Liberal Leadership Debate in Montreal

[August1991]

I didn't see this but by all reports it was ugly.

Ignatieff supporters later drowned out Stephane Dion when he said the leadership front-runner will have to answer for his initial support of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Ignatieff has backed away from his initial position on Iraq but Dion said it's Liberals' job to get him to explain his writings - because that's what voters would demand in a federal election campaign.

Link

This is what Paul Wells concluded:

It is now very difficult to imagine Dion, Rae or any large number of their supporters going to Ignatieff. This makes Gerard Kennedy, who after all has more delegates than Dion, a wild card. And for the front-runner, a lifeline. It would be amazing to me if Ignatieff is not making extravagant promises to Kennedy.

Kennedy had better not ask for anything in writing. Ignatieff seems unconvinced of the value of what he writes.

The Liberals are laying the groundwork for a defeat in the next federal election.

Ignatieff laid a long fuse for later fireworks when he announced, in his opening remarks, that the Liberals will (not should, or might, but will) select "a new leader. A leader who can turn the page. A leader who has nothing to do with our errors of the past." Seconds later he declared, in what will seem like a non sequitur if you're the kind of hick who can't keep up with your betters, "I am proud to be a Liberal."

If Ignatieff wins, it will be very hard for the Liberals to defend him.

[Ricki Bobbi]

If Ignatieff wins, it will be very hard for the Liberals to defend him.

Completely agreed! Go Iggy Go!

[August1991]

The point here is that while people on this board and Liberals of the Stronach-type get all excited by a silly remark about nothing, on the other side of town the Liberal Party is laying the groundwork for their own defeat.

If Ignatieff wins, he can't seek the support of many activists in the Liberal Party. But if Ignatieff doesn't win, the Liberal can't reform.

I think the Liberals are going to pick Dion but I don't know if English-Canada is prepared to have yet another Liberal PM from Quebec. Moreover, if Dion wins, it will be the same old Liberal Party circa Jean Chretien.

If the Liberals pick Rae, then it's back to the tax-and-spend syndrome.

Worse, judging by this debate, the Liberals can't seem to understand that they are in opposition and that there is apparently a civil war still ongoing within their ranks. The Liberals are going to have mature alot in the next month if they want the outcome of their convention to be a sign of unity.

Federal Liberals were booing Dion in Montreal to get him to shut up to the point where Dion had to call them on it.

[jdobbin]

Worse, judging by this debate, the Liberals can't seem to understand that they are in opposition and that there is apparently a civil war still ongoing within their ranks. The Liberals are going to have mature alot in the next month if they want the outcome of their convention to be a sign of unity.

I can remember all this tiresome debate going on about the Conservatives when they had their leadership campaign. Look out it turned out.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I can remember all this tiresome debate going on about the Conservatives when they had their leadership campaign. Look out it turned out.

Again with the false memories?

Paul Wells actually adresses that faleshood right here.

That's ok. Good intelligent response. "Uhhh, I remember the Conservatives doing the same thing."

[August1991]

I can remember all this tiresome debate going on about the Conservatives when they had their leadership campaign. Look out it turned out.

The Progressive Conservative Party split on a fundamental issue to Canada - how to resolve the exclusion of the Quebec government from the 1982 patriation of the Constitution. It took many various changes and more than a decade for the Tories to reform and unite again. It is fair to argue that the Tories now offer the best chance at unity in Canada.

The Liberals split on an ego-debate between two older stags and the obvious thievery of one of them. If there's a debate in the Liberal Party, it's only a debate about how they can get back in to power and put their heads in the trough.

The Liberals really need to be out of power for some time and rethink what they stand for. They've cruised far too long on the Pearson/Trudeau ideology.

[jbg]

The Liberals really need to be out of power for some time and rethink what they stand for. They've cruised far too long on the Pearson/Trudeau ideology.

The Liberal Party is what political scientists call a "brokerage" party. Other examples include Italy's Christian Democrats and India's Congress I. Many democracies start out with them (yes, I know Canada nominally started with the Conservatives in power) and then those parties split or die. A "brokerage party" is one that purports to be a "natural governing party" or "all things to all people".

Canada has long since lost its need of training wheels. It should have two parties, the CPC and the NDP.

The Progressive Conservative Party split on a fundamental issue to Canada - how to resolve the exclusion of the Quebec government from the 1982 patriation of the Constitution.

Exclusion? Or boycott?

[jdobbin]

The Progressive Conservative Party split on a fundamental issue to Canada - how to resolve the exclusion of the Quebec government from the 1982 patriation of the Constitution. It took many various changes and more than a decade for the Tories to reform and unite again. It is fair to argue that the Tories now offer the best chance at unity in Canada.

I can't see them going very far with Quebec, can you? If they cater to Quebec at all, they alienate their base in the west. If they try to make gains in Ontario, they alienate their base.

The Clean Air Act probably doesn't help them that much in Quebec.

I know you want the Liberals to stay out of power for a while and think that every one of the candidates has a negative but the gains Conservatives want to make in other parts of the country won't come unless they are prepared to adopt policies more acceptable to urban areas and Quebec.

[fellowtraveller]

I think the Liberals are going to pick Dion but I don't know if English-Canada is prepared to have yet another Liberal PM from Quebec. Moreover, if Dion wins, it will be the same old Liberal Party circa Jean Chretien.

I also think Dion is easily the most likely winner, because he is the safest and most palatable choice of the Liberal national executive.

'English Canada' is far less important than Greater Toronto, which the Libs will win as always even with Dion. But the Libs somehow expect Dion to conquer Quebec, he is seen as Chretiens toady there and the province will remain electorally fractured - as it is now.

I would guess that the unwillingness of the old Liberal guard- as represented by Dion- is what made Frank McKenna (who would have been a formidable foe for Harper) decide not to run for the leadership. It would be too much to fight on two fronts - the CPC and his own national executive would jointly be too much. McKenna must have been paying attention to what happened to Paul Martin, who also fought a two -front war and lost on both.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I would guess that the unwillingness of the old Liberal guard- as represented by Dion- is what made Frank McKenna (who would have been a formidable foe for Harper) decide not to run for the leadership. It would be too much to fight on two fronts - the CPC and his own national executive would jointly be too much. McKenna must have been paying attention to what happened to Paul Martin, who also fought a two -front war and lost on both.

Two front war? wtf are you talking about?

Martin controlled the National Exec with an iron fist. That is how he was able to force Chretien out so early.

Not having the support of the National Executive of the Liberal Party of Canada did not have *anything* to do with Martin's failures as PM and in January.

[jbg]

I can't see them going very far with Quebec, can you? If they cater to Quebec at all, they alienate their base in the west. If they try to make gains in Ontario, they alienate their base.

Both AB and QC want less Ottawa power.

[jdobbin]

Both AB and QC want less Ottawa power.

You're wrong on that account. Quebec wants less interference in Quebec affairs *and* more power in Ottawa to direct more things their way.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I didn't see this but by all reports it was ugly.

It wasn't pretty. Both men, Rae and Dion, jumped on Iggy .... they were jumping all over him. They even gave him hell for his pro Israeli stances, such as his support of targeted assassinations.

Iggy could have replied that the Mossad were the best at it, but knowing that they would deny that fact also .... why stir the pot?

[Biblio Bibuli]

I didn't see this but by all reports it was ugly.

It wasn't pretty. Both men, Rae and Dion, jumped on Iggy ....

Look:

Rae, Dion tee off on Ignatieff

[Figleaf]

The point here is that while people on this board and Liberals of the Stronach-type get all excited by a silly remark about nothing, on the other side of town the Liberal Party is laying the groundwork for their own defeat.

I'm not sure how you conclude that. Iggy would be a poor choice, Rae has his baggage, Volpe is like plague, and Finlay has too little profile. But the other candidates seem like credible contenders against Harper.

Frankly I don't think Iggy will win. His mealy mouthed recantation of his support for Bush's Iraq crime earned him nothing.

But if Ignatieff doesn't win, the Liberal can't reform.

What reform do you think is needed and why can't they do it without Iggy?

I think the Liberals are going to pick Dion but I don't know if English-Canada is prepared to have yet another Liberal PM from Quebec.

Dion's firm line with sovereigntists will help him in ROC.

Moreover, if Dion wins, it will be the same old Liberal Party circa Jean Chretien.

What makes you say that?

[Figleaf]

The Liberals really need to be out of power for some time and rethink what they stand for. They've cruised far too long on the Pearson/Trudeau ideology.

The Liberal Party is what political scientists call a "brokerage" party. Other examples include Italy's Christian Democrats and India's Congress I. Many democracies start out with them (yes, I know Canada nominally started with the Conservatives in power) and then those parties split or die. A "brokerage party" is one that purports to be a "natural governing party" or "all things to all people".

Canada has long since lost its need of training wheels. It should have two parties, the CPC and the NDP.

The Progressive Conservative Party split on a fundamental issue to Canada - how to resolve the exclusion of the Quebec government from the 1982 patriation of the Constitution.

Exclusion? Or boycott?

Call them what you like, the Liberal party is primarily a pragmatic organization dedicated to securing the power to govern. This is it's strength. It assesses what the most people will find to be the best policy positions and it pursues them regardless of ideology. The result is usually pretty good government, despite the personal hobbyhorses, individual dishonesties, and unprincipled compromises along the way.

BTW, the 'natural governing party' is not something the Liberal party claimed (though it must please them), it is a description people applied to them.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The result is usually pretty good government, despite the personal hobbyhorses, individual dishonesties, and unprincipled compromises along the way.

BTW, the 'natural governing party' is not something the Liberal party claimed (though it must please them), it is a description people applied to them.

The result was adscam.

Applied to them by Liberal supporters?

[Figleaf]

I can't believe I wasted time communicating with a creature of the likes of 'RickiBobbi'. WTF was the matter with me?

Edited July 28, 2007 by Figleaf

[Ricki Bobbi]

I class that among the afore-mentioned "individual dishonesties, and unprincipled compromises".

The result I refered to is a peaceful, prosperous country, the envy of many around the world.

the "afore-mentioned" "indvidual dishonesties and unprincipled compromises" are why the Liberals lost in January and why the deserve to be out of Government for an extended period. (i.e. more than two years.)

[August1991]

I class that among the afore-mentioned "individual dishonesties, and unprincipled compromises".

The result I refered to is a peaceful, prosperous country, the envy of many around the world.

The civilized nature of Canada is due to the people living here. Our prosperity is due to our natural resources. The Liberal Party is wrong to take credit for either.

[Figleaf]

I class that among the afore-mentioned "individual dishonesties, and unprincipled compromises".

The result I refered to is a peaceful, prosperous country, the envy of many around the world.

The civilized nature of Canada is due to the people living here. Our prosperity is due to our natural resources. The Liberal Party is wrong to take credit for either.

The orderly society is due to good government, selected by the (usual) sagacity of the people. The prosperity is due to sound economic policies, admittedly assisted by a good resource base. That's not to say we can't do better, of course.

[Biblio Bibuli]

This is what Paul Wells concluded:

It is now very difficult to imagine Dion, Rae or any large number of their supporters going to Ignatieff.

If Ignatieff wins, it will be very hard for the Liberals to defend him.

Paul Wells asks:does anyone seriously believe Stephen Harper will delicately lay off Ignatieff's written record if he's the leader?

Lots of Ignatieff's written record is music to GWB's ears. Do you, Paul Wells, actually believe that Harper will put down the music that is so pleasant to George's ears?

[Figleaf]

I class that among the afore-mentioned "individual dishonesties, and unprincipled compromises".

The result I refered to is a peaceful, prosperous country, the envy of many around the world.

the "afore-mentioned" "indvidual dishonesties and unprincipled compromises" are why the Liberals lost in January and why the deserve to be out of Government for an extended period. (i.e. more than two years.)

To the first part, yes. They lost by through their troubles, not through the clear superiority of their opponents.

To the second part, perhaps. It depends on how well they have addressed the aforementioned troubles.

[Ricki Bobbi]

To the first part, yes. They lost by through their troubles, not through the clear superiority of their opponents.

To the second part, perhaps. It depends on how well they have addressed the aforementioned troubles.

The "not very Liberal" behaviour of Iggy's supporters in Montreal tells me they haven't done much to address the troubles so far.

[Rue]

The Middle East is a red herring issue. Its complete b.s. and all these candidates are full of it on this topic. The real issues are the environment, the economy and acknowledgement of coruption and the wide spread lack of ethics during the Chretien years that the LIberal Party still has not come clean for.

Igg is showing he is 100% first and foremost al prostitute on political issues and knows how to pander to his audience. He is doing what Liberals do, pander to audiences. He has pandered to the Quebec vote with his reference to changing the constitution to define Quebec as a society within a society. Its absolute meaningless drivel but Francophone Quebecers have bought into it hook, line and sinker and he's secured the Quebec vote and that will now take him over the top. The fact that he has sucked and blowed on the Middle East seems to have not meant anything to Liberals used to this kind of oral recreation from their leaders.

Bob Rae can not be sold in Ontario, or out West. He has shown his past economic record in Ontario is just too big a cross to bare and defend against and no one in Ontario or out West will take him seriously. The fact that Chretien's camp was so desperate to support him speaks loudly for their lack of trust in Dion and their lack of comfort with Igg's superiority complex.

Dion is perceived as a Trudeau type Liberal, another "anti-Quebec nationalist" Franco-phone and quite frankly Canada's been there and done that time and time again with the Liberals and no one is in the mood for another Canadian who doesn't speak English very well and is very brittle and arrogant and just can't come down from his ivory tower for average Canadians to indentify.

Gerard Kennedy has shown he can not speak French and aside from some feel good buzz phrases isball hot air and no substance and does not have the intellectual capability of understanding the economy and should have stayed in provincial politics.

It was between Rae , Ignatieff and Dion, but Iggy pulled out the old suck and blow with Quebec, showed he would go down on and perform oral sex on Quebec and that Quebec as a society was not hard for him to swallow if you excuse the pun.

I think unfortunately Igg will now win. I just don't see people rallying around Rae because I think they now realize his NDP record is just too big to ignore. A betting man would have thought Dion would have gone over to Rae or vice versa but it is now clear Dion despises Rae as much as he does Igg and is a wild card and may just release his people to go there merry way if Rae's people don't go to him. I just don't see Rae's people going over to Dion. They are after all Liberals sensing they need an Anglophone to win.

So at this point, I think prize clown Igg will win and if I were the Tories I could care less. Whether its Rae, Igg or even Dion, Harper can handle any of them. Dion in my opinion would give Harper the hardest time because of the environment, but would lose because of his poor English, lack of popularity in Quebec and out West and his lack of a common touch. Rae would get blown out of the water over his economic record. Igg will if annointed leader, self-destruct.

At this point I see the Liberals in opposition with Rae and Igg and Dion sniping at each other, Igg will quit after 2 years, Rae will take over, lose another election and Harper will be around at least 8 years.