"The Liberals shall rise again," says Conrad Black

[a_majoor]

Someone tell Andre Coyne his proposed free market party already has a name: the Libertarian Party....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/15/andrew-coyne-plenty-of-room-for-a-tell-it-like-it-is-third-party-sadly-the-liberals-arent-that/

Andrew Coyne: Plenty of room for a tell-it-like-it-is third party. Sadly, the Liberals aren’t that
Andrew Coyne  Jun 15, 2012 – 6:51 PM ET

Coyne: The Liberal Party needs to be bold to define themselves as a worthy third party. But don't bet on boldness.

Comments Email Twitter Bob Rae is a serious man, and as a serious man could see the leadership of the Liberal Party is no place for serious men. Whatever other factors went into his decision not to run for leader, surely among them must have been a frank judgment that he could not win. A party that is preparing to throw itself at Justin Trudeau is not a serious party.

Can the Liberal Party survive? Of course it can. But there is every possibility it won’t. Those who still see the necessity of a third national party in Canadian politics (fourth, counting the Greens) would do well to start contingency planning for that event.

Survival in its present form would require the party to reinvent itself to a quite extraordinary degree. Indeed, as I’ve written before, it would have to redefine what it means to be a centrist party. This is not so much because the centre of Canadian politics has disappeared — the much-discussed polarization — as that it has been occupied. The Conservatives, whatever their recent initiatives, are well to the left of where they were a decade ago, while the NDP had moved some considerable way to the right even before it chose Tom Mulcair as its leader.

To make space for itself on this landscape, then, the Liberal Party would have to show an unaccustomed boldness and sureness of purpose: a willingness to go where the other parties would not go, but where expert opinion and the national interest would advise, whether this placed it on the right or the left on any given issue. That would be its stamp, its brand: the bold party, the tell it like it is party, the party that did the right thing.

The problem with this advice, I now realize, is that it’s a fantasy. There’s just no evidence the party is in anything like that frame of mind, or is likely to be. The premise, that a party with nothing to lose would be liberated to take risks, would seem to have been disproven.

The two year window it gave itself to choose a new leader was supposed to afford time for reflection and reinvigoration. Instead, it looks very likely to have been time wasted. The convention earlier this year offered the membership a chance to take control of the party. Instead, they punted. Any lingering hopes of the leadership race becoming the forum for a fundamental rethink dwindle by the day.

I can’t see Rae, whatever his other qualities, as having led that transformation. Even less can I see it happening under Trudeau. Indeed, for the people championing his accession that’s the point. It’s just another bit of expedience, another lunge for short-term advantage, in the hope that genetics, good looks and a French surname can win them a few seats in Quebec. As no doubt it can. But after? Does the party really think it is going to rebuild out of Quebec? Splitting the province four ways with the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives, while conceding the West, yet again?

There are other prospective candidates, of course. But those inclined to make the changes the party needs have little chance of winning, while those with the chance lack the inclination. The exceptions are, at this point, mostly theoretical. John Manley’s blunt talk and free-market views would offer an attractive mix of change and continuity. And Mark Carney’s entry would obviously turn over the whole chessboard. But I can’t see either man going for it.

So it would seem advisable for third-partyists (tripartisans?) to be readying, at the very least, a Plan B. If, that is, the Liberals should prove incapable of saving themselves, it may be time to start thinking seriously about a new party.

The Liberals have always prided themselves on being a big tent. But a big tent with very few people in it becomes a problem. Part of the party’s inability to strike out in a bold new direction I think stems from very real differences over policy. Until its recent decline, those differences did not need sorting out: power soothed all. Now they do.

The catalyst for this may prove to be the unceasing efforts on the party left to promote a merger with the NDP. I’ve argued against this before, in part because it would split the party. But perhaps that is what now recommends it. Left-Liberals would be free to pursue that particular fantasy (their role in such a merger would be roughly equivalent to that of the Progressive Conservatives in the current Conservative party). And the right?

If there is a coalition in Canadian politics more unwieldy than the Liberals, it is the Conservatives: less an alliance than a contradiction, between economic libertarians championing relentless change, and social conservatives whose raison d’etre is their hatred of change. It has been the formula for conservative success for decades, but that does not mean it is not ripe for the plucking.

The more natural modern coalition, it seems to me, is between economic liberals (in the European sense) and social liberals; between free marketers and environmentalists (it’s all about minimizing waste), between advocates of consumer power and voter power. There are free marketers who vote Conservative only because they have to — who are uncomfortable with their so-con bedfellows, dismayed by the party’s indifference to environmental issues, and appalled by its assault on parliamentary democracy, but who can find no other party they trust on the economy.

Perhaps it is time they were offered one.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In reading the above, this stuck out:

"We live at a time of growing economic inequalities, which separate classes and groups. We live at a time of growing regional disparities, as Alberta and Saskatchewan leave the rest of the country behind. We live at a time of widespread economic uncertainty, with high debt levels, stagnant per capita incomes for the middle class, the fear of unemployment and no shelter from international economic storms."

That describes pretty much all of our recent history going back four or five decades.  Just change the names of the provinces as needed.

I am amused by the usual blanket claims that the NDP have "ideas".  They have one idea: spend more.  Health care management?  Spend more.  Education?  Spend more.  The only exceptions are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the maintenance of a country or society: defence and security.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is the key element of Coyne's analysis[/size]:

If there is a coalition in Canadian politics more unwieldy than the Liberals, it is the Conservatives: less an alliance than a contradiction, between economic libertarians championing relentless change, and social conservatives whose raison d’etre is their hatred of change. It has been the formula for conservative success for decades, but that does not mean it is not ripe for the plucking.

The more natural modern coalition, it seems to me, is between economic liberals (in the European sense) and social liberals; between free marketers and environmentalists (it’s all about minimizing waste), between advocates of consumer power and voter power. There are free marketers who vote Conservative only because they have to — who are uncomfortable with their so-con bedfellows, dismayed by the party’s indifference to environmental issues, and appalled by its assault on parliamentary democracy, but who can find no other party they trust on the economy.

The Conservatives are not right (meaning correct) because they call themselves conservative and Stephen Harper is not right (meaning correct, again) just because he keeps the so-cons under their rocks. Stephen Harper and the (some) Conservatives are right because they want less and less and less government and they want what little is left to not intrude into our lives - that is what pisses off the so-cons: they are natural busybodies who want, because they are fundamentally anti-democratic theocrats, to tell you and me how to live our private lives.

If the Liberals had half the brains the gods gave to green peppers (and they don't) they would draft John Manley to be their leader - no damned convention where the mentally unfit (young lefties) are allowed to have a say - and he would draft Scott Brison as his deputy and they would scourge the party of the Left-Liberals (who would flee to the NDP) and then they would then offer themselves to the real liberals who currently find a home in the Conservative Party. If a Manley-Brison-Pacetti (a Manley Liberal from Quebec) team took over and reshaped the party, having scoured off the image of Pierre Trudeau, I might even jump ship.

 

[ModlrMike]

If the Liberals had half the brains the gods gave to green peppers (and they don't) they would draft John Manley to be their leader - no damned convention where the mentally unfit (young lefties) are allowed to have a say - and he would draft Scott Brison as his deputy and they would scourge the party of the Left-Liberals (who would flee to the NDP) and then they would then offer themselves to the real liberals who currently find a home in the Conservative Party. If a Manley-Brison-Pacetti (a Manley Liberal from Quebec) team took over and reshaped the party, having scoured off the image of Pierre Trudeau, I might even jump ship.

I would agree Edward, but the Liberals are so hell bent on finding a messiah that they can't think straight. They seem to have learned nothing from the Dion, Ignatieff debacles. Until they give up this foolishness, shrug off their socialist cloaks, and return to classic liberal doctrine, they're doomed to wander the wilderness - and perhaps perish in it.

 

[Redeye]

I would agree Edward, but the Liberals are so hell bent on finding a messiah that they can't think straight. They seem to have learned nothing from the Dion, Ignatieff debacles. Until they give up this foolishness, shrug off their socialist cloaks, and return to classic liberal doctrine, they're doomed to wander the wilderness - and perhaps perish in it.

I can't disagree to much, though I don't know what the "socialist cloaks" are. Vaguely social democratic ideas appear to appeal to a pretty broad swath of Canadians, given that the parties that won a substantial majority of Canadian voters subscribe to various forms of them, and the Liberals to a fairly moderate vision of them. But they are essentially wandering. Pinning all their hopes on either Rae or Young Trudeau is a foolish course for reasons we need not rehash. The thing is I think the party has a lot of decent ideas it could build on (and C-38 gives them a treasure trove if they can keep it in the public's mind long enough), and it seems that the Conservatives keep stumbling into scandals which also could be of use to them. But only if they can find a leader who actually appeals to people and can be seen as a leader. I don't watch the party close enough to know who's in their ranks along that vein, but I do know that they're swooning over the wrong people.

 

[PuckChaser]

C-38 in the media dies the next time the Opposition gets a sniff of something they can get a headline with. Whether it was one big bill or 900 little bills it means nothing. Conservatives have a majority and were going to get every single measure passed anyways. The Opposition just wanted to make it look like they weren't totally impotent in the process.

 

[Edward Campbell]

C-38 in the media dies the next time the Opposition gets a sniff of something they can get a headline with. Whether it was one big bill or 900 little bills it means nothing. Conservatives have a majority and were going to get every single measure passed anyways. The Opposition just wanted to make it look like they weren't totally impotent in the process.

There was a bit more to it ... breaking C-38 into many, dozens, maybe even hundreds of bills, as the opposition wanted, and then moving each through parliament would have required many, many months - likely years. The Conservatives wanted to move a whole bunch of (loosely) elated measures through at the same time so they adopted a well established (by the Liberals) technique: the omnibus bill.

But the issues were just 'loose' enough - how are old age pension qualifying age and environmental reviews related? - to attract media attention. In fact the speaker ruled, correctly and based on precedents from Liberal days, that the bill did not need to be 'deconstructed' because all the measures were tied together into three related packages.

 

[a_majoor]

The Conservatives are not right (meaning correct) because they call themselves conservative and Stephen Harper is not right (meaning correct, again) just because he keeps the so-cons under their rocks. Stephen Harper and the (some) Conservatives are right because they want less and less and less government and they want what little is left to not intrude into our lives - that is what pisses off the so-cons: they are natural busybodies who want, because they are fundamentally anti-democratic theocrats, to tell you and me how to live our private lives.

If the Liberals had half the brains the gods gave to green peppers (and they don't) they would draft John Manley to be their leader - no damned convention where the mentally unfit (young lefties) are allowed to have a say - and he would draft Scott Brison as his deputy and they would scourge the party of the Left-Liberals (who would flee to the NDP) and then they would then offer themselves to the real liberals who currently find a home in the Conservative Party. If a Manley-Brison-Pacetti (a Manley Liberal from Quebec) team took over and reshaped the party, having scoured off the image of Pierre Trudeau, I might even jump ship.

For the CPC I would hope that John Baird or Jason Kenney have leading roles in the Post Harper era; I can't think of too many others who have the ideas and ability to reshapeand renew the CPC. Perhaps the only issue here is (so far as I have been able to determine) the two men have rather different ideas of which way the party should go; Baird seems much more "libertarrian" in his approach than Kenney.

As for the  Manley-Brison-Pacetti combination, yes, that would be an excellent choice, but the probability of that happening is very slim. It might be much more worthwhile for the CPC to court them to cross the floor and bring their supporters with them; better for them (a real ability to affect change), for the CPC (an infusion of new ideas, people and resources) and for all of us (a strengthened government).

 

[Edward Campbell]

For the CPC I would hope that John Baird or Jason Kenney have leading roles in the Post Harper era; I can't think of too many others who have the ideas and ability to reshapeand renew the CPC. Perhaps the only issue here is (so far as I have been able to determine) the two men have rather different ideas of which way the party should go; Baird seems much more "libertarrian" in his approach than Kenney.

As for the  Manley-Brison-Pacetti combination, yes, that would be an excellent choice, but the probability of that happening is very slim. It might be much more worthwhile for the CPC to court them to cross the floor and bring their supporters with them; better for them (a real ability to affect change), for the CPC (an infusion of new ideas, people and resources) and for all of us (a strengthened government).

The CPC cannot get Brison back - and he's the real prize and the best long term hope for the Liberals - without discarding, formally, the social conservatives. My guess is that, despite Prime Minister Harper's evident distaste for their politics the political calculus says that he needs them, the so-cons, more, right now, anyway, than he needs Brison - but trust me: he wants Brison.

 

[a_majoor]

Here is a person who had fallen off my radar; kudos for being forthright and advancing a real policy plank. Sadly, Martha Hall Findlay is advocating a position that would be characterized as "Conservative" (if not actually taken by the Conservatives as part of entering the TPP), which makes the idea of her actually leading and renewing the LPC a very long shot at best. If she were to run, I'd be looking very closely at her policy ideas to see what I could steal...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/22/andrew-coyne-martha-hall-findlays-attack-on-supply-management-is-good-for-her-better-for-the-liberals/

Andrew Coyne: Martha Hall Findlay’s attack on supply management is good for her, better for the Liberals
Andrew Coyne  Jun 22, 2012 – 7:44 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 22, 2012 7:48 PM ET

There are issues that are more important than supply management. There are parties that have more support than the Liberal party, and there are people with a higher profile than Martha Hall Findlay. How is it, then, that an academic paper by a former Liberal MP on an issue that remains obscure to most Canadians has raised such a fuss? I can think of a few reasons.

One is the issue itself — the system of supply quotas that has governed dairy, poultry and egg production across Canada for the last four decades. It is timely, with the announcement that Canada will be joining negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a nascent free trade bloc the government is anxious Canada should be part of, admission to which was until now conditional on the elimination of supply management. It may still be: the government has not been forthcoming on what terms it has accepted, or would in future.

If the government were of a mind to get rid of supply management — it swears it is not — that is perhaps the only basis on which it could: our trading partners made us do it. Certainly it would not dream of doing so otherwise. Such is the power of the supply management lobby, especially dairy, that a suffocating consensus has settled over the issue, of a kind rarely seen in a democracy. Consensus is not even the word. Every party strives to outdo the others in the fulsomeness of its support. And not just every party: every member of every party, in every province and at every level of government. It’s quite creepy.

Yet virtually every economist or policy analyst of note agrees that supply management is a disgrace. The primary effect of the quotas — the intended effect — is to drive up the price of these foods, staples of most Canadians’ diets, to two and three times the market price. The burden of these extraordinary price differentials, of course, fall most heavily on the poor, a fact that ought to trouble self-styled “progressives” but evidently doesn’t.

But it isn’t only consumers who pay. Since the quotas are tradeable, the premium over market prices gets capitalized into the value of the quota. The right to a cow’s worth of milk production, for example, runs to about $28,000, meaning a farmer looking to get into the industry faces an initial outlay, for the typical 60-cow farm, in excess of $1.5-million — just for the quota, never mind the cows, the barn and the rest.

All this we do to ourselves, quite apart from the annoyance it causes our prospective trade partners, and the risk this represents to our export-oriented sectors. Indeed, the system isn’t even serving the interests of dairy farmers, rightly considered. While they remain confined to the domestic market, Australia, New Zealand and other dairy exporters are catering to the expanding middle class in fast-growing emerging markets.

So for Hall Findlay to come out against it is noteworthy in itself. Though not currently an MP — she’s an executive fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Policy — she’s a well-regarded figure in the Liberal party who is widely expected to run for party leader. Quite on her own, she has made it thinkable for an elected politician to get on the wrong side of the dairy lobby. Her paper makes a particular contribution in this regard, pointing out how few dairy farms there really are: fewer than 13,000 across the country, a force (more than 300 farms) in just 13 ridings.

That Hall Findlay may be a candidate for leader is the second reason her intervention has had such impact. This is not, conventionally, how one kicks off a leadership bid — by taking firm hold of what is considered one of the deadliest “third rails” in Canadian politics. Nor can it be dismissed as a mere tactic: the paper is deeply researched, and obviously sincerely held. One suspects this will not be the last such controversial stand she will take, but rather signals her intent to set out a sharply different vision for her party.

That’s good for her, and better for the party. It is exactly the kind of bold break with the status quo the Liberal party needs to make. Certainly it is the kind of debate it needs to have. For that matter, it is the kind of debate, the kind of politics, we all need, which is perhaps the greatest import of Hall Findlay’s initiative.

We have grown used to a politics in which no one ever says or does anything the least bit risky, and no one ever tells the truth unless by accident. Our politics has become, quite literally, a fantasy world, and nowhere more so than with regard to supply management. The unwillingness until now of anyone, literally anyone, to speak out against such a clearly indefensible policy points to a deeply entrenched culture of falseness and opportunism.

While far from the most pressing issue before the nation, the divide between experts and evidence, on the one hand, and the political class, on the other, gives it unusual symbolic weight. Indeed, it can serve as a kind of litmus test, a benchmark of political seriousness. If you cannot bring yourself to say it is wrong to make poor families pay three times the market price of milk to prop up a handful of wealthy farmers, you are not in the business of serious politics.

I’ve no idea whether Hall Findlay has any chance of being elected Liberal leader. I have no opinion on whether she should. But on this file, at this moment, she has shown a quality I’ll venture to suggest might be desirable in a leader: leadership.

The other thing to do would be for Prime Minister Harper to inviter her to come over along with John Manley...

 

[a_majoor]

Probably a stupid oversight, but the impact is negative. This sort of thing shows the LPC really is no longer a serious organization:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/26/jeff-jedras-how-many-people-just-supported-the-liberals-without-meaning-to/

Jeff Jedras: How many people ‘supported’ the Liberals without meaning to?
Jeff Jedras  Jun 26, 2012 – 9:54 AM ET | Last Updated: Jun 26, 2012 9:56 AM ET

Courtesy Jeff Jedras.

While I didn’t support the creation of the Liberal “supporter”category that allows anyone that’s not a member of another party to vote for the Liberals’ next leader without buying a membership, now that we have the system, I want it to be a success. And the integrity of the supporter system is going to be an important part of the next leadership race.

In a recent message to Liberals, the party touted the sign-up of over 10,000 supporters in the first month the system was up and running. It’s an impressive number, and I know many ridings are making signing up supporters a real priority, going door to door in their communities. This is the kind of grassroots work that will be needed to get the Liberal Party back on track.

I am concerned, though, about how real that 10,000 number is. It sounds impressive … but it may be too good to be true.

That’s because another way many people are being signed-up, beyond old fashioned grassroots door-knocking, are through the widely-circulated, issue-based petition drives coming out of Liberal HQ in Ottawa. The petitions are mainly a data gathering exercise; the party wants to find out what issues you care about, and then send you targeted messaging (and fundraising pitches) in the future. It all makes good sense and is part of modern campaigning.

The problem, though, is evident when you actually look at one of the petition forms. As you can see above, when you land on the petition page the box to become a registered Liberal supporter when you sign the petition is pre-clicked.

This raises several obvious concerns. For one, how many people don’t notice that box and just click submit, just wanting to express their opinion on the issue the petition relates to? Also, there’s no information or link to just what a supporter is or what becoming one entails. There’s nothing, for example, about the commitment to “shared Liberal ideals” we heard about when creating the supporter category; also missing is the requirement to affirm you’re not a member of any other political party.

I’ve already been hearing anecdotal reports of riding associations getting lists of new supporters from Ottawa and phoning them to follow-up (outreach that’s great to see), only to have many of them surprised to find themselves on a supporters list. They’d just wanted to sign a petition.

I want to see us get this supporters thing right, and we need to avoid alienating potential supporters by not getting their informed consent. We want people to make the conscious decision to become supporters, and we need to give that meaning. I hope we’ll re-visit pre-checking that box, and add more language or a link to more information on what being a supporter actually means.

Big numbers make nice headlines, but informed and committed supporters are what will make a difference.

 

[a_majoor]

Oh wow; a Trudeau family bunfight for leadership of the Liberal Party. (Even more amusing is she is related to Andrew Coyne of NP fame...)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/deborah-coyne-entering-liberal-leadership-race/article4373408/

Deborah Coyne enters Liberal leadership race

JOAN BRYDEN

OTTAWA — The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, Jun. 27 2012, 5:03 AM EDT

Last updated Wednesday, Jun. 27 2012, 7:39 AM EDT

Liberals yearning for the glory days of Trudeaumania as they head into a leadership contest could face a choice between Pierre Trudeau’s eldest son and the mother of his only daughter.

But Deborah Coyne isn’t waiting for the 40-year-old Montreal MP to make up his mind.

She’s taking the plunge Wednesday.

“Our families have always been very separate so I have not been speaking to Justin Trudeau,” Ms. Coyne told The Canadian Press, wishing him “all the best” in whatever he decides to do.

“If the two of us happen to end up in the leadership contest together, I don’t see anything awkward about that. I think that’s wonderful.”

“The more people you have in, bringing different perspectives to bear, different suggestions about where the country should go, different ideas for rebuilding the party, the better.”

Nor, Ms. Coyne maintains, will it make for uncomfortable half-sibling relations. Daughter Sarah is “very supportive of me and interested in what I’m doing,” but she’s heading into her final undergraduate year at an American university and won’t be involved in the leadership campaign.

While Justin Trudeau would be the presumptive front-runner should he jump into the contest, Ms. Coyne knows she’s a long-shot.

But she says she’s running because she believes Canadians are fed up with polarizing partisanship and that gives the Liberal party a golden opportunity to re-emerge from its current third-party status as the party of “bold, principled” national leadership on important public policy questions.

“I’m in this to make sure it’s an ideas-based campaign. I believe I have a vision and a program that will resonate with many Canadians.”

Ms. Coyne, 57, has been involved in public policy debates for decades, as a lawyer, university professor, constitutional activist and author of numerous books and articles on a variety of issues. She is probably best known for her role in advising former Newfoundland premier Clyde Wells during his fight against the Meech Lake constitutional accord and for spearheading efforts to rally public opinion against the subsequent Charlottetown accord.

It was during those constitutional wars that Ms. Coyne’s relationship with Pierre Trudeau, an influential figure in scuppering both accords, flourished, resulting in Sarah’s birth in 1991.

Given her experience with past constitutional conflicts, it is perhaps not surprising that some of the central ideas Ms. Coyne is advancing now as a leadership contender are aimed at depoliticizing divisive federal-provincial issues.

Among the more novel ideas on 23 different subjects outlined on her campaign website, are proposals to:

Replace sporadic first ministers meetings with a formal council of Canadian governments, based on the model used by Australia and designed to create a “more collegial and collaborative” mechanism for tackling issues in need of a national response, including criminal justice, the environment and energy.

Create an independent advisory commission tasked with reforming and managing equalization and other federal transfer payments to provinces in a manner that promotes “greater equity and equality of opportunity for all Canadians, regardless of residence.”

Expand the powers of the national health council to facilitate consensus on national health care standards, including the best mix of public and private care.

Among other things, Ms. Coyne is also calling for a carbon tax and a reassessment of the utility of supply management for dairy products. The one-time Liberal candidate – she was a sacrificial lamb put up against then-NDP leader Jack Layton in 2006 – rejects the notion of a Liberal-NDP merger.

Her vision for the country also includes some echoes of Pierre Trudeau’s philosophy – such as her view that the country needs a strong national government to impart a sense of common purpose and to demonstrate that Canada is “more than the sum of its parts.

Nor does she shy away from defending Mr. Trudeau’s 1982 deal to patriate the Constitution with a Charter of rights, maintaining that national leaders need to “seize every possible opportunity” to counter the “old canard” that Quebec was “excluded” from the deal.

Still, Ms. Coyne bristles at suggestions that “somehow I’m just a mouthpiece for things that Pierre Trudeau may have said in the past.”

“Whatever I’m saying there is not at all just repeating, it’s what I’ve come to learn in my years of experience, most of which were long before I even met Pierre Trudeau” in the mid-1980s.

She points out that her views on things like collective rights and special status for Quebec are shared by millions of Canadians, manifested in public opposition to the Meech and Charlottetown accords. To ascribe them to one person, namely Mr. Trudeau, does a “disservice” to Canadians, she says.

Ms. Coyne, who currently bills herself as a Toronto-based independent public policy consultant, says her vision for the future of the country and the party “is built on ideas and history and views of what’s going to happen in the future. It’s not tied to any single person. ... It’s placing this in a continuum and it’s looking forward.

The Liberal leadership contest won’t formally begin until November, culminating in a leadership convention next April.

Shane Geschiere, a 32-year-old Manitoba paramedic with no political experience, is the only other person so far to openly declare his intention to enter the race.

A multitude of others are mulling whether to take the plunge, including Montreal MP and first Canadian astronaut Marc Garneau, Ottawa MP David McGuinty, New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc, former MPs Gerard Kennedy, Mark Holland and Martha Hall Findlay, one-time candidates David Bertschi and Taleeb Noormohamed and Toronto lawyer George Takach.

 

[a_majoor]

Liberal Leadership candidates finally told they have no more extensions to pay their leadership campaign bills. (I wonder how long Elections Canada would allow CPC leadership hopefulls to pay their bills?). Still, no word on what sort of sanctions they will face, if any:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/court-rejects-indebted-liberal-leadership-candidates-pleas-for-extension-161271145.html?device=mobile

Court rejects indebted Liberal leadership candidates' pleas for extension

By: Heather Scoffield, The Canadian Press

07/3/2012 5:12 PM

OTTAWA - A top Ontario court has rejected requests from three failed Liberal leadership candidates for extensions to pay their 2006 campaign expenses.

Hedy Fry, Martha Hall Findlay and Joe Volpe are still tens of thousands of dollars in debt following their campaigns to lead the Liberal party.

An Ontario Superior Court justice has ruled they're not allowed any more extensions to come up with the cash.

In a judgment last week and posted Tuesday, Justice Timothy Ray said there were no reasonable grounds to give the three candidates more time.

He noted they were supposed to cover their debts within 18 months of the leadership convention, and had already been granted two extensions — first by Elections Canada and then by another Superior Court judge.

They were given until Dec. 31 last year to pay.

In his ruling, Ray sided with Elections Canada that there is no jurisdiction to allow yet another extension.

"In any event, I am not satisfied that the applicants have demonstrated an inability to comply," Ray wrote.

In the introduction to his ruling, he said the three are "in breach of the Canada Elections Act."

Elections Canada says its commissioner now will have to decide next steps.

"Elections Canada will review the court's decision," said spokeswoman Diane Benson. She would not say how much time it would take for the commissioner to make his next move.

Failure to pay within the required time frame can bring a fine of $1,000 or up to three months in jail.

But Hall Findlay said she believes she can work out a compromise with Elections Canada.

She has been able to raise some money, but much of it is not eligible for her leadership expenses from 2006. That's because under a rule imposed retroactively by the Conservative government, each donor was only allowed to donate $1,100 one time only in a leadership campaign.

That's a third of the amount that was allowed when the leadership campaign actually took place.

"There's an inherent unfairness. You can't change the rules midstream," said Volpe in an interview, adding that his lawyer is contemplating an appeal.

Hall Findlay says there is now widespread recognition that that rule is out of step with other political donation rules, and the Conservatives are planning to change it soon so that the contribution limit is renewed every year — instead of just once during a leadership campaign.

"Everybody recognizes that it is an anomaly and it should be fixed," she said in a telephone interview.

"The net result for us is, there are a number of avenues we will be pursuing, including working out something with Elections Canada."

She said she is "seriously considering" another leadership bid, and will decide for certain in the fall. But she does not see the debt issue from the last leadership campaign standing in her way.

As of last December, she still owed $115,000 but has since raised $50,000.

And money is now pouring into her campaign, especially since she recently argued in favour of ending supply management for agriculture.

But Hall Findlay still has to persuade Elections Canada that those donations should count toward her outstanding expenses.

The court documents show that she had paid only $15,260 over the course of 2010 and 2011.

Fry still owed $69,000 as of the end of 2011, and Volpe owed $110,090.

Volpe said he has had trouble coming up with the amount because he is no longer an elected member of Parliament, and because the last two years have been difficult for fundraising.

Fry was travelling and not immediately available for comment.

I suspect the $1000 fine will be all they actually face, and maybe the debts will be written off as uncollectable (anyone who is owed money usually will have written off debts after six years). It will be tough to convince people burned by these unpaid leadership debts to support the LPC, and a well known marketing rule of thumb is that while a satisfied customer will tell 8 people, an unsatisfied customer will tell 16 people...

 

[a_majoor]

Liberals continue to demonstrate they are not ready for prime time. If they believe that voters are not turned off by this sort of behaviour, then they are very much out of touch with the electorate. When the Ottawa Citizen calls them out, then you know they are in epic "fail" territory:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=15333

Adam Carroll Upsets The Ottawa Citizen
Posted on 5 August 2012 by PhantomObserver

When news broke that Adam Carroll, he who had to resign from the federal Liberal Party research bureau after confessing he’d launched a social media attack on the not-very-astute-but-still-undeserving-of-personal-data-exposure Public Safety Minister, had been re-hired, of course you’d expect the usual howling from the usual partisan suspects. But not, however, from the Ottawa Citizen’s editorial board.

The money quote is here:

… If an ethical offence is serious enough for the party’s leader to stand in the House of Commons and apologize, it’s serious enough to merit worse punishment than a few months in the wilderness. Vikileaks is notable in that it wasn’t a gaffe; it was a sustained and deliberate exercise.

A quick re-hire of a disgraced staffer suggests the initial breakup wasn’t sincere, that the party was never really that upset. Or worse, that it was secretly pleased with the dirty tricks, and just went through a fake split with the scapegoat for show.

This is the kind of thing that makes people hate politics.

Bear in mind, what we’re talking about here is an editorial board whose views would be described by themselves as ever-so-slightly to the left of center. In other words, more than willing to give the federal Liberals a break. But not this time.

Now the editorial asks if Mr. Carroll’s skills as a researcher are really so valuable that they can’t afford to lose him, and that actually requires some more thought. You need to bear in mind that the Liberal Party’s caucus budget is not as big as it once was: a reduction in seats means a reduction in the parliamentary vote subsidy, which furthermore is being phased out; as well, the party as a whole had a significant drop in overall financial contributions in the last quarter, from $2.4 million in March to $1.9 million in June. In other words, the Research Bureau probably couldn’t afford a general recruitment campaign for replacing Mr. Carroll; it would have be easier on the overhead to simply re-hire him.

It’s still, however, a cynical mistake. Because as long as the Libranos keep making decisions like this, hiring people who are known to play low-ball with no regard to their own dignity, nobody but nobody will ever believe that they’ll be fresh-faced enough to be a viable replacement for the Tories.

And the editorial in question:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/Carroll+hire+reveals+cynical+side+politics/7038204/story.html

Carroll re-hire reveals cynical side of politics

THE OTTAWA CITIZEN AUGUST 3, 2012

Political parties must really think Canadians have memories like proverbial goldfish. It hasn’t even been six months since Adam Carroll resigned over his Vikileaks smear campaign. And he’s back working for the Liberals.

Back in February, when Carroll was identified and resigned, interim leader Bob Rae got deserved praise for what seemed to be a heartfelt apology in the House of Commons. It wasn’t fair dealing for a Liberal staffer to anonymously tweet, at length, the details of Vic Toews’ divorce. It was downright cruel to the members of his family. Dragging personal lives into politics to score easy points cheapens Canada’s culture. Rae seemed to recognize that.

There’s still no reason to believe Rae’s speech was anything but genuine, but it rings hollow now. Imagine if Rae had said, “that employee has offered to take a few months off, and I’ve accepted his offer.” There would have been howls from the other side of the aisle, and rightly so.

Of course, the Conservatives do the same kind of thing when it suits them. Kasra Nejatian left Jason Kenney’s office after sending out a fundraising letter on parliamentary letterhead, and came back a few months later. Ryan Sparrow was suspended from a Conservative campaign after implying a veteran’s father had a political motivation for speaking out; the suspension didn’t seem to hurt his career. And when it comes to cabinet ministers themselves, it seems almost no screw-up is a firing offence.

Of course, not every mistake should be a career-ender. And the number of like-minded employers, for political spokespeople, fundraisers or strategists, is limited. But if an ethical offence is serious enough for the party’s leader to stand in the House of Commons and apologize, it’s serious enough to merit worse punishment than a few months in the wilderness. Vikileaks is notable in that it wasn’t a gaffe; it was a sustained and deliberate exercise.

A quick re-hire of a disgraced staffer suggests the initial breakup wasn’t sincere, that the party was never really that upset. Or worse, that it was secretly pleased with the dirty tricks, and just went through a fake split with the scapegoat for show.

This is the kind of thing that makes people hate politics. Are qualified political staff so rare that the Liberals can’t afford to lose one? Or does personal loyalty trump every other consideration, including ethics and fair play?

Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Carroll+hire+reveals+cynical+side+politics/7038204/story.html#ixzz22ifoLqSl

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is the Good Grey Globe's John Ibbittson's somewhat less that cheery look at the Liberals prospects, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/will-the-liberals-have-a-brand-outside-green-gables/article4496153/

Will the Liberals have a brand outside Green Gables?

JOHN IBBITSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Aug. 25 2012

A year from now, will there still be a Liberal Party in power anywhere outside Prince Edward Island?

If a party is not in power federally or in any large province, is it still a major party? Or is it just an older, more venerable equivalent of the Greens?

These are the questions-of-existence that Liberals face across Canada. Salvation, if the party is to be saved, lies in a number: 20,000.

Before we get to that number, a quick tour. At the national level, not only are the Liberals leaderless and struggling to attract the support of even one voter in five. The ongoing gradual elimination of public subsidies threatens the party’s ability to function.

In Quebec, Jean Charest’s Liberals trail in the polls. If they are defeated on Sept. 4, revelations of corruption from the Charbonneau Inquiry could render the brand toxic, opening the door to the CAQ or a provincial NDP as the default federalist alternative to the Parti Québécois.

In British Columbia, a new Conservative Party, led by John Cummins, threatens Liberal Premier Christy Clark from the right, even as Adrian Dix’s NDP dominates in the polls. If the Liberals lose next year’s election, the party could go the way of Social Credit, the previous conservative-in-all-but-name alternative to the NDP in B.C.

In Ontario, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty pulled a rabbit out of the electoral hat last year, but he now heads a minority government, challenged both by Tim Hudak’s Conservatives and Andrea Horwath’s NDP.

In other provinces … actually, there are no other provinces where Liberals are in government, outside the Ghiz administration in PEI. Conservative parties of one stripe or another govern Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick. The NDP holds sway in Manitoba and Nova Scotia.

The national and provincial wings of political parties are, of course, almost completely unaffiliated. But they do share the same brand name, and that matters hugely.

Seven years ago, the Liberal brand dominated federally and in the three largest provinces. A year from now, it could be associated with power nowhere outside Green Gables. With virtually no affiliation between brand and government, how does the idea of Liberal survive?

There is a reason for this existential decline. For years, now, polls have shown that voters care about two things above all: health care and the economy.

But polls also show that voters don’t believe governments can do much to improve the quality of health care. They do believe governments influence the economy: by raising or lowering taxes, balancing budgets or running deficits, helping to create jobs or helping to lose them.

Furthermore, about four voters in 10 agree with this statement: Government policies usually do more harm than good. About six in 10 believe government can help. This is what pollsters and analysts mean when they say the Canadian electorate is polarizing.

Those 4-in-10 pessimists generally vote Conservative. The other six vote Liberal, NDP, PQ, BQ or Green. Increasingly, they appear to be inclining to the NDP as an unambiguous alternative to the laissez-faire Conservatives. This is what is killing the Liberal brand. It doesn’t identify strongly with either side of the debate. This could prove fatal.

If the Liberal brand is to be revived, the federal level is a good place to start. And that’s where that 20,000 number comes in.

This is how many people have joined the newly created category of Liberal Party supporter. These aren’t dues-paying members. They simply affirm their support for the party and its values. And they will get to vote, along with members, for the next leader. In essence, the Liberals will hold one large U.S.-style primary next April to select a new chief. Any Canadian who wants to can cast a ballot.

Depending on who runs, and how successful the candidates are at defining – or redefining – the Liberal brand, that nascent core of 20,000 supporters could grow to 200,000 or 2 million.

In that sense, who leads the Liberals after April matters less than how many people sign up as supporters. For if the party is to create a new national base, those supporters will be that base.

The future of the Liberal brand depends on what 20,000 grows to. The party will live or die by the final number. It’s as simple as that.

For me, the critical number is not the 20,000 new (and very loose) Liberal 'supporters,' it is: "... about four voters in 10 agree with this statement: Government policies usually do more harm than good. About six in 10 believe government can help ... those 4-in-10 pessimists generally vote Conservative. The other six vote Liberal, NDP, PQ, BQ or Green. Increasingly, they appear to be inclining to the NDP ... this is what is killing the Liberal brand."

If Stephen Harper at al wish to govern Canada well past their "best before" date (as did King & St Laurent in the '30s, '40s and '50s and as did Pearson & Trudeau in the '60s, '70s and into the '80s) then they need to help the Liberals to hang on to a good, solid share of the 60% who "believe government can help" because if those big-government statists (6 in 10 Canadians) ever coalesce behind one party - as they did behind the Liberals for most of the 20th century - then it will become the "natural governing party." Prime Minister Harper is often said to want the demise of the Liberals, as happened, early in the 20th century in Britain, leaving a two party system(Conservative/NDP) à la Britain's two party (Conservative/Labour) model. But: as any fair reading of electoral history will show, the Brits are less "polarized" than are Canadians (perhaps because we are overexposed to American politics) and so they (the Brits) tend to vote more pragmatically, dividing the results more evenly (but leaning, broadly, Conservative) between the two main parties since the end of the First World War.

In other words: unless we look forward to a NDP government, maybe successive NDP majorities then we (the non statist minority) need to help the Liberals survive and split the majority's votes.

 

[a_majoor]

Here is one potential candidate (perhaps the only one) who comes across as a serious, well rounded and thoughtful person. If the LPC is to have a cahnce at revival, they need someone like this at the helm for 2015 and 2019 to do the serious work of rebuilding and renewal, rather than place all their hope on yet another PR exercise in leadership:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/11/michael-den-tandt-marc-garneau-could-be-the-adult-in-liberal-leadership-race/

Michael Den Tandt: Marc Garneau could be the adult in Liberal leadership race
Michael Den Tandt | Sep 11, 2012 4:41 PM ET

Marc Garneau isn’t certain yet whether he’s ready to run for the leadership of the Liberal party. But he talks like a man working very hard to make it happen. “I’m going to go right up against Stephen Harper on the economy,” Garneau says. “I’m not ceding that ground to him. He doesn’t deserve that ground.”

Liberals would be well advised to ease Garneau’s passage. Because, whether or not the evidently more lustrous Justin Trudeau leaps in, as expected — indeed, especially if he does — the party will need someone of Garneau’s stature on the podium, if the exercise is to be anything but a coronation. The message, should this doctor of engineering, former astronaut and director of the Canadian Space Agency enter the race: There’s a grownup in the house.

Garneau, 63, is the kind of man who, in a less celebrity-mad, Twitter-infected era, would be fending off the crown himself. Indeed in the 80s and 90s, when he earned his living as a spaceman, racking up 678 flying hours on three missions, he was the closest Canadians had to a homegrown Neil Armstrong. Garneau is a companion of the Order of Canada, festooned with honorary doctorates. Two high schools are named after him – a distinction seldom bestowed on the living.

Garneau notes, with typical understatement, that “there aren’t too many people with a background like mine in the House.” Indeed. He’s an army brat: Both his father and grandfather were military men, one serving in the first world war, the other in the second. He’s perfectly bilingual, having spoken mainly English at home growing up (his mother was anglophone) and mainly French at school (his father was francophone).

At 16 Garneau went off to military college in St. Jean, Que. Soon after he was studying engineering at RMC in Kingston and not long after that he was serving as a combat systems engineer aboard the HMCS Algonquin. But that was just the start. Garneau is, quite literally, a rocket scientist: He has a doctorate in electrical engineering from the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, and was once the senior man in charge of communications and electronic warfare systems for the Canadian navy.

To cap a lifetime of overachieving he became one of six Canadians selected for astronaut training in 1983, from a pool of more than 4,000. Then he won first place among the six, to become the first Canadian in space. For all his quiet engineer demeanor, Garneau doesn’t like to lose.

Here is the truly intriguing thing about his candidacy, should he run: He is in almost every respect the anti-Justin. Whereas Trudeau is effortlessly magnetic to cameras and microphones, Garneau often comes across as self-effacing, even dull. He is clearly aware of the contrast, and seems a little bemused by it. “For a couple of years I made my living doing motivational speeches,” he says. “I was very good at it and got paid lots of money for it… basically I guess I want my accomplishments to speak for themselves.”

He adds, with just a trace of an edge: “I have sailed across the ocean in a sailboat in both directions with 12 other people; I have gone into space, I have skydived. I’ve done all sorts of things in my life. I’m certainly not a dull person, even though I don’t necessarily bring that out when I’m acting as a politician. People who know me know I’m a passionate person.”

Furthermore, Garneau says, a little equanimity under pressure can come in handy. “For an astronaut it’s considered very desirable to [keep] your emotions under control. You have to deal with situations that are stressful, you have to react rapidly. I happen to have that kind of makeup.”

As though the contrast with his likeliest rival weren’t clear enough, Garneau stresses that his overwhelming focus, should he run, would be economic. This, of course, is Trudeau’s greatest policy weakness: He is not known to have ever said or written anything of note on the subject. The Conservatives, meantime, speak of nothing else.

“Canada is far too diverse and dynamic and smart to be just a natural resources economy,” Garneau says. “On innovation we get a ‘D’ ranking, and it’s been that way for three decades, and that includes under the Liberals. On productivity we’re very low. On competitiveness we’ve dropped from 9th to 14th.”

So that’s how the race begins to shape up: The self-made man, engineer, astronaut, shy on charisma, running a campaign of substance against a rock star who has pedigree and charisma to burn, but a paper-thin resume. Yin and Yang. They will by no means be the only two in the race. But they will be the early leaders.

National Post

Twitter.com\mdentandt

 

[ModlrMike]

Garneau should run. However the LPC should be denied a leadership election until the previous contestants pay their long overdue loans back.

 

[2 Cdo]

Garneau should run. However the LPC should be denied a leadership election until the previous contestants pay their long overdue loans back.

Agreed 100%!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think Trudeau should get it. He's one of the best hopes the CPC has of retaining a majority.

 

[a_majoor]

And the jockeying begins:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/16/liberal-infighting-begins-in-debate-over-who-should-enter-leadership-race/

Liberal infighting begins in debate over who should enter leadership race

Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News | Sep 16, 2012 3:48 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 16, 2012 3:50 PM ET
More from Postmedia News
Sean Kilpatrick / Canadian Press files
 
OTTAWA — The Liberal leadership race hasn’t yet started but cracks are already appearing amid debate over what constitutes a serious candidate — and concerns some contenders will use the campaign to simply raise their profiles.

The issue highlights the challenge all political parties face as they promote an open race that will produce the best possible leader while trying to prevent also-rans from dominating the field.

The Liberal leadership race kicks off on Nov. 13, and there are already numerous names kicking around as potential contenders.

The list includes prominent members of Parliament such as Justin Trudeau, Marc Garneau, Denis Coderre and Dominic Leblanc.

Related

    Michael Den Tandt: How the Liberals could pick up their game

    Chris Selley: Liberals will be backing a lightweight in Justin Trudeau

    John Ivison: Justin Trudeau will run for Liberal leadership

It also includes former MPs and Liberal candidates who failed to win seats during last year’s federal election, as well as several people who have been elected to office.

Many Liberals are privately hoping that when all is said and done, the race will come down to a narrow field of strong and exciting contenders ultimately producing a leader capable of reversing the party’s fading fortunes.

But there are also fears the race will feature an unwieldy number of candidates — including some who are only interested in raising their public and political profiles.

“We have to be careful not to think that somebody who wants to raise his or her profile or somebody who wants to pursue a particular single issue should see this as an attainable platform to do that,” New Brunswick MP and prospective leadership candidate Dominic Leblanc told Postmedia News earlier this month.

“What I think Liberals want are a number of good candidates with broad skill sets and different experiences so that the party has a choice between people they can see one day as occupying the Prime Minister’s Office, not somebody who has other ambitions.”

Without naming names, Leblanc questioned why anyone who couldn’t get elected or re-elected during the last federal election would now be thinking they should lead the party.

“The ability to win one’s own seat is to extent a judgment of one’s own electability,” he said.

“So party members will have to ask themselves a whole bunch of questions around what are the skills and the attributes they want for somebody who will be leader, and surely electability will be one of the main factors, I would hope.”

It’s a view other Liberals have acknowledged sharing, even if few will admit it in public. That’s why, in setting the non-refundable fee for joining the race at $75,000, the party is hoping to limit the field to serious contenders who have a fair degree of popular support behind them and are able to raise the money from a wide range of donors.

But several prospective leadership candidates who were defeated in the last federal election or who have never stood for office shot back at the sentiments expressed by Leblanc and others.

“The fact that so many strong, talented and hardworking people lost their ridings in the last election is exactly why we need new leadership and a thoroughly re-invigorated party,” said former MP Martha Hall Findlay.

“Now, when the Liberal Party is so desperately in need of change and re-invigoration, is not the time to limit its options, but rather to do everything possible to find the best leader possible.”

Hall Findlay ran for the party leadership in 2006 and is considering another run despite having lost her Toronto-area seat last year.

In any riding during a federal election, she said, voters are much more likely to mark their ballots for a party and party leader than who their local candidate is.

“Ask any of the great Liberals who also lost their jobs last year, through no fault of their own, indeed despite a lot of good, hard work. That’s exactly why we need a strong party with a strong leader.”

Toronto lawyer and constitutional lawyer Deborah Coyne, the only declared leadership contender, also condemned any move by party insiders to limit the field of candidates.

“For party insiders to think it’s their place to unduly restrict the choice of party members and supporters based on their own personal criteria reeks of the elitism we’re trying to get away from,” she said.

Montreal-area MP Denis Coderre, who has confirmed he is considering a leadership run, said he had not problem with keeping the door open to anyone who wants to run.

“Why not?” he said. “It’s a matter of ideas. It’s a matter of being open. We have to be inclusive in the process and I trust people’s judgment. So if somebody’s coming to raise his own profile or call that a life experience, I’m not insecure. Anybody can go.”