Liberal Party of Canada Leadership

[Edward Campbell]

I don't think Altair is wrong if M Trudeau finishes a respectable second to the Conservatives or, (gods forbid) first. The danger I have always seen for M Trudeau and the LPC is finishing anywhere behind the NDP. The Liberals and the Conservatives are natural opponents with one or two or even three parties taking up very minority positions in the rear ... à la the CCF and Social Credit back in the '50s or the NDP and BQ circa 2004 and 2006. The danger for the LPC is being too close to the NDP and the voters becoming confused about who is the alternative to the CPC.

If, and it's still a Big IF with three full weeks to go, M Trudeau can maintain first or second place ( behind the CPC) then, I think, he's secure as leader ... even though I believe that's bad for the LPC. If, on the other hand he finishes second or third behind the NDP then I agree that he must go.

 

[Altair]

I don't think Altair is wrong if M Trudeau finishes a respectable second to the Conservatives or, (gods forbid) first. The danger I have always seen for M Trudeau and the LPC is finishing anywhere behind the NDP. The Liberals and the Conservatives are natural opponents with one or two or even three parties taking up very minority positions in the rear ... à la the CCF and Social Credit back in the '50s or the NDP and BQ circa 2004 and 2006. The danger for the LPC is being too close to the NDP and the voters becoming confused about who is the alternative to the CPC.

If, and it's still a Big IF with three full weeks to go, M Trudeau can maintain first or second place ( behind the CPC) then, I think, he's secure as leader ... even though I believe that's bad for the LPC. If, on the other hand he finishes second or third behind the NDP then I agree that he must go.

There are few leaders in the liberal party who could do better than trudeau is doing currently. Trudeau had a brand that could withstand the CPC attack machine which had very successfully destroyed both dion and Ignatieff.

I don't think any liberal right now could say that they withstood the CPC attack machine. Not even garneau. Garneau IMHO,  was a ignatief clone, smart, intellectual, but devoid of a personality and open to being branded by the CPC before even getting his feet on the ground.

Anyone who says trudeau leaving would help the LPC is naive in my opinion. The longer he stays as leader the harder it will be for the CPC attack ad machine to target him. People know trudeau already, love him or hate him. The longer he stays on the more people will get to know him. Love him or hate him.

Again,  I look back at harper in 2004. He was leading in the polls and could have beaten the martin LPC. Then the hidden agenda thing came out and he's in the official opposition instead of 24 Sussex.

He didn't quit, he stayed on, was a good goverment in waiting, and got his chance in 2006. When the hidden agenda line came out again, it was far less effective.

Ironically enough,  the justin trudeau "just not ready" plays into trudeau's run next election. Because people will "maybe he wasn't ready, but he's done well, and is ready now." I highly double the CPC even drags out that line again.

 

[Good2Golf]

There are few leaders in the liberal party who could do better than trudeau is doing currently. Trudeau had a brand that could withstand the CPC attack machine which had very successfully destroyed both dion and Ignatieff.

I don't think any liberal right now could say that they withstood the CPC attack machine. Not even garneau. Garneau IMHO,  was a ignatief clone, smart, intellectual, but devoid of a personality and open to being branded by the CPC before even getting his feet on the ground.

Anyone who says trudeau leaving would help the LPC is naive in my opinion. The longer he stays as leader the harder it will be for the CPC attack ad machine to target him. People know trudeau already, love him or hate him. The longer he stays on the more people will get to know him. Love him or hate him.

Again,  I look back at harper in 2004. He was leading in the polls and could have beaten the martin LPC. Then the hidden agenda thing came out and he's in the official opposition instead of 24 Sussex.

He didn't quit, he stayed on, was a good goverment in waiting, and got his chance in 2006. When the hidden agenda line came out again, it was far less effective.

Ironically enough,  the justin trudeau "just not ready" plays into trudeau's run next election. Because people will "maybe he wasn't ready, but he's done well, and is ready now." I highly double the CPC even drags out that line again.

Sadly, that's the case.  If John Manley was leading the LPCs, the Cons would be done like dinner.  Instead of staying centre, and leveraging into the left flank of the cons while pushing the NDP further left (what Manley would be quite capable of doing), Trudeau Jr. has done some kind of crazy straddling left-of-centre manoeuvre, that has weakened the foundations of the left leg by doing things like supporting C-51 and doesn't set the progressive elements of the cons' minds at ease either.  As Mr. Campbell says, he's a nice personable young man, but the Butts/Wynne factor can't be ignored, as they play Trudeau's strings... 

 

[Altair]

Sadly, that's the case.  If John Manley was leading the LPCs, the Cons would be done like dinner.  Instead of staying centre, and leveraging into the left flank of the cons while pushing the NDP further left (what Manley would be quite capable of doing), Trudeau Jr. has done some kind of crazy straddling left-of-centre manoeuvre, that has weakened the foundations of the left leg by doing things like supporting C-51 and doesn't set the progressive elements of the cons' minds at ease either.  As Mr. Campbell says, he's a nice personable young man, but the Butts/Wynne factor can't be ignored, as they play Trudeau's strings...

Stephan dion and Micheal Ignatieff were both very capable MPs and ministers. Dion less so, naturally. But both were branded by the CPC attack machine. I don't exactly see how John Manley,  for all of the respect he can muster in Ottawa,  could avoid that. He isn't exactly a household name.

There are very few leaders in the liberal party who could withstand the CPC  attack ads. And the liberal party could not get it wrong again. If they went with John Manley or Marc Garneau and got stomped again, the liberal party would be dead. They might never return. Harper would get his wish of a two party country, which the CPC would win two out of every three elections.

So for all of those saying trudeau has failed, remember how he took this party from the grave to a solid 100+ seats today. Love him or hate him, he's the best leader the liberals have had in 12 years at a time where they couldn't afford to blow it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

My view, and please remember that I want the Liberal Party of Canada to succeed as a centrist alternative to the Conservatives,* reinforced, tonight, by watching him in the foreign affairs debate, is that M Trudeau is, really "just not ready" and, also just my opinion, he likely never will be; (he lacks bottom, there's no depth, no gravitas). My opinion is that the LPC needs a new, young, effective leader: Scott Brison is my first choice, but there is depth in that party beyond Mr Brison. M Trudeau has celebrity, but that's all he has.

____
* I do not agree with Prime Minister Harper's reputed desire for a Left <> Right two party system; I prefer a Centre-Left <> Centre-Right two party system, with, no doubt, minor parties on the left and, maybe, the far right, too.

 

[MARS]

I don't exactly see how John Manley,  for all of the respect he can muster in Ottawa,  could avoid that. He isn't exactly a household name.

hmm...I actually think he could, because I think he is pretty much the smartest guy in the room.  If he were leading the LPC I would vote for whoever my liberal candidate was in a heartbeat, even if he was a complete pee in a cup, dolt, just for the opportunity for John Manley to be at the helm of the country for a bit.

He actually is a household name for me and probably others my age.  He had mass appeal across party lines when he was in government.  He really was "the hero Gotham needed, but not the one it deserved".  No one could blame him when he left for not wanting to lead that party in the shape it was in.  Maybe someday we will all get lucky and he will come back to politics. 

my 2 cents

 

[Brad Sallows]

>If one considers that 60 percent of Canadians want change, both the NDP and LPC have 30 percent support

This has been a popular talking point for years.  Of course the 30% of voters who prefer the NDP and 30% who prefer the LPC want change - by definition.  It is a pointless statement of the obvious that is dressed up so it can pretend it means the CPC in government is somehow illegitimate.  Then its enthusiasts go completely off the rails by assuming that the "second choice" options only benefit the NDP and LPC.

Suppose some of the "second half" of the LPC 30% that do not have NDP as their second choice decide to move to the CPC when poll analysts start talking about a move of some of the "first half" to the NDP.  What happens then?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Manley is the leader the LPC should have had - an opportunity lost.

 

[Kirkhill]

>If one considers that 60 percent of Canadians want change, both the NDP and LPC have 30 percent support

This has been a popular talking point for years.  Of course the 30% of voters who prefer the NDP and 30% who prefer the LPC want change - by definition.  It is a pointless statement of the obvious that is dressed up so it can pretend it means the CPC in government is somehow illegitimate.  Then its enthusiasts go completely off the rails by assuming that the "second choice" options only benefit the NDP and LPC.

Suppose some of the "second half" of the LPC 30% that do not have NDP as their second choice decide to move to the CPC when poll analysts start talking about a move of some of the "first half" to the NDP.  What happens then?

John Ivison: Montrealers waiting on a wave — and they don’t care if it’s an orange wave or a red one

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-montrealers-waiting-on-a-wave-and-they-dont-care-if-its-an-orange-wave-or-a-red-one

If Montreal is waiting to back a winner they could be waiting a while.  It takes energy and coordination to generate a wave - and neither of those seem to be in abundance in Quebec just now.  Conversely it is the easiest thing in the world to create static.

Heading for a 3 4-way tie in Quebec?  Not good for Liberals or NDP.  Not so bad for Harper.

 

[Good2Golf]

Manley "not exactly a household name"....you're kidding, right?  ???  Hmmm...what was the name of that report?  Yeah, the apolitical one about Canada's role in Afghanistan that bridged so many disparate groups? Hmmm, what was its name again?

Okay, now I know you're purely a Trudeau cheerleader, and not a True Grit.  :not-again"

 

[Kirkhill]

Manley "not exactly a household name"....you're kidding, right?  ???  Hmmm...what was the name of that report?  Yeah, the apolitical one about Canada's role in Afghanistan that bridged so many disparate groups? Hmmm, what was its name again?

Okay, now I know you're purely a Trudeau cheerleader, and not a True Grit.  :not-again"

Maybe we can cut him some slack G2G.  He's so young he probably doesn't know there was a world before yesterday.

 

[Altair]

>If one considers that 60 percent of Canadians want change, both the NDP and LPC have 30 percent support

This has been a popular talking point for years.  Of course the 30% of voters who prefer the NDP and 30% who prefer the LPC want change - by definition.  It is a pointless statement of the obvious that is dressed up so it can pretend it means the CPC in government is somehow illegitimate.  Then its enthusiasts go completely off the rails by assuming that the "second choice" options only benefit the NDP and LPC.

Suppose some of the "second half" of the LPC 30% that do not have NDP as their second choice decide to move to the CPC when poll analysts start talking about a move of some of the "first half" to the NDP.  What happens then?

I have never, ever said that in order say the CPC is illegitimate. If the LPC wins, it will be with far far less than 50 percent support. That's just first past the post for you.

I said that in regards to which parties supporters are easier to get on board. CPC supporters are almost fanatical in their support of their party. LPC and NDP  voters are more likely to jump ship and my point was they are easier to target them than to try to get a right of center voter to vote from a left of center party.

Now while I am well aware that I am not anyone favorite poster, and that as a liberal I will not be popular in a military political forum board, I do my best to not to let my dislike of the CPC taint what I say. Will I argue and debate in favor of the LPC and justin trudeau? Yes. Will I say I dislike harper and am totally neutral on mulcair? Yes. Will I be a bloody hypocrite and say that because 60 percent of Canadians don't vote conservative that they are a illegitimate goverment when anyone who wins Oct 19th will be far below 50 percent voter support? No!

I like to think I play fair here.

 

[Altair]

Manley "not exactly a household name"....you're kidding, right?  ???  Hmmm...what was the name of that report?  Yeah, the apolitical one about Canada's role in Afghanistan that bridged so many disparate groups? Hmmm, what was its name again?

Okay, now I know you're purely a Trudeau cheerleader, and not a True Grit.  :not-again"

I voted for martin in 2004, duceppe in 2006, dion in 2008, skipped 2011 because everyone sucked and the army had me occupied.

2 liberals and I flirted with the bloc once.

Take that for what it's worth and call me whatever you damn well please.

 

[Kirkhill]

Altair  you are doing better than most.

Keep at it.  The secret round here is to not pretend that you are something you aren't.

 

[Altair]

Trudeau is toast in the sense that he was trumpted in to save the Liberal Party, but he's done nothing other than reverse some of the losses to the NDP. I strongly doubt he's cut into the support the Tories have, especially amongst Center-Left voters.

Tonight will truly be telling whether we'll see Trudeau around after the election. If he can hold his own in a free-format debate designed to exhaust talking points and cause real dialogue, he'll stick around. If he crashes and burns like he started to in the French language debate, there's going to be a lot of finger pointing within the Liberal Party circles.

verdict?

 

[PuckChaser]

I think he held his own with Muclair, and made quite a few good points. His downfall, was the passionate (maybe even desperate) reference to his father's policies, and his constant interrupting of the other leaders. He never held a candle to Harper who was very calm and didn't get emotionally involved, even when Justin restated his position that convicted terrorists get to keep their Canadian citizenship if they're a dual citizen. Muclair raked him over the coals on C-51, which he finally articulated his position significantly better than in previous engagements. A lot of the time you could hear his (Trudeau's) voice raise as he got excited trying to make a point and smirk at himself when he managed a one-liner. It shows inexperience.

I think he's successfully distanced himself from Muclair, whether that's good or bad, we'll find out in a couple weeks. It certainly wasn't a slam dunk performance for anyone. Very telling was the question on how Trudeau would deal with Putin, which got spontaneous laughter from the audience. He's not respected enough to become prime minister yet. If he can put in a good show as the leader of the official opposition, it may sink the NDP back to third party and give him a better run. If he somehow gets elected in a minority and trashes the place (like his policies suggest), the Liberal Party will be even more devastated then after the Mulrooney win.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I have never, ever said that in order say the CPC is illegitimate.

I didn't mean you, which is why I referred to past (and ongoing) use of the sentiment (by others).

 

[Brad Sallows]

So Mulcair and Trudeau both got a little heated during the debate, while Harper maintained his usual calm demeanour?

I don't care if Harper has outbursts in private, if he's the best man for keeping cool while dealing with foreign heads of state.

 

[Altair]

I think he held his own with Muclair, and made quite a few good points. His downfall, was the passionate (maybe even desperate) reference to his father's policies, and his constant interrupting of the other leaders. He never held a candle to Harper who was very calm and didn't get emotionally involved, even when Justin restated his position that convicted terrorists get to keep their Canadian citizenship if they're a dual citizen. Muclair raked him over the coals on C-51, which he finally articulated his position significantly better than in previous engagements. A lot of the time you could hear his (Trudeau's) voice raise as he got excited trying to make a point and smirk at himself when he managed a one-liner. It shows inexperience.

I think he's successfully distanced himself from Muclair, whether that's good or bad, we'll find out in a couple weeks. It certainly wasn't a slam dunk performance for anyone. Very telling was the question on how Trudeau would deal with Putin, which got spontaneous laughter from the audience. He's not respected enough to become prime minister yet. If he can put in a good show as the leader of the official opposition, it may sink the NDP back to third party and give him a better run. If he somehow gets elected in a minority and trashes the place (like his policies suggest), the Liberal Party will be even more devastated then after the Mulrooney win.

If trudeau gets in, the conservatives or the ndp would be able to hold him in check. Not that I think he needs to be,  but he wouldn't be able to rule without the opposition holding him to account

So Mulcair and Trudeau both got a little heated during the debate, while Harper maintained his usual calm demeanour?

I don't care if Harper has outbursts in private, if he's the best man for keeping cool while dealing with foreign heads of state.

I can only imagine both of them are being told to be passionate.

After the first debate, people said mulcair was creepy with his weird smile and passive approach.

Trudeau was criticized during the french debate for his aloof approach he took to it.

If people are looking for a calm, cold, calculated approach to everything, they are going to vote for harper. I doubt they would taken it as genuine if Mulcair or Trudeau tried that approach.

 

[Good2Golf]

I voted for martin in 2004, duceppe in 2006, dion in 2008, skipped 2011 because everyone sucked and the army had me occupied.

2 liberals and I flirted with the bloc once.

Take that for what it's worth and call me whatever you damn well please.

So we share voting for Martin.  Had Manley followed Martin (although it wasn't a «tête carée's» turn yet), we would have likely voted similarly again.  My base reasoning would likely be different (Blue Grit or Red Tory is my preference) than your's (you seems more aligned to party than the leader himself), but the end result would have been the same.  Once Dion showed up, my choice was easy...Red Tory it was and Harper was still playing nice(-ish) with MacKay (and the re-named PC clan).

You seem to mistakenly assume that military members will overwhelmingly (and mindlessly) vote Conservative for rather simple, dogmatic reasons. Perhaps some do, but others do so for pragmatic reasons based on worth of the leadership, warts and all, vice ethereal, genetic/branding reasoning. Many see Trudeau Jr. as a front offic piece being driven by the back room, like GW was by the Old Man and Dick Cheney.  Gerald Butts and Kathleen Wynne's = Canadian George Bush Sr. and Kathleen Wynne.

Hopefully you find time to vote and don't repeat 2011.

G2G