Update on recent political events

Since I was out of the country from October 21-26 and in the last few days busy buying stuff for my new apartment in Toronto, I haven't had much time to blog and likely will be less frequent until I am fully settled in my new place. However, for my viewers, I am now in Toronto and will be living here for the forseeable future.

In terms of major issues, on the issue of Peter MacKay calling Belinda Stronach a dog, I believe he should apologize. Even if it was not his intention to do this, an apology would put the issue to rest. Quite frankly I believe there are more important issues to deal with.

On the issue of calling Quebec a nation, I wish the Quebec wing of the Liberals never brought this up. This is a divisive issue that will not help us no matter which way the party votes. Whether one agrees with the idea or not, I believe we should focus on issues that unite Canadians such as reducing wait times, a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and lower taxes. Divisive issue should only be discussed if absolutely necessary. If we defeat this motion, it will only re-enforce that we are insensitive to Quebec, but if we pass it, it will kill any hopes of making gains in Western Canada and could even harm us in Ontario and Atlantic Canada as they will see this as weakening federalism and giving special status to Quebec. I fully agree with Stephane Dion's response to this. Unlike Ignatieff who has been out of the country for 30 years, Stephane Dion was there during the Charlottetown and Meech Lake Accords and saw how those tore the country apart. He knows that opening up the constitution again is a recipe for major problems.

On the issue of parliamentary deadlock, I believe this is mainly due to the highly partisan nature of our system. I believe MPs ought to put their country first and party second, but unfortunately too many from all parties put partisan interests ahead of serving the country, which is really too bad. I am glad to see the Liberals have agreed to pass six of the 11 Tory justice bills, while hold up five of the more controversial ones. This how the opposition should be. Oppose what it thinks is flawed, but not blindly oppose every bill just for the sake of opposing it. As for Harper's attitude, all I can say is once again he is showing his arrogant attitude. He only got 36% of the popular vote and a minority government so he has to realize it is his job to cooperate and work with the opposition. He is dead wrong when he claims he is representing most Canadians, he is not. Now I know some will say Jean Chretien never got over 50%, but for good or for ill, under our Westminster parliamentary system, if you win the majority of seats, you can do what you wish, if you don't you have to cooperate with opposition parties. If Harper is so confident he has the numbers to win a majority, he should call an election now. Otherwise he should quit complaining about the opposition holding up his bills and start working with them. In Nova Scotia, their PC minority government lasted three years since John Hamm was willing to work with opposition parties, however from what I've seen from Harper, he doesn't strike me as this type. In fact he strikes me as very inflexible and a control freak, which I believe turns off many people he might be receptive to his agenda. He should stop it now and if he cannot, step aside and let someone take over who can.

Trip to Toronto via the United States

Over the past week, I drove through several states en route to Toronto from Vancouver. For those asking why I went through the US rather than Canada, my reason was two fold, 1. their interstate highways allow you to drive faster than the Trans-Canada Highway and 2. I wanted to visit Chicago. I passed through Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan before entering Ontario. Even though I went through both red and blue states, pretty much everywhere except Seattle, Chicago, and Detroit was Bush country where I drove and likewise from Windsor to Mississauga every riding I went through was Conservative. A couple of my highlights were visiting Chicago where I took a guided tour of the city and went up both the Sears Tower and John Hancock Centre. I also got pulled over in Rapid City, South Dakota for doing 72 MPH in a 65 zone, but thankfully I only got a warning. Interestingly enough when the cop found out I was from Vancouver, he asked if I had any marijuana in my car, but I said no since I have never smoked marijuana even though I do support legalizing it. My reason for this is much like tobacco, I don't approve its use, but believe controlling it through regulation rather than outlawing it is the proper solution.

While going through the United States, I saw several political ads and most were negative although surprisingly none were as nasty as the Liberal ones last election, although I suspect that had more to do with the fact the nastiest ones tend to be only in really close races just before election day. One of the funniest ones I saw was one in Montana, which said John Tester is too liberal for Montana. Going based on the signs, it was tough to say how things were going since most signs made no mention of the party or the party was only a small print and they tended to focus on the individual, so when going 80 MPH down the highway I could only read what was in big print. I suspect this has to do with the fact there is less party discipine, which is one of the few things I like about the American system, but also that both parties are seen as liabilities so one has a better chance of being elected running on their own merit than under the party banner. I did see several support our troops bumper stickers, but ironically I also saw several here in Ontario too, while I never have seen any out on the West Coast. Off course the American ones were probably referring to the Iraq War, while the Canadian ones to the Afghanistan conflict. I didn't talk much politics with the locals since I just generally don't discuss those issues with strangers, but one man I met in Montana seemed like your typical Republican voter since he thought our gun laws in Canada were ridiculous, yet interesteringly enough he absolutely hated Bush. His main beef with him was over the Iraq War. If people like him are unhappy with the Republicans, this may be a sign that they will take a pounding this November. I don't plan on endorsing anyone at the moment since I believe it would be inappropriate to comment on a foreign election, but I will give my opinion on the results once they are in.

Hot Air Act

Today the Tories unveiled their so called "Clean Air Act" or as I like to call it the Hot Air Act. While this does play lip service to reducing GHG and smog, it puts off any targets or regulations until the distant future, when now is the time for clear targets. Clearly this shows the Tories are more interested in ideology than pragmatism, which perhaps explains why Garth Turner was increasingly dissatisfied with them. I should note that being a conservative and an environmentalists are not mutually exclusive, in fact over 1/3 of Conservative voters have the Green Party as their second choice. The British Conservatives, and governments of New York and California (both who are Republican) do take climate change serious and have actual real plans. Instead Harper wants to follow the worse conservatives on this, the Bush administration, rather than the right ones. Now I realize all regulations involve consultation and should be done in a way that allows for both economic growth and environmental sustainability, but the Conservatives had nine months to do this, so I ask where have they been. Considering the importance of the environment amongst younger generations, if I were the Conservatives I would take this issue more seriously as it could hurt them in the long-run. Even in Alberta, there is a strong environmental awareness so a plan to reduce GHG won't necessarily hurt Alberta's economy. In fact Alberta already is a leader in wind power and with a strong economy could easily be a green leader in environmentally friendly technologies. But rather than look for innovative solutions, they decide to take the easy way out.

Now some will say the Liberals did nothing on the environment, and I agree the Liberal performance was less than satisfactory, but this is no excuse for the Conservatives to do nothing. If anything this is an issue they could use to help their sagging fortunes. Others will say Kyoto Protocol was simply about buying emission credits from other countries and I agree that this is the wrong approach, just as doing nothing is. Finally some say global warming is a myth. I cannot say with 100% certainty whether it is long-term or temporary and who is causing it, but the risks involved if it is happening are so great that doing nothing would cause far more harm if it is happening (which it almost certainly is) than taking action if it isn't happening (which is highly unlikely). Using a quote from Andrew Coyne, John Godfrey pointed out that the Kyoto Protocol is like our insurance against global warming and I must say I fully concur. My initial opposition to ratifying the protocol was because the Liberals rushed it without a plan, not because I believe we should do nothing about global warming. Now is the time for all parties to put aside partisanship and roll up their sleeves and deal with this issue. If Rona Ambrose cannot, she should step aside as environment minister and let someone else take over. Considering how important the environment is in Quebec, maybe Harper should choose a Quebec environment minister who is well aware how important the environment is to Quebecers and how doing nothing will put their seat in jeopardy, although I suspect Harper being the ideologue he is made sure he choose someone who didn't care about the environment.

Garth Turner suspended from Conservative Caucus

I am not totally surprised Garth Turner was suspended, but somewhat puzzled since one would think after seeing their polling number slip, they wouldn't want to do something to cause them to slip further. Although I guess as John Ibbitson pointed out in the Globe and Mail, the party is more interested in appealing to its ideological right wing base than the swing centre and centre-right voters. Whatever the rational behind it was, I can assure the Conservatives that this will hurt them. The public may see it in one of two ways

1. The party has little tolerance for dissent within its ranks. People generally don't like trained seals and want MPs to represent their constituents, so this will show the party is not a grassroots one, but a top down one.

2. The party is an extreme one with little tolerance for moderates. Garth Turner was a staunch fiscal conservative, but a social moderate and was willing to take on social conservatives. This will just prove the party is controlled by social conservatives and why even more fiscal conservatives will turn away from it.

Either way, unless the Tories re-admit him to caucus before the election, they will likely lose the riding of Halton. As for what the Ontario caucus was thinking, I have no idea, but they obviously have weak political antennaes. Although unlikely to happen, I hope Garth Turner crosses the floor and joins the Liberals. But should he choose to run as an Independent, I would happily endorse him since we need more not less MPs like him. He could also decide to run provincially for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives who have greater tolerance for dissent and have a moderate leader under John Tory who has managed to rid the party of the more right wing members (who are now mostly involved in federal politics). In sum I as a Liberal see this as a good thing in the short-term, however as someone who is centre-right and still a Progressive Conservative at heart, I worry that my hopes of one day having a Progressive Conservative party again may be fading. With some advocating the Liberals move to the left and the Conservatives bent on sticking to the Reform/Alliance ideology, many centre-right voters like myself may have to hold their noses up in future elections and vote for who we think is the least worse. At least for me, I will be going Liberal next election, although if it is Dion or Kennedy it will be with great enthusiasm, while if Rae it will be through great reluctance.

UPDATE:

I saw Garth Turner on Politics with Don Newman. Listening to his statements, I have every suspicion it was more over ideology than breaking caucus confidentiality. I warned moderates that Harper was no moderate and had little tolerance for them. This just seems to re-affirm this. The biggest surprise for me is with an election likely in the Spring, it seems the Tories are more than happy to alienate all the swing voters they need not only to get a majority, but just to stay in power. Hopefully in 50 years when I look back, Harper will be a footnote in history.

Harper must apologize for calling Liberals anti-Israel

Harper's comment on the Liberal leadership hopefuls being anti-Israel was totally inappropriate and he should apologize immediately. I don't always agree with Bob Rae, but I think his comments on this were right on the mark. Lets remember Bob Rae is half Jewish and is married to a Jewish wife and has Jewish children. In fact part of the reason for parting with the NDP in 2002 was he felt their position on Israel was unbalanced. In fact contrary to what Harper says, many Liberals are very supportive of Israel. This has been a divisive issue within the party which different people have different opinions on and to make some generalizing statement is quite insulting to many Liberals. I myself am a great supporter of Israel and I don't agree with Ignatieff's assessment that the attack on Qana was a war crime. I think it was a tragedy and I would hope it is investigated and if Qana was improperly targeted, those involved should be punished. But it can only be called a war crime if Israel deliberately targeted a civilian area where there were no military posts. If Hezbollah was hiding military targets amongst civilians, then Hezbollah is the one committing war crimes since it is illegal to use civilian areas as military targets.

While I realize Liberals have sometimes said some nasty things about Harper that I felt were over the top, I feel Harper has been using the PMO office more to promote his own re-election chances rather than serving all Canadians. At least Paul Martin limited his attacks, as vicious as they were (and even I believe they were over the top), to party events and party rallies. When acting as prime-minister he stayed away for partisan attacks and focused on uniting all Canadians. For example the PM's website was totally non-partisan when Martin was prime-minister, while today it is blatantly partisan. It is also in some cases outright lies such as the link calling the Tories $1,200 a year cheques a universal childcare program. I am not going to debate whether this is a good or a bad policy, I've discussed that elsewhere, but at the very least call the program what it is, a baby bonus, not a universal childcare program, which it isn't. It is time for Harper to do his job as prime-minister in representing all Canadians and quit using the office to smear his opponents. I have no problem with him smearing them at party rallies or on the party site, that is fair game, but leave the partisan politics out of the PMO's office.

Yukon Party Re-elected

My congratulations to Dennis Fentie on his re-election. I was pleased to see the centre-right Yukon Party be re-elected and also pleased to see the Yukon Liberals will form the official opposition. While I don't follow Yukon politics close enough to say which party I would have voted for, I think either of the two parties would be preferable to the Yukon NDP. Although considering the history of floor crossing in the Yukon Territory, it will be interesting to see if the Yukon Party holds its majority or falls to a minority. I don't know why, but for whatever reason floor crossing seems to be quite common in Yukon politics. I suspect that since the constituencies are so small in population it is easier to win on being a good MLA, whereas in many provinces one's electability usually has more to do with what party banner they run under their local candidate. If any Yukon bloggers read this, perhaps you can inform me a bit more about the political scene in the Yukon.

Its time to begin pulling out of Afghanistan

Yesterday, Canada suffered its 40th fatality in Afghanistan and I think at this point it is time to reflect on whether the sacrifice has been worth it. Some will disagree, but I believe the sacrifice has not been worth it. In World War II, there was a clear and imminent danger so the sacrifice was worth it. As for Afghanistan, I just don't buy this argument that terrorism presents a massive threat to Canada. We have yet to have one attack on us and it appears almost all the attacks have been aimed at countries with soldiers in the Middle East. This would suggest to me pulling out not staying and fighting would reduce our threat. It is easy as a blogger to say it is a worthwhile fight, but imagine you lost a family member in combat, would you still think it is worthwhile? Had I lost a family member in Afghanistan, I would be very angry at our government.

When Harper became PM, we had had 8 deaths over a period of 4 and half years. In his 8 months as prime-minister we've experienced thirty two deaths. Now I realize the Liberals started the Kandahar mission, but had Harper not extended it, we could have pulled out in 2007. Instead we are stuck until 2009 and possibly much longer. At its current rate, the death toll will likey be in the hundreds by the time we finally leave. I am not opposed to us being in Afghanistan to help for humanitarian purposes. Had we stayed in Kabul, I wouldn't be complaining, but with everything one must look at it through a sacrifice vs. benefits prism. In Kabul we were providing humanitarian aid and helping build schools and infrastructure, while losing few soldiers. In Kandahar, it has been all fighting with no end in sight and no goals of what we want to achieve. More importantly, had the United States not invaded Iraq, they would have had the soldiers necessary to do the dirty work in Kandahar. By being in Afghanistan, we are essentially indirectly helping the Americans in Iraq by freeing up soldiers to go fight in Iraq.

A common argument I've heard is this is a NATO operation supported by the UN, so as a NATO member we have an obligation to be there. What is ignored, is this year, 43% of all casualties have been Canadian, no other NATO nation besides Britain and the United States is willing to send soldiers to Kandahar or other dangerous regions and almost every NATO nation in Afghanistan has far fewer troops than we do. In fact we have lost more soldiers on a per capita basis than the United States has. If other NATO countries aren't willing to step up to the plate, we have to ask why is this? Being a NATO member means doing our fair share, not more as we are now.

There is also the 3-D approach, defence, diplomacy, and development, which the Liberals adopted, while Harper seems to only care about the first. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without winning the hearts and minds of the people, and if we are seen as an occupying force or an enemy, we won't win. I am afraid that the Afghans don't view us as liberators, but as occupiers. Had our combat role been coupled with aggressive involvement in development and trying to seek diplomacy, I might have been more supportive of this mission, but to date it hasn't, and considering how naive most of the Tory cabinet ministers are about foreign affairs, I don't think that will change anytime soon. If anything this mission has shown just how inexperienced our current government is. Now I understand that when you've been in opposition for a long time, this will be the case, but that is why rather than trying to differentiate themselves from the Liberals on every issue, they should differentiate themselves on issues that at least have some understanding of such as economic policy (although the Liberal record was pretty strong here, so tough to beat, unlike in 1984 when it had been quite weak so it was easy that time to do a better job), while not on issues they know little about.

My solution here is that whoever is the next Liberal leader should take a more assertive role in ensuring we either withdraw completely from Afghanistan or alter our role to a more balanced one that is in line with most other NATO countries. Pulling out before 2009 may carry some diplomatic risks, but I believe the only nations who would be upset would be the United States and maybe Britain, but since our foreign policy was very different than the United States and to a lesser extent Britain under the previous government, I think we could argue we are simply continuing our traditional foreign policy. Besides good Canada-US relations are important, but the interests of the Canadian people must always come first.

UPDATE:

I should add as Kyle Carruthers points out that there have been thousands of Afghan civilian casualties. While I suspect the majority have come from American troops during bombing raids as opposed to Canadian troops, we still are implicitly supporting it. Civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but the numbers who would have died otherwise had we not gone to war must be greater than the number killed in the war, to make it just. In the case of Afghanistan, that is not the case since they pose no major threat to any sovereign nation and there is little chance of them becoming a democracy any time soon so as brutal as the Taliban was, whoever replaces them will not be enough of an improvement to make the number of casualties worth it.

Moving to Toronto

This morning I just got word that I have received a job offer in Toronto at a financial sector firm. Since company policy prohibits advertising the company name and logo in relation to politics, I would ask that anyone who knows which firm I am working at not put it in the comments section.

As such you will probably see me blogging a bit less over the next few weeks as I am in the process of moving from Vancouver to Toronto. I plan to stay active with the Liberals federally, while provincially I am planning to support the Ontario Progressive Conservatives since John Tory is a moderate and I think would make an outstanding premier. Now I don't believe McGuinty has done a bad job by any means either. However, I still remain a Progressive Conservative at heart even though the party no longer exists federally, but will support it provincially where they still exist. This will certainly be an exciting experience since this is the first time in my 25 years I have lived outside of Vancouver. This will mean actually having to experience my first real winter and getting use to hotter summers. Off course, despite all the bad things I've heard about Toronto, from some Vancouverites, I think it is a great city. I am big fan of large metropolises so I have no doubt I will enjoy living in Toronto. The only downside for me is I will be away from my family and I don't have too many friends at the moment living in Toronto. Some people here say I will hate Toronto so much, I will be anxious to come back to Vancouver, but I am not so sure of that. I guess will find out, but considering the rivalry that exists between the two cities, I am sure some Torontonians would say the same thing about Vancouver.

Defence of Religion Act

There are rumours swirling about the Conservatives proposed Defence of Religion Act and what will be contained in it. According to the Globe and Mail, it will allow marriage commissioners to refuse to marry SSM couples if it goes against their religion, permit hate speech against gays and lesbians, and allow businesses to refuse to do business with gay and lesbians. Now this is just a rumour and depending on the public reaction, it may never see the light of day, but I have some grave concerns here. I am a strong supporter of religious freedom and I believe no religious institution should be forced to marry same-sex couples if they don't approve of it. This is protected in C-38 and is a protected Charter right. If the human rights code ever clashes with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Charter always takes precedence. However, when one is a justice of the peace, they are a civil servant and must serve all people who come to them. If marriage commissioners can refuse to marry gays and lesbians because of their religion, does that mean someone's religion that prohibits inter-racial marriage, can refuse to marry an inter-racial couple? I would think not! Now in most cases there will be another justice of the peace who can perform the marriage if one is unwilling to, but if an incident ever arose where no justice of the peace was willing to marry a same-sex couple in a given location, then they should have no choice but to marry them since it is the law of the land and refusing to marry them is essentially denying gays and lesbians the right to get married. Marriage commissioners are under no obligation to work where they do so those who oppose certain aspects of the job, should look for a job elsewhere. As for the issue of renting out space for gay weddings, my view is that if it is property owned by the religious institution, they can refuse them, but if leased property then no unless the owner allows them to do so and the owner does not fall under the human rights code. In terms of businesses refusing to do business with gays and lesbians, I hope this part of the bill is buried for good as this is legalizing discrimination and even the thought of introducing a bill to allow this is absolutely disgusting.

As for freedom of speech, I am also a strong supporter of freedom of speech. As long as one's speech does not infringe on another's rights, it should be allowed. However, when it becomes hate speech, then it is crossing the line and infringing on another's rights. That should be illegal, however when taken to court, I believe proportionality should be used, i.e. which infringement is greater. Someone publicly speaking out against gay marriage should continue to be allowed as much as I may disagree with their view, since they are not infringing on another's right. But publishing hate literature urging genocide or violence against gays and lesbians should be banned since this is infringing on the rights of gays and lesbians.

Two side notes: I am pleased to see Bill Graham apologize for mistakenly misquoting Darrel Reid. I just wish the Tories would do this as well when they misquote someone, which they almost never do. Finally I do agree with the Tory government's decision to cut funding to women's advocacy groups (please note I still support keeping Status of Women Canada, but putting in programs to help advance women equality and give government advice on the effect of each legislation towards women). I generally as a rule of thumb don't support funding advocacy groups regardless of their political orientation. This is probably an area I suspect my views will go against the Liberal Party, but I am not a blind partisan, so if I occassionally disagree so be it. This Pretty much sums up my views quite nicely on funding for advocacy groups

The Race so far

For whatever reason, the Liberal website seems to be stuck at 409 meetings, however we can still get a clear picture of how things are shaping up. So here is my take:

Ignatieff: He has a strong enough lead that when you add in the ex-officio support, which will likely put him around 35%, he should be able to win if there isn't an anybody but Iggy movement. But still being well shy of 50% means that if the other campaigns all collude around another campaign, he won't win. I would still say he is the frontrunner to be the next Liberal leader, and therefore next prime-minister of Canada, but it is far from a guarantee.

Rae: He certainly performed much better than anybody expected when he first throw his name in the hat, but still finished well back of Ignatieff despite some polls suggesting they would be neck-neck. Being only slightly ahead of Dion and Kennedy and the possibility of falling behind once ex-officio support is included, depending on how many delegates show up from each camp, a lot will depend on his ability to win over some of the lower-tier candidates. This would put him in a clear second place and a clear rival of Ignatieff. However, if the lower tier candidates choose Kennedy or Dion, he may not even make it to the final ballot. His support seemed to be weakest in Ontario, which many attribute to his controversial time as premier, although 17% is not by any means bad. I would though be interested in seeing a riding by riding breakdown. If this is across the entire province, then he is in good shape, however if his support in the 905 belt and rural Ontario is much lower, then this is probably a sign many people from those areas still see him as a liability. One MP, Paul Szabo was on record saying he didn't think he could be re-elected in his constituency if Rae were leader. I think he has a decent shot at still winning, but not as strong as some thought prior to the Super-weekend.

Kennedy: A very strong showing in Ontario and the West, however with barely 1% in Quebec, this could be problematic for him. Certainly the fact he carries little baggage makes him a potential compromise candidate, however his poor showing in Quebec may make some Liberals think twice about going over to him if their candidate is dropped off an earlier ballot. With this in mind, I think Kennedy has really no choice but to work hard on getting Stephane Dion's support if he drops off before him, since this is the only way I think he could show that he is at least somewhat credible in Quebec. With Stephane Dion being strong in Quebec, while Kennedy strong in Ontario and the West, I've argued the two should agree to throw their support behind the other after one drops off and during the election should give the other person the role of deputy leader. This would be a way of showing Quebec, Rural Ontario, and the West that the Liberals see them as important areas and could help them improve in all those areas instead of just one of them.

Dion: Will finish in either third or fourth, so for him picking up some of the lower tier candidates support could be crucial if he wishes to emerge as the candidate to take on Iggy on the final ballot. A very strong showing in Quebec, but a disappointing showing elsewhere. However, my suspicion is many people elsewhere felt he was a huge liability in Quebec and now that they see that it is not the case, they will be more likely to consider him on subsequent ballots. He is hated by the separtists, but they will never vote Liberal, so who really cares what they think. Amongst federalist Quebecers, he is well liked and has been shown to be the best person to make a breakthrough in Quebec. Unlike Iggy and Rae who are polarizing candidates, Dion is a consensus candidate who will not alienate either Martin or Chretien supporters, nor Blue Liberals or left-leaning Liberals. I have met Liberals who said they would tear up their membership card if Iggy and/or Rae won, but I have yet to meet a Liberal who would tear up their membership card if Dion won. While winning the race may not be easy, I still think he has a very decent shot at doing it.

Dryden: Obviously a disappointment that he couldn't break even the 5% mark or barely (depending on the final results). This means he has no chance at being the next Liberal leader. However, since he is well respected amongst Liberals, I suspect he will provide a huge boost to whoever he throws his support behind at least symbolically.

Volpe: The fact this guy didn't come in dead last is absolutely embarassing. At the same time the fact he did as poorly as he did is a relief to many Liberals since many worried that if his 35,000 mass sign-ups showed up he could play the role of kingmaker. Thankfully that won't happen. Also an interesting side note is his strongest showing came in Alberta while here in BC according to Brandon, his two best ridings were Abbotsford and Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon so I wonder how many of his supporters were Tories signing up to vote for him simply becaue he would be a dream candidate for them. My hope is now that he has seen the results, he will drop out and disappear.

Brison: Certainly a disappointment for him. However, I am not totally surprised. While he came in first in his home province of Nova Scotia, his support elsewhere was quite weak. I suspect a lot of this has to do with the fact he is still viewed as too right wing for many Liberals. Not only are his foreign policy views centre-right like Ignatieff, but unlike Ignatieff his economic policies are centre-right as well, whereas Ignatieff's are centre-left. I figure he would have done better had Tory support been imploding and there were many disaffected Tories looking at going Liberal. However, most Liberals seem to believe that any gains will come from the NDP as opposed to the Conservatives so therefore there are more party members who want to move the party to the left than the right. Since he is only 39, he will almost certainly get another opportunity.

Hall Findlay: Considering how much of a darkhorse she was, I never expected her to do that well. I think her main achievement was she went from being an unknown, to being well respected amongst Liberal rank and file members. She will provide a huge boost to whoever she throws her support behind. Also considering she is only 46, I suspect she will do much better next time around as she will likely become an MP and probably a cabinet minister in the next Liberal government meaning she will have a greater profile and name recognition amongst Liberals and the general public.

So in summary, our next prime-minister will be either Dion, Ignatieff, Kennedy, or Rae. This December we will find out who that is and sometime next year, that person will hopefully become Canada's next prime-minister.

Sunday Night Results

Okay, it looks like we won't know the final results of the Liberal Super-weekend until tomorrow, but at least we have a good idea of how things are shaping up.

Ignatieff - 29.9% 1,249 delegates
Rae - 19.8% - 830 delegates
Kennedy - 16.9% - 706 delegates
Dion - 16.6% - 696 delegates
Dryden - 4.6% - 194 delegates
Volpe - 4.4% - 186 delegates
Brison - 3.9% - 163 delegates
Hall Findlay - 1% - 41 delegates
Undeclared - 2.8% - 118 delegates

408/467 meetings reported

So it looks like Ignatieff has a substantial lead, but still well short of the amount needed to win. Rae, Dion, and Kennedy are fighting it out for second, third, and fourth and all of them have a legitimate shot at winning. Dryden, Volpe, Brison, and Hall Findlay are bottom tier candidates who pretty much have no chance at winning. It will be interesting to see if any of them drop out over the next week.

Anyways I will ahve more once the final results are in.