They seem pretty civil so far Coyne and Justin I mean, but I'd love it if it was true about her plans.

Stockholm

Why wouldn't they be civil at this stage. Justin is not a candidate (at least not yet)...but if he runs i suspect she will try to go after him on policy matters (or lack thereof)

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/20/lawrence-martin-trudeaus-team-takes-shape/

I tell you he is running and will be leader. I can't help but feel this is bad news for the NDP. I am simply not convinced that the media won't help recreate Trudeaumania again.

 This sucks. If anyone can prove I am wrong, I'd welcome it, but this has me really, really worried. This is not good news.

Are there significant differences in Trudeau's policy leanings from Mulcair's policy leanings?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

MA:

I really don't undertand what you mean.

Brachina

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/20/lawrence-martin-trudeaus-team-takes-shape/

I tell you he is running and will be leader. I can't help but feel this is bad news for the NDP. I am simply not convinced that the media won't help recreate Trudeaumania again.

 This sucks. If anyone can prove I am wrong, I'd welcome it, but this has me really, really worried. This is not good news.

Are there significant differences in Trudeau's policy leanings from Mulcair's policy leanings?

Justin has no policy leanings, he's a liberal. He pretends to lean left, but we've seen that before.

pookie

autoworker wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I have heard that the main reason Deborah Coyne is running is because she detests the first born son of the father of her daughter and her whole campaign will be about damaging him as much as possible.

This is an example of the toxic partisan innuendo that discourages gentler folk from partaking in political blood sport. Actually, when it comes to the small-minded, nasty vote, Harper et al. are masters of making the political, personal. Things are getting nastier, it seems.

 

It's also sexist.  Imagine that comment being made about a male candidate.

 

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

Stockholm's repeated attempts to define Coyne by her sexual history are transparent and tiresome.

Stockholm

By that standard referring to the fact that Hillary Clinton is being married to Bill Clinton and that they have a child in common is "defining her by her sexual history".

There is clearly a quasi-familial relationship between Deborah Coyne and Justin Trudeau - there is no simple way to describe it. He's not her step-son, but her daughter is his half sister. She has obviously seen him in personal contexts that go beyond just being in the same political party and apparently she doesn't like what she sees.

In many ways Justin Trudeau is also a candidate who can be defined by a sexual history. Its common knowledge that the one and only reason he is being talked about as a candidate for the Liberal leadership is that once upon a time a sperm belonging to Pierre Elliott Trudeau met and fertilized  egg belonging to Margaret Sinclair - presumably as a result of carnal knowledge (I will presume they didn't use a turkey baster) and so Justin was born on Christmas Day nine months later. There is absolutely NOTHING about JT that would lead anyone to think he was remotely qualified to be a political leader in Canada - other than the fact that he is the product of Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret having sex. Does anyone seriously think we would be considering a university drop-out who had previously worked as a substitute drama teacher as a national political leader if his parents were John and Mary Smith?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm wrote:

I have heard that the main reason Deborah Coyne is running is because she detests the first born son of the father of her daughter and her whole campaign will be about damaging him as much as possible.

Running from an outrageous statement again?  The main reason driving this extremely talented woman is hatred and she will do nothing but back bite?  And all that based on rumour and innuendo.

That sure reads like a sexist misogynist statement no matter what your 'good intentions" where. As one of the NDP's main stalwarts the petty partisan views you  espouse on this board have become one of the reasons I have little trust in the NDP as a progressive force.

janfromthebruce

Stockholm wrote:

Does anyone seriously think we would be considering a university drop-out who had previously worked as a substitute drama teacher as a national political leader if his parents were John and Mary Smith?

I didn't know he dropped out of university - how did he get to be a teacher because it usually requires a degree and one year of teacher's college?

Also, he was only a substitute?

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

That sure reads like a sexist misogynist statement no matter what your 'good intentions" where. As one of the NDP's main stalwarts the petty partisan views you  espouse on this board have become one of the reasons I have little trust in the NDP as a progressive force.

That's flawed logic.  You can't judge an entity on the basis of perceived misdeeds of a fan of that entity.  It'd be like saying that I don't like Beethoven's music because a fan of his offended me. 

mark_alfred

janfromthebruce wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Does anyone seriously think we would be considering a university drop-out who had previously worked as a substitute drama teacher as a national political leader if his parents were John and Mary Smith?

I didn't know he dropped out of university - how did he get to be a teacher because it usually requires a degree and one year of teacher's college?

Wikipedia reports he has a BA in literature and a B.Ed.  He then was pursuing an MA in environmental geography, but dropped out to run for office.  So, technically, yes, he is a dropout.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

That sure reads like a sexist misogynist statement no matter what your 'good intentions" where. As one of the NDP's main stalwarts the petty partisan views you  espouse on this board have become one of the reasons I have little trust in the NDP as a progressive force.

That's flawed logic.  You can't judge an entity on the basis of perceived misdeeds of a fan of that entity.  It'd be like saying that I don't like Beethoven's music because a fan of his offended me. 

True but I can say I don't want to take part in a Beethoven revival program because the people who run it are obnoxious and I don't trust them to provide a good program at a price that normal people would pay.  It is also because I am very familiar with the NDP and NDP'ers and his mindset is a significant one within the party. [that is my opinion]

Nasty partisan attacks turn me off no matter whether they come from the; Conservatives or Liberals or NDP.  If a Conservative operative had been quoted saying the same thing about Coyne you can be sure it would be considered misogynist and sexist, in any context.

pookie

Stockholm wrote:

By that standard referring to the fact that Hillary Clinton is being married to Bill Clinton and that they have a child in common is "defining her by her sexual history".

There is clearly a quasi-familial relationship between Deborah Coyne and Justin Trudeau - there is no simple way to describe it. He's not her step-son, but her daughter is his half sister. She has obviously seen him in personal contexts that go beyond just being in the same political party and apparently she doesn't like what she sees.

In many ways Justin Trudeau is also a candidate who can be defined by a sexual history. Its common knowledge that the one and only reason he is being talked about as a candidate for the Liberal leadership is that once upon a time a sperm belonging to Pierre Elliott Trudeau met and fertilized  egg belonging to Margaret Sinclair - presumably as a result of carnal knowledge (I will presume they didn't use a turkey baster) and so Justin was born on Christmas Day nine months later. There is absolutely NOTHING about JT that would lead anyone to think he was remotely qualified to be a political leader in Canada - other than the fact that he is the product of Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret having sex. Does anyone seriously think we would be considering a university drop-out who had previously worked as a substitute drama teacher as a national political leader if his parents were John and Mary Smith?

Nice try, Stockholm. 

Newsflash: when we talk about defining someone by "sexual history" we mean his or her own. Only extreme sophistry could explain your "comparison" above. 

 

Your snide comments about Coyne (who btw is not a university drop-out if that's now an important qualification) is clearly trading on her "link" to JT because of her liaison with his father. It trades on lots and lots of offensive tropes, notably the "woman scorned" who has nothing better to do than take a dislike to the offspring of her paramour via another woman (rival).  

 

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Does anyone seriously think we would be considering a university drop-out who had previously worked as a substitute drama teacher as a national political leader if his parents were John and Mary Smith?

"University drop-out"? There's a phrase I've never heard before. Do you have a pejorative term for the majority of Canadians who never attend university?

ETA: And what pookie said.

 

mark_alfred

Stockholm reported a rumour he/she had heard.  I don't see the big deal.  If Mike Layton were a media darling, and were contemplating running for the leadership of the NDP, and suddenly Olivia Chow decided to jump in the race, I might find that a bit odd, and it may lead to some brewing speculation in my own head.  In this case, it's a couple of Liberals (Trudeau and Coyne) so I really don't care.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm reported on a sexist misogynist rumour, to bad you don't see that as a problem on this board.

love is free love is free's picture

actually, funny story, i was a ta at mcgill and invigilated trudeau at exams.  he was like 10 years olders than everyone else in the program, argued with the prof so frequently as to dominate entire courses (and to be told, at various points, to cool it, true story), made absolutely no friends that i could tell, and just generally seemed like a joker.  i suspected he dropped out, but i didn't know.

i don't want to harp too much on the point, but people who are actually fearing a trudeau-led liberal party should just listen to him speak.  it's this transparently false aspect, everything he says sounds flamboyantly un-genuine.  there's a really obvious comparison to andré boisclair's leadership of the pq and the astonishing collapse that it brought, but obviously the parallels run only so long: boisclair actually finished his vanity degree.

without question, i'm the last person to want to offer the liberals useful advice, but given that off-island quebec is completely closed to them for a while to come, i'd have to expect that the logical choice would be someone to restore the suburban ontario power-base.  a shame for them that mcguinty and his crew have been around for so long and become so unpopular, because one expects that a minister from that government would be among the more reasonable choices to make.

adma

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Stockholm reported on a sexist misogynist rumour, to bad you don't see that as a problem on this board.

Then again, it may be better to "report on" a rumour (i.e. to air out the closet) than to suppress it entirely.  (It's not a matter of agreeing with said rumour.)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I heard a rumour that Mulcair was a pedophile. Should we air that without even saying where the rumour came from?  Don't worry I don't agree with the rumour I only heard it and passed it on.

pookie

This is not about "reporting" on a rumour but about Stockholm never missing a chance to bring up the fact that Coyne slept with PET. 

 

It's disgusting.

Stockholm

Actually what's even more scandalous about Deborah Coyne is that she was the chief "constitutional advisor" to that francophobic bigot Clyde Wells who brought the whole country to the brink of destruction when the Meech Lake Accord collapsed in 1990. Caveat emptor...Then again she was also once married to Michael Valpy who ran for the NDP in Trinity-Spadina in 2000.

Of course we could look at it the other way around. Maybe Coyne sees herself as a serious candidate for the leadership and Justin wasn't going to run at all at first...but now maybe he will run because there has always been friction with her he wants to stop the Liberal leadership contest from turning into a Deborah Coyne coronation! (at this stage if Justin doesn't run, Deborah Coyne may end being - by default - the most formidable person running - or at least the most formidable of seven dwarfs)

Pages

Topic locked