New Parliament, New Leaders?

[Brad Sallows]

>repaying debt when times are good is prudent fiscal management - but that also implies that when times are bad, it may be warranted to run a deficit.

Usually the Keynesians phrase it the other way, to emphasize the importance (to them) of "investment".  Add to that the probable increase in social spending as the means of people constricts.  But when good times arrive there is almost nothing to be heard but the chirping of crickets from the parliamentary benches, muted by the thunder of whinging from special interests.

There should never have been a "surplus" if past governments had properly paid every unbudgeted penny to buy out federal debt.  The Liberals, however, used part or much of the windfall (if you believe it was truly unexpected) to shower a few gifts on voters.  (The Conservatives have not been entirely immune to the temptation.)

The Liberals are responsible for every penny of the federal debt, which is the sum of their spending (principal) and the interest on that spending.  You can't run up the credit card and then blame someone else when you hand off the household finances for a few years.  Any future Liberal government still owes Canadians an effort to use revenues in excess of program spending to pay down debt - and to keep program spending modest.

The current government can not easily cut spending in some non-essential quarters.  It is clear that immense investments - time, money, "face" - in Quebec can be quickly wiped out by trivialities.  One alternative is to transfer program responsibility to the provinces.  It would not be playing "headwaiter to the provinces" to shift grant and subsidy programs to the provinces, eliminate some federal tax points equivalent to the necessary funding, and tell the provinces to fill their boots.

 

[a_majoor]

The problem on the macro scale is the amount of credit and debt is far beyond what the available supply of savings and liquid wealth can support (overleveraging). The farms and factories remain, but are illiquid and thus become "dead" assets when unwinding.

The cries to increase spending, run deficits and "inject credit" into the markets are fundamentally wrong, since they ignore and indeed amplify the root cause of the crisis. Increasing spending and running deficits is putting a call on the savings and credit of the future (when the last 20 or so years of deficit spending and debt are vacuuming up all the wealth of today!), while injecting credit is just another word for devaluing money (AKA inflation), which also devalues the savings and wealth of the people who were smart enough to save and invest (further damaging the recovery)

What is needed is an non inflationary way to create new wealth. I proposed a "simple" solution (in that it is a singular project rather than an intricate interconnected scheme) of simply abolishing business income tax, and paying for that by concurrently abolishing subsidies to business as well. This releases resources back into the productive economy, favors no industry or region at the expense of others, and to get an idea of the magnitude of the change, the $50 billion of business tax cuts that Jack Layton will fight against in parliament this session is the resources to create 1,000,000 full time jobs. That's a lot of kitchen tables! The concurrent reductions in spending should prevent a deficit from occurring, but the economic activity of reviving business will take up the slack, and the deep spending cuts will keep the books balanced far into the future (as well as allowing the debt and unfunded liabilities like pensions to be dealt with).

 

[a_majoor]

The Liberal Party discovers one saviour takes a pass:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/526141

McKenna passes on the Liberal leadership

JIM YOUNG/REUTERS

Oct 28, 2008 05:27 PM

THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA–Rebuilding the federal Liberals and restoring the party to a majority government will take more time than he's ready to give, Frank McKenna said today.

The 60-year-old former New Brunswick premier has formally ruled himself out of the leadership race to replace Stephen Dion.

"The challenge of winning the leadership, restoring the health of the Liberal party and returning a Liberal majority government requires a longer time commitment than I am prepared to make," McKenna said in a news release.

"There will be an ample number of well-qualified candidates to do this important work."

McKenna has twice been touted in Liberal circles as the heir apparent to the party throne.

But Canada's former ambassador to the United States declined to run in the 2006 race that elected Dion as a dark horse choice from a wide large field.

Now, despite a widespread support for him, he's declining again.

"Although I have been deeply moved by expressions of support for me from across the country, I have not been persuaded to change my long-standing resolve to exit public life for good," he said.

Toronto MPs Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae were the front-runners in the 2006 race that Dion eventually won. Both appear poised to play the same role this time around, although neither has officially declared they are running yet.

The only declared candidate is New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc, the son of former governor general Romeo LeBlanc. Several others, including former deputy prime minister John Manley, have said they are putting out feelers before making a decision on running.

Dion announced he was stepping down following the party's Oct. 14 electoral disaster that saw the Liberals reduced to 76 seats and their lowest share of the popular vote – 26 per cent – since Confederation.

A leadership convention likely won't take place until next May in Vancouver, where the party already has space booked for what will be its biennial policy conference.

 

[Armymedic]

McKenna makes too much money to run for public office.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Former Liberal Party of Canada president Stephen LeDrew (he's the guy who called Chrétien’s campaign financing reforms “dumb as a bag of hammers”) has some thoughts, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, on the Liberal leadership candidates, ending with a surprise choice:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/01/stephen-ledrew-liberal-leadership-race-cries-for-a-real-winner.aspx

Stephen LeDrew: Liberal leadership race cries for a real winner

Posted: November 01, 2008, 10:36 AM by Kelly McParland

Diminished as it is by Jean Chrétien’s lies and abuse of power in Shawinigate, by AdScam and by the Dion debacle, the Liberal party must deliver a real winner in its upcoming leadership race, or face the genuine possibility of assuming “has-been” status. No obvious choice has emerged, so before all the usual suspects line up behind their preferred candidates, here is the undiluted truth about those whose names will be bandied about.

Michael Ignatieff  He is a big brain, to be sure, and seems to have overcome the slam of spending 30 years abroad. However, when I mentioned to a major Liberal that I thought Iggy had become less arrogant, the immediate answer was: “No, he is just as hugely arrogant as before. You have just gotten used to it!” Arrogance is not a bar to running the country, but it makes getting to the top harder. He will turn 64 before the next election, and besides, he often looks cranky on TV.

Bob Rae  Decent, smart, statesmanlike, worldly — all true, but it is fantasy to believe that Ontario, where the Liberals must rebound, will forget his appalling record as the province’s first and last NDP Premier. If Rae became leader, Tory attack ads would make him so toxic that Liberals would pine for the good old days when the biggest strike against them was the National Energy Program. He too will hit 64 before he hits the hustings and has his own cranky TV appearances to contend with.

Dominic Leblanc  He has a lot going for him, including being at the forefront of what would be a generational shift within the Liberal party — a transformation in high demand. As someone who’s perfectly bilingual, smart and knows his way around Ottawa and the country, Leblanc brings a lot of the right stuff into the contest. He is not a national figure, but campaigns count. Let’s see how he races.

Martha Hall Finlay  A smart woman in her forties with loads of personality and brains, and bilingual to boot. Finlay has persevered against great odds to get into the House of Commons, and would enrich the race immensely. But is she more than a backbencher? Let’s see how her red bus chugs along this time around.

Ruby Dhalla  An intelligent, experienced Member of Parliament, chosen by Maxim magazine as the third hottest female politician in the world, she has lots going for her, and should run to prove that she has more than ethnicity, good looks and charm. Is she just another hottie? Bring on the talent and let’s judge for ourselves.

McGuinty  Which one? David or the Preem? Rumours abound that either or both will run, but the Premier would be giving up a sure thing for a long shot, so David must be the one. David is bright, young and in the process of becoming an experienced Member of Parliament. He would gain from being a candidate, but would be dragged down by his brother’s reputation for being colourless, boring and — as they say in the NHL — a grinder without any star quality. Stay tuned.

John Manley  Experienced, bilingual, occasionally given to a good line (remember that one after the Iraq decision about brave Canadians in the cemeteries of Europe?), but plodding and prone to coming off as very, very old school. He would add gravitas, but his ability to rouse the crowds is questionable. He could push the Liberal party back to the era before TV.

Gerard Kennedy  Inexperienced in federal politics, and blamed by many Liberal insiders for putting Dion over the top at the Montreal leadership convention, thereby handing the party its biggest defeat of all time. With stumbling French and delusions of competence, it is uncertain whether Kennedy will even be at the post when the starting pistol fires.

Martin Cauchon and Denis Coderre  Both from Quebec, these gentlemen are also said to be considering their options. But this time, in the fine Liberal tradition of alternating French and English leaders, the job will go to someone outside of Quebec, so both can run just to stake out territory for the next time.

All observers agree that the next Liberal leader must be savvy, experienced, quick on his or her feet, gutsy and able to beat Stephen Harper. All of the above individuals have varying degrees of the credentials required, but one politician who no one has considered so far could really juice up the race.

So come on down, Danny Williams! As they say on the Rock, “My son, we loves ya.” You always knew when you were beating up Prime Minister Harper that you were just practicing for the big time. And you were wildly successful in clearing Newfoundland and Labrador of every Tory.

Let’s get on with it.

National Post​

Stephen LeDrew, a Toronto lawyer and a radio host on CFRB 1010, was president of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1998 to 2003.

Danny might as well switch to the Liberals – there’s no way he’s going to mend fences with the Conservatives.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well at least  McGuinty, Kennedy, Finlay, Manley, LeBlanc, Cauchon, Coderre and  Dhalla are "honest" Liberals.  They may be colourless members of the coterie but at least you know which cot they came from.

Unfortunately they don't seem to have much background in, or understanding of the world outside.  And they seem to be subject to accepting wise men from afar who can tell them of it.

Danny Williams would continue in this vein - a self-serving businessman sailing under a Tory flag of convenience

As opposed to:

Michael Ignatieff - a defacto American conservative sailing under a Canadian Liberal flag
Bob Rae - a Canadian socialist sailing under a Canadian Liberal flag
Scott Brison (he also challenged for the leadership last time) - Tory sailing under a Liberal flag
Pierre Trudeau - a socialist sailing under the Liberal flag

And the ultimate Liberal - MacKenzie King - a non-entity sailing under a Liberal flag.

It has been a very comfortable dovecot but what makes these doves fly?

 

[GAP]

Danny might as well switch to the Liberals – there’s no way he’s going to mend fences with the Conservatives.

Williams is going to pay and pay and pay.....there will be mild smiles, handclasps, jokes, but the knives are out and they won't be put away until he's gone.....

Charest falls into the same league, but the conservatives won't be as forthright about hurting him.

McGinty is just a Liberal, and will be treated as such....

These are the only Premiers who can/have hurt the Conservatives....others seem to have taken note of how McGinty was treated and don't pick fights, except Williams who thought he was invincible....

 

[Kirkhill]

....others seem to have taken note of how McGinty was treated and don't pick fights, except Williams who thought he was invincible....

Ontario can't be ignored.  Newfoundland can.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act is an interesting column by Lawrence Martin – a fellow to whom we should pay attention when he talks politics, specially Liberal politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081031.wcomartin03/BNStory/specialComment/home

Lawrence Martin
With McKenna out, make room for John Manley

From Monday's Globe and Mail
November 3, 2008 at 12:30 AM EST

On Frank McKenna's record, it won't look good that once again he approached the starting line of a Liberal leadership race and once again he shrunk away from the challenge. But this time, his fadeout might serve the party well.

Politicians - not just Frank - like to be wooed. It's great for the ego. You get your name floated, you send out the carnival barkers to boost the cause, you watch as the big suck-up derby unfolds.

Mr. McKenna let it happen in the last leadership race as well. Got a ton of super P.R. then, too. Before that, he had both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin thinking he might run for the Liberals in federal campaigns. But then, as now, he was more comfortable in boardrooms, even chairing CanWest, the media chain that stands for all things anti-Liberal.

Grits don't like Frank's big tease routines because they create the impression that the party is down and the leadership prize isn't worth fighting for. But this time, his decision to stay out increases the chances that a more qualified Liberal star from times past will get in.

John Manley's crew wasn't so optimistic about his entry a week ago when the Frank talk was in the air. With Mr. McKenna in the race, along with Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, there simply wouldn't have been enough oxygen left in the room for a realistic Manley bid. But now he can position himself nicely as the alternative to the two candidates with a flare for fratricide. Rae and Iggy delegates were not inclined to support one another last time and show few signs of having eased up on their loathing tendencies.

Mr. Manley sent an e-mail to hundreds of Liberals last week, some of whom he hardly knew. He sought their advice on whether to enter. The feedback has been upbeat, which, given his qualifications for the job, is hardly surprising. On finance, on foreign affairs, on matters of security, on Canada-U.S. relations, he is a candidate of experience, erudition and sound judgment - one who spans the centre of the spectrum at a time when many see the Liberals as having swung too far to the left.

Mr. McKenna, shrewd, forward-thinking, well-connected, had many strengths but a slew of drawbacks as well. No experience in Ottawa. Out of politics - save a stint as Washington ambassador - for a decade. A stumblebum in French, little appeal in Quebec. Doing a very good job running a province, New Brunswick, with a population the size of Mississauga is a feather in the cap, but hardly great grounding for federal leadership. The new leader won't have time, given the minority situation, for Ottawa training.

Mr. Manley, who has been out of the game for a few years as well, has handicaps of his own. He made a rather lame attempt at challenging Paul Martin for the crown a few years ago. He lacked fire in the belly. Rather flat on the platform and on television, he has to up his level of enthusiasm and sharpen his message to convince Liberals he can kick-start the party.

He has also lacked a strong core team - people who are so dedicated and juiced about the candidate they'll knock down walls for him. Some party members will see him, as they do Mr. McKenna, as too much of a boardroom Liberal. Moreover, his decision to chair a committee on the extension of the Afghan war mission was viewed as giving the Conservatives a bit of a helping hand and did not go over well in some Grit quarters.

These are obstacles that a seasoned Manley, a Manley hungrier than he was before, can overcome. But he has to move fast. The young Maritimer, Dominic LeBlanc, also benefiting from the McKenna absence, isn't a big threat to win, but is showing some surprising early strength.

The leadership race, with the two front-runners being the same as last time, risks looking too much the same and needs Mr. Manley's heft to give it a compelling look. The party is not in as dire condition as some would argue. When the Tories won record landslides in 1958 and 1984, the Grits were in dreadful shape. Today, Liberal opponents couldn't win a majority - not even against Stéphane Dion.

It's one of the reasons why John Manley is unlikely to pull a Frank McKenna.

Caveat lector: I must repeat that I know, not too well, and like John Manley. I think that he was an excellent minister – in a series of tough portfolios – and that he is an excellent man and can be a first rate political leader, too.

I also repeat that I think neither Ignatieff nor Rae can lead the Liberals to electoral victory – although either might do a good job of rebuilding the party. On balance, if I was a Liberal, I would find Rae the (marginally) better choice because he is more likely to be willing and able to lead from the opposition benches while the requisite rebuilding happens.

I have often said that I will not vote Liberals again until the last vestiges of Trudeau are wrung out of the party.  Now, no Liberal leader, and certainly not John Manley, is ever gong to say, “Goodbye and good-riddance, Trudeau!” He (Trudeau) has a near divine status in the Liberal Party but, in Finance and in Foreign Affairs, Manley moved the party and the country sharply away from Trudeau’s vision and, solidly, back towards the St Laurent position. Could Manley entice me to vote Liberal again? It’s unlikely, soon, but who knows?

 

[Infanteer]

I have often said that I will not vote Liberals again until the last vestiges of Trudeau are wrung out of the party.  Now, no Liberal leader, and certainly not John Manley, is ever gong to say, “Goodbye and good-riddance, Trudeau!” He (Trudeau) has a near divine status in the Liberal Party but, in Finance and in Foreign Affairs, Manley moved the party and the country sharply away from Trudeau’s vision and, solidly, back towards the St Laurent position. Could Manley entice me to vote Liberal again? It’s unlikely, soon, but who knows?

+1

Manley is one who I've come to respect as someone nearing the role of "elder statesman".  I wouldn't vote for him simply because he was running, as I would expect some "navigational correctiongs" to be proclaimed loud and clear by the Liberal Party, but at least he wouldn't have me saying "Well, I hope Mr Harper gives us something good to justify the fact that he's getting my vote anyways...."

 

[Old Sweat]

Saddly Mister Manley is well behind the curve in the vital area of organization, which means committed members firmly in one's camp, which translates into delegates at the convention. This takes time, just as it took Paul Martin years to get his supporters into control of local riding associations. If one controls the associations, then one can control who are elected as delegates.

For an example of how riding politics works, here is a war story. Harken back to when the right was split into the PC and Canadian Alliance parties. In our riding there was a deep schism at the federal level, while the provincial PC party had members of both camps cooperating quite happily. The PC convention that eventually selected Peter MacKay as its leader was coming up, and the David Orchard wing of the PC party had wiggled its way into a position where it threatened to sieze control of the local riding association, and thus stack the delegates with members violently opposed to any truck or trade with the Canadian Alliance. (Just to thicken the plot, one of the leaders of the local Orchard faction was none other than the sitting Liberal MP's sister.) There was a desperate phone call, several of we Canadian Alliance members were hastily signed up as PCs and our names added to the membership list. At the delegate selection meeting the old and instant Tories outvoted the Orchard wing and named delegates who ultimately realized the two parties must merge. (And if you don't think that we 'conspirators' of both parties weren't working towards the same ultimate objective, then I have some beach front property in Spin Boldak for sale.) And that, boys and girls, is how political organization works.

He may have all the attractive ideas in the world and be an inspiring leader and a brilliant orator, but unless he can get his supporters selected as delegates, he is up the proverbial creek without a paddle. To attract the level of grass roots support, he must be able to convince the rank and file that they want him to lead the party. Given his age, lack of perceived hunger for the job, bland presence on a podium and collaboration with the Great Satan, that is not going to be easy. That takes time and that takes money for travel, mailings, shmoozing and all the rest. John Manley may have the money, but he is short of time.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Saddly Mister Manley is well behind the curve in the vital area of organization, which means committed members firmly in one's camp, which translates into delegates at the convention...

He may have all the attractive ideas in the world and be an inspiring leader and a brilliant orator, but unless he can get his supporters selected as delegates, he is up the proverbial creek without a paddle...

Mr. Manly is almost certainly behind in organization, and many (most?) of the 'top' Liberal organizers and campaign managers are already committed to Iggy or Rae; further he is neither an inspirational leader nor a brilliant orator. He does have plenty of good, solid, pragmatic ideas - many of which I suspect I will find 'good' for Canada, but some others of which I will right roundly reject.

 

[OldSolduer]

"collaboration with the Great Satan"

And that is one reason why he will NEVER be a Liberal party leader.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a letter to the editor that pretty much sums up almost everything that is wrong with almost all Liberals - and with most Canadians, too:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081104.COLETTS04-6/TPStory/Opinion/letters

Where's our Obama, eh?

ARMIDA SPADA-MCDOUGALL

November 4, 2008

Vancouver -- Isn't it time for a more dynamic, likeable, compelling candidate than John Manley (With Frank McKenna Out, Make Room For John Manley - Nov. 3), who appears to be the most bland of politicians. Does Lawrence Martin really think Mr. Manley will be able to galvanize the Liberals?

I agree current choices are less than appealing. Bob Rae has baggage in Ontario and is too old at 60; Michael Ignatieff is also too old at 61 and Canadians haven't forgotten his support of the war in Iraq or long absence from Canada. It's time for someone new, someone charismatic, someone highly qualified, someone who would appeal to all of Canada, not just parts of it.

We miss the enigmatic, brilliant, charismatic Pierre Trudeau. The Liberal Party needs to do some serious recruiting. Spare us the retreads, the has-beens, the men of yesterday.

Give us something new, something exciting, someone who could stir some life into the party.

Where is our Obama?

Armida Spada-Mcdougall “thinks,” and I suspect most Canadians agree, that:

• 61 is old;

• New is better than ‘old;’ and

• Charisma is more important than policy.

Is it any wonder Canada hasn’t “punched above it weight” since 1967?

 

[GAP]

They are all sitting around waiting for young Trudeau to grow up, hoping he will be the vote magnet his father was......based on what I have seen, nowhere near.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, according to is report, reproduced under he Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, I will not have to worry about having to switch allegiances because John Manley will not seek the Liberal leadership:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081104.wmanley1104/BNStory/politics/home

Manley won't run for Liberal leadership

JANE TABER

Globe and Mail Update
November 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM EST

John Manley will not seek the leadership of the Liberal Party, saying that he searched his soul and found he lacks the “burning ambition” to run.

“… I truly found that in my mind and heart, I have moved on from the world of elected office,” he wrote in an e-mail to his friends and colleagues this morning. “I also found that I lacked the burning ambition necessary to mount and sustain such a campaign.”

Mr. Manley, the former deputy prime minister, had sent out an e-mail last week to his supporters, asking them three questions about a possible leadership bid, whether there was enough support, money and organizers.

He spent the weekend speaking to his circle of friends about what he should do. Many people had been urging him to run. As he said in his e-mail today there was “indeed water in the pool …”

“So, for a few days, I have ‘tried on' my old uniform and made an effort to think again as an active, partisan combatant in the political wars,” he wrote. “I love my country and am loyal to my party. I care deeply about public policy and I honour public service as the highest calling. ...I hope that there will arise other opportunities for me to serve in the future. But these are unlikely to be in the holding of elected office.”

Mr. Manley, who is practising law now, made one last appeal in his e-mail –that those the leadership candidates “treat one another with the civility and mutual respect they deserve.”

He could not be reached for comment; but his e-mail was sent to The Globe and Mail by a number of Liberals.

Toronto MP Bob Rae and New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc have signalled their intention to run. It is expected, too, that deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will also put his name forward.

Mr. Manley would surely have been a front-runner in the race; his decision follows that of former NB Premier Frank McKenna, who announced last week, that he would not be seeking the leadership.

The Liberal Party executive is to meet this weekend to discuss the terms of the convention

More to come

Too bad for the Liberal Party; perhaps too bad for the country, too.

But, Armida Spada-Mcdougall's wish comes rue.

 

[a_majoor]

Liberal blood letting begins:

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/11/07/are-ignatieff-backers-trying-to-marginalize-kennedy/

Are Ignatieff Backers Trying To Marginalize Kennedy?
November 7, 2008 · By Adam Dyck

According to this story from the Globe, the Quebec wing of the federal Liberals (which is largely dominated by Ignatieff’s supporters) is trying to keep anyone with outstanding campaign debts from 2006 from running this time around. Combine this with their seeking to move the convention from Vancouver to Central Canada, and I start to see a pattern.

1. The only real contender with debts from the last convention is Gerard Kennedy, who placed fourth on the first ballot, just behind Dion and Rae. He’d be the biggest name to be prohibited from running if Quebec’s motion is accepted.

2. As a grassroots candidate, Kennedy has a lot of support across Canada, especially in BC and Alberta where the other candidates are rather unpopular. He has the most to lose by seeing the convention move East.

I’m probably being too paranoid, but I could be right.

and OMG 

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2008/11/dion-threatens-quick-return-to-polls.html

Dion threatens quick return to polls
If Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion walks the talk, Canadians will be returning to the polls soon.

Dion says his MPs no longer have the stomach for abstaining from, or not showing up for, confidence votes. Dion said Thursday:

It's certainly the sense that the caucus gave to me today. It's very clear that we will be an Official Opposition, that we will be very constructive, that we'll look at each vote on its merit, and if we don't think there is a merit, well we’ll vote as a team, altogether.

MPs return to parliament on Nov. 18 with a throne speech on the following day. And the first major test could come soon after when the opposition is faced with proposed Conservative legislation with measures which include life sentences for youths as young as 14 who are convicted of murder and fewer conditional sentences allowing convicted criminals to serve their time at home.

And the Tories have warned that the legislation will be brought before the Commons quickly, and that they will not back down.

If the Grits vote against this crime legislation, it could mean an election, assuming enough NDP and Bloc members join them. Neither of those opposition parties have much taste for this legislation, so who would blink first?

One wonders whether Dion is just bluffing as he has so often done since he became leader of his party. Would he really pull the plug on the government at a time when his party is in the process of replacing him?

One never knows. The Grits brought down Joe Clark’s Progressive Conservatives in late 1979 after Pierre Elliott Trudeau had resigned as their leader. The Liberal Party then persuaded Trudeau to stay on, and he, of course, defeated Clark in the 1980 election that followed—and the Grits won a majority government.

I can’t imagine the Liberals going into another election with Dion, though. But they could make a deal to appoint an interim leader (with consensus of the caucus) who would fight the election and go into a leadership convention afterwards. Hmm, but I doubt they’d do anything like that.

I just don’t see this boast of Dion’s ending happily for him.

Hubris in action.

"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich Schiller

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The Liberals might tempt the fates when they get a new leader but I doubt before and I doubt the NDP will wish to put some of their new seats on the line.

I can see at least 2 years of semi 'cooperation'.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is some good advice for the Liberal Party of Canada:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/uselection/story.html?id=942417

Tips for a successful Liberal leadership contest
From a self-confessed 'party hack'

John Mraz, National Post

Published: Saturday, November 08, 2008


This weekend, the Liberal party's national executive will meet to decide myriad procedural and logistical issues connected to the party's leadership race -- each tactically important to all ambitious candidates. Where should the convention take place? How long should the contest run? What will the entry fee be? How much should a Liberal membership cost?

It all sounds very arcane. Yet Canadians -- and that means you -- should care.

Why? The answer can be found at our doorstep, in our oft-maligned neighbour to the south, where Barack Obama's rise from obscurity to the White House inspired America, and much of the rest of the world besides.

His success shows that, while by no means perfect, America's lengthy, hotly contested primaries can succeed in engaging millions of voters in a party and its chosen leadership candidate. A long race allows members and non-members alike to carefully consider all comers, and debate the issues.

Many Liberals are lobbying this weekend's arbiters for a very short race. Maybe they presume it might favour their candidate, or they resent the idea of diminished personal influence in an expanded race, or they feel that a long race might expose the party to (God forbid!) scrutiny and constructive criticism.

Remember: It was the very length of the U. S. contest that allowed Americans to find their collective voice in President-elect Obama.

Onerous candidate entry fees should likewise be rejected. They are designed for one purpose only: to eliminate some of the less well-heeled or non-networked competition. After this autumn's loss at the polls, the Liberal party more than ever needs to attract as many contestants of integrity as it can.

As a veteran organizer of membership recruitment efforts across the country, I think voting membership to any political party should be free. As in the United States, we should move toward a system that gives voters the option to register their party affiliation (with Elections Canada), thereby empowering them to vote on party matters. We may not be legislatively ready for that just yet. But I hope that the Liberal hierarchy recognizes that voluntary, free (or very cheap) engagement is more valuable for the party's long-term growth and financial stability than prohibitive fees designed to generate a short-term war chest.

So-called insta-Liberal drives, which emphasize fee-heavy mass recruitment using systems historically rife with shenanigans, further erode all participants' faith in the system. I would think that one dollar would do as a membership fee -- just enough to cover its administrative costs.

As to the location of the opera itself, it was most Liberals' understanding that the matter had been settled some time ago. Western Canada has often deservedly felt snubbed by the Big Red Machine. Proving our commitment to their interests seems like a good idea. In the last few weeks, there has been talk of moving the franchise from Vancouver back to points in Quebec or Ontario, the provinces that held the last two conventions. No matter what the real motivation for that consideration may be, moving the contest now smacks of political intervention and chicanery.

In the 2006 leadership contest, I played an active role as an Ontario organizer for Bob Rae's bid. It was at once one of the most wonderful and frustrating years of my life. This time around, as a new father with other projects on the go, I will support Mr. Rae with my vote and some small volunteerism, but leave the organization to hardier souls. The views I express here are simply my own, born only of years spent fighting dozens of campaigns, often in toxic and obstructionist environments. As one of my best friends in the party always reminds me, "It's a shame that 80% of the resources of any party are traditionally spent on internecine warfare."

As such, I have made every effort to meet with supporters from every other faction and corner of my party, many of whom I had spent years fighting. Because ultimately, we're
all in the same boat. Conventions and contests must not only decide, but unite and inspire.

As I watched John McCain's very sincere concession speech on Tuesday night, and the grace and calm of Barack Obama's oratory, I stood next to a veteran Liberal activist who supports Michael Ignatieff. We were united in our awe.

Let this contest be inspired by those principles. Let the forum of ideas begin.

John Mraz is a political consultant and self-described Liberal party hack.

I agree with pretty much everything he says, and some ideas – like party registration rather than paid memberships – are policies that the Conservatives Party should pioneer.

 

[a_majoor]

A look at the potential Liberal leadership race. The Liberal Party really needs new ideas and new blood:

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/11/liberal-party-making-same-mistakes.html

Liberal Party making the same mistakes, leadership heading for another bust


In Canadian politics, it seems like the Liberal Party is still stuck in 2006. Another leadership race has been kicked off. Key candidates have taken a pass. MPs haven't sat a day in the House, yet Liberals are already threatening an election they cannot afford to fight. Financing remains a serious problem. The great red machine that considers itself Canada's natural governing party is fighting for survival and relevance West of Ontario and in most of Quebec. Its traditional strongholds like new Canadians and the GTA are threatened by Conservatives. Since being in opposition, the party has failed to generate any meaningful new policy ideas and is consumbed by internal political battles as oppose to solutions that address the challenges everyday Canadians face. Even after the historic win of Barack Obama, Liberals seemed silent and without reaction to the victory that will have an impact on Canadian politics. The issue of leadership is important, but for the Liberal Party of Canada, it should be the least of concerns.

If you look closely at the campaign of Barack Obama, you can see the Conservatives have been building a similar machine North of the border since 2004 with the roots prior in the Reform Party. Barack Obama had a fundraising campaign that appealed to a broad base of donors that could give what they could afford. $10, $20, $50, $100, $200, $500 or the maximum individual limit. A large numbers of individuals gave in small amounts and the Obama campaign set records in contributions. On the Republican side, Ron Paul demonstrated that the same formula could work and he pulled off a successful grassroots financing campaign of his own. Liberals are still stuck in the same era as Republicans addicted to large donations from a small amount of sources. The web, social networking sites, YouTube, and email were heavily used during the American campaign. Sophistacated voter ID systems were used to identify and get out the vote on election day. The campaign was disciplined, always on message in both the media and on the trail, and it proved to be incredably strategic in their targeting of states through internal polling and call centers. Volunteers were coordinated, large in numbers and motivated to help wherever they could. Several were bused in from stronger Democratic areas and into the swing states like Virginia, Florida, Ohio and elsewhere that turned out to be competitive this election cycle. In 2006, Harper had the benefit of the sponsorship scandal to run on the message of change. In 2008, George W. Bush deserves credit for becoming such an obvious target for change in America. The Conservative campaign has put together a similar infrastructure in terms of their ability to raise money, manage the message and use technology to identify and get out the vote. Obama ran a 30 minute commercial on several networks in prime time. The first ad that Conservatives ran to define Stephane Dion took place during the Superbowl. The Obama and Harper campaigns are what a modern political campaign now looks like and is an example of what has become expected by the media and general public.

What made Obama so unique was his ability to appeal to so many first time and new voters. He brought out the African American community in record numbers and also young people for the first time as well. He positioned himself as non-partisan and has a charisma and talent for public speaking that has not been seen in recent decades. He represented generational change and the significance of being the first African American president cannot be considered lightly given the history of the United States. Being able to fill stadiums and NHL hockey arenas is completely unheard of in Canada. From the Liberal Party perspective, they are at square one in terms of trying to implement these Obama campaign strategies. Conservatives have the benefit of learning and tweaking their existing organization based on what was witnessed South of the border. I think the next priority for Conservatives in Canada should be working to build something similar to the 50 state strategy Obama put together for our 308 ridings. We are close to a majority and should make ourselves competitive in every seat we do not hold within the next two election cycles. Ground organization is crucial as is appealing to new voters.

Stephen LeDrew is usually quickly dismissed, but lately he has been making sound points about the Liberal Party and what they need to do to become relevant again. Platform, fundraising, ground organization, leadership and regional concerns are all issued that have to be addressed. Given that Liberals are threatening to bring down the government over crime issues demonstrate that there will not be much time before the next election and that this parliament will continue to be disfunctional and in campaign mode. A leadership race will be held in early May and probably after that an election will take place within a year. Liberals will make the same mistakes all over again and likely hand Stephen Harper a majority next time. Liberals need to realize that rebuilding will take years and not months. They have to take a hard look in the mirror and ask what needs to be changed to regain all the ground lost since the 2004 election campaign. They must come to terms with the fact that the right has been united and the NDP and Greens are bleeding their votes from the left while the Conservative Party itself has made gains from the right of their party. The fantasy about former progressive conservatives being disgruntled or willing to vote Liberal at this point is over. Clearly a lot of the Paul Martin Liberal supporters are now voting Conservative. A leadership race will lead to more fighting and divisions within the Liberal Party. At the end of the day there is a great chance that Michael Ignatieff will win with a portion on the left feeling alienated. Otherwise Bob Rae will be elected and many on the right of the Liberal party will be left feeling uncomfortable. Worst case scenario is if they make the same mistake as in 2006 allowing a candidate that nobody wants become the compromise winner with those in the frontrunner camps sitting on their hands or taking shots anomalously through the media during the next campaign. I predict whoever wins will be the entire Liberal rebuilding process and that little else will change within the party prior to the next campaign. One thing is also clear, there is no Obama potential among Ignatieff, Rae or LeBlanc.

The world and country are changing and Liberals need to as well. They need to be proactive and not reactive. In the last campaign all they did was jump on negative media headlines about the Conservatives. Mulroney, "in and out" scheme, arts cuts, Omar Kadar, ABC Campaign, Gerry Ritz, young offenders act and other issues that were largely inside baseball to average voters. These issues took priority over the Liberals defining their vision for Canada. The carbon tax was political suicide because it was introduced a few months after the green issue was overtaken by the economy. Other Liberal platforms sounded like the promises of yesterday and not the future. For example Liberals have been hammering on Kyoto for years, but with Obama soon to come to power with likely a new attitude on the issue from Washington; it is Harper that is going to be in a position to work with Obama and take credit for advocating a position on climate change that includes the United States and other large polluters. Obama opposes Kyoto and very few countries will reach their targets. Kyoto is dead and Liberals need to move on with the world. The economic position of the country makes Liberal promises such as national childcare seem irresponsible. The Liberal position on Quebec and their brand of federalism now seems outdated. Canada has become more conservative in recent years while the Liberal part has been moving further to the left. If they do not get their act together soon, they will be left ignored on the sidelines while others manage the changing political realities. Liberals need a generational change, but will come back with one of the candidates that was a runner up last time and has the resources to get into this race. What is needed is a candidate who can redefine and take Liberalism into the 21st century.

Will the Chretien wing or the Martin wing prevail? Will the party move to the left with Rae or to the right with Iggy? Who is willing to pay $90,000 to raise their profile and hope that they can come up the middle in this race? With so much election fatigue following elections federally, provincially (Quebec now voting), in America, and locally; how much are people going to get excited about another Liberal leadership race with the same candidates following the Montreal race that happened only two years ago? With no money to spend and looking to do this process on the cheap; will this race make Liberals look any more ready to govern?

The candidates: Who is Out

The two most dangerous candidates have decided not to run. Justin Trudeau, although inexperienced is someone with the name recognition that could have brought some media attention and excitement to the Liberal leadership race. Maybe in the future, but this time he is out. For the second time Frank McKenna has decided the challenge of building the Liberal Party is too great for him to leave the corporate world. He was a candidate who was not from Toronto and who had the economic credentials and the potential to bring the party back to the center by moving right. John Manley for the second time also decided not to run, a candidate who likely faced backlash for agreeing to be on the Afghanistan panel appointed by Stephen Harper and for lacking charisma despite the strong experience on his resume. Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett have already said they are out as well this time. Joe Volpe is unlikely to try again after his performance last time. I can't see Hedy Fry in again either. After leading Ontario into "have not" status I would think Dalton McGuinty is going to stay right where he is. Same goes for Gordon Campbell in B.C.

The candidates: Who is In

Michael Ignatieff is the frontrunner right now and has the most credible team behind him. Bob Rae is obviously in the race again and may have more opportunity to grow than Ignatieff after the first ballot. Dominic Leblanc seems to have positioned himself in the media and within the party as the Dion style compromise candidate who can come up the middle.

The candidates: Who might get In despite barriers

Martha Hall Findlay, Ken Dryden and Gerard Kennedy might decide to run but both are heavily in debt. Below is a listing of all Liberal debts from the last leadership race courtesy of the Hill Times.

Liberal Leadership 2006 Candidates' Debts, Payments:


Maurizio Bevilacqua

Total loan: $515,188

Loan paid: $265,808

Unpaid claim: $19,998

Balance owed: $269,378


Scott Brison

Total loan: $200,000

Loan paid: $50,000

Unpaid claim: $95

Balance owed: $150,095


Stéphane Dion

Total loan: $905,000

Loans paid: $280,000

Unpaid claim: $2,860

Balance owed: $627,860


Ken Dryden

Total loan: $330,995

Loan paid: $0

Unpaid claim: $64,894

Balance owed: $395,890


Hedy Fry

Total loan: $153,500

Loan paid: $49,000

Unpaid claim: $0

Balance owed: $104,000

Martha Hall Findlay

Total loan: $130,000

Loan paid: $0

Unpaid claim: $54,460
Balance owed: $184,460


Michael Ignatieff

Total loan: $570,000

Loan paid: $426,500

Unpaid claim: $0

Balance owed: $143,500


Gerard Kennedy

Total loan: $451,170

Loan paid: $195,750

Unpaid claim: $66,941

Balance owed: $322,361


Joseph Volpe

Total loan: $341,556

Loan paid: $181,266

Unpaid claim: $0

Balance owed: $160,290


Obviously these debts are major barriers and are hard to pay off under the new rules. Can Martha Hall Findlay, Gerard Kennedy, and Ken Dryden afford to double down with the entry fee raised to $90,000? That really just leaves wild card candidates like Ruby Dhalla, Ralph Goodale, Ujjal Dosanjh, Martin Cauchon, Denis Coderre and David McGuinty all remain possibilities. Some of these candidates do not speak French hurting their chances of being successful. Right now it is shaping up as a three way race between Rae, Ignatieff and LeBlanc. There doesn't seem to be any outsiders left that might run either.

Finally there is a good chance Stephane Dion will lead Liberals into the next election if he continues to make the same old mistakes as last time. If I was Harper I would not back down on these crime bills. If Dion wants to charge the taxpayer another $300 million over his soft on crime stance, I would be happy to fight another election asking for a majority to allow us to get things done. I hope we do not see another session of Liberals huffing and puffing and then sitting down. Just say from the beginning you need time to rebuild and will allow this parliament to work until Liberals are willing and able to fight an election. Talking tough and abstaining is the same mistake as last time. Any election before May would be suicidal and Liberals know it. If they cannot afford to have a proper leadership convention, how can they expect to face Conservatives in a general election?

It is a shame what the Liberal Party has become. It is clear that there road to rebuilding will be long and that it will take some time to get there. In the meantime Conservatives should continue to build while Liberals continue to self destruct. I am not sure there is anyone in this race that can prevent Liberals from making the same mistakes or simply becoming relevant again. Of course we should not get cocky though as there will be tough economic issues to address and for some reason the Liberal brand always remains resiliant and strong. As a Conservative, I would like to see Bob Rae come out on top. My prediction though is that Michael Ignatieff will win this time after several ballots.