Will Justin Trudeau Cross the Aisle?

cybercoma · June 16, 2012

Why? Why would you vote for Carney?

The CPC would be hard pressed to run on their economic record against Carney. He would eat their lunch.

punked · June 16, 2012

The CPC would be hard pressed to run on their economic record against Carney. He would eat their lunch.

Why? There is no reason to believe that.

cybercoma · June 16, 2012

Just my opinion. I think he's in a lot better position to discuss economic matters and run on Canada's economic success as the former head of the Bank of Canada.

cybercoma · June 16, 2012

Just my opinion. I think he's in a lot better position to discuss economic matters and run on Canada's economic success as the former head of the Bank of Canada.

Politics is about perception. And as they say, in politics perception becomes reality.

WWWTT · June 16, 2012

I don't know about that, but I can tell you one thing. If I was a Liberal and Carney was running for leadership, he would be the guy that would have my vote. Mind you, I like Trudeau. I just think at this point in his career he's a bit over-rated.

Actually it's in my opinion that right now people who are born into a privileged life are not really that popular.

Ignatieff would be my best example of this.

In fact the NDP may never accept Justin even if he did want to come over because he may attract too much negative attention.

WWWTT

TwoDucks · June 16, 2012

Mark Carney can still go places and have more power as a central banker. They were kicking his name around for the IMF and I am sure they will continue to do so. Why would he want to leave that to jump to a third party? I just don't see it. Get out of the dream world, he wouldn't be able to put together a run anyway, he has no team.

I have no idea if or why he'd potentially want to be the leader of the Liberals. I hadn't heard his name floated prior to this thread. That said, do you disagree that he could run circles around Harper with respect to the economy?

Fletch 27 · June 16, 2012

He's young, he has his "whits" about him. He KNOWS the liberal party is still slipping and recent polls in QC show the NDP losing favor. I would not be surprised at all is he crossed to thr Tories. Put yourself in his shoes.. Try to revive a party that is null and defunct? Jump to a party that may only be in favor in the maritimes? Or jump to a party that has a chance of putting him on the podium? I think the best odds are he crosses to the Tories.. If they would accept that?

cybercoma · June 17, 2012

Actually it's in my opinion that right now people who are born into a privileged life are not really that popular.

Ignatieff would be my best example of this.

In fact the NDP may never accept Justin even if he did want to come over because he may attract too much negative attention.

WWWTT

To my mind, that's as bad as being disparaging to the poor. I believe the NDP is about co-operation and working together with everyone. In fact, this is why the Communists hated the CCF and the precursor politicians to the CCF at that time. Communism is about conflict. The NDP has never been Communist and has never been about conflict. It's borne out of the Fabians.

Edited June 17, 2012 by cybercoma

punked · June 17, 2012

I have no idea if or why he'd potentially want to be the leader of the Liberals. I hadn't heard his name floated prior to this thread. That said, do you disagree that he could run circles around Harper with respect to the economy?

I don't think all men who are good at their jobs are good at politics.

TwoDucks · June 17, 2012

I don't think all men who are good at their jobs are good at politics.

You're certainly right and I won't dispute that. However his current position certainly puts him in a position of leadership and shows a competence in dealing with money matters. Both of those are things I'd want in a potential leader of my country.

Fletch 27 · June 17, 2012

Does that not sound fitting for a Tory? Fiscal prudence? Until this post, I was sure he would jump to the NDP,,, but now I really think he may jump to the Tories!

You're certainly right and I won't dispute that. However his current position certainly puts him in a position of leadership and shows a competence in dealing with money matters. Both of those are things I'd want in a potential leader of my country.

TwoDucks · June 17, 2012

Does that not sound fitting for a Tory? Fiscal prudence? Until this post, I was sure he would jump to the NDP,,, but now I really think he may jump to the Tories!

Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment, but I remember reading an article a few years back about how a set of ads placed for an agency that was hiring people to go on social media and promote conservative/attack liberal viewpoints. Whenever I read your posts I think of that.

That said, to answer your question, it does sound fitting of a Tory. I think if Mark Carney were to swing to the Tories, it would mean they've evolved past being the brutish party the Conservatives are now.

Newfoundlander · June 17, 2012

He's been quite critical of the NDP lately.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Newfoundlander

punked · June 17, 2012

He's been quite critical of the NDP lately.

Source.

Newfoundlander · June 17, 2012

Source.

I've seen speeches where he's criticized the Conservatives and NDP for being too ideological and tht Harper and Mulcair are just alike, just from different ideologies. YouTube has the speech he gave to the Parkdale High Park Liberal association.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Newfoundlander

punked · June 17, 2012

I've seen speeches where he's criticized the Conservatives and NDP for being too ideological and tht Harper and Mulcair are just alike, just from different ideologies. YouTube has the speech he gave to the Parkdale High Park Liberal association.

I am shocked that a guy who is in the running for the Liberal leadership thinks the other two parties aren't good. Fact is though the Liberals lost their opposition status because they refused to stand up and be an opposition. If that is his message then he is weaker then I thought and doesn't know why Canadians left the Liberal party. Come on his father was one of the most polarizing ideological PMs Canada ever had but those who bought into the vision he sold bought into big.

Edited June 17, 2012 by punked

Newfoundlander · June 17, 2012

Trudeau's message of uniting people and getting people to vote for something rather than for something is quite smart.

I thinks this leadership race could be very interesting, unlike the NDPs leadership there will likely be more of a contrast in where to take the party from the candidates.

punked · June 17, 2012

Trudeau's message of uniting people and getting people to vote for something rather than for something is quite smart.

I thinks this leadership race could be very interesting, unlike the NDPs leadership there will likely be more of a contrast in where to take the party from the candidates.

If I thought the other two parties didn't have a vision and didn't ask Canadian to vote for something rather then against it I would be with you. The problem is the Liberals have always been right up until now and maybe in the future the parties who's slogan has been "The other guys are scary, we are what you know, isn't it our turn?"

I agree their can be more policy differences in the Liberal party because the Leader of the Liberal party can do whatever they want and change party policy on the fly while the NDP leader is bound by the membership and grassroots. I don't think that is a good thing for a party though I think it is a dated thing that drives people away.

Edited June 17, 2012 by punked

cybercoma · June 17, 2012

Does that not sound fitting for a Tory? Fiscal prudence?

The Tories are anything but fiscally prudent. They tend to have a habit of blowing Liberal surpluses when they get into office. They're completely reckless. They gut social programs and government protections, while running up debt. That's the furthest thing from "prudence."

punked · June 17, 2012

The Tories are anything but fiscally prudent. They tend to have a habit of blowing Liberal surpluses when they get into office. They're completely reckless. They gut social programs and government protections, while running up debt. That's the furthest thing from "prudence."

Here is why guys are going to not agree on this. Cyber you and I think fiscal prudence means not running up debt and paying off previous debt so there is more money in the bank. Fletch thinks fiscal prudence means tax cuts no matter what the cost. You define it differently.

WWWTT · June 17, 2012

To my mind, that's as bad as being disparaging to the poor. I believe the NDP is about co-operation and working together with everyone. In fact, this is why the Communists hated the CCF and the precursor politicians to the CCF at that time. Communism is about conflict. The NDP has never been Communist and has never been about conflict. It's borne out of the Fabians.

I agree with your statements about the NDP using co-operation.

I don't understand your need to draw communism into this?

Conservatives are equally as much driven by conflict as communists and there are lots right here.

I believe that the NDP will have to slightly navigate apart from their traditional negotiating tactics when they take power in 2015.But that's still some time away and there are still a couple scenarios possible that could effect the way their policy is executed.

As far as implying that the NDP not accepting Justin into the fold would be at par as belittling the poor,I disagree with this.

WWWTT

capricorn · June 17, 2012

The only way the federal NDP could garner enough votes to displace the Tories is if they appeared to have modernized and become much more realistic.

Let's say the NDP did just that. Assuming the Liberals don't rise from the dead very quickly, IMO this revamped NDP would essentially resemble the Liberals pre-adscam/shawinigate. Yet, that wouldn't be enough for me to vote NDP. I've developed an aversion to that party that I just can't shake. Right or wrong, with me that's just the way it is.

Truth be told, my preference would be a strong Liberal opposition because in my eyes there was very little difference between the Tories and the Grits. Some years ago I got mad at the Grits and turned to the Tories knowing the changes either would bring about I could pretty well live with. Not so with the NDP past and present who I would never vote for even if there was a monumental shift in their agenda. All told, the present situation doesn't bode well if I got pissed with the Tories cause in my books there's no present alternative.

Canada would be better served with a return to a 2 party system with clear differences between the choices.

I prefer 2 parties that are not that far apart in ideology/policy so that I may punish one if my party of choice goes significantly off the rails. So in my case, the leaders selected by the Tories and Grits holds a lot of weight.

Edited to add that Justin doesn't do it for me. I would love to see Manley type candidates in the race.

Edited June 17, 2012 by capricorn

punked · June 17, 2012

Let's say the NDP did just that. Assuming the Liberals don't rise from the dead very quickly, IMO this revamped NDP would essentially resemble the Liberals pre-adscam/shawinigate. Yet, that wouldn't be enough for me to vote NDP. I've developed an aversion to that party that I just can't shake. Right or wrong, with me that's just the way it is.

Truth be told, my preference would be a strong Liberal opposition because in my eyes there was very little difference between the Tories and the Grits. Some years ago I got mad at the Grits and turned to the Tories knowing the changes either would bring about I could pretty well live with. Not so with the NDP past and present who I would never vote for even if there was a monumental shift in their agenda. All told, the present situation doesn't bode well if I got pissed with the Tories cause in my books there's no present alternative.

I prefer 2 parties that are not that far apart in ideology/policy so that I may punish one if my party of choice goes significantly off the rails. So in my case, the leaders selected by the Tories and Grits holds a lot of weight.

So what you want is the US system where systematic change will never happen because both parties will govern pretty much the same way. I personally don't think of that as a healthy democracy but 300 million to the south seem to so it is a way to go.

Newfoundlander · June 17, 2012

I agree their can be more policy differences in the Liberal party because the Leader of the Liberal party can do whatever they want and change party policy on the fly while the NDP leader is bound by the membership and grassroots. I don't think that is a good thing for a party though I think it is a dated thing that drives people away.

While the Liberals have been dumb to not have more grassroots input on policy I also do not agree with the NDPs stance whereby the leader doesn't appear to have much say in policy. A leader should be trusted enough to be able to decide some of the policies themselves.

Topaz · June 17, 2012

While the Liberals have been dumb to not have more grassroots input on policy I also do not agree with the NDPs stance whereby the leader doesn't appear to have much say in policy. A leader should be trusted enough to be able to decide some of the policies themselves.

Wouldn't that depend on the leader and their views on certain polices? It seems to me, that no matter what party it is, the leader seems to governor the way they want to, compared to what the party has stood for and that's why when we vote in a election, we have to take into consideration who the leader of the party is first.