Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff

[jdobbin]

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.

The Liberals have always had a number of center left and center right people involved with it. I don't know that Ignatieff is going to be right wing in all matters. On the fiscal front, I imagine he might be. On social justice issues, I doubt it.

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.

How many federal Liberals have ever become NDP?

I know many NDP have become Liberals.

There is still plenty of room for Liberals on the left. I find many of them are more likely to support policies don't lave deficits.

[Keepitsimple]

The Coalition has demonstrated that the Libs are committed to moving to the Left. True, maybe this was Dion's move and many in the party may well have disapproved behind the scenes.....but the public has clearly seen the Libs veer Left and that means they will lose some of those voters who are on the Right in the Liberal Party. As the Conservatives move closer to the center, they keep nibbling away at the right flank of the Libs....and now the Libs have for all intents and purposes, abandoned some of those voters with the Coalition. The "nibbling away" reminds me of that old video arcade game Pac-Man.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[bluegreen]

The Liberals have always had a number of center left and center right people involved with it. I don't know that Ignatieff is going to be right wing in all matters. On the fiscal front, I imagine he might be. On social justice issues, I doubt it.

How many federal Liberals have ever become NDP?

I know many NDP have become Liberals.

There is still plenty of room for Liberals on the left. I find many of them are more likely to support policies don't lave deficits.

Jdobbin, I wouldn't go chasing too much support on the left. It's crowded, and turnouts are low. Much more profit in scooping the marginal CPC elector on the centre.

I don't think Ignatieff is particularly right wing. He is pretty rigorous and solemn in discussion, which can be mistaken for right wing. He isn't lacking in humour, but it is of the wry kind. There is some kind of ineffable crustiness there. His wife is nice enough, and I've met some really stand up guys in his camp, both here in Etobicoke, and on the broader scene. Come to think of it, since he came to my part of town, he hasn't been associated with a single crappy or creepy deed. That takes some doing through two federal, one provincial, and one municipal election. The only thing that pissed me off was the suborning of a past Green Party Candidate during the recent election, but then that's the Green Party's fault for voting for a wanker for a candidate. His local campaign team was smart enough to effectively squeeze the GPC in 2006-7, and it went so well for them that they carried it a step further this time. I can absolutely assure you that the local Conservatives are really worried about this guy, because they all like and respect him.

Bob Rae? Baggage galore. He impressed me greatly as a Liberal attack dog in the last election, but debating skills, and cutting wit aren't enough to do it. He would be little threat to the CPC moderate vote, because his record would be on display 24/7. He would still do way more good than Dion to the Liberal cause. Whoever wins, I think the country can expect a Liberal resurgence, in a big way. If the election is in the late summer, or fall then look for a strong Liberal minority under Iggy, or a weak one under Rae. Of course, if the writ is dropped before the leadership is settled, well, that would really suck.

[bluegreen]

The Coalition has demonstrated that the Libs are committed to moving to the Left. True, maybe this was Dion's move and many in the party may well have disapproved behind the scenes.....but the public has clearly seen the Libs veer Left and that means they will lose some of those voters who are on the Right in the Liberal Party. As the Conservatives move closer to the center, they keep nibbling away at the right flank of the Libs....and now the Libs have for all intents and purposes, abandoned some of those voters with the Coalition. The "nibbling away" reminds me of that old video arcade game Pac-Man.

Simple response here. The Liberal Party is not monolithic. It is plastic, and can reposition itself to campaign anywhere from centre right, to pretty far left of centre. It will turn on a dime with the next leadership vote.

[cybercoma]

I just had a GREAT idea!

ALL THE PARTIES could form a coalition! They could then vote themselves down and force an election. After canadians go to the poll and vote for the single candidate in each riding, we could have a government elected by a 100% landslide.

[August1991]

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.

...

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.

This is an interesting OP, BC Chick and I want to respond before I read the rest of the thread.

There is a theory in political science that in a two party system, each party will seek the support of the median voter (50% + 1 person) but from either end of the spectrum. In the US, for example, presidential candidates typically appeal to teh base in the primaries and then move to the centre seeking the median voter in the fall campaign. Since both parties are seeking the swing vote of the median voter, the two parties invariably have similar policies but arrive at them from different directions.

In English Canada, we don't have that because of the NDP. Moreover, the Reform Party was arguably about regionalism as much as ideology. And of course the Bloc in Quebec is an entirely different story.

Nevertheless, I think a union of the Left is long overdue and the so-called progressive wing of the Liberal Party and the NDP should unite. I think it would be up to the NDP to be more tolerant of their more centrist fellow centre-leftists. The NDP once tolerated a waffle group within its ranks. The PQ has a hard line leftist faction called SPQ-Libre (although Quebec solidaire is distinct from the PQ). The British Labour Party had Michael Foot. (France with its two tiers has separate Communist/Socialist parties.) In the US, the extreme leftists are tolerant of people like Obama because they view him as less of a threat than, say, Bush Jnr.

IMV, it is up to the NDP to put water in its wine and accept that someone like Ignatieff is a lesser evil than say Harper. The sign of a mature democracy is that individuals are willing to work together under large tents. After all, when the government decides, it is taking collective decisions that affect everyone in society. If you choose to drink coffee or tea, that is a personal choice. Governments typically must take decisions as if we were all coffee drinkers or tea drinkers. The first start of compromise is within the political party itself.

-----

The Bloc poses another problem. I happen to think that Harper will inevitably split the Bloc along its Montreal/region faultline. Duceppe is a leftist Montréalais and he does not speak for many Quebecers who vote for the Bloc. Harper missed a golden opportunity in the past federal election to seek these votes on ideological grounds. Dumont once had them and now Charest is receiving their support.

-----

I have often argued here that regionalism not ideology drives Canadian politics. I think this will always be the case since the language divide between French and English Canadians (and the divide between Protestants and Catholics) are at the heart of Canada's identity. We are a country that explicitly recognizes minority communities and grants them rights.

Edited December 7, 2008 by August1991

[punked]

In the last three US elections it was about not going to the middle but to get your base out in huge numbers. This is possible in elections where only 60% of people vote becuase while a base does not make up half the country they can make up half the electorate because only 60% of people are voting. So the old model of moving to the middle goes out the window. Look at the pick of Palin this was to force the base out in as big of numbers as possible. It is a new time in politics, GOTV is where it is at now not playing for the middle.

Edited December 7, 2008 by punked

[mjp]

In the last three US elections it was about not going to the middle but to get your base out in huge numbers. This is possible in elections where only 60% of people vote becuase while a base does not make up half the country they can make up half the electorate because only 60% of people are voting. So the old model of moving to the middle goes out the window. Look at the pick of Palin this was to force the base out in as big of numbers as possible. It is a new time in politics, GOTV is where it is at now not playing for the middle.

some states had higher voter turnout then 60%.

and I still want this coalition to go through, so Elizabeth May can be put in senate

[August1991]

In the last three US elections it was about not going to the middle but to get your base out in huge numbers. This is possible in elections where only 60% of people vote becuase while a base does not make up half the country they can make up half the electorate because only 60% of people are voting. So the old model of moving to the middle goes out the window. Look at the pick of Palin this was to force the base out in as big of numbers as possible. It is a new time in politics, GOTV is where it is at now not playing for the middle.

No, it's about going to the middle, the median voter.

The collapse of equity markets made Obama's election possible but to his credit, when the collapse occurred, he was palatable to voters in the middle.

In a two party democracy, a candidate needs only 50% plus 1 to win. Ambitious politicians (and Obama seems to be one) are perfectly aware of this situation.

----

Turn-out in the 2008 presidential election was not statistically different from recent presidential elections. It's around 60% or so. And of course a canddiate must get the base out in the fall vote, but policies/announcements are designed to attract the marginal, swing, mdeian voter.

My point is that the radical fringes on either side live with a candidate being reasonable in seeking the middle voter.

and I still want this coalition to go through, so Elizabeth May can be put in senate

Wishful thinking is generally a bad way to conduct one's life but it is utterly useless in politics. Edited December 7, 2008 by August1991

[punked]

No, it's about going to the middle, the median voter.

The collapse of equity markets made Obama's election possible but to his credit, when the collapse occurred, he was palatable to voters in the middle.

In a two party democracy, a candidate needs only 50% plus 1 to win. Ambitious politicians (and Obama seems to be one) are perfectly aware of this situation.

----

Turn-out in the 2008 presidential election was not statistically different from recent presidential elections. It's around 60% or so. And of course a canddiate must get the base out in the fall vote, but policies/announcements are designed to attract the marginal, swing, mdeian voter.

My point is that the radical fringes on either side live with a candidate being reasonable in seeking the middle voter.

Wishful thinking is generally a bad way to conduct one's life but it is utterly useless in politics.

That is just not true though Obama did not play to the middle just as Bush didn't play to the middle. He campaigned on health care reform, getting out of iraq, and renewable resources. He played to the left but had a huge GOTV effort all across the country. Maybe it will be true in the future that in a 2 party system they must play to the middle but it is not now. They are all about getting out the base and trying to suppress the other guys base.

[Oleg Bach]

To hell with the middle and the pandering centre - march to the right and do what is right- the majority is stupid and have the ideals of 19 year old college students..all look for the perfect fair world - that has never and will never exist. Humans are vicious and self serving most of the time. It's better in my estimation to have a strong father figure or a powerful matriarch run the nation...not these boys who want all to like them and will get nothing done...Money has to be managed...and we don't need 80% of the stuff we have....socialist like their material stuff more than conservatives - lower management and middle management in any corporation are just a little to hungry and egotistical to take power...we got this far with our present system - let us continue and protect our treasury......everybody wants the money...this is what it's all about - world wide - lets rise above that in Canada and set an international bench mark for good behaviour and management.

[cybercoma]

Nevertheless, I think a union of the Left is long overdue and the so-called progressive wing of the Liberal Party and the NDP should unite. I think it would be up to the NDP to be more tolerant of their more centrist fellow centre-leftists. The NDP once tolerated a waffle group within its ranks. The PQ has a hard line leftist faction called SPQ-Libre (although Quebec solidaire is distinct from the PQ). The British Labour Party had Michael Foot. (France with its two tiers has separate Communist/Socialist parties.) In the US, the extreme leftists are tolerant of people like Obama because they view him as less of a threat than, say, Bush Jnr.

IMV, it is up to the NDP to put water in its wine and accept that someone like Ignatieff is a lesser evil than say Harper. The sign of a mature democracy is that individuals are willing to work together under large tents. After all, when the government decides, it is taking collective decisions that affect everyone in society. If you choose to drink coffee or tea, that is a personal choice. Governments typically must take decisions as if we were all coffee drinkers or tea drinkers. The first start of compromise is within the political party itself.

I somewhat agree with your analysis of the NDP. They do need to temper their message and move slightly to the right to gain more seats in Parliament. I believe they could even form government one day if they look to their British counter-parts to understand how to remain a labour party without the socialist rhetoric.

But, I do not think they should unite with the federal Liberal Party. They certainly don't need all of that spare baggage. If the NDP moves to the left they could usurp the Liberals as party of choice for left-leaning voters.

Instead, they continue to run on dramatic social politics which involve tax and spend initiatives that would be crippling to the economy. Furthermore, they have stated that they want to withdraw from NAFTA, which is enough to make any informed voter second guess their leadership ability.

The NDP could be a stronger force in federal politics, if they stopped trying to be as left-wing as possible. But, I think they should take that initiative on themselves. Sure they could align themselves with the Liberal Party and that would act as the "water in its wine", but I believe they would be a lot more successful watering down the wine themselves.

[Oleg Bach]

Bob Rae is homo-milk - Layton is 2% - and Dion is watered down mother's milk - All are milk. The silly notion that Rae is a liberal should be put to rest...He is actually a righist who wants a record deal in his old age and vanity. The NDP thing was but an entry point. When he found out that there was not enough clout in being an NDPer - the ambtiious Rae decides on going liberal - give it a couple of years and he will eventually be a Tory....Rae wants to play the piano and croon...and Harper was the nerd kid who wanted to play in the NHL - point being...Ambition and personal glorification will not cut it in the end. A leader should not care about power and being adored by the masses - He should care about getting the job done right dispite ego...we still await such a leader...One that does not care about glory but simply wants to lead (help) - where is that man?

[capricorn]

They certainly don't need all of that spare baggage. If the NDP moves to the left they could usurp the Liberals as party of choice for left-leaning voters.

According to some pundits, the country has taken a slight turn to the right in its politics. I tend to agree. I'm not saying the country is right wing. I'm saying the country is less to the left than it used to be.

The NDP could be a stronger force in federal politics, if they stopped trying to be as left-wing as possible. But, I think they should take that initiative on themselves. Sure they could align themselves with the Liberal Party and that would act as the "water in its wine", but I believe they would be a lot more successful watering down the wine themselves.

The mainstay of the NDP are unionized workers and the support that large unions bring to the party. If the NDP wants to put water in its wine, it would have to distance itself somewhat from the unions. That is problematic for the NDP as unions will never veer from their leftist ideology. Is the NDP willing to alienate organized labour in order to compete Liberal turf? I don't think so.

Union leadership lives and breathes NDP, and it filters down through to the activists and to the membership. Having worked for 15 years for the Public Service Alliance of Canada in senior positions, I speak from experience.

[capricorn]

Looks like it's going to be a two horse race. Leblanc is set to bail from the leadership race.

New Brunswick Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the Liberal leadership race, sources have told CTV News.

CTV's Chief Parliamentary Correspondent Craig Oliver said LeBlanc will make the announcement Monday, according to senior officials.

"Many people expected (LeBlanc) to run a pretty strong campaign, but now that the crunch is on the party has decided they have to get a leader probably within the next five or six weeks, and probably Mr. LeBlanc felt that he didn't have the horses to get it together that quickly," Oliver told CTV Newsnet.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Good move on his part. His candidacy would have cost him a pretty penny and he gets to keep his distance from the coalition. Leblanc is still young and upcoming. He'll let the old stogies wrestle this one out and prepare for a future contest against Justin Trudeau. Was it Rae or Ignatieff that said succession planning was an important part of re-building the Liberal party? Things are unfolding.