Liberal Party of Canada Leadership

[Halifax Tar]

color=red] do you really want Justin Trudeau in 24 Sussex Drive?[/color]

Nope I don't.  I, like many, are deep in the wilderness in this coming election.  Harper needs to go, hes gotten stale and bloated.  JT, my god please not another Trudeau.  Mulcair, well he may get my vote.  I have voted NDP before and I currently see him as the most skilled politician on the hill.  But quite honestly it is a crap shoot at the point for who I will vote for. 

It is interesting that the adds are coming out now and the Libs and CPC are firing salvos at each other while the NDP is being ignored and they run an add that introduces their leader.  An "orange tsunami" may be heading our way.   

 

[a_majoor]

Nope I don't.  I, like many, are deep in the wilderness in this coming election.  Harper needs to go, hes gotten stale and bloated.  JT, my god please not another Trudeau.  Mulcair, well he may get my vote.  I have voted NDP before and I currently see him as the most skilled politician on the hill.  But quite honestly it is a crap shoot at the point for who I will vote for. 

It is interesting that the adds are coming out now and the Libs and CPC are firing salvos at each other while the NDP is being ignored and they run an add that introduces their leader.  An "orange tsunami" may be heading our way. 

I suspect this is part of the larger CPC strategy to provide a bit of soft support to the NDP in order to encourage more vote splitting on the left (much like how the political "right" was shut out for the 1990's with vote splitting between Reform and the PC's, or how the NDP slid into Alberta with vote splitting between the PC's and Wildrose).

As has been noted multiple times, the Liberal's "path to power" runs through Quebec, where they have to unseat the NDP, and may also face challanges from the BQ or other "Quebec" parties. Getting votes in Ontario will also be much more challenging if the NDP is stronger in urban ridings (in my home riding, Liberal Glenn Pearson was unseated by a very weak CPC candidate simply because his "votes" were being taken by NDP and Green candidates. The CPC candidate received almost the same number of votes as the previous CPC candidate, who was a much stronger candidate, which suggests there is indeed a "hard" upper limit to how many actual voters support the CPC).

So look for lots of interesting contortions to encourage vote splitting on the left, while "Progressives" call for "strategic voting" (yet again) to unseat the CPC. Sadly, the very people who call for "strategic voting" are really the ones who will be shooting the Progressive movement in the foot, as these "strategic voters" may conclude their best strategy is to go NDP in Liberal leaning ridings.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't always agree with her, but I certain read and listen to what she says, one of the best and most thought out writers on the left in my opinion.


from http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/22/conservatives-blind-to-growing-desire-for-regime-change-hbert.html
MONTREAL — Every 10 years or so, Canadian voters take a broom and clean house on Parliament Hill. They often rearrange the furniture in ways unexpected by those who had grown comfortable in the back rooms of power.

Think back to 1984 and the ushering in of a Quebec/Alberta coalition crafted by Brian Mulroney’s Tories. At the time, a Conservative sweep of the Liberal fortress that Quebec had been under Pierre Trudeau was almost as unthinkable as the 2011 orange wave. Only five years before, in 1979, Quebec had so massively voted Liberal as to deprive Joe Clark of a majority.

Then, a bit less than a decade after Mulroney’s first victory, the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party took crowbars to the house he had built, leaving the Tory party in ruins and clearing the way to a Liberal decade under Jean Chrétien.

At the time of the latter’s retirement, most Liberals expected to stay in power indefinitely under Paul Martin. They dismissed the notion that Stephen Harper could ever be prime minister or their party fall to third place behind the NDP.

It is in the nature of successful ruling parties to develop a blind spot for the rot that tends to set in over their time in office. At some point they stop seeing themselves as voters see them and become agents of their own electoral destruction.

Harper’s Conservatives are precariously close to having reached that point, if they have not yet. At a minimum they seem to be blind to every warning sign of imminent danger.

There has always been an army of voters — usually a majority — that would not be caught dead supporting the Conservatives. That has been par for the course for the past decade. But there is mounting evidence that the anti-conservative vote is more solid while the pro-Harper vote is frittering away.

Anecdotally, the sense that it is time for a change is rampant (and growing) in just about every region of the country. The Conservatives seem hell-bent on solidifying that sense at every step of the way to the campaign.

There is no rationale for the prime minister to boycott — as he is currently set to do — the leaders’ debates that will be produced by the country’s main networks in the next campaign. Most voters can only construe that as hubris.

In the same spirit, there is no justification for spending millions of public dollars on self-serving pre-election advertising. It can only come across as behaviour symptomatic of a party that has come to think its interests and those of the government are one and the same and that they share the same purse.

At this rate regime change could easily trump policy as a ballot box issue next fall.

What is certain is that a pre-election budget designed to shore up the Conservative advantage in the lead-up to the campaign has instead fallen flat. A month after its presentation, the ruling party is back at or below the 30 per cent mark in national polls.

At the same time, the security issue that the Conservatives see as a trump card next fall may not have the electoral traction that they had hoped.

In Quebec where terrorism has been consistently high on the radar for months, a CROP poll published on Friday in La Presse found that the high profile of the anti-terrorism debate had failed to turn it into a ballot box issue.

That same poll reported a steep jump in NDP support over the past month. Based on CROP’s numbers, another Quebec orange wave next fall is not out of the question.

The New Democrats can thank Rachel Notley for that. In the wake of the NDP victory in Alberta, more voters are seeing Thomas Mulcair as a potential prime minister — and not only in Quebec.

Some Conservative strategists welcome polls that predict a three-way national race next fall because they think a more competitive NDP will create more opposition splits in their favour.

Fair enough, but the subtext of those polls is also that an electorate increasingly driven to regime change by a singularly tone-deaf incumbent team is willing to look at more than one option in the quest for an alternative to the current prime minister.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

 

[Brad Sallows]

On the other hand, the previous run of LPC government was majority, majority, majority, minority.  The current run has been minority, minority, majority.

Enough time has elapsed for another recession to strike soon, the recovery from the last one was not strong, and none of our economic "sectors" are exhibiting strength at present.  We are only just now shifting from deficit to surplus.

On the gripping hand, Nigel Wright, a federal CPC chief of staff, tried to loan Mike Duffy money to pay back claimed expenses.  That matter is being investigated.  Adrian Dix, a provincial NDP chief of staff, falsified a document to make investigation problematical.

Wright is not running as a candidate anywhere.  Dix was selected as his party's leader and ran in the last BC provincial election.

The point: debate policies by all means; keep some perspective on what constitutes "tired" and "corrupt".

 

[a_majoor]

This National Post article is great: if the problem is "me", then I can do something about it.... >

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-trudeau-explains-slide-in-polls-saying-its-not-him-its-you#__federated=1

Robyn Urback: Trudeau explains slide in polls, saying it’s not him — it’s you
Robyn Urback | June 23, 2015 2:12 PM ET

Trudeau has introduced a handful of solid, evidence-based policies that should temper the bad in terms of winning public support, but they're not working. Maybe the issue is... him?

It was nearly a year ago that the Liberal party hit its peak. According to polling aggregator ThreeHundredEight.com, July 2014 was the best month on record for the Liberals since at least 2009, with the party enjoying a near-10-point lead over the trailing Conservatives (followed by the NDP, led by Tom Whatshisface).

Then the Liberals took a tumble — not a swift, dramatic fall, mind you, but a lethargic series of summersaults, which is almost always worse. A rapid dive could, theoretically, be explained away as an anomaly: an acute, adverse reaction to a particular position or policy. But this was certainly not that. Justin Trudeau had once been the shot of epinephrine the Liberals so desperately needed, but the effect was not just wearing off, it was leading the party in the opposite direction.

At first, it was a couple of silly gaffes — an ill-timed joke from Trudeau about Prime Minister Stephen Harper “trying to whip out our CF-18s and show how big they are,” for example. Then the Liberals found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion in opposing Canada’s mission against the Islamic State in Iraq, though this wasn’t fatal. Then came a few more mistakes: Trudeau said Canada should send winter clothing to starving Syrian refugees who had been violently and brutally forced out of their homes. Oops. Then came the news that — surprise! — Eve Adams was defecting from the Tories and joining the Liberals — an announcement that Trudeau revealed proudly, and deafly, to snickers from across the aisle. Whoops.

Related
Stephen Maher: Justin Trudeau’s drop in polls followed his support for Harper’s anti-terror bill
New pro-Conservative ‘PAC’ launches ad campaign blasting Justin Trudeau, aims to fight unions

Then the Liberals decided to back the Conservatives’ thoroughly flawed anti-terrorism bill — a move that Trudeau has yet to find the words to comprehensively defend. That, coupled with the orange wave of support stemming from Premier Rachel Notley’s win in Alberta, offered Tom Whatshisface the opportunity to grow into Tom Mulcair, driving a necessary wedge between himself and Trudeau.

The effect is that now, nearly a year later, the Liberals have dropped more than 10 points in the polls, and according to projections as of June 12, they’re now sitting back in third place. Needless to say, this is not the trajectory the party would like to see in the lead-up to the 2015 general election.

In a recent interview with Global News, Trudeau blamed his low polling numbers on the time of year, as well as the cynicism many Canadians harbour toward matters of federal politics.

“We’re at a point where Canadians … are cynical about politics and not paying an awful lot of attention to what’s going on in the federal scene right now. People are getting ready for the end of school, for beginning summer vacations and going off with the family,” he said.

“It’s only around Labour Day that people are going to start saying, ‘OK, we’ve got a decision to make in a couple of months about what our future’s going to look like.’”

In other words, “it’s not me, it’s you.”

If Canadians are, as Trudeau says, tuning out for the summer months, one would think he wouldn’t reveal his sweeping 32-point “plan to restore democracy” — which would eliminate first-past-the-post voting and introduce a whole host of other parliamentary reforms — just as people across the country are hosing off their patio furniture. Though faced with the question of his sinking support, Trudeau had to say something, and better to blame you, than him.

The weather does not explain the Liberals’ year-long decline, nor does Canadians’ enduring but consistent political cynicisms. It may be that a few major policy decisions — notably, to oppose the mission in Iraq and to support the Conservatives’ anti-terror legislation — lost the Liberals some support, as Postmedia columnist Stephen Maher suggested in a recent column, though I’m not convinced everyday Canadians really care that much about Bill C-51.

Is it really that a few unpopular decisions robbed Trudeau of his lead in the polls?
Trudeau has introduced a handful of solid, evidence-based policies that should temper the bad in terms of winning public support, not the least of which include his position on legalizing marijuana, his support for assisted suicide, introducing a new scheme for tax-free child benefits, overhauling elections and voting, pledging to be transparent about MP expenses and so forth. Trudeau could have been criticized a few years ago for having few policies other than wanting to legalize marijuana, but that is certainly not the case now. So what gives? Is it really that a few unpopular decisions robbed Trudeau of his lead in the polls?

I don’t think so. In fact, I think the issue is him, not you. Trudeau, once the saving grace of the Liberal party, seems to have become the liability. It’s not that his ideas aren’t good, which they mostly are, or that he doesn’t represent real change, which he does — it’s the perception that Trudeau might not be the guy to competently see them through.

The Conservatives’ recent string of attack ads, which peg Trudeau as “just not ready,” are both hilariously bad and immaculately on point at the same time. Whether Trudeau is ready to become prime minister is not the issue. The issue is whether Canadians perceive him as ready. The Tories have identified a weak point and packaged it as an easy-to-remember line: “just not ready.” And that idea will run in the background, despite the series of sound policy proposals, until Trudeau proves otherwise. People, not policies, win elections. People lose them, too.

 

[CougarKing]

Nice hair won't save him if he keeps this up.  ;D

Reuters

Backers fear that missing-in-action, Trudeau losing bid to lead Canada
Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:45am EDT

By David Ljunggren and Allison Lampert

OTTAWA/MONTREAL (Reuters) - Justin Trudeau, the man who was supposed to lead Canada's Liberals out of the political wilderness, has instead sunk to third place just months from an election, with some in his party complaining he is missing in action.

Born to a sitting prime minister and raised at the foot of power, he presents himself as a kinder, more approachable alternative to Prime Minister Stephen Harper after nine years of rule by the right-leaning Conservatives and three straight Liberal defeats.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[C-Aitchison]

Nice hair won't save him if he keeps this up.  ;D

Reuters

I'd still argue that he's done a great job. According to polls (I know, we need to use these lightly), if the election were today it would seem the party would more than double their caucus under his leadership. Coming from next to nothing to shy of 100 seats is pretty impressive in my opinion.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I'd still argue that he's done a great job. According to polls (I know, we need to use these lightly), if the election were today it would seem the party would more than double their caucus under his leadership. Coming from next to nothing to shy of 100 seats is pretty impressive in my opinion.

I would be a bit more hesitant to say that he has dont a "great" job. While he has surrounded himself with good people who have come up with some solid proposals (infrastructure, environment) I would suggest that any leader of the Liberal party of Canada would have been in approximately the same place based on the prevailing political climate today (three parties essentially tied for support). Further, how would you assess the improvement of the liberal party based on the huge increase in support for the NDP? If you take a look at any historical data than one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada, potentially relegating the liberals to the perennial third place party (though with more seats- but, as a third place party in a minority situation it's not really important whether you win 40 or 90 seats.. you can still heavily influence the leading party). Wouldn't Mr. Trudeau have to be seen as a leader who was unable to move his party from its third place standing, just do a bit better in third place? Does that constitute "great"?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I would be a bit more hesitant to say that he has dont a "great" job. While he has surrounded himself with good people who have come up with some solid proposals (infrastructure, environment) I would suggest that any leader of the Liberal party of Canada would have been in approximately the same place based on the prevailing political climate today (three parties essentially tied for support). Further, how would you assess the improvement of the liberal party based on the huge increase in support for the NDP? If you take a look at any historical data than one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada, potentially relegating the liberals to the perennial third place party (though with more seats- but, as a third place party in a minority situation it's not really important whether you win 40 or 90 seats.. you can still heavily influence the leading party). Wouldn't Mr. Trudeau have to be seen as a leader who was unable to move his party from its third place standing, just do a bit better in third place? Does that constitute "great"?

I agree.

However, he has done a 'great' job of public speaking the words his handlers have told him to say.

 

[Acorn]

one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada,

Just one qubble - the Liberal Party is, IMO, firmly Centerist, but quite willing to cherry-pick from the left and right at need. That kept them in power for quite some time.

Both the NDP and Conservatives remain left and right, though both have adopted the cherry-picking, and what's hurting the Liberals is the NDP's drift toward the centre.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I wouldn't call it "drift" - they appear to be under power.

 

[ModlrMike]

I'd still argue that he's done a great job. According to polls (I know, we need to use these lightly), if the election were today it would seem the party would more than double their caucus under his leadership. Coming from next to nothing to shy of 100 seats is pretty impressive in my opinion.

Poll numbers often do not correlate with seat distribution. A party can be leading in the polls, and still fall short of seats come election day.

 

[a_majoor]

I would be a bit more hesitant to say that he has dont a "great" job. While he has surrounded himself with good people who have come up with some solid proposals (infrastructure, environment) I would suggest that any leader of the Liberal party of Canada would have been in approximately the same place based on the prevailing political climate today (three parties essentially tied for support). Further, how would you assess the improvement of the liberal party based on the huge increase in support for the NDP? If you take a look at any historical data than one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada, potentially relegating the liberals to the perennial third place party (though with more seats- but, as a third place party in a minority situation it's not really important whether you win 40 or 90 seats.. you can still heavily influence the leading party). Wouldn't Mr. Trudeau have to be seen as a leader who was unable to move his party from its third place standing, just do a bit better in third place? Does that constitute "great"?

The problem for the LPC is twofold. Much like the PCPO, the "old guard" of advisors and back room operators are stuck in neutral, operating under essentially old play books and assumptions.

What a leader would have to do is challenge these assumptions and pull the party behind them in a new direction (Think of Tony Blair in the UK and how he change dthe Labour Party).

However the LPC chose to try to keep their playbook but put on a new "cover" (Nice Hair), hoping for celebrity to do the job that lack of vision and serious policy development to put the vision into action should have done. Had the LPC been able to find a leader rather than coronate the Young Dauphin, I suspect things would be much different in the election today.

While I know Edward, and probably a lot of other people would like the LPC to be "the government in waiting", I suspect that institutional inertia, and the inevitable corruption of power in the back rooms may mean that a true revival would need a massive overhaul, and such an overhaul might require an electoral trouncing of Kim Cambell proportions to shake the foundations. So long as they can continue to limp along, they might be able to convince "enough" people that their way is right, they only need just one more push to get over the top....

 

[Acorn]

I wouldn't call it "drift" - they appear to be under power.

I'm not sure the whole crew is working towards the captain's objective though. I wonder if the Greens are going to pick up some of the dissaffected left that'll inevitably jump ship?

 

[C-Aitchison]

I would be a bit more hesitant to say that he has dont a "great" job. While he has surrounded himself with good people who have come up with some solid proposals (infrastructure, environment) I would suggest that any leader of the Liberal party of Canada would have been in approximately the same place based on the prevailing political climate today (three parties essentially tied for support). Further, how would you assess the improvement of the liberal party based on the huge increase in support for the NDP? If you take a look at any historical data than one could just as easily suggest that the NDP has userped the Liberals traditional place as the primary left wing party in Canada, potentially relegating the liberals to the perennial third place party (though with more seats- but, as a third place party in a minority situation it's not really important whether you win 40 or 90 seats.. you can still heavily influence the leading party). Wouldn't Mr. Trudeau have to be seen as a leader who was unable to move his party from its third place standing, just do a bit better in third place? Does that constitute "great"?

I'll agree with that. Great wasn't the best term.

Poll numbers often do not correlate with seat distribution. A party can be leading in the polls, and still fall short of seats come election day.

I completely agree. They can also be behind, then sweep (IE. NDP). That's why I said we should use these lightly.

While I do agree the Party requires a huge shift in how they operate, I do believe Trudeau has been an effective leader. As someone helping out with multiple campaigns, and someone heavily involved in the party, Trudeau has motivated the group internally much more than Ignatieff did (I can't speak to Dion).

 

[ModlrMike]

While I do agree the Party requires a huge shift in how they operate, I do believe Trudeau has been an effective leader. As someone helping out with multiple campaigns, and someone heavily involved in the party, Trudeau has motivated the group internally much more than Ignatieff did (I can't speak to Dion).

Mr Trudeau may be the leader, but Gerald Butts is doing the leading.

 

[Edward Campbell]

For me the most interesting outcome of the 19 Oct 15 election will be the fate of the leaders. Assuming the current polls are fairly accurate and will hold up for four more weeks, and there are none of the "events, dear boy, events" that used to worry British prime Minister Sir Harold MacMillan (later 1st Earl of Stockton), then a minority seems most likely, probably either an NDP minority (50ish% likelihood), or, (40ish%) a CPC minority or, less likely (maybe 10%) a Liberal one.

I think Prime Minister Harper is toast, even if he wins and even if (thanks to some unforeseen "events") he won a majority. If he wins he will be the toast (pun intended) of his party and the political establishment for being the first PM since Pierre Trudeau to have won four mandates,* but it will not last: he is too unpopular and, by rights, his party should have rebelled, as the Australian Liberals just did, last year.

I believe that, again absent those pesky "events", M Mulcair is secure in his leadership.

That leaves M Trudeau.

    If he wins then he is, of course, secure ... just how secure will be a function of how well he wins and what happens in the following election, but Liberals do not jettison winners.

    If he finishes second there may be some questions, but my guess is that he will still be secure.

    What happens if he finishes third, as the polling still suggests he will? (He might beat the CPC in the popular vote but vote efficiency could condemn the Liberals to third party status.) In that case I suspect that even if he makes a major
    improvement to the Liberal Party's fortunes, in terms of seats won, his leadership will be challenged. The Liberal;s have some young, but seasoned, MPs just waiting to do better and there are some fresh new faces on the horizon ...
    Andrew Leslie and  Catherine McKenna, both here in Ottawa, just to name two. Many Liberals, MPs and party activists will be dismayed if the party does not achieve official opposition status at the very least.

____
* The Great Sir John A served six mandates, four of them majorities; Mackenzie King also served six mandates, three being majorities, Sir Wilfred Laurier served four, all majorities, and PET served four, three majorities and one minority.

 

[Altair]

For me the most interesting outcome of the 19 Oct 15 election will be the fate of the leaders. Assuming the current polls are fairly accurate and will hold up for four more weeks, and there are none of the "events, dear boy, events" that used to worry British prime Minister Sir Harold MacMillan (later 1st Earl of Stockton), then a minority seems most likely, probably either an NDP minority (50ish% likelihood), or, (40ish%) a CPC minority or, less likely (maybe 10%) a Liberal one.

I think Prime Minister Harper is toast, even if he wins and even if (thanks to some unforeseen "events") he won a majority. If he wins he will be the toast (pun intended) of his party and the political establishment for being the first PM since Pierre Trudeau to have won four mandates,* but it will not last: he is too unpopular and, by rights, his party should have rebelled, as the Australian Liberals just did, last year.

I believe that, again absent those pesky "events", M Mulcair is secure in his leadership.

That leaves M Trudeau.

    If he wins then he is, of course, secure ... just how secure will be a function of how well he wins and what happens in the following election, but Liberals do not jettison winners.

    If he finishes second there may be some questions, but my guess is that he will still be secure.

    What happens if he finishes third, as the polling still suggests he will? (He might beat the CPC in the popular vote but vote efficiency could condemn the Liberals to third party status.) In that case I suspect that even if he makes a major
    improvement to the Liberal Party's fortunes, in terms of seats won, his leadership will be challenged. The Liberal;s have some young, but seasoned, MPs just waiting to do better and there are some fresh new faces on the horizon ...
    Andrew Leslie and  Catherine McKenna, both here in Ottawa, just to name two. Many Liberals, MPs and party activists will be dismayed if the party does not achieve official opposition status at the very least.

____
* The Great Sir John A served six mandates, four of them majorities; Mackenzie King also served six mandates, three being majorities, Sir Wilfred Laurier served four, all majorities, and PET served four, three majorities and one minority.

I doubt they dump him in a minority situation. Going into a leadership battle when the government can fall at any time would be...foolish.

Not to mention that if the election predictions are close to accurate he would he the only leader in the past decade to actually raise the liberals seat numbers. He could also be within 10 seats of the Opposition and within 30 of the goverment.

To dump him would be to throw away that momentum.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Unless "within 10 seats of the Opposition and within 30 of the goverment" is the high water mark of his potential, in which case the Liberals need a different leader to move up.

 

[Altair]

Rebuilding the liberal party is going to be a work in progress.

Trudeau doesn't nneed to rebuild the party in one election cycle.

I think he just needs to set himself up well for the next one, which in a minority situation might be soon.