Manley and McKenna Bow out
Unfortuantely two high profile Liberals, Frank McKenna and John Manley have bowed out of running in the next Liberal leadership race. While some may say this means the Liberals are in serious trouble, I believe this has both good and bad aspects to it. On the one hand both were seasoned politicians with many advantages to helping re-build the Liberal Party. John Manley was a blue Liberal, but a Chretienite so he could help bring back the Chretienites who have since left the party. His experience as finance minister as well as the fact he was more policy driven than process driven could make him quite appealing. However, being seen as a Chretienite could have angered some of the Martin supporters. Also being a cabinet minister under the Chretien government when adscam occurred may make it difficult to claim he is completely innocent since even Martin who was exonerated was still dragged down by adscam. Whoever becomes the next Liberal leader must bring both the Chretien and Martin supporters into the fold if they wish to win the next election.
Frank McKenna no doubt was a very successful premier who won three back to back landslide majorities. In addition he is not from Central Canada so he could help put an end to this idea that the Liberals only elect Quebec or Ontario leaders. He also was not an MP during adscam so the corruption issue wouldn't weight the party down if he were to become leader. The one negative was many of the Martin people were supporting having him become leader so this may have made it difficult to bring some of the Chretien people back in. He is also a blue Liberal as well. Some may say choosing a Blue Liberal is a bad idea as it would ensure those who migrated over to the NDP stay with the NDP, however lets remember by looking at the stats, the Conservative vote went up by a greater percentage than the NDP vote and almost all of that outside of Quebec likely came at the expense of the Liberals, so choosing a blue Liberal could help win back some of the rural and suburban areas that fell to the Tories.
On the other hand, I believe there could be some real positive aspects about neither of these two running. I believe one of the problems the Liberals had was the last leadership race resulted in the coronation of Paul Martin and my worry is another leadership race leading to a coronation would generate little interest, excitement, or debate about the party. Instead this may mean that many lesser known players will come forward. This will get the public more interested in the leadership race, but will also mean a real debate on the serious issues, which I think is something the Liberal Party really needs. Too many people see the Liberals as only caring about power and not standing for anything. By having many contenders there would be an open debate on all the major issues and hopefully by the time the leader is chosen, the Liberal Party in the minds of most Canadians will clearly stand for something. Having a leader from neither the Chretien or Martin factions will help bring the party together, since if the party remains divided, the Liberals will lose again just as the Conservatives did throughout the 90s. Finally, if the leader is someone who was not a cabinet minister during the Chretien era, it will be difficult for the opponents to taint them with the corruption brush, which ultimately played a big role in the recent Liberal defeat. At this point it is much too early to say what will happen, but the Liberals must pull together if they are to have any hope of coming back next election.
Frank McKenna no doubt was a very successful premier who won three back to back landslide majorities. In addition he is not from Central Canada so he could help put an end to this idea that the Liberals only elect Quebec or Ontario leaders. He also was not an MP during adscam so the corruption issue wouldn't weight the party down if he were to become leader. The one negative was many of the Martin people were supporting having him become leader so this may have made it difficult to bring some of the Chretien people back in. He is also a blue Liberal as well. Some may say choosing a Blue Liberal is a bad idea as it would ensure those who migrated over to the NDP stay with the NDP, however lets remember by looking at the stats, the Conservative vote went up by a greater percentage than the NDP vote and almost all of that outside of Quebec likely came at the expense of the Liberals, so choosing a blue Liberal could help win back some of the rural and suburban areas that fell to the Tories.
On the other hand, I believe there could be some real positive aspects about neither of these two running. I believe one of the problems the Liberals had was the last leadership race resulted in the coronation of Paul Martin and my worry is another leadership race leading to a coronation would generate little interest, excitement, or debate about the party. Instead this may mean that many lesser known players will come forward. This will get the public more interested in the leadership race, but will also mean a real debate on the serious issues, which I think is something the Liberal Party really needs. Too many people see the Liberals as only caring about power and not standing for anything. By having many contenders there would be an open debate on all the major issues and hopefully by the time the leader is chosen, the Liberal Party in the minds of most Canadians will clearly stand for something. Having a leader from neither the Chretien or Martin factions will help bring the party together, since if the party remains divided, the Liberals will lose again just as the Conservatives did throughout the 90s. Finally, if the leader is someone who was not a cabinet minister during the Chretien era, it will be difficult for the opponents to taint them with the corruption brush, which ultimately played a big role in the recent Liberal defeat. At this point it is much too early to say what will happen, but the Liberals must pull together if they are to have any hope of coming back next election.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:52 PM
7 Comments:
Frankly, McKenna would have been too much of an advantage to the Conservatives, as with it, the Liberals would have lost the right to use the social conservative card, seeing as McKenna fought tooth and nail to revoke abortion while he was premier. Manley would have been painted with the corruption brush.
The fact is, you are right, they should not have anyone from the Martinista or Chretienite camp. Someone new is better. Someone who can unite the divisions that have long plagued the Liberal Party. If I were a Liberal, I would back Michael Ignatieff. A centre-right version of Trudeau, he seems to be the type of guy who could bring all Liberals together.
But I'm not a Liberal, so...hmm...is Tom Wappel running?
I think both Frank McKenna and John Manley had their advantages and disadvantages. Michael Ignatieff is certainly a possibility although his views on the Iraq War could weigh him down. As for Tom Wappel running for the Liberals, yeah right. In fact I would be more willing to bet my money on him crossing the floor to the Conservatives than running for the Liberal leadership.
Just wanted to bring you up to date on the unifying force of the Conservative victory.
In the wake of that victory and the Conservative breakthrough in Quebec, support for soveriegnty is falling like the proverbial rock - to 34%, post-election.
Full story in the Glone and Mail at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060131.wsov0131/BNStory/National/
It gets even better with the news that Brian Tobin will not seek the Liberal leadership.
Wonder if the Liberal party lets these tire kickers se the financial books, causng them to run for the hills?
AB/BA
Sorry, that Globe URL should be:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060131.wsov0131/BNStory/National/
Anonymous - I think having top tier candidates like Frank McKenna, Brian Tobin, and John Manley opting out could have some benefits. It will leave the race wide open, there will be a vigorous debate on what direction the party should go in. The party needs to re-discover what it stands for so having a coronation of a leader is not going to achieve this. At the same time I agree there are some who will interpret this as meaning the Liberal Party is in worse shape than many perceive it to be. No doubt someone who is use to always winning may be skeptical of running considering that the next couple of years are going to be about re-building the party and there is still no guarantee the Liberals will win the next election.
So do you support Paul Hellyer for Liberal leader?
Jarrett - Paul Heyller is in his 80s so I am not even going to entertain the idea of him winning since I know it won't happen. I am sure some strong candidates will emerge, but I am taking a wait and see attitude on who runs and their policies. I am sure there will be a vigorous debate on ideas and I am confident there will be some strong candidates.
Post a Comment
<< Home