Next Liberal leader

[Posc Student]

After a strong start it now looks like the Liberals may have a bad election and Michael Ignatieff will be gone in no time. Who's going to be the next to lead the Liberals though? They need someone who will stay on for a number of years and possibly a number of elections in order to rebuild. They also need a leader who will bring the party back to the centre. There doesn't really seem to be a clear leader for the Liberals, or really any party, but who within the current caucus or outside the caucus could be the next leader?

[scouterjim]

After a strong start it now looks like the Liberals may have a bad election and Michael Ignatieff will be gone in no time. Who's going to be the next to lead the Liberals though? They need someone who will stay on for a number of years and possibly a number of elections in order to rebuild. They also need a leader who will bring the party back to the centre. There doesn't really seem to be a clear leader for the Liberals, or really any party, but who within the current caucus or outside the caucus could be the next leader?

Don't be surprised to see Justin Trudeau run for leadership using his daddy's name as his platform.

[punked]

Don't be surprised to see Justin Trudeau run for leadership using his daddy's name as his platform.

He has to win his seat first. The Liberals are taking just as big of a hit in the polls as the Bloc.

[WWWTT]

Here's my take on this topic

From what I know of the Liberals,at least half of its MP's have had a privelaged life.

And like the old saying goes "When the going gets tuff,the tuff get going"

After the Liberals get chewed up and spitted out theres going to be a lot of long faces and only a few with a seat left in a position to do anything.

These are people that are used to having life handed to them on a silver platter.

Now they will have to actually work hard to rebuild the party?

Fat chance

NDP merger talks?

WWWTT

[kimmy]

Maybe Martha Findlay-Hall or Gerard Kennedy? People seemed to like them when they entered the ring in 2006, and they don't have the kind of baggage a lot of other potential contenders might have.

From what I know of the Liberals,at least half of its MP's have had a privelaged life.

Depends what you consider "privileged", I guess.

Not many politicians from any major party are exactly impoverished...

A lot of Liberals (and Conservatives, and probably more than a few NDs) enter politics after successful careers in business or law. That doesn't necessarily mean they started off as members of the "old money" establishment or anything like that.

Now they will have to actually work hard to rebuild the party?

What does that actually mean? What do they actually need to do? Next election they run an entirely fresh slate of candidates... anybody who was with the party prior to 2006 has to go, even if they're a long-serving incumbent?

Or short of that, is there some definite actions they have to take before people would consider them "rebuilt"?

To me, there are a few faces from the Chretien era that I'd like to see gone, and who I would hate to see back in Cabinet.

-k

[Topaz]

My bet is on Dominic LeBlanc. He has already ran once in the leadership but had to quite when his dad became sick with cancer and died. He's been around the Hill most of his life, wih his dad being a GG. He's a former lawyer, he's a good speaker, seems to have a good personality, good choice for a leader.

[August1991]

From what I know of the Liberals,at least half of its MP's have had a privelaged life.

And like the old saying goes "When the going gets tuff,the tuff get going"

After the Liberals get chewed up and spitted out theres going to be a lot of long faces and only a few with a seat left in a position to do anything.

These are people that are used to having life handed to them on a silver platter.

Now they will have to actually work hard to rebuild the party?

Fat chance

NDP merger talks?

WWWTT

Across Canada, there are many ordinary Canadians who like this country and want it to have a functioning federal state. These people have no particular ideology. They are practical, and fair. They want a civilized Canada. Above all, they want Canadians across various divides to get along.

The federal Liberal Party has many potential voters.

Who will be the next federal Liberal leader? God knows and frankly, I don't think the choice of leader is really their problem. But I wouldn't sell the Liberals short yet.

Edited April 22, 2011 by August1991

[Handsome Rob]

My bet is on Dominic LeBlanc. He has already ran once in the leadership but had to quite when his dad became sick with cancer and died. He's been around the Hill most of his life, wih his dad being a GG. He's a former lawyer, he's a good speaker, seems to have a good personality, good choice for a leader.

I quite agree, he's the only name that comes to my mind. Mind you, not terribly familiar with their reserves of future ex-leaders.

Only other name that routinely come up is Rae, and I can't see them being that foolish.

[Shady]

These are people that are used to having life handed to them on a silver platter.

Complete nonsense.

[Tilter]

I quite agree, he's the only name that comes to my mind. Mind you, not terribly familiar with their reserves of future ex-leaders.

Only other name that routinely come up is Rae, and I can't see them being that foolish.

Yes, he could do to the Liberal party what he did in Ontario as a premier--- leave them flat broke & in worse shape than Dion & Ignateff are leaving the party. By all means, get Rae in there--- that way we CPCs will be in the driver's seat for a decade or 2.

[Posc Student]

From what I know of the Liberals,at least half of its MP's have had a privelaged life.

I have to agree with the others on this. Just because someone has built a good life for themselves doesn't neccessarily mean they've lived a privelaged life. Even if they have lived a privelaged life what does it have to do with anything? Danny Williams for instance grew up better off then most families in St. John's and went on to be a rhode scholar and is worth over $200 million, and he's was able to connect with ordinary people better then probably 95% of politicians.

While the problems in the Liberal Party go deeper then just the leader they still need a strong leader to fix all their other issues.

I believe Dominic LeBlanc was the party's best choice in 2008 and while I'd still be fine with him as leader I'm not sure how charismatic he is to really engage people. He probably has a less controversial background then many of the other candidates though.

[RNG]

I know there are several theorists on this site who keep telling us we in fact vote for our local MP, not the PM, and that we are a parliamentary democracy with this meaning and that. But lets face it, I'll say starting with Trudeau and going on, each successive PM concentrated more and more power into the PMO to the point that the average MP is a voting puppet. Some cabinet ministers have some stroke, but it's all the PM. I think Clark tried to be more "democratic" and look what happened to him.

Talking with my friends they all agree that it is the leader who makes the greatest difference and dominates choice of candidates. So picking a good leader is very important. And in this game, defining good is difficult.

Edited April 22, 2011 by RNG

[August1991]

Talking with my friends they all agree that it is the leader who makes the greatest difference and dominates choice of candidates. So picking a good leader is very important. And in this game, defining good is difficult.

Maybe that's the problem. The Liberals have obsessed on choosing the good leader. Dunno. Maybe you're right. If I think of Obama (and he's a pale latter day Trudeau), we seem to live in a world where it takes a focal point to attract attention.

----

IMV, Canada is different. I'm still inclined to think that federal Canadian political parties work best when they bring Canadians together, negotiate various regional interests.

Our most successful federal political parties have bridged various divides, most potently our religious divide and now our linguistic divide.

But maybe you're right, RNG. It's about personality: Macdonald did this. Laurier and King did it. Mulroney did it.

Edited April 22, 2011 by August1991

[RNG]

Maybe that's the problem. The Liberals have obsessed on choosing the good leader. Dunno. Maybe you're right. If I think of Obama (and he's a pale latter day Trudeau), we seem to live in a world where it takes a focal point to attract attention.

----

IMV, Canada is different. I'm still inclined to think that federal Canadian political parties work best when they bring Canadians together, negotiate various regional interests.

Our most successful federal political parties have bridged various divides, most potently our religious divide and now our linguistic divide.

Macdonald did this. Laurier and King did it. Mulroney did it.

That's what I think we all hope for. The problem as I see it is that, as is demonstrated in this forum so often, the views are becoming more and more polarized in Canada, almost if not equal to the situation in the US. I am not an Obama fan, but the Reps would criticize him for causing the world population to spike if he cured cancer. And the Dems take the same view of any Rep.

It's getting way too similar here.

[August1991]

The problem as I see it is that, as is demonstrated in this forum so often, the views are becoming more and more polarized in Canada...

That's what leftists typically say when they are losing an argument.

Typical leftist post on MLW in response to an opponent: "You are lying! You are polarizing the debate! It's a false dichotomy!"

----

Canada has leftists. But it also has federal Liberals and federal Conservatives.

The federal Liberals don't need a leader, they need a raison d'être.

[RNG]

That's what leftists typically say when they are losing an argument.

Typical leftist post on MLW in response to an opponent: "You are lying! You are polarizing the debate! It's a false dichotomy!"

----

Canada has leftists. But it also has federal Liberals and federal Conservatives.

The federal Liberals don't need a leader, they need a raison d'être.

That's sort of funny because I am, economically, very right wing.

[Bonam]

I don't think the Liberals will get very far by throwing out their leader after every election they lose. That's only gonna have them present a total newbie as leader each time around. A leader can benefit from having time to gain some experience and have the public become familiar with him/her. Layton has lost how many elections now, and yet he is still the NDP leader, and polling higher than ever. Harper wasn't booted from the conservatives when he lost an election.

And yet the liberals throw out their leader every time. I think this points back to a liberal sense of entitlement. The establishment is still in denial, can't wrap their heads around the fact they are no longer the natural governing party. Instead, they assume that the leader must have screwed up and blame it all on him. The liberals need to be humbled for a few more elections before they can get over themselves. They need to find a decent leader and keep him on for a good span of time even if he/she loses an election or two or three.

[August1991]

That's sort of funny because I am, economically, very right wing.

Left wing, right wing. Leader with name or not. What's the federal Liberal Party?

----

In the past, the federal Liberal Party brought Canadians together. Catholics and Protestants, British and French-Canadians.

[Roger Steele]

Even with a strong leader I think there is a much deeper problem with the Liberal party. The Federal Liberals are a party stuck in a time warp. I think if the party does not make some huge fundamental changes it will be relegated to the side lines and eventually fade out of existence.

[August1991]

That's sort of funny because I am, economically, very right wing.

RNG, you may view yourself as "very right wing". But are you? And in Canada, does this matter?

In fact, I tried to argue above that Canada's divides are not ideological, they are regional. People vote for politicians/parties who represent their region.

People in Toronto never vote Harper. And people in Alberta never vote Liberal. In Quebec, no one votes Conservative.

[Roger Steele]

RNG, you may view yourself as "very right wing". But are you? And in Canada, does this matter?

In fact, I tried to argue above that Canada's divides are not ideological, they are regional. People vote for politicians/parties who represent their region.

People in Toronto never vote Harper. And people in Alberta never vote Liberal. In Quebec, no one votes Conservative.

For the most part I would agree however historically their have been a couple Liberal seats in Alberta almost every election until just recently.

[Roger Steele]

I don't think the Liberals will get very far by throwing out their leader after every election they lose. That's only gonna have them present a total newbie as leader each time around. A leader can benefit from having time to gain some experience and have the public become familiar with him/her. Layton has lost how many elections now, and yet he is still the NDP leader, and polling higher than ever. Harper wasn't booted from the conservatives when he lost an election.

And yet the liberals throw out their leader every time. I think this points back to a liberal sense of entitlement. The establishment is still in denial, can't wrap their heads around the fact they are no longer the natural governing party. Instead, they assume that the leader must have screwed up and blame it all on him. The liberals need to be humbled for a few more elections before they can get over themselves. They need to find a decent leader and keep him on for a good span of time even if he/she loses an election or two or three.

I don't recall the Liberals throwing out any leaders? Most of their leaders have had long successful terms and retire fat and happy. This is the first time in recent history that the Liberals have not bounced back after a brief weak period.

I do agree that they need to find themselves a decent leader. Someone humble enough to handle a few losses and strong enough to steer the Liberals in a new direction.

[August1991]

For the most part I would agree however historically their have been a couple Liberal seats in Alberta almost every election until just recently.

Before Trudeau, the Liberals could show their face in Alberta. Since 1972, it's been hard.

Roger, my point is that, once upon a time, the federal Liberals united a broad group of Canadians. Heck, Macdonald - a nservative - did this before Laurier. Mulroney did it too. (So the Liberals have no monopoly on a federal union.)

IMHO, successful federal Canadian politicians abuse/play to this desire of ordinary Canadians to get along.

[Evening Star]

Before Trudeau, the Liberals could show their face in Alberta. Since 1972, it's been hard.

Before Diefenbaker, really. The Liberals won one AB seat in 1957 and none in 1958. Since then, I believe the 1968 election was their best showing in AB. (The Pearson Liberals also won one AB seat in 1963 and none in 1965.) Even prior to that, though, St Laurent did well on the Prairies but never did as well as Social Credit or the PCs in AB.

[Scotty]

You can forget Rae and the other anglos. The next leader has to be French I'm not sure if its tradition or actually in the party constitution, but they're not going to mess with it.

I also agree they need more than just a new leader. They need a vision. All the other parties stand for something. What do Liberals stand for? What is it they want to do when in power, other than enjoy being in power? Is it possible for them to come out with some actual policy ideas which aren't based purely on perceived popularity and curb appeal? For a party which is still strongly associated with graft, corruption and arrogance, having no vision is a death knell. Nobody wants to run for office representing such a party other than crass political opportunists and you become a party of hucksters.