Liberal Party of Canada Leadership
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Swoon factor must be huge, there are five links to separate articles, editorials and punditry pieces in today's NP article (referenced upthread).
Short answer; the Young Dauphin is a bit like Barrack Obama in 2007-2008; a blank slate for people to project their own dreams. Once reality sets in (and Steven Harper and Thomans Mulcair will provide a huge dose of reality at high speed and volume if/when the Young Dauphin becomes leader) the reality of Trudeau's lack of experience and ideas will be butally exposed for all to see.
Lack of ideas is one thing; if he were an experieinced leader his true role would be to pick out good ideas and shepard them through caucus, but where is his center? And of course, when has he ever demonstrated the ability to organize or manage large organizations?
Short answer; the Young Dauphin is a bit like Barrack Obama in 2007-2008; a blank slate for people to project their own dreams. Once reality sets in (and Steven Harper and Thomans Mulcair will provide a huge dose of reality at high speed and volume if/when the Young Dauphin becomes leader) the reality of Trudeau's lack of experience and ideas will be butally exposed for all to see.
Lack of ideas is one thing; if he were an experieinced leader his true role would be to pick out good ideas and shepard them through caucus, but where is his center? And of course, when has he ever demonstrated the ability to organize or manage large organizations?
- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
The Liberal Party of Canada's favourite wet dream ~ brains, gravitas and charisma, in spades!
Source: National Post
The National Post article from which the Facebook page was lifted says:
Governor Carney strikes me as being a liberal, not a Liberal.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
E.R. Campbell said:
Wouldn't that be hysterical; Mark Carney throws his hat in the ring post 2015 to replace Stephen Harper as leader of the CPC. The sound of jaws hitting the floor in Liberal PArty HQ would be audible all across Canada....
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
And the National Post, after publishing the results of a poll showing JC as the answer to the Grits' prayers, now posts an oped piece that suggests choosing him would be a triumph of fluff over substence. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
Full Comment Kelly McParland: Liberals transform themselves into the Lindsay Lohan party
Kelly McParland | Sep 28, 2012 10:30 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 28, 2012 11:20 AM ET
Sober, serious-minded Liberals — surely there are some — must look at their party sometimes and wonder if it will ever learn. After running the country for most of the 20th century it’s morphing into the Lindsay Lohan of Canadian politics, constantly vowing to clean up its act, only to wake up with a headache and another charge on its rap sheet. The Liberals aren’t into drugs that I know of, but after three failed marriages, a stint in rehab and with its overall health in decline, it pledged to undertake a serious effort to re-establish itself as a mature, dependable party. Instead it’s plunging shamelessly into an affair with the handsome young thing with the dynamite hair.
Well, it’s a grown-up party that should know better, so all we can do is sit back and watch how it turns out. Maybe Justin Trudeau won’t be Maygan Sensenberger to the Liberals’ Rod Zimmer. Maybe there’s a hidden depth beneath that glib exterior. Maybe he’s more mature than the MP with the Johnny Depp moustache who called the environment minister a “piece of shit” during a heated moment in the House of Commons, and suggested that if Canada’s going to go the way of Stephen Harper “maybe I would think about making Quebec a country.”
It’s possible, but so far we just don’t know. Which is what’s so disheartening about the Liberals’ latest fling. Most of them have no idea what Justin is about. They can’t know, because other than a few idealistic opinions on youth and the environment, he’s said very little about any of the things that are important to the country. Does he have a view on the economy, on job creation, on Israel or Syria or Iran, on U.S. relations or trade with China, on health care or infrastructure, or when and under what conditions to deploy the armed forces?
Beats me. If he has them he’s not sharing them, judging by his parliamentary web site (Justin.ca. How’d he beat the Bieber to that one?). His three comments on the economy consist of brief snippets straight out of party headquarters to the effect that Stephen Harper wants to give tax breaks to the rich while ordinary Canadians struggle. His list of “speeches” in the House stop at March 2011. He seems to have thought the Harmonized Sales Tax was a good idea, suggesting it would ensure “economic recovery and growth will begin sooner as opposed to later.” (Which is at least a step up from Jean Chretien, who vowed to repeal its predecessor). Since being named critic for Youth, Post-Secondary Education, and Amateur Sport he’s posted three statements, one wishing everyone a Happy Canada Day, and one each on the Olympics and Paralympics.
Pretty thin, it would seem, but maybe it’s enough for the Liberals. Trudeau hasn’t even confirmed his run yet, and already a National Post poll suggests he’d be prime minister on Monday if an election were held today. It would take a party with more backbone than the Liberals have shown in many a year to turn up their nose at that.
Yet you have to wonder. Here’s a party that, after its most recent drubbing, swore on Laurier’s grave that it would be thinking long and deep about its place in the world, what it stands for and what it believes, and wouldn’t be coming back to Canadians for their vote until it had some good solid answers, and policies to go along with them. Now Justin wiggles by and they’re begging shamelessly for a kiss. Just consider what it all says about them:
1. After the Ignatieff debacle they swore off coronations, pledging they’d learned their lesson. Now they’re ready to hand Justin the crown the moment he asks for it.
2. Rather than sort out a solid package of policies and principles, they’re happy to pick the leader first and agree to believe whatever he believes. In Justin’s case this is particularly risky – you could even say foolhardy – given how few utterances he has made on any of the issues.
3. Admittedly the Liberals don’t have the bench strength they once enjoyed, but they’re not totally without alternatives. While the party is throwing itself at Justin, it’s ignoring the lonely astronaut in the corner. Marc Garneau – who may or may not run now that Trudeau is in the race – is an engineer, a rocket scientist, boasts a degree in electrical engineering from the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, and was the first Canadian in space. Justin Trudeau is a dabbler – he dabbled in teaching, dabbled in the arts, dabbled in acting, dabbled in activism. Now he’s dabbling in politics. Which of these two men would you rather have by your side in a crisis?
4. Once again the party is betting on the star candidate, the rock star, the name that will get a few fast headlines. Sound familiar? Michael Ignatieff at least had credentials – intellectual, author, historian, Harvard professor. Yet couldn’t pull it off. Is charisma and great hair enough of a substitute.
5. If the party really thought he was that hot a commodity, don’t you think he’d have got a weightier portfolio than critic for Youth, Post-Secondary Education, and Amateur Sport?
When Pierre Trudeau won the leadership he defeated an impressive pool of talent: Robert Winters, Paul Martin, John Turner, Allan MacEachen. A party that can boast that much strength is one that’s ready for government. Today’s Liberals are a sorry memory of that day, yet seem disinclined, despite all their pledges otherwise, to re-build the foundations needed for a solid future. They’re going with a paint job and some bright lights to disguise the decay. It’s the Lindsay Lohan approach.
Full Comment Kelly McParland: Liberals transform themselves into the Lindsay Lohan party
Kelly McParland | Sep 28, 2012 10:30 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 28, 2012 11:20 AM ET
Sober, serious-minded Liberals — surely there are some — must look at their party sometimes and wonder if it will ever learn. After running the country for most of the 20th century it’s morphing into the Lindsay Lohan of Canadian politics, constantly vowing to clean up its act, only to wake up with a headache and another charge on its rap sheet. The Liberals aren’t into drugs that I know of, but after three failed marriages, a stint in rehab and with its overall health in decline, it pledged to undertake a serious effort to re-establish itself as a mature, dependable party. Instead it’s plunging shamelessly into an affair with the handsome young thing with the dynamite hair.
Well, it’s a grown-up party that should know better, so all we can do is sit back and watch how it turns out. Maybe Justin Trudeau won’t be Maygan Sensenberger to the Liberals’ Rod Zimmer. Maybe there’s a hidden depth beneath that glib exterior. Maybe he’s more mature than the MP with the Johnny Depp moustache who called the environment minister a “piece of shit” during a heated moment in the House of Commons, and suggested that if Canada’s going to go the way of Stephen Harper “maybe I would think about making Quebec a country.”
It’s possible, but so far we just don’t know. Which is what’s so disheartening about the Liberals’ latest fling. Most of them have no idea what Justin is about. They can’t know, because other than a few idealistic opinions on youth and the environment, he’s said very little about any of the things that are important to the country. Does he have a view on the economy, on job creation, on Israel or Syria or Iran, on U.S. relations or trade with China, on health care or infrastructure, or when and under what conditions to deploy the armed forces?
Beats me. If he has them he’s not sharing them, judging by his parliamentary web site (Justin.ca. How’d he beat the Bieber to that one?). His three comments on the economy consist of brief snippets straight out of party headquarters to the effect that Stephen Harper wants to give tax breaks to the rich while ordinary Canadians struggle. His list of “speeches” in the House stop at March 2011. He seems to have thought the Harmonized Sales Tax was a good idea, suggesting it would ensure “economic recovery and growth will begin sooner as opposed to later.” (Which is at least a step up from Jean Chretien, who vowed to repeal its predecessor). Since being named critic for Youth, Post-Secondary Education, and Amateur Sport he’s posted three statements, one wishing everyone a Happy Canada Day, and one each on the Olympics and Paralympics.
Pretty thin, it would seem, but maybe it’s enough for the Liberals. Trudeau hasn’t even confirmed his run yet, and already a National Post poll suggests he’d be prime minister on Monday if an election were held today. It would take a party with more backbone than the Liberals have shown in many a year to turn up their nose at that.
Yet you have to wonder. Here’s a party that, after its most recent drubbing, swore on Laurier’s grave that it would be thinking long and deep about its place in the world, what it stands for and what it believes, and wouldn’t be coming back to Canadians for their vote until it had some good solid answers, and policies to go along with them. Now Justin wiggles by and they’re begging shamelessly for a kiss. Just consider what it all says about them:
1. After the Ignatieff debacle they swore off coronations, pledging they’d learned their lesson. Now they’re ready to hand Justin the crown the moment he asks for it.
2. Rather than sort out a solid package of policies and principles, they’re happy to pick the leader first and agree to believe whatever he believes. In Justin’s case this is particularly risky – you could even say foolhardy – given how few utterances he has made on any of the issues.
3. Admittedly the Liberals don’t have the bench strength they once enjoyed, but they’re not totally without alternatives. While the party is throwing itself at Justin, it’s ignoring the lonely astronaut in the corner. Marc Garneau – who may or may not run now that Trudeau is in the race – is an engineer, a rocket scientist, boasts a degree in electrical engineering from the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, and was the first Canadian in space. Justin Trudeau is a dabbler – he dabbled in teaching, dabbled in the arts, dabbled in acting, dabbled in activism. Now he’s dabbling in politics. Which of these two men would you rather have by your side in a crisis?
4. Once again the party is betting on the star candidate, the rock star, the name that will get a few fast headlines. Sound familiar? Michael Ignatieff at least had credentials – intellectual, author, historian, Harvard professor. Yet couldn’t pull it off. Is charisma and great hair enough of a substitute.
5. If the party really thought he was that hot a commodity, don’t you think he’d have got a weightier portfolio than critic for Youth, Post-Secondary Education, and Amateur Sport?
When Pierre Trudeau won the leadership he defeated an impressive pool of talent: Robert Winters, Paul Martin, John Turner, Allan MacEachen. A party that can boast that much strength is one that’s ready for government. Today’s Liberals are a sorry memory of that day, yet seem disinclined, despite all their pledges otherwise, to re-build the foundations needed for a solid future. They’re going with a paint job and some bright lights to disguise the decay. It’s the Lindsay Lohan approach.
- Reaction score
- 2,418
- Points
- 940
Interesting typo...or are you saying that we're going to hell in a handbasket? ;DOld Sweat said:
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
:facepalm: sorry bout dat.bridges said:Link no worky
Edit: but it can be seen on the main page here: http://thechronicleherald.ca/
The first of many, no doubt. Thanks for the heads-up, jollyjacktar.
A
aesop081
Guest
My preferred outcome for 2015 is a NDP majority. It will be painful but it will ensure Canadians never think of the NDP again.
But, since I have to manage my expectations, Justin Trudeau as PM ail do just fine. It's going to hurt for a bit but the hangover the average Canadian idiot voter will have will worth it for the entertainment value alone.
But, since I have to manage my expectations, Justin Trudeau as PM ail do just fine. It's going to hurt for a bit but the hangover the average Canadian idiot voter will have will worth it for the entertainment value alone.
And Andrew Coyne takes aim at the media and the public reaction to the story that Justin Trudeau is going to run for the leadership. The column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
The son is not the father and the future is not buried in the past
Andrew Coyne | Sep 28, 2012 8:11 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 28, 2012 9:05 PM ET
What is Justin Trudeau’s position on whether Canada should contribute to an international stabilization fund for the purpose of resolving the euro crisis? Does he agree that any final status settlement in the Middle East should be based on 1967 borders? How would he amend, if at all, the “net benefit” test currently applied to foreign takeovers in Canada?
Which would he say was the highest priority at the moment, reducing the deficit to reassure financial markets, or increasing the deficit to provide fiscal stimulus? Does he believe Canada’s defence needs require a fifth generation fighter jet, such as the F-35, with stealth capacity suitable for deep strikes into enemy territory, or would he favour a less expensive fighter, designed for patrolling Canadian airspace? Or should we replace manned fighters with drones?
To ask these questions is to answer them: Nobody knows. I don’t know what Trudeau thinks on these issues, and neither do you. Nor do the media, nor the Liberal party, nor, I’m guessing, Justin himself. It isn’t just that he has never, so far as I am aware, made any significant public statement on any of them — or on any others, outside of Quebec and a few personal hobbyhorses. It’s that it’s difficult even to imagine him doing so.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. Perhaps there are hidden depths to Justin, waiting to be revealed. The point is, we don’t know — as indeed we know very little about him generally, notwithstanding his lifelong celebrity. We don’t know a great deal about his character or judgment — though what glimpses we have been given raise doubts about both: his bizarre objections to a government document’s description of female genital mutilation as a “barbaric” practice; his scatology in Parliament; his musings that a Canada led by Stephen Harper might cause him to support the separation of Quebec, and his petulant performance when called out on it.
There is a strong whiff of nostalgia in the air just now. A lot of people who should know better seem to have persuaded themselves that it is 1968 all over again
We have no idea what kind of leader he would make for the Liberal party. We don’t know what his plans are to rebuild the party, or what direction he would take it, or where he would concentrate its meagre resources. We have a hint of his tenacity — winning the nomination and then the election in Papineau, beating Senator Patrick Brazeau in a boxing match — but we don’t know whether he has what it takes generally to be a leader: whether he can build a team, inspire their loyalty, betray it when he has to. We know nothing of his strategic sense, his ability to spot a political opening, exploit an opponent’s weakness, or strike a prudent compromise.
What we do know is that he has very little experience of the kind that would prepare him for such a job. Comparisons to his father, elected leader after just three years in Parliament, are fatuous: Pierre Trudeau had been minister of justice, and before that a professor of law and an intellectual force in Quebec politics for more than decade. Justin has been a high school teacher.
But none of this matters, apparently. All that we need to know is that he has a famous name, a pretty face and 150,000 Twitter followers. On that, and on that alone, the media have declared him the winner of a leadership race that has not yet even formally begun, and will not be decided until April. And on that same slim basis, a good many Liberals seem prepared to hand him the crown. Imagine if the Democratic Party had nominated John-John for president, and you have a close parallel. Now imagine they had done so without even knowing who else was in the race.
Perhaps there are hidden depths to Justin, waiting to be revealed. The point is, we don’t know
I cannot believe the Liberal party would be so rash. I do not mean that he will not win. I do not even mean that he should not win. Perhaps, as I say, he will surprise us, displaying a political shrewdness, and an emotional maturity, we had not previously suspected. But he cannot do so if he is not put to the test of a vigorous campaign. For the Liberal party to do otherwise, for it to throw itself at his feet without the merest vetting, would confirm the worst fears about the party: that it had no raison d’etre, no ideals or ambitions, but had descended into little more than a personality cult. Far from building for the long term, it would have succumbed to the pressure to produce short-term results, with the probable consequence of neither.
There is a strong whiff of nostalgia in the air just now. A lot of people who should know better seem to have persuaded themselves that it is 1968 all over again. Among other things, that’s unfair to Justin, who is his own man and who is running, I am sure, for the best of reasons, but on whom many others seem to want to project their own fantasies. But the son is not the father, and the future is not buried in the past.
POSTSCRIPT: As many readers will know, I am the cousin of Deborah Coyne, who is also a candidate for Liberal leader. I do not believe that should have any influence on my assessments of the race or the candidates. But having put the matter on the public record, I will leave you to form your own judgment.
The son is not the father and the future is not buried in the past
Andrew Coyne | Sep 28, 2012 8:11 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 28, 2012 9:05 PM ET
What is Justin Trudeau’s position on whether Canada should contribute to an international stabilization fund for the purpose of resolving the euro crisis? Does he agree that any final status settlement in the Middle East should be based on 1967 borders? How would he amend, if at all, the “net benefit” test currently applied to foreign takeovers in Canada?
Which would he say was the highest priority at the moment, reducing the deficit to reassure financial markets, or increasing the deficit to provide fiscal stimulus? Does he believe Canada’s defence needs require a fifth generation fighter jet, such as the F-35, with stealth capacity suitable for deep strikes into enemy territory, or would he favour a less expensive fighter, designed for patrolling Canadian airspace? Or should we replace manned fighters with drones?
To ask these questions is to answer them: Nobody knows. I don’t know what Trudeau thinks on these issues, and neither do you. Nor do the media, nor the Liberal party, nor, I’m guessing, Justin himself. It isn’t just that he has never, so far as I am aware, made any significant public statement on any of them — or on any others, outside of Quebec and a few personal hobbyhorses. It’s that it’s difficult even to imagine him doing so.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. Perhaps there are hidden depths to Justin, waiting to be revealed. The point is, we don’t know — as indeed we know very little about him generally, notwithstanding his lifelong celebrity. We don’t know a great deal about his character or judgment — though what glimpses we have been given raise doubts about both: his bizarre objections to a government document’s description of female genital mutilation as a “barbaric” practice; his scatology in Parliament; his musings that a Canada led by Stephen Harper might cause him to support the separation of Quebec, and his petulant performance when called out on it.
There is a strong whiff of nostalgia in the air just now. A lot of people who should know better seem to have persuaded themselves that it is 1968 all over again
We have no idea what kind of leader he would make for the Liberal party. We don’t know what his plans are to rebuild the party, or what direction he would take it, or where he would concentrate its meagre resources. We have a hint of his tenacity — winning the nomination and then the election in Papineau, beating Senator Patrick Brazeau in a boxing match — but we don’t know whether he has what it takes generally to be a leader: whether he can build a team, inspire their loyalty, betray it when he has to. We know nothing of his strategic sense, his ability to spot a political opening, exploit an opponent’s weakness, or strike a prudent compromise.
What we do know is that he has very little experience of the kind that would prepare him for such a job. Comparisons to his father, elected leader after just three years in Parliament, are fatuous: Pierre Trudeau had been minister of justice, and before that a professor of law and an intellectual force in Quebec politics for more than decade. Justin has been a high school teacher.
But none of this matters, apparently. All that we need to know is that he has a famous name, a pretty face and 150,000 Twitter followers. On that, and on that alone, the media have declared him the winner of a leadership race that has not yet even formally begun, and will not be decided until April. And on that same slim basis, a good many Liberals seem prepared to hand him the crown. Imagine if the Democratic Party had nominated John-John for president, and you have a close parallel. Now imagine they had done so without even knowing who else was in the race.
Perhaps there are hidden depths to Justin, waiting to be revealed. The point is, we don’t know
I cannot believe the Liberal party would be so rash. I do not mean that he will not win. I do not even mean that he should not win. Perhaps, as I say, he will surprise us, displaying a political shrewdness, and an emotional maturity, we had not previously suspected. But he cannot do so if he is not put to the test of a vigorous campaign. For the Liberal party to do otherwise, for it to throw itself at his feet without the merest vetting, would confirm the worst fears about the party: that it had no raison d’etre, no ideals or ambitions, but had descended into little more than a personality cult. Far from building for the long term, it would have succumbed to the pressure to produce short-term results, with the probable consequence of neither.
There is a strong whiff of nostalgia in the air just now. A lot of people who should know better seem to have persuaded themselves that it is 1968 all over again. Among other things, that’s unfair to Justin, who is his own man and who is running, I am sure, for the best of reasons, but on whom many others seem to want to project their own fantasies. But the son is not the father, and the future is not buried in the past.
POSTSCRIPT: As many readers will know, I am the cousin of Deborah Coyne, who is also a candidate for Liberal leader. I do not believe that should have any influence on my assessments of the race or the candidates. But having put the matter on the public record, I will leave you to form your own judgment.
- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a somewhat fawning survey of Justin Trudea:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeaus-success-grounded-in-hard-work/article4576484/
I think that whoever eventually becomes Liberal leader (I am fairly sure it will be a French-Canadian) will, as many pundits say, find that the road to power leads through Quebec which means that the first enemy is the NDP, not the Conservatives. But, in order to appeal to Quebecers the conventional wisdom is that the Liberal Party of Canada must adopt a leftish economic policy which will not play well in "New Canada," West of the Ottawa River.
In the next election 225 of 338 seats will be West of the Ottawa River (42+34+14+14+121) "Old Canada," East of the Ottawa River will have only 113, 78 of them in Quebec; a majority requires 169 seats. It is, theoretically, possible to win a majority without having a single seat anywhere East of Ontario ~ very, very hard but mathematically possible. Give the Tories 10 safe seats in "Old Canada," then they need only 159 of the 225 in "New Canada," say 25 in BC, 32 in AB, 13 in SK, 11 in MB and 78 in ON; they currently have 21 in BC, 27 in AB, 13 in SK, 11 in MB and 73 in ON so the required gains are 4 of 8 new seats in BC, 5 of the 6 new seats in AB, no changes in SK and in MB and just 5 of the 15 new seats in ON. That result is clearly attainable - make it a bit easier and give the Tories 15 of the 113 seats in "Old Canada" and it becomes quite achievable. That being the case, the question becomes: can the new Liberal leader displace Mulcair and the NDP and return to Stornoway, which is a reasonable "intermediate objective?"
How to beat Mulcair? Two choices:
1. Attack his left wing/social democrat policies as being bad for Canada ~ this will not appeal to Quebec voters so the "intermediate objective" is unlikely to be attained; or
2. Go father left than the NDP and appeal to Quebec nationalism ~ this will not appeal to "New Canada," making the "final objective" (24 Sussex Drive in 2019) harder to achieve.
Rock, meet Hard Place.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeaus-success-grounded-in-hard-work/article4576484/
I think that whoever eventually becomes Liberal leader (I am fairly sure it will be a French-Canadian) will, as many pundits say, find that the road to power leads through Quebec which means that the first enemy is the NDP, not the Conservatives. But, in order to appeal to Quebecers the conventional wisdom is that the Liberal Party of Canada must adopt a leftish economic policy which will not play well in "New Canada," West of the Ottawa River.
In the next election 225 of 338 seats will be West of the Ottawa River (42+34+14+14+121) "Old Canada," East of the Ottawa River will have only 113, 78 of them in Quebec; a majority requires 169 seats. It is, theoretically, possible to win a majority without having a single seat anywhere East of Ontario ~ very, very hard but mathematically possible. Give the Tories 10 safe seats in "Old Canada," then they need only 159 of the 225 in "New Canada," say 25 in BC, 32 in AB, 13 in SK, 11 in MB and 78 in ON; they currently have 21 in BC, 27 in AB, 13 in SK, 11 in MB and 73 in ON so the required gains are 4 of 8 new seats in BC, 5 of the 6 new seats in AB, no changes in SK and in MB and just 5 of the 15 new seats in ON. That result is clearly attainable - make it a bit easier and give the Tories 15 of the 113 seats in "Old Canada" and it becomes quite achievable. That being the case, the question becomes: can the new Liberal leader displace Mulcair and the NDP and return to Stornoway, which is a reasonable "intermediate objective?"
How to beat Mulcair? Two choices:
1. Attack his left wing/social democrat policies as being bad for Canada ~ this will not appeal to Quebec voters so the "intermediate objective" is unlikely to be attained; or
2. Go father left than the NDP and appeal to Quebec nationalism ~ this will not appeal to "New Canada," making the "final objective" (24 Sussex Drive in 2019) harder to achieve.
Rock, meet Hard Place.
- Status
Similar threads
