Bob Rae for Liberal Leader?
I would like to start off by welcoming Bob Rae's decision to seek the Liberal leadership race. Although I don't agree with all his views, I believe a race with a wide range of views and a diversity of candidates is what is needed to re-build the Liberal Party. This is partly why they were successful in 1968, while I believe Martin's crowning as Liberal leader may have actually hurt the party. I also don't believe people who started out in different parties should be disqualified from running. Stephen Harper, Jim Harris, Gilles Duceppe, and Jack Layton all began their careers in different parties. Stephen Harper was a Liberal until 1981 when he moved to Alberta and then switched to the PCs in anger over Trudeau's National Energy Program. Jack Layton also started off as a Liberal, but switched to the NDP in 1970 over Trudeau's war measures act. Likewise some successful leaders like Ralph Klein and even Winston Churchill (who was originally a Conservative then a Liberal then a Conservative gain) were once members of different parties.
However, I believe Bob Rae would be a bad choice for Liberal leader. Even though he has moderated somewhat, I would still have a tough time voting for him. But more importantly, this would almost certainly ensure the Tories are re-elected when you consider how unpopular he is in Ontario. As Jason Cherniak mentions in one of his earlier blogs, not only would rural Ontario stay Conservative, the 905 belt which went largely Liberal would likely fall to the Conservatives. He would still keep most of Toronto (which is going to go Liberal no matter what) and Northern Ontario (where the Liberals already hold 7 of the 10 seats and the NDP 2 seats while the one Conservative seat would stay Tory). One should never forget the importance of Ontario in determining the winner of the election. Chretien's three back to back majorities were largely due to his sweeps of Ontario, in 2004 Harper would have been PM if Ontario was removed while the Liberals would have won a majority had they kept all the seats they won in Ontario in 2000. Likewise had the 17 seats that switched from the Liberals to Conservatives in Ontario stayed Liberal (even if the results elsewhere were the same), the Liberals would still be in power. As unfair as it may sound, if a leader is unpopular in Ontario, they cannot be PM.
The second issue which is a bigger issue I believe is the idea the Liberals need to move to the left in order to win. Many point out that the Conservatives rise to power was due to uniting the right so if we could only unite the left, the Liberals could win a massive majority. I believe this is a rather simplistic view that ignores all the complexities. In 2000, the combined right was 38%, while Harper only got 36%, despite the fact the 2000 campaign was a well-run campaign and the Liberals were quite popular then, whereas by 2006 they weren't and they ran a terrible campaign. Also never mind that the Tories got 25% in Quebec vs. the PC/Alliance total of only 11% in Quebec in 2000 so if you take Quebec out of the picture, the right was even less successful. Besides the fact I could never support a left wing party, here is why I believe it won't work. In Atlantic Canada, all four provinces are governed by Progressive Conservative premiers so most who vote PC provincially but Liberal federally are probably Red Tories who feel the Conservatives are too right wing, but if the Liberals move far enough to the left these people would eventually become even more uncomfortable voting Liberal than Tory. Bernard Lord, Pat Binns, Rodney Macdonald, and Danny Williams are closer to the centre than Stephen Harper, but they are still on the right side of the spectrum. In Ontario, the 905 belt went massively for Mike Harris in the 90s and even if those people eventually turned on the common sense revolution, that was because they thought Harris went too far too fast, not because they have suddenly swung to the left. Here in BC, we have a two party system; centre-right BC Liberals/Social Credit historically and BC NDP and whenever the centre-right is united they have always won. Using the current federal boundaries, if the provincial results were applied to them, 5 of the 9 Liberal seats (5/8 since the Emerson defection) would have gone BC Liberal (West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, North Vancouver, Vancouver-Quadra, Vancouver South, and Richmond) and in all these cases by massive margins. These are not left wing areas by any stretch of the imagination; they only went Liberal due to the strong economy, Paul Martin's strong fiscal credentials and discomfort with the Tories being perceived as too right wing. If we move to the left we would definitely lose the two North Shore ridings and Richmond and while we would probably hold Vancouver-Quadra and Vancouver South, these could become vulnerable in the long-run. Likewise the NDP historically has almost always got around 15%, even when Trudeau was PM who was arguable the most left wing PM Canada has ever had. In 1958 much of the CCF vote went PC not Liberal while in the 90s much of the traditional NDP vote went Reform/Alliance as opposed to the Liberals and the Liberals who normally went NDP likely did so out of anger at the unpopular NDP governments in Ontario and British Columbia who have since been turfed from office, thankfully. The only reason it worked for Trudeau, was two fold: we had a younger population in the 60s and 70s, thus a more left wing population than today and Trudeau was very charismatic, something none of the potential Liberal leaders are. Also Trudeau usually swept Quebec, whereas does anyone realistically believe the Liberals can even win 30 seats in Quebec next election let alone 60-70. I don't either think the Liberals should move to the right, despite my personal preferences for going further to the right. Chretien was successful since he appealed to both centre-right and centre-left voters. If we want to win again, we need to appeal to both these groups, not just one of them.
On a parting note, while I hope Bob Rae doesn't win the Liberal leadership race, I still hope he runs as MP. My choice would be Parkdale-High Park, which is currently an NDP held riding. Having him and Ujjal Dosanjh representing the left and Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach representing the right, we can claim to be a truly big tent party.
However, I believe Bob Rae would be a bad choice for Liberal leader. Even though he has moderated somewhat, I would still have a tough time voting for him. But more importantly, this would almost certainly ensure the Tories are re-elected when you consider how unpopular he is in Ontario. As Jason Cherniak mentions in one of his earlier blogs, not only would rural Ontario stay Conservative, the 905 belt which went largely Liberal would likely fall to the Conservatives. He would still keep most of Toronto (which is going to go Liberal no matter what) and Northern Ontario (where the Liberals already hold 7 of the 10 seats and the NDP 2 seats while the one Conservative seat would stay Tory). One should never forget the importance of Ontario in determining the winner of the election. Chretien's three back to back majorities were largely due to his sweeps of Ontario, in 2004 Harper would have been PM if Ontario was removed while the Liberals would have won a majority had they kept all the seats they won in Ontario in 2000. Likewise had the 17 seats that switched from the Liberals to Conservatives in Ontario stayed Liberal (even if the results elsewhere were the same), the Liberals would still be in power. As unfair as it may sound, if a leader is unpopular in Ontario, they cannot be PM.
The second issue which is a bigger issue I believe is the idea the Liberals need to move to the left in order to win. Many point out that the Conservatives rise to power was due to uniting the right so if we could only unite the left, the Liberals could win a massive majority. I believe this is a rather simplistic view that ignores all the complexities. In 2000, the combined right was 38%, while Harper only got 36%, despite the fact the 2000 campaign was a well-run campaign and the Liberals were quite popular then, whereas by 2006 they weren't and they ran a terrible campaign. Also never mind that the Tories got 25% in Quebec vs. the PC/Alliance total of only 11% in Quebec in 2000 so if you take Quebec out of the picture, the right was even less successful. Besides the fact I could never support a left wing party, here is why I believe it won't work. In Atlantic Canada, all four provinces are governed by Progressive Conservative premiers so most who vote PC provincially but Liberal federally are probably Red Tories who feel the Conservatives are too right wing, but if the Liberals move far enough to the left these people would eventually become even more uncomfortable voting Liberal than Tory. Bernard Lord, Pat Binns, Rodney Macdonald, and Danny Williams are closer to the centre than Stephen Harper, but they are still on the right side of the spectrum. In Ontario, the 905 belt went massively for Mike Harris in the 90s and even if those people eventually turned on the common sense revolution, that was because they thought Harris went too far too fast, not because they have suddenly swung to the left. Here in BC, we have a two party system; centre-right BC Liberals/Social Credit historically and BC NDP and whenever the centre-right is united they have always won. Using the current federal boundaries, if the provincial results were applied to them, 5 of the 9 Liberal seats (5/8 since the Emerson defection) would have gone BC Liberal (West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, North Vancouver, Vancouver-Quadra, Vancouver South, and Richmond) and in all these cases by massive margins. These are not left wing areas by any stretch of the imagination; they only went Liberal due to the strong economy, Paul Martin's strong fiscal credentials and discomfort with the Tories being perceived as too right wing. If we move to the left we would definitely lose the two North Shore ridings and Richmond and while we would probably hold Vancouver-Quadra and Vancouver South, these could become vulnerable in the long-run. Likewise the NDP historically has almost always got around 15%, even when Trudeau was PM who was arguable the most left wing PM Canada has ever had. In 1958 much of the CCF vote went PC not Liberal while in the 90s much of the traditional NDP vote went Reform/Alliance as opposed to the Liberals and the Liberals who normally went NDP likely did so out of anger at the unpopular NDP governments in Ontario and British Columbia who have since been turfed from office, thankfully. The only reason it worked for Trudeau, was two fold: we had a younger population in the 60s and 70s, thus a more left wing population than today and Trudeau was very charismatic, something none of the potential Liberal leaders are. Also Trudeau usually swept Quebec, whereas does anyone realistically believe the Liberals can even win 30 seats in Quebec next election let alone 60-70. I don't either think the Liberals should move to the right, despite my personal preferences for going further to the right. Chretien was successful since he appealed to both centre-right and centre-left voters. If we want to win again, we need to appeal to both these groups, not just one of them.
On a parting note, while I hope Bob Rae doesn't win the Liberal leadership race, I still hope he runs as MP. My choice would be Parkdale-High Park, which is currently an NDP held riding. Having him and Ujjal Dosanjh representing the left and Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach representing the right, we can claim to be a truly big tent party.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 10:35 PM
8 Comments:
Why Bob Rae Could Make A Formidable Candidate for Liberal Leader
These are some of the reasons in favour of his throwing his hat into the ring:
• He is left-centre in social terms, close, in my view, to the real social political critical mass of the Liberal Party.
• His raw intelligence would make Harper – the man who never needed a mentor because he never found anyone smarter than him, so reports said – squirm. There is no way Harper could pull a fast one on Rae.
• He is a consummate politician. Unlike Harper, who seems to be sending out signals that he has a political tin ear, Rae’s antennae are attuned to the average voter.
• He has a political philosophy which is closer to the holistic one Harper has, but with a far more liberal view of the world.
• He would probably attract enough NDP votes in BC, Ontario and the Maritimes, to lead the Liberals to a majority government.
• Fluent in French.
• A man Canadians could be proud of (a nice change from earlier Liberal leaders). He would lead Canada into taking active steps to bring positive solutions to the problems facing so many people in the world (poverty, the disruption caused by globalization, the destruction of the international comity by Bush and his neocons).
• Certainly no fan of being Bush’s lapdog; he would leave it to Tony and Stephen to fight for the place on Bush’s lap.
• He would not try to foist a subterranean theocracy on to Canada’s political contours.
What are some of the major disadvantages?
• He proved massively economically when he ran Ontario, paying little heed to the results of some of the NDP programs he implemented.
• Could he maintain a centre-right economic policy?
• Does he still have the passion to make Canada a better place?
My basic requirements before I would consider supporting Rae for Liberal Party leader revolve around his view on certain major issues, including:
• Has he a detailed formulation for resolving the “democratic deficit”? We say Martin champion it as a flavour-of-the-day but do very little to remedy the deficit. If Martin had tackled this deficit as fiercely as he tackled the economic deficit years ago, he would be Prime Minister of a majority Liberal Party today.
• Is he prepared to make a reasonable form of proportional representation (PR) a major plank in the Liberal platform? It so obviously meets many of the deep needs of Canadian voters, that it has to be addressed by any serious candidate for leadership of the Liberal Party and potential Prime Minister.
• Would be commit in his program not to change the nature of the Canadian confederation in the stealthy way which Harper is promising, with his “new federalism” and “fiscal imbalance” coded framing.
So, let’s have a look at your program, Mr Rae; then we can judge whether you are the person we wish to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
In my book, Rae makes Harper look like Mr. Personality.
The Liberals are stuck -- no stars are shining in that lineup of candidates, or perceived candidates. That gives Harper an advantage in spite of his recent stumbling.
The Liberals must go outside caucus and the former ministry and find the "That's It" formula. I only see second-tier on display. Where are the real Liberal dazzlers? They need a leader who can move political mountains. This bunch simply cannot pull that off.
Just wondering what folks think of Scott Brison for PM? He's a real wizzard on the blackberry. For example:
From: Scott Brison
Sent: Nov. 22, 3:38 p.m., 2005
Subject: Test
Hi Dan
How is life? Do you have 's phone number?
Thanks
From:
Sent: Nov. 22, 3:45 p.m., 2005
Hey scott
Things are good, except for the government bringing the equity markets to a standstill. number is
From: Scott Brison
Sent: Nov. 22, 5:53 p.m., 2005
Thanks,
I think you will be happier very soon ... this week probably
Best, S
NOV. 23
Following Mr. Goodale's announcement
From:
Sent: Nov. 23, 8:26 p.m., 2005
Nice work
From: Scott Brison
Sent: Nov. 23, 2005
U happy?
From:
Sent: Nov. 23, 2005, 8:51 p.m.
I can't express my joy properly
A Liberal's Liberal. He would not only maintain but enshrine Liberal cronyism and corruption.
Still wondering if the Liberals will be able to find even a token candidate from west of Pearson International.
AB ba
Curisotiykilled the cat is right in terms of Bob Rae has many positive features, but one cannot ignore that he is still highly disliked in Ontario for his incompetent reign as premier. Atlantic Canada is already largely Liberal while British Columbia tends to be very polarized so he might gain some NDP votes in the Lower Mainland, but this would be offset by Blue Liberal losses. Lets remember a large chunk of the Liberals in BC are supporters of Gordon Campbell, who is certainly no lefty. As Jason Cherniak rightfully says, rural Ontario would not go over to him, while the 905 belt would likely to fall to a Tory sweep as he is very unpopular there. The only regions he would do well in are Northern Ontario, which only has 10 seats, and Toronto which will go Liberal no matter what.
He is no doubt a smart man and had he never been premier of Ontario, he might do quite well, but his reign as premier pretty much destroyed any chance of him ever being PM. At the end of the day, Ontario chooses the PM and if you cannot win in Ontario, you cannot win the election. I also think people being naive in assuming most Canadians are centre-left. In reality Canadians are pretty much split right down the middle between right and left. Lets remember the Liberals lost more votes to the Conservatives than NDP in 2006 while in 2004 much of the NDP gains did come from the Liberals, but also a lot, especially in BC came from the Reform/Alliance who despite being on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum as the NDP, they had a strong populist appeal much like the NDP.
I think parliamentary sex therapist is right the Liberals must go outside their ranks, not just of caucus members, but also past politicians. Trudeau was a complete outside yet very successful. The party has been severely damaged so they need new blood to rejuvenate it. I think someone like Michael Ignatieff who has Bob Rae's intellect, but not a past record as premier, would be a far better choice should he choose to run.
Rae would be a disaster for the Liberals as leader. To borrow a line from curiousitykilledthecat, any argument otherwise would be to reveal a "political tin ear."
All Harper would really need to do destroy Rae in an election is to remind 905 voters of what a disaster he was as Premier of Ontario.
Keep in mind that this is a guy who was thoroughly pummelled in '95 buy a guy running on a very ideological, neo-conservative platform (Mike Harris). Harper running from the centre-right would crush him.
curiousity is right about one thing though: the critical mass for the Liberal Party is centre-left, no matter how forcefully Miles argues to the contrary.
Harper in power will be a known quality by the time of the next election, meaning the Liberals will no longer be able to attack him with hypotheticals. They will actually have to find a way to attack what he does and offer an alternative.
To offer an alternative you can't just overlap Harper's position. You need to offer tangible differences, and you need to squeeze out Layton on your left flank.
That means that the ideal candidate is someone who is clearly on the left, but not so far to the left as to alienate the median voter.
Do keep in mind that the last two business Liberals to lead the party (Martin and Turner) were electoral disasters, responsible for the three worst popular vote performances in the history of the party (1984, 2006, 1988).
The other problem for the Liberals is francophone Quebec. For the party to regain its pre-eminent position in Canadian politics in the long term, it desparately needs to rebuild in La Belle Province.
How does it do that?
Well, first off, I think it's vitally important for the Liberals to choose a francophone.
I don't think ending the Anglo-Franco alternation would send a positive message to the Quebec voters the Liberals need to win back. And having someone who has an intimate understanding of the political lay of the land in the province and an ability to communicate with skill in French are vitally important.
Second, I think it's important that that francophone candidate be as far removed from the Adscam-era Liberal government as is humanly possible. I think that likely means that any Quebec Liberal who sat in Chretien's cabinet in that era is probably dead in the water already.
Third, this candidate must be less stridently centralist than previous Liberal leaders and openly acknowledge the existence of the vertical fiscal imbalance. The Liberals' troubles in Quebec began in earnest with Trudeau's patriation of the constitution in 1982; they have formed governments since only by dominating Ontario. They need to turn the page on this to regain their past glories in Quebec.
Finally, I think it would also be beneficial for the Liberals to choose a leader who can match Harper's formidable intellectual prowess and clarity of vision.
None of the current field of candidates fits this bill.
Rae is afflicted by all the weaknesses I already listed.
Brison's french is rudimentary, and the IT e-mail flap will likely hurt him. His status as an ex-PCer doesn't do him any favours either.
Stronach is an inellectual featherweight ex-Conservative who hardly speaks a word of french. She would be an unmitigated disaster for the Liberal Party.
Ignatieff has been out of the country for three decades and has taken positions that are far too conservative and pro-American for the Liberal rank and file. The controversy around his nomination last election also demonstrated he has not yet developed into a skillful politician.
Dion sat in Chretien's cabinet, introduced the Clarity Act, vigourously denies the existence of the fiscal imbalance, and his English is shaky. Probably the best of the current prospective field, but that is not saying much.
Dryden's french is poor from what I heard, although like Dion, he's probably among the best in the current field.
Kennedy might be a dark horse, but he's an anglophone.
Cauchon was in Chretien's cabinet, and his English is quite poor.
Seriously, out of the current field, I don't really see anyone capable of rebuilding the Liberal Party into the unstoppable force that it was for the bulk of the last century.
Brandon I think has some very good points. Bob Rae was not popular in the 905 belt and choosing him would pretty much ensure Harper would sweep the 905 belt. In Ontario there are three centre-right regions (Southwestern Ontario, Eastern Ontario, and 905 belt) and two centre-left regions (Toronto, as in the 416, and Northern Ontario). The two centre-left areas are already mostly Liberal while Southwestern Ontario and Eastern Ontario are already predominately Conservative, so the 905 belt is ultimately a region the Liberals cannot afford to lose.
I would argue Brandon that while much of the party may be centre-left in its orientation, I am not sure all the Liberal voters are. Atlantic Canada which went largely Liberal has four Progressive Conservative premiers, the 905 belt is certainly not centre-left, and here in BC ridings such as the two North Shore ridings, Richmond, Vancouver-Quadra, and Vancouver South went mostly for the BC Liberals who are centre-right not the BC NDP. I also don't think squeezing Layton out on the left is as easy as one thinks. When Trudeau was PM, the NDP always got above 15%, so I suspect Layton has a solid 15% that will go NDP no matter what. On the other hand most polls before the writ was dropped put the Tories below 30%, so I think there are more soft Tory supporters than NDP supporters. But the reality is the Liberals cannot win without support of both their centre-right and centre-left flanks. Chretien did a good job of holding these two together.
Certainly winning back their lost support in Quebec is definitely necessary to form government, but I also think one from the West could also work as the West has more seats today than Quebec and besides Alberta; Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia are not hardcore Conservative provinces, so a Liberal breakthrough in those three is no doubt difficult but doable if they have the right leader.
I agree the strong support for a strong centralized federation will probably make regaining support in Quebec difficult. If they don't like devolving powers to the provinces, at least support assymetrical federalism by keeping a strongly centralized government (Which Ontario and Atlantic Canada support), while giving Quebec greater powers. Even Martin Cauchon who is from Quebec argued the Liberals can no longer ignore the Fiscal imbalance.
Brison certainly has his weaknesses, but he is an ideas person, which I think could be a good thing as many saw the Liberals only caring about power and nothing else and not really standing for anything. Also he is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, which I think a lot of Canadians are.
Belinda Stronach is a real wildcard as some see her as completely lacking the skills while on the other hand many like her celebrity like status and believe me Brandon, image does matter.
Michael Ignatieff's views on Iraq and foreign policy are controversial, but very few Canadians base their votes primarily on foreign policy so as long as his views on every other issue are in line with most Liberals, he should be good.
Stephane Dion and Martin Cauchon both could be good candidates, but the fact there were members of the Chretien government could weigh them down, as this would anger the Martinites as well as they would have a tough time distancing themselves from adscam. However, certainly those two are a lot more popular in Quebec than Paul Martin is and it should be noted if one can do well in Quebec, this often helps them in Ontario. I have no doubt that Stephen Harper's rising fortunes in Quebec helped him in Ontario since many in Ontario won't vote for a party that isn't seen as a national party.
Gerard Kennedy is too much of an unknown outside of Ontario so this may or may not be a good thing.
Ken Dryden is strong in social areas since he was social development minister who played a key role in the implementation of the childcare program while now he is health critic. However, his speaking skills are terrible and you need good speaking skills to win. This is partly why Bob Skelly of the NDP in the 1986 provincial election didn't do well is his speaking skills were terrible.
Well Miles, is there anyone in the current prospective field that a) can actually win a Liberal leadership contest and b) you can actually see leading the Liberal Party back to its past glories?
Harper could probably be beaten by a number of them if he severly falters, but holding all other things equal I think he has an edge on all of these candidates.
There are none who on the horizon I think could win a majority government, but when you consider the Liberals were only 21 seats shy of what the Tories got, returning to power with a minority government is really not all that difficult. If you think about it, all the Liberals have to do is knock off 11 Tories in the 11 closest races and they would be back in office. That being said, I cannot see Stephen Harper winning a majority government either. Until the Bloc Quebecois is wiped off the map, I think we need to get use to having minority governments.
Post a Comment
<< Home