Who's going to be the next Liberal leader?

[Brandon716]

As for supporting the Iraq war, who cares?

NDP and Green voters care deeply, and if facts are important to you the data posted on this thread proves the Liberals have literally bled support away to the NDP and Greens to become a 3rd rate party. I personally believe the Green party has been created in response to perceived Liberal missteps, and it is up to the party to win those voters back.

An Iggy leadership will attract new voters from those camps about like Harper would attract the socialist vote.

 

[Hydrogen]

The Globe just posted an announcement that Manley will not be running for the leadership of the Liberals.

The race appears to be between Iggy and Rae. Dark horse possibility so far: Dominic LeBlanc.

 

[Moonmoth]

Has Ignatieff even announced that he is running? Rae has. Maybe Ignatieff will concede without a fight to Rae - which would be fantastic!!!

 

[Hydrogen]

There are other people running for the leadership, so a Rae win is not a forgone conclusion.

 

[Whoaccio]

Can this poll be re done to trim the options down to Rae & Iggy?

 

[adma]

Why just they? We don't know the plans of Dom LeBlanc etc yet...

 

[kEiThZ]

NDP and Green voters care deeply, and if facts are important to you the data posted on this thread proves the Liberals have literally bled support away to the NDP and Greens to become a 3rd rate party. I personally believe the Green party has been created in response to perceived Liberal missteps, and it is up to the party to win those voters back.

An Iggy leadership will attract new voters from those camps about like Harper would attract the socialist vote.

1) I am skeptical that the Iraq War issue would prevent NDP and Green voters from voting for the Liberals. If that was the case, Afghanistan would have already pushed them (swing left voters) away already. The strength of the ABC movement which delivers votes for the Liberals proves otherwise.

2) They maybe bleeding left on the popular vote, but like I pointed out before, take a look at the ridings. The ridings they need to win are more to the right. Trading support in urban areas for surburban and rural ridings is the only way to win. The more left they go the more they will get cocooned in TMV. They've already proven that this round.

 

[Brandon716]

1) I am skeptical that the Iraq War issue would prevent NDP and Green voters from voting for the Liberals. If that was the case, Afghanistan would have already pushed them (swing left voters) away already. The strength of the ABC movement which delivers votes for the Liberals proves otherwise.

2) They maybe bleeding left on the popular vote, but like I pointed out before, take a look at the ridings. The ridings they need to win are more to the right. Trading support in urban areas for surburban and rural ridings is the only way to win. The more left they go the more they will get cocooned in TMV. They've already proven that this round.

I respect a difference of opinion. You simply don't have the same ideas on how to sustain a Liberal majority going forward. I think its going to take some radically different ideas than what you're saying here.

But then again, you were someone who didn't support the Liberals in this election so I can hold the right to ask how serious you want a new Liberal majority. Doesn't sound like you really want them to win a majority at all. LOL

 

[ShonTron]

Can this poll be re done to trim the options down to Rae & Iggy?

Perhaps we can have a new poll/thread once a convention is called. We can wait until then, and get all candidates up for a vote.

 

[Brandon716]

Why is the only choice all of a sudden between Rae and Iggy? Seems like a narrow field to consider, especially considering their lack of success in the past.

 

[kEiThZ]

I respect a difference of opinion. You simply don't have the same ideas on how to sustain a Liberal majority going forward. I think its going to take some radically different ideas than what you're saying here.

I am arguing that it does not matter if you loose voters on the left because they are concentrated in relatively few urban ridings. To win, and particularly to win a majority, any party needs to win a large amount of the suburban and rural vote. That's reality. If you look at the electoral map, that's painfully obvious. This isn't the US where winning a few urban nodes in each state gets you the whole kaboodle. Policy has to cater to much more than the urban areas. And for my money, I'd say that requires a go-slow approach on many leftist visions.

But then again, you were someone who didn't support the Liberals in this election so I can hold the right to ask how serious you want a new Liberal majority. Doesn't sound like you really want them to win a majority at all. LOL

Just because I have vote this one time for the Conservatives federally (and it's only my second vote for the Conservatives in any election), does not mean that I will not vote for the Liberals the next time. Believe you me, that was a hard choice. I am not a fan of Harper and I am getting weary with some of their social policies (arts cuts, stance on Omar Khadr, etc.)

But, this round I just didn't think the Liberals had renewed themselves enough. They took a member of a previous cabinet, who drafted a policy, rightly or wrongly that was divisive in Quebec and stuck him in as the leader. Then they tried to sell a radical tax shift...during an economic downturn. And that was going to be their solution....sucking billions more out of the economy (their claims of revenue neutrality) notwithstanding.

I certainly hope they have learned their lesson on the policy front here. And hopefully from watching the US campaign on the leadership front.

Lastly, I believe that democracy requires strong parties that offer compelling visions from which all voters can choose. Just because I am not a dyed in the wool Liberal, does not mean that I want to see the centuries old Liberal brand get decimated. I sincerely hope that they'll have on offer something and someone I can vote for next time. I like for them to go through a process of renewal....probably quite like what the US Republicans will need to win the next time around over there..... In the end that can only good for the Liberals and for Canada.

 

[unimaginative2]

Then they tried to sell a radical tax shift...during an economic downturn. And that was going to be their solution....sucking billions more out of the economy (their claims of revenue neutrality) notwithstanding.

But that's simply not true. Not only is it revenue neutral, so no money is being "sucked out of the economy," and a carbon tax is a far more economically efficient tax than the income tax. That's why everybody from the C.D. Howe Institute to Suzuki endorsed it, not to mention those 230 economists.

 

[Brandon716]

keith said he was considering a vote for the Green party, now he reveals he voted Conservative. Interesting...

 

[kEiThZ]

But that's simply not true. Not only is it revenue neutral, so no money is being "sucked out of the economy," and a carbon tax is a far more economically efficient tax than the income tax. That's why everybody from the C.D. Howe Institute to Suzuki endorsed it, not to mention those 230 economists.

Andrew Coyne has a fairly good breakdown of the revenue neutrality, and economic challenges of the Green Shift:
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/19/half-shift/

It's not the carbon tax that I have an issue with (though I was worried about changing the tax paradigm in the midst of a downturn), it's the idea that they did plan to raise billions for new social programs under the guise of the carbon tax. Like it or not, that's not the definition of revenue neutral. Billions in tax cuts for those at the bottom of the tax scale and billions in credits for the universal child benefit or for the working income tax, were all great ideas, but ultimately were going to be basically new tax and spend social programs during a downturn. Worse still, was the policy of reducing corporate income tax by 1% while introducing potentially very high taxes on energy intensive sectors we planned to rely on to pull us through a recession. IMHO, the policy as constructed was basically a shift of cash from upper income to lower income, from the corporate sector to private citizens.

The carbon tax was an amazing idea. I applaud Dion and the Liberals for having the courage to put forward an environmentally friendly tax policy. But the Green Shift was a poorly drafted, classic tax and spend Liberalism, with most of benefits accruing to private citizens at the bottom of the tax scale. Now, normally I'd be all for that....but I like many other voters were not about to vote to penalize the very companies that we rely on for our living. In a downturn, this was simply not a policy most voters would have supported. That's why they lost.....

 

[kEiThZ]

keith said he was considering a vote for the Green party, now he reveals he voted Conservative. Interesting...

I never lied about my intention. I said repeatedly I was torn three ways. I disliked the Liberals this round but I was still drawn to several policies that they had on the books till the end. I was leaning Green for almost the whole election just so they could get my toonie in public financing. What swayed me in the end were:

1) The Greens surged in the polls. They didn't need my help anymore.
2) I sincerely believe that the Conservative party winning votes in TO will convince them that TO is not a wasteland to be ignored for as long as their in office.
3) I didn't think the Liberals had a strong leader or a sound platform. Indeed my fear was that this platform might actually exacerbate any downturn with government attempting to force a paradigm changing tax and spend program during an economic slowdown.

Either way, you might see something wrong with voting Conservative. That's the ideological, partisan American in you. I find it quite telling that you and Mot both have very inflexible, doctrinaire political attitudes and are fairly quick to attack the other side with various epithets. Here in Canada, there's nothing wrong with being a Liberal one election and a Conservative the next. In fact, I think it's quite refreshing that I don't have to be wedded to one party for the rest of my life and get to vote based on what I believe to be the best for myself, my constituency and my country. This time that was the Conservatives. The election before that it was Green, and before that it was Liberal. That's the definition of a swing voter right there. We can't all be ideological sheep, now can we? What would be the fun in that?