Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff

[BC_chick]

Blueblood said something interesting about Rae which made me think. He said Rae seems to be genuinely interested in maintaining the coalition between the NDP and LPC (or something along those lines) given his prior tenure with the NDP. I suppose that's why the media is referring to him as the 'salesman' for the coalition while Iggy, being more centre-left, seems to distance himself from the idea.

I took Blue's assertion and I went one step further with that. People have been talking about 'uniting the left' for a while now. If anyone is capable of bringing on a merged coalition between our two leftist praties, it's Rae (no guffaws yet people, this is hypothetically speaking for now).

Ignatieff on the other hand, would likely bring the LPC back to its fiscally conservative socially liberal roots (no, no guffaws yet either).

In these scenarios - hypothetically speaking of course - which would have a better chance against the Harper Tories? IMO, both have advantages, but the united-left solution would have the better result, though the thought of saying goodbye to the LPC seems almost treasonous.

Here's my prediction of the possible scenarios:

1 - Rae wins, no NDP coalition: Harper Tories run his stint in ON against him, win by a landslide.

2 - Iggy win, no NDP coalition: Harper Tories could hold his Iraq war stance against him, but it I doubt they'd wanna go there given Harper's own stance on the issue in 2003. Too easy for the Liberals. They could bring up the 'unCanadian' factor, but that just might play out the same way it did for Obama. Meaning, it didn't work too well and the 'unAmerican' candidate won anyway because people found the whole idea insulting.

3 - Rae wins, runs an official coalition with the NDP: the new party runs on a campaign of centre-left where they are a notch to the right of the NDP, and slightly left of the LPC.

As everyone likes to point out though, a whole fiscally-responsible wing of the LPC would then flock to the CPC if there is an offcial merger with the NDP. But I beg to differ, I think looking at the numbers, 3 is the only viable option if the left doesn't have the patience to put up with Harper for any length of time.

In the last election, Tories got 36.3, the Grits 30.2, and the NDP 17.5.

Now the Tories are polling around 44% with the Liberals and NDP bleeding votes. Given these numbers, it is safe to assume that the centre-leaning Grit supporters have warmed up to Harper and are now Tory supporters whether we (the left) like it or not.

Iggy has a tough job bringing them back given that Harper would be the incumbent in this battle for the centre, and he still hasn't been in power long enough to really tee off the people the way politics generally seems to work when anyone is in power long enough.

I'm not necessarily saying I support the following idea because I really do appreciate our multipartisan system. But if people want to get rid of Harper by any means necessary, the only way they would have a chance is through an official merger. One that includes not only the NPD and LPC, but the Greens as well. A merger between these three groups which would have a combined support of around 45% as well. The Bloc keeps their perpetual ten-percent-hovering support.

The only downside would be that we would have a political landscape much like the US where 45% support one team no matter what, 45% support the other no matter what.

And of course another option is to accept a Tory dominated future and take the time to regroup which is not a bad idea of course either. Let Harper muck things up for a while like all politicians do, and who knows.... maybe Justin will be ready by then.

But on their own, I really don't see either Rae or Iggy changing anything for the LPC anytime soon.

Edited December 6, 2008 by BC_chick

[bush_cheney2004]

....The only downside would be that we would have a political landscape much like the US where 45% support one team no matter what, 45% support the other no matter what.

Yes, that would never do. Must be different from the Americans at all costs.

[BC_chick]

Oh God, BC2004, how did you know!?!?

Yes, of course, everything we do and say up here is with America in mind. I wake up and pour my coffee wondering if some American drinks the same brand. I put on my shoes wondering what an American would think of it.

Give it a rest, you read so much into things. Bringing up our only neighbouring country's political system as an example of things, especially when it is so different than our own, is only natural.

As they say, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Edited December 6, 2008 by BC_chick

[Wild Bill]

As they say, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Not to Bill Clinton!

[bush_cheney2004]

Not to Bill Clinton!

[BC_chick]

Alright, I see what the mood is around here today. I'll sign off for now, and hopefully later on there'll be some intelligent contributions to the thread.

[bush_cheney2004]

Give it a rest, you read so much into things. Bringing up our only neighbouring country's political system as an example of things, especially when it is so different than our own, is only natural.

Yes...it is consistently natural is a very curious way. I have often wondered how such enmity for America can be coupled with repetitive references and associations to the very same place. Then I realized it is...."natural", and absolutely necessary as a foil to define Canada. So I will continue my studies here at MLW to better understand such behaviour (spelled the way you like it).

As they say, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Cigars = Cuba = Canada?

Edited December 6, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Canadian Blue]

If it sounds American then it must be bad.

By the way, any person who thinks Justin Trudeau has what it takes to be PM is delusional, such support is usually based on one thing only, 'Trudeau.'

By the way I like how the sole reason for the merger is to get rid of Harper.

However I like the idea of all the blue liberals coming over to our side.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[fellowtraveller]

If it sounds American then it must be bad.

By the way, any person who thinks Justin Trudeau has what it takes to be PM is delusional, such support is usually based on one thing only, 'Trudeau.'

By the way I like how the sole reason for the merger is to get rid of Harper.

However I like the idea of all the blue liberals coming over to our side.

He also has excellent hair, a prerequisite for cult status.

[Riverwind]

Now the Tories are polling around 44% with the Liberals and NDP bleeding votes. Given these numbers, it is safe to assume that the centre-leaning Grit supporters have warmed up to Harper and are now Tory supporters whether we (the left) like it or not.

Harper has annoyed most of the moderate swing voters with his antics and many would be more than happy to vote of a fiscally conservative Liberal party if one emerged. However, those voters will likely stick with Harper no matter how much of a jerk he is as long as the Liberals play footsie with the NDP. i.e. a jerk with sensible policies is better than a nice guy with nonsense policies.

[myata]

We presume that the world will function as it has since time of Adam, but what if its changing? Ie. with vote split 4/5 ways, what if minority governments are the new order of the day? Of course there could still be a majority once in a while, but not enough to have any serious business done? Would this, eventually cause a change of political landscape: hopefully with some form of proportional representation (if minorties is the new norm, should not they be "proportional" minorities?); and coalitions becoming more common, as a way to achieve coordinated act where it could happen by will of any one single party.

[Canadian Blue]

Thanks Riverwind, my sentiments exactly. I quite frankly don't really care what vices a leader may have, but I'll always choose the leader with vices and sensible policies over the one with no vices and irrational policies.

I'd say the strongest thing going for the Liberals would be their brand, and to merge or even have a coalition with the NDP would further damage it. But I really don't mind the thought of the John Manley's, Frank McKenna's, and Irwin Cotler's, moving over to our side.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Huston]

Yes, that would never do. Must be different from the Americans at all costs.

Yeah, it is a red herring. A shame there is no real difference in the end. Both Canada and U.S. are corporate whores, and they are sustained by the very population that hate them. Haha. Funny.

[scribblet]

No Liberal or N.D.P. Member of Parliament who supported this "Coalition of Contempt" deserves to be returned to the Parliament of Canada.

There must be better men and women available.

[bluegreen]

I'm not necessarily saying I support the following idea because I really do appreciate our multipartisan system. But if people want to get rid of Harper by any means necessary, the only way they would have a chance is through an official merger. One that includes not only the NPD and LPC, but the Greens as well. A merger between these three groups which would have a combined support of around 45% as well. The Bloc keeps their perpetual ten-percent-hovering support.

Interesting (And obviously interested) post.

I know quite a few PC organizers in Ontario, and most of them are pretty much sh*tting their pants over Iggy. I know many of his people as well, and they are the top drawer people who have sat out a couple of elections now. He will bring a LOT of money, skills, and a blue red tint to the Liberals that will carry the aura of majority government. He is also likely to win the liberal leadership by a landslide.

Your point above about a grand coalition is a non-starter. The Greens are in fact an important part of the electoral arithmetic, but they will NEVER EVER EVER link up with the NDP. Way too much bad blood. In fact, the reason for the GPC's existence is that the NDP never did get it, and the majority of environmentalists who aren't socialists wanted a home that could promote good policy, without bloating the civil service. You might say that not being the NDP is the defining characteristic of the Green Party.

[eyeball]

I could support a fiscally conservative socially liberal government with a green conscience. I don't care what you call it but I'd suggest the Kumbiya Party just to piss off Morris.

The fundamentalist, crack-down, get-tough, homophobic, wing-nuts of the old Reform stripe including Harper, need to be marginalized to the point of ridiculousness.

As for the NDP and Bloc, I suppose we'll just have to live with them.

I'd suggest people like Keith Martin for Justice Minister and Elizabeth May for the Environment portfolio.

Edited December 6, 2008 by eyeball

[whowhere]

John Manley????

[blueblood]

I could support a fiscally conservative socially liberal government with a green conscience. I don't care what you call it but I'd suggest the Kumbiya Party just to piss off Morris.

The fundamentalist, crack-down, get-tough, homophobic, wing-nuts of the old Reform stripe including Harper, need to be marginalized to the point of ridiculousness.

As for the NDP and Bloc, I suppose we'll just have to live with them.

I'd suggest people like Keith Martin for Justice Minister and Elizabeth May for the Environment portfolio.

If you think the GG is going to let the coalition take over gov't when harper loses confidence your off your rocker. There is far too much controversy and public outrage to do that when a simple election will do. Take the coalition to the people. Lets have an election and settle this once and for all.

[Canadian Blue]

The fundamentalist, crack-down, get-tough, homophobic, wing-nuts of the old Reform stripe including Harper, need to be marginalized to the point of ridiculousness.

Damn that Harper, believing that repeat violent offenders should get tougher criminal sentences.

[eyeball]

If you think the GG is going to let the coalition take over gov't when harper loses confidence your off your rocker. There is far too much controversy and public outrage to do that when a simple election will do. Take the coalition to the people. Lets have an election and settle this once and for all.

Settle what? All you'll do is rearrange a few deck chairs and end up with another minority. Probably with about 25% voter turn out. I bet that'll instill some real confidence in Parliament alright.

Edited December 6, 2008 by eyeball

[Canadian Blue]

I don't really care what the voter turnout is, if someone is too lazy to walk a couple of minutes to their polling booth then all the better for those of us who care enough to stay involved.

[jdobbin]

But on their own, I really don't see either Rae or Iggy changing anything for the LPC anytime soon.

Rae was in Winnipeg tonight. He was talking about an expedited leadership decision. I guess we'll find out more next week when the caucus and party meets.

I have been getting entreaties from both Rae and Ignatieff people about their leadership campaigns. I am still undecided but think that Rae probably has more negatives to overcome.

I am not quite convinced that coalition is quite dead yet because I'm not convinced that Harper won't act like an idiot again.

Dion can't go on like this in either a possible election or coalition government.

[Topaz]

There is a fourth possibility... that he same Libs that voted in the past like for Chretien get off their rears and vote! The reason we are in this situation has to do with voters who don't vote. Yes, everyone vote counts even more now than 10 years ago. I still like Rae over Iggy because Rae is more down to earth and can connect with people were Iggy seems more conservative, more business like. I don't think anyone in Ontario should hold anything against Rae for his time in office. He was in a recession and he tried to keep Ontarians working the best way he could. Iggy has been away from Canada for a while so why would I want him as leader and PM who didn't want to live in his own country?

[Slim MacSquinty]

There are numerous scenarios that are possible, however some are much more probable.

I think it'll be a coronation for Iggy now, he'll take the party sharply right, bringing back the old guard who have been sitting on their hands. That of course will offend an element of the party which has felt some influence lately and they may feel a little betrayed. So the Libs and Cons will have quite a bit of overlap in the center.

However the disenfranchised left of the Libs could head toward the NDP who aren't as far to the left as they once were and may seem welcoming to some left Libs.

That may not have a large effect on the next election but is one more scenario.

[capricorn]

But if people want to get rid of Harper by any means necessary, the only way they would have a chance is through an official merger.

I thought, who could these people be that chick alludes to. This is what I think.

Who has to gain most if Harper is not the PM? Stephane Dion. Dion will resort to anything if it increases his chances of becoming PM. This explains his desperate attempts at holding on the the Opposition leader's job. He knows that once he relinquishes that job, there will never be a Prime Minister Dion.

All it would have taken was for someone to convince Dion that his ticket to the PM's chair is if the opposition joined together to convince the GG to let a coalition take over government. Someone must have convinced him with the rationale that together, the opposition is more representative of the will of the people than the Conservatives. I think Bob Rae drew from his experience with the Peterson government and hatched the present coalition concept. With the egomaniac Dion sold on the plan, the snowball became an avalanche.

One that includes not only the NPD and LPC, but the Greens as well. A merger between these three groups which would have a combined support of around 45% as well. The Bloc keeps their perpetual ten-percent-hovering support.

There's no telling now whether that 45% will remain static.

But on their own, I really don't see either Rae or Iggy changing anything for the LPC anytime soon.

All this mucking around with a tenuous coalition is taking up precious time that could be used to build a viable Liberal Party. Also, party unity is taking another hit.

The party has lost its way and has deprived Canada of an effective opposition. Not only do the Liberals need rebuilding from the inside out, they need to realize they have let the country down. IMO, so far the only prominent Liberals that have said the right words are Ignatieff and Manley.