Who's going to be the next Liberal leader?

[cacruden]

It's to keep out the losers. If you can't raise $90K for your bid, how will you lead the fundraising effort to finance the next campaign? For example, Gerard Kennedy still hasn't paid off the bill for his last leadership bid, while all Gerard Kennedy accomplished was to ensure Dion's victory, and kill the party's chances in the campaign.

A leadership campaign is not just to to elect the leader, but to give an opportunity for new blood to bring themselves to the public's attention - and to allow a wider dialog of different competitors policy positions. The better positions typically will be usurped by primary competitors. A longer lead-in to the convention would be better. Actually, I actually like the way the Conservative party did it last time. They held a convention, but had individual voting. Actually, one additional change I would do -- is to lower the entry fee and have a two stage convention. The first stage would be where you have a wider pool of candidates, which after vote number one - would be narrowed to the top two or three candidates - and then have another 3 or 4 months to campaign and hold the convention/individual voting at that time.

 

[adma]

Yeah, adma, I'm familiar with all those details. But in both Saanich and Durham, the NDP continued its campaign without a candidate, whether to get the per-vote subsidy or to ensure the defeat of a Liberal. In addition to the robo-dialers in Saanich (Even if it was Lunn's office, where did he get the NDP's lists?), "Jack Layton and the Ontario Team" signs went up in Durham during the last week.

I wasn't aware of the robo-dialers in Saanich, but I heard about the Durham situation and was going to respond in this thread acknowledging it, before you mentioned it. And, look--don't think that even a lot of non-wild-eyed-and-rabid NDP insiders weren't/aren't disgusted by these faux pases in the name of the party, either.

But, face it--as long as there's a listed NDP standard-bearer on the ticket, there'll be nutso kneejerk diehards who'll vote for it generically no matter what, perhaps with a knowing clothespin on the nose on behalf of Layton or "not Harper/Dion/May". And if Julian West's name did drop from the ballot, it isn't like that 5.69% which voted for "him" would have shifted wholesale to Briony Penn; a lot of it might well have sat on its hands or spoiled/refused the ballot. (Locally, a comparable case was in Etobicoke-Lakeshore in 1988, where the Liberal candidate withdrew for health reasons in time for his name to be removed from the ballot but too late for a replacement to be nominated; thus, it became a straight PC/NDP battle and a narrow victory for Patrick Boyer. But the ghost of the Liberals was evident in an astronomical 7% of the vote going to the Libertarian candidate and a much higher than usual rejected-ballot tally.)

Anyway, it's the same situation in Saanich as with Nash vs Kennedy in Parkdale-High Park: Briony Penn lost, Gary Lunn won. The voters spoke: get used to it. And if you gotta do it all again, maybe try to work on those Lunn voters rather than NDPers: there's more to electoral success than a simplistic "uniting of the left".

Yes, I know. A lot of left-leaning Liberals would just wish the NDP would follow the eclipse/oblivion fate of the Socreds so that Canada would have a clear two-party left/right choice a la the USA, perhaps by offering that if the States had an NDP, McCain/Palin's 46% of the vote would be enough for a landslide victory because of all those wasted votes on a pesty fringe element that isn't likely to win much more than Bernie Sanders' Vermont in the electoral college. Well, I'm sorry. Canada is different, and in its way much more electorally dynamic and interesting for the fact.

Not to say the NDP hasn't got its own problems--for all of Jack Layton's campaign prowess, it's still a party with a haphazard provincial-Rae-era "Clampettness" to it, which helps explain why it barely advanced in the polls over '06 and, of course, why Bob Rae's now with the Liberals. But at least Rae, with his idiosyncratic government experience, recognizes something that a lot of Kennedyistas don't: that there's more to viably attracting erstwhile New Democratic voters to the Liberal party than by setting up the Liberal party as a faux NDP.

Now, don't count that as an endorsement for Rae as leader; in all honesty, he glows a lot more as a parliamentarian and opposition critic than as a party leader (and that even goes for his provincial NDP leadership). And unfortunately, he comes across more like Hillary than like Obama: strategically astute--he knows Canada's version of "Pennsylvania Democrats"; after all, they voted for him in Ontario in 1990, but also for Chretien in 1993 and for Harris in 1995--but ultimately a dreary aging boomer politician to a fault...

 

[adma]

And by way of addendum, even if their national campaign was a catastrophe, the Liberals actually IMO campaigned very well in Toronto, perhaps better than in '06 (not Chow/Chow Chow blunders this time)--and the critical thing might have been the bringing out of Rae & Iggy as local-deputy leadership backup. Indeed, in a funny way I'd suggest that Bob Rae had more to do with Gerard Kennedy's win over Peggy Nash than Gerard Kennedy did--and I'm speaking of 2008-model Bob Rae, not 1990-95-model Bob Rae...

 

[Whoaccio]

IMO, this would normally be a no-brainer for Rae. Iggy is gaffe-prone, and can't politik like Rae can. Bobby more eloquent, and would have a greater chance at engaging the base and the youth of the party. Unfortunately, Rae's baggage would be front-and-centre during a recession campaign.

It's a tough one...

Iggy isn't as gaffe prone as people think. It needs to be contextualized properly. When Iggy ran for the leadership last time round, he was pretty much a first time politician. Coming from an academic back round, he had more of a tendency to think out loud. Over the past few years though, he has improved his politicking quite a bit. I will concede that Rae is probably a superior orator and has a strangely magnetic personality, though. I just don't think the difference is that big anymore. In any case, both are more charismatic than Harper by a country mile. A worry could be getting caught on the wrong end of some kind of populist backlash. Both are/have been professors, both attended elite schools, both are from Toronto (which makes them, curiously, both fat cat capitalistic elite AND pinko commies, at the same time).

 

[Brandon716]

I wasn't aware of the robo-dialers in Saanich, but I heard about the Durham situation and was going to respond in this thread acknowledging it, before you mentioned it. And, look--don't think that even a lot of non-wild-eyed-and-rabid NDP insiders weren't/aren't disgusted by these faux pases in the name of the party, either.

But, face it--as long as there's a listed NDP standard-bearer on the ticket, there'll be nutso kneejerk diehards who'll vote for it generically no matter what, perhaps with a knowing clothespin on the nose on behalf of Layton or "not Harper/Dion/May". And if Julian West's name did drop from the ballot, it isn't like that 5.69% which voted for "him" would have shifted wholesale to Briony Penn; a lot of it might well have sat on its hands or spoiled/refused the ballot. (Locally, a comparable case was in Etobicoke-Lakeshore in 1988, where the Liberal candidate withdrew for health reasons in time for his name to be removed from the ballot but too late for a replacement to be nominated; thus, it became a straight PC/NDP battle and a narrow victory for Patrick Boyer. But the ghost of the Liberals was evident in an astronomical 7% of the vote going to the Libertarian candidate and a much higher than usual rejected-ballot tally.)

Anyway, it's the same situation in Saanich as with Nash vs Kennedy in Parkdale-High Park: Briony Penn lost, Gary Lunn won. The voters spoke: get used to it. And if you gotta do it all again, maybe try to work on those Lunn voters rather than NDPers: there's more to electoral success than a simplistic "uniting of the left".

Yes, I know. A lot of left-leaning Liberals would just wish the NDP would follow the eclipse/oblivion fate of the Socreds so that Canada would have a clear two-party left/right choice a la the USA, perhaps by offering that if the States had an NDP, McCain/Palin's 46% of the vote would be enough for a landslide victory because of all those wasted votes on a pesty fringe element that isn't likely to win much more than Bernie Sanders' Vermont in the electoral college. Well, I'm sorry. Canada is different, and in its way much more electorally dynamic and interesting for the fact.

Not to say the NDP hasn't got its own problems--for all of Jack Layton's campaign prowess, it's still a party with a haphazard provincial-Rae-era "Clampettness" to it, which helps explain why it barely advanced in the polls over '06 and, of course, why Bob Rae's now with the Liberals. But at least Rae, with his idiosyncratic government experience, recognizes something that a lot of Kennedyistas don't: that there's more to viably attracting erstwhile New Democratic voters to the Liberal party than by setting up the Liberal party as a faux NDP.

Now, don't count that as an endorsement for Rae as leader; in all honesty, he glows a lot more as a parliamentarian and opposition critic than as a party leader (and that even goes for his provincial NDP leadership). And unfortunately, he comes across more like Hillary than like Obama: strategically astute--he knows Canada's version of "Pennsylvania Democrats"; after all, they voted for him in Ontario in 1990, but also for Chretien in 1993 and for Harris in 1995--but ultimately a dreary aging boomer politician to a fault...

If only the Progressive Conservatives were still around to balance things out. I rather enjoy political diversity, but only when its a fair game. Its amazing how disorganized the right was in the 1990's and early 00's compared to how united they are at this point. The fact that rural Ontarians would vote for an Alberta centric government is quite interesting, Harper's actually a good bullshit artist. Who would have thought?

People should really unite behind the Liberals this next election if they are centre, centre-left, or left leaning. And I'm not saying this because I think Jack Layton should be silenced, I think he's been an important voice, but Harper's government should be limited to a two term minority government in my opinion. At a certain point, many of the NDP supporters will have to think alike as well. Green voters, well I'm not sure what they are thinking. Its just a revolt vote considering the other options on the political menu. I feel NDP voters always have a passion that they are truly voting for something, Green voters always appear as people who are revolting against everything. This is quite a notorious difference between the Green and NDP voters. Its troublesome to me seeing a "revolt vote" get to levels of support the NDP had only a few years ago in the 2000 election.

Actually my NDP feelings only apply to ridings outside urban centres where the NDP isn't really a viable option. Places like Kitchener or many numerous rural Ontario ridings need to leave the NDP vote for the urban ridings where they have a chance and just vote Liberal... This vote splitting is going to kill the left.

Now there is room for major improvement in the Liberal camp in regards to leadership, hence why I thought Kennedy was a good option (and no, not a faux-NDP option). But even with another leader I'm sure it can be done. If it has to come down to Ignatieff vs Rae, I'll support Bob Rae all the way. That is, unless someone can convince me Ignatieff has a pull in Quebec the others don't. But considering how much an abysmal failure Dion was at attracting Quebec voters, its not something I pay attention to as much. Kennedy pushed for Dion largely because I think he thought he could bring in Quebec voters, as did the others that eventually helped Dion get the prize.

If the Liberals can't get some form of left unity going on, I would hate to see Canada become a right-left two party system like the US. I would rather enjoy seeing coalition governments become an option in future Canadian politics if the only other options is a two party idea. At the very least at least have preferential balloting. The more I learn, the more preferential balloting sounds good, far better than MMP or other ideas.

 

[adma]

People should really unite behind the Liberals this next election if they are centre, centre-left, or left leaning. And I'm not saying this because I think Jack Layton should be silenced, I think he's been an important voice, but Harper's government should be limited to a two term minority government in my opinion. At a certain point, many of the NDP supporters will have to think alike as well. Green voters, well I'm not sure what they are thinking. Its just a revolt vote considering the other options on the political menu. I feel NDP voters always have a passion that they are truly voting for something, Green voters always appear as people who are revolting against everything. This is quite a notorious difference between the Green and NDP voters. Its troublesome to me seeing a "revolt vote" get to levels of support the NDP had only a few years ago in the 2000 election.

But I wonder whether by simply adopting a wholesale "uniting the left" tactic, that's painting the Tory base as inherently stronger (and "non-centrist") than it is? It's like a "polevault" rather than a "chewing away" strategy, i.e. rather than trying to eat away at the Tories' 37%, accepting it as a "given" and aiming for 40% instead.

Yes, I know: there may be fear in the "left-Liberal" ranks that pilfering Tory votes might amount to a compromise of values--but much as Rae knows that there's more to winning NDP voters than to be faux NDP, he likely also knows there's more to winning Tory voters than to be faux Tory...

 

[Brandon716]

But I wonder whether by simply adopting a wholesale "uniting the left" tactic, that's painting the Tory base as inherently stronger (and "non-centrist") than it is? It's like a "polevault" rather than a "chewing away" strategy, i.e. rather than trying to eat away at the Tories' 37%, accepting it as a "given" and aiming for 40% instead.

Yes, I know: there may be fear in the "left-Liberal" ranks that pilfering Tory votes might amount to a compromise of values--but much as Rae knows that there's more to winning NDP voters than to be faux NDP, he likely also knows there's more to winning Tory voters than to be faux Tory...

LOL, you should just come out of the closet and become a Rae supporter. Closets aren't a good thing my friend. Oh god, I just pulled a John McCain on ya. LOL

 

[adma]

Not a Rae *supporter*; just supporting what I feel to be his kind of political logic (personally, I think he'd be a drab leader).

Remember: too much lefty campaign idealism, and you may just wind up overshooting Obama territory en route to McGovern territory...

 

[kEiThZ]

But I wonder whether by simply adopting a wholesale "uniting the left" tactic, that's painting the Tory base as inherently stronger (and "non-centrist") than it is? It's like a "polevault" rather than a "chewing away" strategy, i.e. rather than trying to eat away at the Tories' 37%, accepting it as a "given" and aiming for 40% instead.

Yes, I know: there may be fear in the "left-Liberal" ranks that pilfering Tory votes might amount to a compromise of values--but much as Rae knows that there's more to winning NDP voters than to be faux NDP, he likely also knows there's more to winning Tory voters than to be faux Tory...

+1

The whole vote splitting conundrum is being blown out of proportion. The Liberals took a blow because they didn't have the best platform and the best leader....so they lost moderates to the right and the lefties to the left.

IMHO, Canada remains the country of die-hard centrists. The Libs should get back there. As far as a leader goes....as long as he's a good salesman and has a strong centre or centre-left platform it won't be too challenging to defeat the Conservatives.

 

[Whoaccio]

The Liberals should think seriously about abandoning social liberalism and moving back to their classical liberal routes. Historically, the Liberals used to be the pro-reciprocity party and largely favorable to minimal government intervention while the Tories used to be the interventionist party. Start proposing exciting policies: negative income tax, school vouchers, republicanism (not "R" republicanism, i mean get rid of the Queen), limited corporate income tax, drug liberalization/legalization, legalized prostitution, privatize Canada Post, open borders and so on. Basically, just do what The Economist says. The CPC is idealogical Jello. Populism is a degenerate ideology which usually melts away when people are presented with a rational alternative. Just don't fall into the Stephan Dion trap of proposing something rational, modifying it for crass political purposes to the point it can never accomplish it's stated goal and just ignoring it when things go sower. This takes a Mike Harris degree of political dedication.

 

[kEiThZ]

...Just don't fall into the Stephan Dion trap of proposing something rational, modifying it for crass political purposes to the point it can never accomplish it's stated goal and just ignoring it when things go sower....

You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly why the Green Shift failed even though some folks might not like to hear it. Arguing that the Green Shift is revenue neutral because of increased spending is BS. Find me an economist who argued that the Green Shift was revenue neutral. The very definition of the term requires that government revenues remain constant regardless of the policy change.

 

[Moonmoth]

It won't be the 'Green Shift' next time it'll be the Green OBLIGATION.

Car companies are going down as I speak! If the economy ever wants to revive itself (the real economy, the one where money buys an actual *thing*, not that toxic assets stupidity) they will be scrambling to convert to what consumers want and need and can afford: hybrid cars readily available, no more of everything being extra-hermetically sealed packaging, companies that produce things will have to absorb the cost of disposing the thing as well.... it's happening RIGHT NOW and it won't be a nice smooth innocuous Green shift as per Stephane Dion, it'll be *obligatory*.

 

[King of Kensington]

The Liberals should think seriously about abandoning social liberalism and moving back to their classical liberal routes. Historically, the Liberals used to be the pro-reciprocity party and largely favorable to minimal government intervention while the Tories used to be the interventionist party. Start proposing exciting policies: negative income tax, school vouchers, republicanism (not "R" republicanism, i mean get rid of the Queen), limited corporate income tax, drug liberalization/legalization, legalized prostitution, privatize Canada Post, open borders and so on. Basically, just do what The Economist says. The CPC is idealogical Jello. Populism is a degenerate ideology which usually melts away when people are presented with a rational alternative. Just don't fall into the Stephan Dion trap of proposing something rational, modifying it for crass political purposes to the point it can never accomplish it's stated goal and just ignoring it when things go sower. This takes a Mike Harris degree of political dedication.

Well the opposing the Tories from the right on income trusts and Dion's call for more corporate tax cuts is a start...

 

[kEiThZ]

Well the opposing the Tories from the right on income trusts and Dion's call for more corporate tax cuts is a start...

There's plenty they could do beyond that. How about for once actually doing something concrete about integrating immigrants? That alone would solve a hell of a lot of problems. We have cardiologists and engineers delivering pizzas.

Or how about dropping the knee-jerk anti-Americanism and Canada as boyscout BS and coming up with a rational and truly independent, principaled foreign policy. That might mean actually siding with the US sometimes (Afghanistan, missile defence, India nuclear deal, etc.) or not (Gitmo). And perhaps understanding the limits of international organizations like the UN....the organization that has the gall to criticize Canada's human rights record while giving Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc all a free pass.

That's the Liberal party that I want to see. One that actually brings principles and ideas to the table instead of ideology. That was the party of Trudeau. It took genius, tact, principles, chutzpah to get the Charter together. Let's get those kinds of Liberals back, or the Conservatives will keep on rolling...

 

[King of Kensington]

I wasn't actually advocating those policies, I was responding to the poster who said that the Liberals should go back to being a free trading, anti-populist party of Canada's elites that is fairly liberal on social issues but conservative on economics. My point was that the party is already there, and my feeling is they're headed even more in that direction as they'll want to win back seats from the Tories in the 905 belt, etc.