Liberal Party of Canada Leadership

[Edward Campbell]

Some thoughts on the Liberal leadership race in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Progressive+Liberals+alarmed+federal+leadership+contenders/7716489/story.html

Progressive Liberals alarmed as federal leadership contenders tilt right

By Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press

December 18, 2012

OTTAWA - Federal Liberals long ago abandoned the cardinal rule of success handed down by late Grit rainmaker Keith Davey: "Revere the leader."

As they prepare to choose their fourth leader (sixth, counting interim leaders) in nine years, Liberals seem poised to renounce the third of Davey's Ten Commandments of Canadian Liberalism: "Stay on the road to reform; keep left of centre."

With one lonely exception, the top tier of contenders for the Liberal helm has veered sharply to the right, much to the private consternation of some of the stalwarts of the party's once-influential left wing.

"All I'm hearing is we're going down the Reagan/Thatcher slipstream," despairs one prominent veteran Liberal.

"I don't believe that the way you're going to offer an alternative (to the Harper Conservatives) is to be a pseudo-Tory."

Many Liberals and pundits had assumed Justin Trudeau, the prohibitive favourite, would represent the progressive wing of the party — assumptions based not so much on his relatively thin policy pronouncements as on his youth, mop of curly hair, penchant for wearing jeans and the legacy of his late father, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau.

But the Montreal MP has so far gone out of his way to foil expectations.

He's called the now-defunct, Liberal-created long gun registry a failure and asserted that guns are an important part of Canada's identity.

He's come out strongly in favour of the takeover of Nexen Inc. by the Chinese state-owned oil company, even chiding Prime Minister Stephen Harper for not being open enough to investment by state-owned enterprises in the oilsands.

Two of Trudeau's most serious challengers have similarly positioned themselves as so-called blue or business-friendly Liberals.

Montreal MP Marc Garneau, Canada's first astronaut, has called for wide open competition in the telecommunications sector. And he's lamented government interference in free markets when it comes to encouraging innovation.

"Instead of more government handouts, let's eliminate all capital gains tax on investment in Canadian start-ups," he told a Toronto business audience in a recent speech larded with conservative catchphrases.

"A government official should not be making the decision where to invest. It's the experts — you — the innovators themselves that know best."

Former Toronto MP Martha Hall Findlay touts her experience as a businesswoman and has called for an end to supply management of dairy products. With her campaign based in Calgary, she's strongly supported Alberta's oilsands and two proposed pipelines to carry oilsands bitumen to ports on British Columbia's coast.

Among the top tier contenders, so far only Vancouver MP Joyce Murray has staked out turf on the left. She's an ardent environmentalist, favours a carbon tax, opposes pipelines through B.C. and supports full legalization of marijuana. She also advocates co-operation with the NDP and Greens in the next election in ridings where a united progressive front could defeat the Conservatives.

Not surprisingly, all four balk at being pegged on the right or left of the political spectrum, a categorization they dismiss as outdated and meaningless to voters.

Hall Findlay, for instance, says her policies are based on evidence, "not on some outdated view of what is 'right' or 'left' or even some undefined 'centre.'"

For his part, Garneau places himself dead centre between the Conservatives and the NDP.

"I am a Liberal," he says.

"Rather than the stark choices we face today — a choice between a party that believes in less government and a party that believes in more government — I believe in innovative, responsive, smart government."

Nevertheless, the pronounced rightward tilt of the race so far has prompted former veteran minister Lloyd Axworthy, the leading spear carrier for the party's progressive wing for decades, to line up behind Murray.

Now president of the University of Winnipeg, Axworthy has to be discreet about politics these days. But he allowed in an interview that he is "impressed" with Murray and the values she espouses.

Murray may yet have company on the left. One-time minister Martin Cauchon is seriously pondering a late entry into the race, evidently sensing an opening for another progressive voice.

Cauchon has blasted Trudeau for calling the gun registry a failed policy, saying leadership candidates "should have the backbone to respect and stand for the principles that we have always stood for.”

And in a recent speech, delivered in Berlin but circulated at home, he extolled the "moderate" policies pursued by past Liberal prime ministers, including an emphasis on peacekeeping, Canada's role as a "soft power," and his own role in spearheading the move to legalize same-sex marriage.

There has always been creative tension between the left and right flanks of the party, which has been most successful when the two are in balance. As long-shot contender George Takach puts it, a bird "needs both wings to fly."

Jean Chretien led the party to three consecutive majorities by flapping both wings. He eliminated the deficit and slashed taxes, while legalizing gay marriage, introducing legislation to decriminalize marijuana, signing on to the Kyoto climate change treaty and creating the gun registry.

So why would leadership contenders abandon that winning formula?

Trudeau's perceived rightward tilt is not ideological, one of his strategists says. Rather, it's the result of aiming himself squarely at middle-class Canadians, who tend to be conservative on economic matters.

At the same time, defying expectations by disowning the gun registry or his father's hated National Energy Program reflects Trudeau's belief that the party can not rebuild by holding fast to sacred cows from decades gone by.

"What we want to do is clear the decks so we can build a new platform from scratch," the strategist says.

Stephen Carter, Hall Findlay's campaign manager and the architect of the come-from-behind victories of Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi and Alberta Premier Alison Redford, argues that the locus of Canadian politics has shifted — not left to right, but east to west as formerly Quebec-centric politicians come to grips with the economic power of the West.

Indeed,right-left labels no longer really apply, Carter maintains. Canadians, he argues, have become very fluid in their political beliefs, with little loyalty to any party. They traverse the political spectrum on an issue-by-issue basis and are not the least bothered if a leader does the same.

What they're looking for, Carter believes, is an authentic leader who speaks his or her mind.

"The party brand is the leader. That's it," he says bluntly.

Still, the dwindling band of Liberal progressives worry about the perceived rightward drift. They fear the party risks losing its few remaining urban outposts in a misguided bid to appeal to disaffected Tory supporters.

"It doesn't make sense to siphon off the 40 per cent that Stephen Harper has," says a Murray organizer. "It makes more sense to go for the 60 per cent who don't vote for Stephen Harper."

Note to readers: This is a corrected story. An earlier version said Chretien's government decriminalized marijuana.

© Copyright (c)

One can hardly blame the Liberal leadership contenders for trying to find some "room" between the Tories, who have moved, aggressively, from the right towards the centre, and the NDP who are moving, with equal determination, towards that same centre from the left. The question is: is there enough room in the crowded centre for a party that wants to be centrist?

While I agree with Stephen Carter that the locus of Canadians politics has moved away from Quebec and towards the West, I am not so sure about his contention that "labels" no longer matter. I suspect that the Liberal "brand" stills smells in many parts of the West and that M. Trudeau's positions on the oil sands and the gun registry are not going to change very much.

 

[Edward Campbell]

See the Good Grey Globe's John Ibbitson's predictions about the Liberal leadership on the video link in this post.
.
.
.
.
.
Hint: Trudeau wins the leadership and the Liberals soar ... then, before year's end, sink back to third place.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More on "L'affaire Carney," this time from the UK in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Guardian, which notes that the Bank of Canada has cleared Governor Carney of any conflict regarding his vacation visit with Scott Brison:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/17/mark-carney-cleared-conflict-interest?INTCMP=SRCH

I'm inclined to agree that Carney's normally good judgement was "suspended" for a while ~ he should have informed Finance Minister Flaherty or, at least the Clerk of the PCO, when the courtship began and he should have told the Liberals that he was not interested until, at least, after he had left the BOC. The vacation with Brison is not, for me, a problem: Ottawa is a small town; Scott Brison is a rising star politician of a similar age to Carney and with an interest in finance; that he and the Carney family might have become (and remain) friends is not surprising.

The media has been all aflutter and all "aTwitter," too, about Mark Carney's political persuasions and/or his judgement; the Good Grey Globe's Lawrence Martin, writing in IPolitics, and Jeffrey Simpson, in the Globe and Mail, have been especially vocal. Now, in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Winnipeg Sun, Governor Carney, in effect, says Lawrence Martin lied is mistaken:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/12/20/politics-not-in-play-at-bank-of-canada-says-flaherty-carney

Politics not in play at Bank of Canada, says Flaherty, Carney

BY DAVID AKIN ,PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2012

OTTAWA  - Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is satisfied that Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney was not dabbling in partisan politics when Carney spent a week last summer vacationing at the Nova Scotia home of a Liberal MP.

"Mark says there is no partisan political activity," Flaherty said in a year-end interview broadcast on Sun News Network Thursday. "That's very important. It's fundamental, I think, for confidence in our institutions. So I haven't commented on it other than that because it's up to the governor, I think, if he chooses to comment on it to go ahead and comment."

Sun Media and other reporters had been trying to reach Carney for comment since reports surfaced on the weekend with details about how senior Liberals were hotly pursuing him to lead their party.

But after the Bank of Canada said for three days he would not do interviews, Carney surprised Parliamentary Press Gallery journalists when he showed up Wednesday night at an Ottawa pub where several press gallery members had gathered for a Christmas pint. There, over a beer, he dismissed reports that he'd been playing politics as "baseless."

And Flaherty, in the year-end interview, said he was not sure that the assumption that Carney's political colours are even Liberal red was even correct.

"That's a good question. I actually don't know," Flaherty said with a laugh.

But Flaherty is certain that so far as economic and fiscal policy are concerned, Carney is on the same page as the Conservative government.

"I think Mark is fiscally very much in sync with my own views and I say that because we've travelled a great deal together, we've been at all these G7, G8, G20 meetings over a long period of time. In terms of fiscal policy, we're on the same wavelength."

Challenged about his political colours at the Ottawa pub Wednesday, Carney would only insist that partisans from "across the political spectrum" had sought him out as a candidate.

While at the pub, Carney could be seen chatting, beer in hand, with Human Resources Minister Diane Finley and her husband, Sen. Doug Finley, the former national Conservative campaign manager and one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's closest confidantes.

The Finleys were the only MPs or senators who were in the pub while Carney was present. No Liberal or New Democrat politicians were there.

Carney will soon wrap up his duties at the Bank of Canada to become, in July, the first non-Brit to head the Bank of England.

I remain convinced that:

1. The courtship of Carney illustrates Liberal Party desperation more than anything else; and

2. Governor Carney probably has ambitions far, far above being the leader of Canada's third party. My guess is that Governor Carney probably set a five year term on his Bank of England employment so that he will be available for one of the big, global monetary manager jobs that will come open circa 2018-20.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright SAct from iPolitics, Paul Adams speculates on why the Liberals appear to be trying to jump into the centre-right sector of the Canadian political spectrum:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/30/the-liberals-strange-quest-for-the-centre-right/

The Liberals’ strange quest for the centre-right

By Paul Adams

Dec 30, 2012

Even if you leave aside the failed attempt to recruit Mark Carney, the federal Liberal leadership race so far has looked like a collective quest to find the party a home on the centre-right.

Martha Hall Findlay calls for an end to supply management.

Marc Garneau wants to open up telecommunications to foreign investment.

And most important — because he appears to be an almost prohibitive front-runner — Justin Trudeau has tried to outflank the Harper Conservatives in welcoming offshore money to the oilpatch. His website has many repetitions of his “pro-growth” mantra, but almost no mention of climate change. He has even gone to Calgary to trash his father’s National Energy Program.

“I’m proud of my father and the values he stood for but I’m here to try and challenge a whole new set of realities,” he was quoted as saying. “I had nothing to do with the National Energy Program. I was 10 years old.”

The Liberals built their 20th century dynasty by bridging the divide between left and right. The party’s left-leaning social policies took the party where the votes were, but its right wing was also key. No other party in the world was as successful at the straddle — and there were many others that tried.

There were at least three strands in the blue tinge to the Liberals’ red maple leaf.

First, the Liberals showed that moderate social reform could be a bulwark against more aggressive socialism — a real concern in the middle third of the 20th century. Social programs and progressive taxation not only starved the beast of radical reform (or even revolution), they helped create a consumer and customer class to buy the goods that industry produced. And the state also built the infrastructure that business used to make its money: C.D. Howe’s St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway and Trans-Canada Airlines.

Second, for all those good reasons it was members of the business class who bankrolled the 20th century Liberal party.

Third, the apparatchiki of the Liberal party — the political pros who staff ministers’ offices and run campaigns — mostly pursue their non-political careers in law firms, polling companies, ad agencies or as lobbyists working for big business. There are precious few Liberal insiders who earn their crust working for think tanks, universities, charities, churches or unions.

Two of these three blue strands are less important that they once were, and so should be less compelling to today’s Liberal party.

Perhaps because capital is more mobile in a globalized world, businesspeople seem less interested in social stability in any particular place, or even in government-built infrastructure. They prefer their preferments in the form of deregulation, privatization, low tax rates and generous tax concessions, which allow a quick getaway as need be. In other words, the social base of business Liberalism has shrunk.

More recently a series of changes to party financing has eliminated corporate donations and even screwed down the limits on individuals, wiping out the Liberals’ traditional fundraising strategy. Like it or not, the Liberals must now compete in the world of small donors, and it will not be easy raising money from ordinary folk if the party’s hot button issues are bringing in foreign investment and balancing the budget.

The third blue strand is still strong and clear, however. It is still the case that many of the political professionals the Liberals need to organize and run their campaigns come from the corporate client class and to some degree reflect the views of those who employ them. These apparatchiki are in a powerful position to influence the leadership campaigns — though they tend to be considerably to the right of the ordinary members of the party, and certainly of its (shrunken) following in the general public.

This may create an entry for the one certified progressive in the Liberal leadership race, Joyce Murray, but it seems very unlikely that she will be able to overcome Trudeau’s organizational advantage, not to mention his good looks, personality and pedigree.

Of course there are a couple of narrower, more tactical reasons why Trudeau in particular may be tacking to the right. In the short term, it may be a feint designed to shake people’s preconceptions of him during the leadership race and carve out a political image distinct from that of his father.

But Liberal supporters should be concerned that it is the germ of a general election strategy: to position Trudeau not as a centre-left alternative to the Conservatives, but as a more likeable, open, honest, youthful successor to Stephen Harper. A change in personalities, in other words, rather than a change in policies.

This was essentially the strategy of Michael Ignatieff, and it didn’t work. It didn’t work in part because Ignatieff’s inexperience contrasted with Harper at a nerve-jangling time in the economy. It also didn’t work because it forced Ignatieff to tack jerkily left in the election campaign when it was apparent that the only pool of voters actually available to the Liberals were there — further muddying the already murky Liberal brand.

Inexperience is also a problem for Justin Trudeau, and to an extent the Liberals’ much-diminished front bench. Trudeau is a more personally appealing figure than Ignatieff, but he also starts from much, much further behind.

Although the Liberals’ may have built a 20th century dynasty by campaigning from the left and governing from the right, the formula doesn’t fit so well on a third place opposition party for whom a Liberal government is both an increasingly distant memory and a distant dream.

It appears more and more likely that M. Trudeau will win the Liberal leadership. I remain convinced that:

1. It is very possible, even probably that Justin Trudeau's election will move the Liberals into first place in the polls in 2013; but

2. The Liberals, under sustained attack from both the Conservatives and the NDP, will falter ~ because M. Trudeau is a young, inexperienced leader ~ and by mid 2014 they will be back in third place; and

3. It is possible that the Liberals can manage to displace the NDP as official opposition in late 2015, after the next election - in which case M. Trudeau will have some time/room to grow as a leader; but

4. It is equally possible that the Liberals will remain in third place after the 2015 general election and M. Trudeau will, almost certainly, resign the leadership then.

By 2019 I expect Canadians to be tired of the Conservatives and I expect the Conservatives to be out of ideas. I hope there is a centrist, free enterprise, moderate Liberal Party there ready to govern  because I don't think the NDP has the genetic where-with-all to be centrist, free enterprise or moderate.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

By 2019 I expect Canadians to be tired of the Conservatives and I expect the Conservatives to be out of ideas. I hope there is a centrist, free enterprise, moderate Liberal Party there ready to govern  because I don't think the NDP has the genetic where-with-all to be centrist, free enterprise or moderate.

I couldn't agree more - both your analysis and your "hope".

The former helps me to time my entry into politics.... ;D

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Planning on running under the NDP banner, huh? >

 

[GAP]

Planning on running under the NDP banner, huh? >

With that bike? Not a chance.....Greens, definitely Greens......

 

[overthefence]

As long as we are terribly burdened with too much debt, the Liberals have nothing else to brag but winning Quebec by a few hundred votes in the last referendum, which can be attributed to the most patriotic Canadian Jews by way of assisting dying and elderly patients in hospitals to mark their ballots with their thumbmarks. The Liberals are the ones responsible for putting us in this terrible debt mess. Pierre and Jean kept on nationalizing basic industries which stfiled domestic and foreign investmets, taxing and giving away much needed revenues to welfare projects and tax rebates just to win votes. That to me is the most disgusting deed that any politician has done, 'give away doles and put the country in debt to win an election'!. Try to muse them over yourselves if that was the right thing?

The Conservatives have never that done that kind of thing in their lifetime. They were consistently fiscally responsible.They don't care if they lose an election. They are not going to entice an electorate with a carrot stick just like what the Liberals did. There is nothing wrong with welfare as long as a country like Singapore can afford them!

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

The Conservatives have never that done that kind of thing in their lifetime. They were consistently fiscally responsible.They don't care if they lose an election. They are not going to entice an electorate with a carrot stick just like what the Liberals did ...

The author appears to have missed Diefenbaker, Clark and Mulroney ...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The author appears to be missing a lot of things....

 

[overthefence]

The author appears to have missed Diefenbaker, Clark and Mulroney ...

If I were Mulroney I would had done it too (not because I am stubborn headed and do not want to accept my mistakes), assuming the Liberals were successful to make the public believe. Mulroney was 'blackmailed' and threatened with 'losing if he did not do it'. We can succumb to sin but Mulroney was only accessory and not 'principals or co-principals of the crime like us liberals. I can accept my mistakes like Boris Yeltsin. During 1994 I was a staunch proponent of heavy taxation taunting them to 'tax hard, harder, harder...' until I studied micro and macro economics and finally came to admit that  taxes stifle investments and causes unemployment. It is simple as admitting them that we were responsible for the economic mess Canada has been in.

I wish that I get paid 20 thousand dollars by a rich Liberal by admitting our mistakes personally and I can donate half to orphans of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and half to the orphans and widows of Canadian Forces.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If I were Mulroney I would had done it too (not because I am stubborn headed and do not want to accept my mistakes), assuming the Liberals were successful to make the public believe. Mulroney was 'blackmailed' and threatened with 'losing if he did not do it'. We can succumb to sin but Mulroney was only accessory and not 'principals or co-principals of the crime like us liberals. I can accept my mistakes like Boris Yeltsin. During 1994 I was a staunch proponent of heavy taxation taunting them to 'tax hard, harder, harder...' until I studied micro and macro economics and finally came to admit that  taxes stifle investments and causes unemployment. It is simple as admitting them that we were responsible for the economic mess Canada has been in.

I wish that I get paid 20 thousand dollars by a rich Liberal by admitting our mistakes personally and I can donate half to orphans of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and half to the orphans and widows of Canadian Forces.

Back on the Ban Bus, busconductor.

Staff

 

[Edward Campbell]

Martha Hall Findlay give a good interview, here, on Sun TV, to Army.ca member David Akin.

His comments, in the accompanying article, are also interesting.

 

[a_majoor]

A rundown of the declared leaders. Some have very impressive resumes indeed, and many are willing to "talk the talk". It remains to be seen how:

a. Party members react to this
b. Vested interests react to this
c. The party as a whole willing to change direction, or do they still want to go for a shortcut?

My personal feeling is there is still too much institutional inertia in favour of "the cynical pork-and-patronage politics" for any of these proposals to gain any real traction, rather, like Kyoto, they are there to attract voters without any commitment to actually do anything with them.

We shall see:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/14/andrew-coyne-federal-liberal-leadership-hopefuls-need-the-west-to-win/

Andrew Coyne: Federal Liberal leadership hopefuls need the West to win

Andrew Coyne | Jan 14, 2013 7:51 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 14, 2013 8:47 PM ET
More from Andrew Coyne | @acoyne
 
With nominations now closed for the Liberal leadership, let me be the first to cackle smugly at the cast of non-entities that have put their names forward. George Ta-who? Karen McWha? Hee hee. Ha ha. Hoo hoo.

Actually, the nine candidates (assuming Martin Cauchon’s last-minute application made it under the wire) make an impressive bunch, all in all. If several are lacking in political experience or name recognition, that should not detract from their many personal and professional accomplishments.

George Takach is a prominent Bay Street lawyer and professor with three degrees and four books under his belt. Karen McCrimmon was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Canadian Forces and the first woman to lead an RCAF squadron. David Bertschi was a Crown prosecutor and founding partner in his Ottawa law practice. Deborah Coyne (yes, my cousin) holds degrees from York and Oxford, taught constitutional law and was a central figure in the battles over the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

Related

    ‘I’m not afraid of Stephen Harper’: Findlay calls for GST hike, undaunted by relentless Tory spin machine
    NDP riding high but could be knocked off course by Trudeau: poll

And so on. Martha Hall Findlay founded her own legal and management consultancy, and was a candidate for party leader in 2006. Joyce Murray was a minister in the B.C. government and is the owner-operator, with her husband, of a company with more than 500 employees. Cauchon was minister of justice in the Chrétien government. Marc Garneau was Canada’s first man in space.

And Justin Trudeau? While his résumé is slight in comparison, it hardly bespeaks the sense of entitlement of which he is often accused: humble schoolteacher, chairman of Katimavik and a twice-elected Liberal MP in a fiercely contested riding. None of these people is ever likely to become prime minister, but if I had half their drive or achievements, I’d count myself a success.

More important is what they have been saying. After a year and a half in which the party seemed to be squandering the opportunity to rethink its position, its century-long run as the party of power having definitively come to an end, the candidates have begun to administer the sort of intellectual defibrillation the party, not to say the country, has long needed.

Hall Findlay has proposed dismantling the costly system of farm quotas known as supply management. Garneau has taken aim at the domestic telecoms cartel, calling for the market to be opened to foreign competitors. Trudeau has adopted a similarly open-market view of the CNOOC takeover of Nexen, and of foreign investment generally.

Murray argues for reforming the electoral system on proportional representation lines. Coyne wants to scrap the Indian Act. Several have at least mused about liberalizing the drug laws, implementing a carbon tax, or raising the GST. You don’t have to agree with all, or any, of these proposals to see what they have in common: all have much expert opinion to recommend them, but for one reason or another have been considered off limits politically.

Indeed, so eager have the candidates been to push the limits of received opinion that some party grandees have been complaining, via the usual anonymously sourced reports, that the party is moving too far “to the right” — meaning outside the cynical pork-and-patronage politics that was the party’s stock in trade in its heyday. It’s nonsense, of course: there isn’t anything particularly right-wing about cheaper food, still less legalized marijuana.

Rather, this is about offering the party a raison d’etre, and the voters a unique selling proposition. A party that consistently defends the interests of consumers, rather than producers; that reins in the overreaching state, whether protecting shareholders from despoliation or soft drug users from prohibition; that understands how market efficiency and environmental sustainability can be linked, not opposed; above all, that grasps how thoroughly our democracy is in need of reform — that party can begin to make the case for its continuing viability.

But isn’t the debate over before it has begun? Hasn’t Trudeau got this whole thing locked up? With four times the support of his nearest rival (Garneau) in the polls, a massive fundraising advantage, and more endorsements of note than all of the other candidates put together, the dauphin would indeed appear the prohibitive favourite: confirmation that the monarchical principle is alive and well in Canadian politics.

But there are three months to go, and several reasons to hold off on the coronation just yet. First, there is Trudeau’s own tendency to get himself into trouble, on show of late in the matters of the gun registry and the influence of Albertans in federal politics. The five debates will offer the other candidates further opportunities to rattle him, in hopes a brick or two again falls from his mouth. (interpolation: And his visit in support of Chief Spence once again demonstrates the limits of his good sense and judgement)

Second, the rules of the contest, as unusual as they are, make it hard to predict anything with certainty. No one really knows what the consequences will be of throwing open the vote to non-members: The assumption is that Trudeau, with his name, will attract more of these uncommitted voters, but who can say?

Every riding, moreover, will be given equal weight when the votes are counted. That means voters in western ridings, where Liberals are few on the ground, will have vastly disproportionate weight, compared with those in the traditional Liberal strongholds of Toronto and Montreal. But they will have precisely the same weight as they do in a general election. Just as it was enough for the Tories to win the last election by sweeping the West and Ontario, so might a candidate in this race — which may explain Trudeau’s CNOOC stance.

As population, money and power shift to the West, so must the Liberals. This is a good place to start.

 

[a_majoor]

More people are beginning to notice. Will it make a difference?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/kelly-mcparland-justin-trudeau-stands-out-as-the-least-qualified-among-the-liberal-leadership-candidates/

Kelly McParland: Justin Trudeau stands out as the least qualified among the Liberal leadership candidates

Kelly McParland | Jan 15, 2013 2:01 PM ET
More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland

Andrew Coyne has written an (as usual) insightful piece on the candidates for the federal Liberal party, noting that the general level of education and accomplishment is high.

Though several of the nine are relatively unknown to most Canadians, they are not lacking credentials, he points out.

    George Takach is a prominent Bay Street lawyer and professor with three degrees and four books under his belt. Karen McCrimmon was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Canadian Forces and the first woman to lead an RCAF squadron. David Bertschi was a Crown prosecutor and founding partner in his Ottawa law practice. Deborah Coyne (yes, my cousin) holds degrees from York and Oxford, taught constitutional law and was a central figure in the battles over the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

Among the better-known candidates, Martha Hall Findlay has a solid legal and entrepreneurial background, Joyce Murray runs a company with 500 employees. Marc Garneau has a resume to die for.

All true. But what stuck out to me, once Coyne got down to the front-runner, was the fact that by far the least qualified candidate on the list is Justin Trudeau, who is heavily favoured to win. His most noteworthy accomplishment to date is in twice getting elected to a difficult seat in Quebec. That’s not nothing, but among the 308 Members of Parliament, there are no doubt several others who have held onto difficult seats.

Nonetheless, Trudeau is raking in the most money, gets the most attention, and has the easiest time getting his picture in the paper. Coyne’s argument is that the Liberals are on the right track and deserve a degree of respect for what they’re trying to do. I would agree with the argument that new ideas from bright people are a good thing, and a positive sign for a party that quit thinking a long time ago. But I can’t help feeling that the party will only diminish the respect it deserves if it picks the one guy in the crowd who is there largely on the basis of his parentage rather than his achievements.

National Post

The other leadership candidates should be pushing their resumes out to media and supporters as fast as they can, and make a large point of their accomplishments during the actual campaign and debates. If nothing else, this should give some low information voters a shock, and embarrass the Liberal party hierarchy and any journalist with ethics for their support of the young Dauphin.           

 

[Edward Campbell]

I didn't watch the Liberal Party of Canada leadership debate last night but the Good Grey Globe's John Ibbitson did and here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, are his observations:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/liberal-leadership-debate-stays-on-script/article7569800/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Liberal leadership debate stays on script

JOHN IBBITSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jan. 21 2013

If the Liberal leadership truly is Justin Trudeau’s to lose, his eight opponents appear disinclined to help him lose it.

In the first all candidates’ debate on Sunday evening, the Papineau MP delivered an assured performance that the others on the stage for the most part failed to challenge.

Montreal MP Marc Garneau and former Ontario MP Martha Hall Findlay also did well, giving the strong impression that this contest involves these three plus six also-runnings.

But nothing that happened in Vancouver Sunday night shook the strong probability that Justin Trudeau will be the next Liberal leader.

The debate was virtually devoid of policy substance.

Anyone who arrived looking for fresh ideas on trade, the environment, poverty or native concerns heard a great deal of empathy and calls for action, but very little in the way of what those actions should be, other than to listen and consult.

On the partisan front, the most direct challenge came from B.C. MP Joyce Murray, the only candidate who advocates co-operating with other parties to help defeat the Conservatives in 2015.

When Mr. Trudeau, who opposes the idea, insisted that “it’s not enough to just replace Stephen Harper with somebody else” unless that somebody had a “very, very clear vision of where we’re going forward.” Ms. Murray retorted “if you want to replace Stephen Harper, where’s your plan?”

His plan, Mr. Trudeau responded, involved “reaching out to people across the country.” Which means whatever it means.

Apart from Ms. Murray – who has shown no evidence of emerging as a force in this campaign – all of the candidates made it clear there is absolutely no hope that Liberals and New Democrats will co-operate to defeat Mr. Harper in the next election.

“Where did your confidence go?” Ms. Hall Findlay asked Liberals who want to talk merger. “I’m not NDP. I’m a proud Liberal.”

Those who hope progressive forces will combine to defeat the Conservatives in the 2015 election should shelve those hopes once and for all.

However, Mr. Trudeau did join with Mr. Garneau in promising that a Liberal government would replace Canada’s first-past-the-post system of electing MPs with a preferential ballot, in which voters rank the parties, with the second choices of those who place last allocated until one candidate achieved a majority of support.

The Conservatives can be expected to leap on this proposal, warning that if they are relegated to a minority government in the next election, the NDP and the Liberals will combine to defeat them, form a coalition, and then change the electoral system to their advantage.

Deborah Coyne, one of the six marginal candidates in the race, appeared to confirm just that.

While ruling out co-operation with other parties before the election, she said, “after an

election it’s a different ball game.”

Mr. Garneau also took a shot across the Trudeau bow in his closing remarks.

The decision on choosing the next leader, he warned, is “the most crucial we’ve ever faced … the Liberal Party needs a strong leader. Leadership is the product of your life experience.”

Mr. Garneau has a great deal more of that life experience than Mr. Trudeau.

But these were gentle jabs, and unlikely to dim the aura of inevitability that encircles Mr. Trudeau.

A single debate is just that.

There are four more to come, before the April leadership vote.

But any candidate who wants to challenge Mr. Trudeau’s hegemonic lead needs to disrupt his image of unstoppability by more openly challenging his lack of experience and his vague commitments to “honest, open, strong conversations” that are devoid of content.

The eight can, of course, avoid such tactics in the interest of party unity and in hopes of gaining Mr. Trudeau’s favour after he wins.

But then why did they run in the first place?

There is a whole of Emperor's new clothes sort of stuff about M. Trudeau's campaign ~ he is running on fluff, pure and simple. Maybe it doesn't matter; maybe he will win then lose, again, in 2015, then be replaced, in time for 2019, by a real leader ... maybe.

 

[a_majoor]

Liberalism in Canada seems to be running out of steam, and may become irrelevant much sooner than anyone has expected. A shell or "Zombie" party might exist for a while longer, but history seems to have shown that parties can become extinct very quickly indeed. Think of the Progressive Conservatives, the British Liberals or (farther back) the Whig party in the United States:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/21/kelly-mcparland-liberals-are-running-three-leadership-campaigns-but-wheres-the-excitement/

Kelly McParland: Liberals are running three leadership campaigns, but where’s the excitement?

Kelly McParland | Jan 21, 2013 12:24 PM ET
More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland

Gathered together in Vancouver for their first chance to present themselves to Canadians as a group, the nine candidates to become federal Liberal leader agreed Sunday on certain fundamental principles.

First, they agreed – other than Joyce Murray, a B.C. MP – that the road to re-establishing the Liberals as a vibrant independent force requires that it actually remain independent. Folding the party into the NDP would probably not be perceived by most Canadians as evidence of a strong, healthy, viable Liberalism.

Second, they really need some ideas. They need to develop some really positive, dynamic ideas on the environment. They need to deal seriously with First Nations and find long overdue solutions to their travails. They need to offer Canadians something different, and better, than they get from either the Conservatives and NDP. It’s really important that this happen.

Third, Stephen Harper is the worst. It’s vitally important that he be defeated. And, to do that, Liberals have to convince Canadians they have something better to offer (See: “Ideas”), rather than simply seeking power for power’s sake, as in the past.

Unfortunately, despite two hours of “debate”, the contestants provided no evidence of those much-needed ideas. As Ms. Murray pointed out to Justin Trudeau, still the favoured candidate, “it’s not enough to just replace Stephen Harper with somebody else …If you want to replace Stephen Harper, where’s your plan?”

Precisely. In fact, “Where’s your plan?” could serve as the unofficial theme of the Liberals’ search for renewal. It’s a question that could apply as well in Ontario and Quebec, where provincial Liberals are similarly trying to pick a new leader and lure back lost supporters. None of the three so far has found the formula. None, in fact, has managed to put a dent in the public apathy that has greeted their efforts, an attitude related to the fact that Liberals across the country are still largely in flight from their own record.

Quebec Liberals have three candidates to replace Jean Charest. The theme of their second debate was “How to Better Govern,” an allusion to the corruption that dogs Quebec politics and which Mr. Charest tried so hard to ignore. Since all three candidates were formerly ministers in that government, Quebecers can be forgiven for failing to see them as agents of change.

The same applies in Ontario, where the seven candidates, now down to six, were all ministers or former ministers in Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet. The final choice will be made this weekend, but the overwhelming reaction of Ontarians has been a communal shrugging of shoulders. None of the six has promised more than tepid changes from nine years of Liberal rule. The winner will be chosen by Liberal delegates, not voters, in an old-style convention, replete with horse-trading and back rooms. None of the candidates wants to be too openly hostile, in case it costs them a spot in the winner’s cabinet.

If a single element links the three, it’s the very absence of the innovative ideas they all profess to need. Among the federal contestants, a few have ventured some promising notions: an end to the special protection afforded Quebec’s dairy industry; an open door to foreign competition for Canada’s cell phone operators; recognition that Canada’s economic prospects arise predominantly from The West. But they remain isolated ideas that are largely lost amid the sea of traditional Liberal bromides and bafflegab.

After discussing whether to just give up and join the NDP, the candidates on Sunday debated whether to change the voting system to make it easier to win (hardly a bread-and-butter issue). On aboriginal issues, said Marc Garneau, “we have to begin to listen.” Justin Trudeau’s plan to win back Canadians’ trust involves “reaching out to people across the country.” On the environment, Trudeau told reporters after the debate, “We’re going to figure out the best way forward, not to polarize politics… but to build a better country that is sustainable in its environmental approach.”

It was just the first debate, and the field remains crowded with too many well-meaning candidates who have little chance to win. But there’s no reason that numbers alone should preclude a spirited contest over new approaches and innovative ideas. For a party that’s supposedly fighting for its credibility, if not its life, there’s a distinct lack of excitement or originality about the Liberals, on both the federal and provincial fronts. This is not a party on the cusp of a return to the front ranks. For all its activity, its contests and its convention, it still gives the sense of treading water, waiting for better times to float by.

National Post

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Liberal Party of Canada seems determined to run a leadership "race" in which no one can actually lose because the winner will be an overwhelming consensus choice. This means that debates must avoid policy at all costs. In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from MacLean's, we get the few actual tidbits from a weak debate conducted using a silly format:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/02/the-liberal-debate-in-winnipeg-so-laid-back-not-much-laid-bare/

The Liberal ‘debate’ in Winnipeg: so laid-back, not much laid bare

by John Geddes on Saturday, February 2, 2013

Liberal party leadership candidates Joyce Murray, Justin Trudeau, Marc Garneau, David Bertschi, Martha Hall Findlay,
Deborah Coyne, Karen McCrimmon, George Takach and Martin Cauchon at the end of the Liberal Party of Canada
leadership debate in Winnipeg, Saturday, Feb. 2, 2013.
(John Woods, The Canadian Press)

What are the most urgent matters confronting the federal government just now?  I ask because I wonder if anybody heard the issues they’d list mentioned much at the Liberal leadership debate—well, not really a debate, but a series of laid-back on-stage interviews—in Winnipeg this afternoon.

Reasonable observers will naturally differ on such a broad question. Still, I’d expect, if we’re talking domestic policy, many to cite the dicey problem of budget-making during such a prolonged stretch of slow economic growth. How to shrink the deficit while still maintaining, even expanding, priority programs? It’s the daily dilemma of governing. It didn’t come up.

On foreign policy, Mali is driving home the lesson that even with Canadian troops no longer fighting in Afghanistan, the pressures of Islamist extremism in vulnerable, far-away countries will continue to demand responses from western nations, Canada inevitably included. Again, not touched at today’s Liberal event.

Turning to social issues, I’d argue that adjusting to an aging population, which everybody knows is putting intergenerational stresses on health and pension systems, has to rank as the top concern. Nothing on that. Others would counter that the country’s most shameful social failure is the poverty of First Nations, with all its attendant misery. Discussed only insofar as the Liberal candidates were pressed afterwards by reporters on why aboriginal policy was omitted from the set of questions they all answered on stage.

Now, you can’t cover everything in an afternoon. And the stuff that was aired in front of the Liberals assembled in Winnipeg’s gloriously renovated Metropolitan Theatre this afternoon included a couple of undeniably top-tier subjects. Each candidate was asked about resource exports—a pillar of Conservative economic policy—and about fighting crime—another Tory centerpiece. But the contenders were also questioned on, oh, the high cost of transportation in rural and remote places, and whether Ottawa should fret about suburban sprawl eating up good farmland.

Not to say those aren’t worthy preoccupations, in their place. Still, I’m not going to hold it against anyone in the audience who might have, during long stretches of these polite exchanges, gazed up at the resplendent, painstakingly restored classic plaster-molding around the recently refurbished golden-age movie palace.

Only occasionally did the leadership contenders speak with sufficient verve to truly demand attention. B.C. MP Joyce Murray chided her party for the lack of discussion of First Nations policy, an odd omission for a stop in this city with its large urban aboriginal population. (Idle No More protestors briefly intruded, beating drums.) Murray also asserted her support for legalized marijuana, and challenged her rivals to be as clear on their positions on pot.

Even better was Martha Hall Findlay’s turn in the not-so-hot seat. Hall Findlay has made getting rid of farm marketing boards her signature proposal, so the pre-determined question about agricultural policy—a snooze for other candidates—played perfectly for her. She was strong on how supply management means higher prices for milk and eggs, which most harms to those who make the least, often single-parent families.  As for how dairy and poultry farmers would survive if they lost their protection, Hall Finlay reminded the room how Canada’s wine industry was supposed to be wiped out by Canada-U.S. free trade, but thrived instead.

She was provocative on the question about crime, too. After nodding at the Liberal consensus against the Conservative push to jail more criminals for longer by imposing mandatory minimum sentences, she pointedly noted that Liberal MPs actually voted for many of Tory criminal law reforms anyway. “We don’t want Stephen Harper to make us look like we’re soft on crime,” she said. “We voted for too many of those bills.”

Justin Trudeau, the presumptive front-runner of course, laid on his usual charm. Each candidate was asked, as a downy-soft opening question, to reveal something personal. Few did anything clever with it. But Trudeau mentioned how badly he misses his kids when he’s out campaigning, and how he’s looking forward to being home for his daughter Ella-Grace’s 4th birthday in a few days. Too sweet? I don’t think so. For many Liberals, Justin still very much somebody’s son; to remind them he’s somebody’s father is smart.

On policy, Trudeau’s best line was his bid to reassure Liberals (and many others) that foreign takeovers of Canadian resource companies don’t really amount to foreign capture of Canadian resources. “The only people who will ever own Canadian resources are Canadians themselves,” he said.

Marc Garneau was blandly likeable during the on-stage interview, but considerably more forceful in his brief closing comment. Garneau came close to haranguing his opponents with a demand that they be precise on policy, vowing that he will be by the time the party votes for its new leader on April 14. “You will know,” he said, “what Marc Garneau stands for in terms of policy on the vast majority of issues of the day.”

Was that a shot at anyone in particular? Asked in a news conference afterward if he was hinting at a lack of precision from Trudeau, Garneau wouldn’t be drawn into a direct criticism of the guy he’s trying to somehow beat. The theme that Liberals should be demanding a lot more of the leadership aspirants was echoed by Hall Findlay (“This is a question of substance, a question of experience…”) and Deborah Coyne (“Don’t settle for vague platitudes…”).

The ginger atmosphere around the Jan. 20 debate in Vancouver and the genteel format used for today’s in Winnipeg sure didn’t test the candidates on those serious terms. The Liberal party has three more debates scheduled, one later this month in the Toronto area, another next month in Halifax and a final outing in Montreal. That’s three more chances to showcase these potential leaders and not, as was mostly the case today, the décor.

In my opinion, the Liberals need to 1) speak to Quebec, which is where they must begin their long, hard, uphill ruck-march back to power, and 2) excite Canadians, especially Quebecers, with some innovative policy ideas. So far they appear, to me, to have studiously avoided both.

 

[Rifleman62]

Every time I have heard a clip of Justin on the radio, it seems to me that his words are the usual platitudes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

When even as fervent a Harper hater as the Good Grey Globe's Lawrence Martin is fed up with the vacuous intellectual pabulum that the Liberals are serving, we know something is wrong. He opines, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, that the Liberals "are a comatose lot, reduced to trotting out the same kind of mush that saw them get trounced in the 2011 election:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/hey-liberals-stop-boring-us-to-death/article8206092/

Hey Liberals, stop boring us to death

LAWRENCE MARTIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Feb. 05 2013

Comedian Redd Foxx once made a crack about how “health nuts are going to feel stupid some day.” They’ll be “lying in hospitals dying of nothing.”

You’ve got to wonder watching the Liberals these days if they are going to meet the same fate. They’re not dying of nothing just yet, but what a collection of bores they’ve become.

The latest manifestation came in Winnipeg on the weekend in the second of their so-called leadership debates. The Manitoba snoozer was so bad, it was generally agreed, that right up there on the highlight reel was Marc Garneau’s proclamation that he enjoyed doing chores around the house, in particular vacuuming.

The debate moderator, a lob-ball throwing party insider, had asked the candidates to tell viewers something about themselves that people might not know. Well, revealed the former astronaut, there’s nothing quite like navigating the vacuum from room to room, feeling it suck up “the dust bunnies.”

Mr. Garneau’s love of hoovering prompted one of the few disagreements of the afternoon when another candidate opined that he hated vacuuming. Sheer drudgery, he said. The two men, to the relief of all, did not come to blows.

There are nine contestants in the Liberal race. None of them appear to realize as they traverse the country stirring up apathy that, speaking of vacuums, the party is in one.

The Winnipeg forum, even more boring than the first debate in Vancouver, was a content-free zone. The contestants barely landed a punch on Stephen Harper. They barely laid a glove on one another. They avoided discussion of most of the pressing issues of the day. They uttered not a memorable phrase.

This is a party in third place – at a historic low. The Liberal brand, most agree, needs rebranding, and you might think this would produce a sense of urgency and some heady, imaginative thinking from the candidates. Such is Justin Trudeau’s perceived lead that the other eight candidates are seen as long shots. They’ve got nothing to lose. They can go for it, throw out some radical ideas, bludgeon the Conservatives, tear a few strips off Mr. Trudeau.

But nothing could stop the torrent of platitudes. If Mr. Harper was watching, I’m sure he had a good chuckle. He has made the economy the top issue, yet it was nowhere on the debate ledger. None of the candidates has come up with a convincing critique or an alternative economic vision.

The Conservatives are vulnerable on abuse of power, but we are still waiting for a Liberal to unveil a real plan for the restoration of Canadian democracy. Mr. Trudeau is rolling out some ideas to cleanse the system, but it’s doubtful they will amount to the overhaul that is necessary.

In Winnipeg, one of the only pointed performances came from Deborah Coyne, who issued a strong rebuke of the government’s campaign against science and research.

Martha Hall Findlay continues to show more spark than the other candidates. She is capable of thinking outside the box. But her big issue, a reform of the supply management system, resonates with about 2 per cent of the population.

At one point Mr. Garneau got it right, warning against the party being too vague. It was seen as a veiled shot at Mr. Trudeau, who, in fact, has put out as many policy positions as the others. But questioned later, Mr. Garneau declined to say if he was criticizing the front-runner. That’s how hot it got in Manitoba.

Maybe these Liberals will awaken at some point. Maybe Mr. Trudeau’s arrival will be all that is needed to return them to contender status. But at this point they are a comatose lot, reduced to trotting out the same kind of mush that saw them get trounced in the 2011 election.

At one point during the Winnipeg proceedings, Mr. Trudeau said he sensed that Canadians are getting “excited that we might be doing politics differently.” You had to wonder whom he was trying to kid.

I am a staunch, paid up, to the legal limit donor Conservative.

But: I want the Liberals to succeed.

I know, with absolute certainty, that sometime between now and 2020 the Conservative Party will become fat, lazy, corrupt, bereft of ideas, and, generally, in need of a few years in the political reserve (opposition) to regroup and reorganize. I seriously doubt that Thomas Mulcair can lead the NDP far enough into the political centre to make them a safe government for Canada. While the Liberal record, post M. St Laurent, is spotty on pretty well every issue, even Justin Trudeau has  renounced much of the policy vandalism and sheer lunacy that his father, Pierre Trudeau (Canada's woest ever prime minister), foisted upon us and the Liberals are, in my opinion, the best hope we have to be a (barely acceptable) government in waiting.

Thus I share Lawrence Martin's dismay: the Liberals need to "harden the f**k up" and test their would be leaders, especially on the battleground (the economy) that Stephen Harper and Canadians, in general have chosen.