[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Sheilbh]

Gee... how much time do you have for  the history of leadership struggles in the Liberal Party?

I mean I could go back to the time Justin's father was leader, but lets start our story in 1990.  Liberals were out of power, former leader John Turner had lost the elections of 1984 and 1988.  The leadership race came down to Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.  Both were from Quebec.  Chretien won the race, but Martin was a strong second. 

The Liberals win the next couple of elections under Chretien, but Martin was a strong Finance Minister who still had leadership ambitions of his own.  Internal fighting went on for years.  It was supposedly all going to come down to a big fight at a Liberal Party leadership convention, but Chretien himself wound up resigning in 2003.

Martin won the next leadership race, and in the following election the Liberals won, but this time as a minority.  Martin's government hung on for 3 years until it was toppled and defeated in 2006.

Yeah broad question. I remember Chretien and Martin because over here there were lots of comparisons with the Blair-Brown relationship. And lots of pieces on lessons to learn in moving from powerful finance minister to the top job (which is wildly, wildly different).

This was also a time when Cameron and the Tories were looking very closely at what Harper had done.

So now we're up to 2009.  Liberals give the reigns to Ignatieff in a coronation - he was unopposed.  In the next election though Conservatives are able to label him as "just visiting" and the Liberals not only lose the next election, but come in third place for the first time ever.  Ignatieff then proceeds to prove the Conservative attack ads as true as he resigns and moves back out of the country.

In retrospect just thinking about Ignatieff should have given a hint about whether the Liberals were ruthless or not

So at this point though Justin Trudeau has been Liberal leader for 10 years.  During that time there's been no major threats to his leadership.  I dare say there are no obvious successors.  Josephus mentioned Chrystia Freeland.  She's definitely well respected on the international stage, but I don't know that she has any real constituency within the Liberal Party. 

Interesting - so his fate is still, ultimately, in his own hands?

It's pretty impressive politics to have been PM for eight years and not have an alternative emerge - especially given, from what I understand, he's not necessarily been hugely impressive electorally. Not sure if it's necessarily a good indicator from a governing perspective or for the party once he's gone.

In any event the only way to challenge a leader is at a party convention - the Parliamentary caucus can't do it.

Interesting. I have come round to the view that at least for PMs the people who remove a leader and select the successor should be the parliamentary party. Is it easier for the Tories to remove a leader or standard in Canada that it always requires a party convention?

In part because I think it's very challenging for a leader to lead if their MPs lose confidence even if they can't replace them. But also on the replacement I think MPs at least have some dgree of democratic accountability and legitimacy in the way that party members don't (though no issue with party members electing a leader in opposition).

Flipside is I suppose you might end up with Australia where you had Kevin Rudd winning an election in 2007, then being removed in a spill by Julia Gillard who won election in 2010, after which she was removed by Kevin Rudd - and since then you've had a decade of Liberal rule but also three PMs each removed by the parliamentary party. I think there the MPs have maybe got a little overmighty?

I think they've both made it so you require a super-maority of MPs to remove a sitting PM because it was getting a little much - especially the Gillard-Rudd rivalry where, from what I understand, they basically agree on policy and it's mainly personal animosity and perceptions of electability (plus, I believe, having slightly different bases/constituencies in the party).

[Grey Fox]

Paul Martin is damn pissed off at been called from Quebec. 

The Conservatives were right, Ignatieff was just visiting.

Joly going from defeated candidate for Mayor of Montreal to federal Liberal party leader hopeful in a decade is quite something.

I can dig it. Still will vote NDP tho.

[Barrister]

Interesting. I have come round to the view that at least for PMs the people who remove a leader and select the successor should be the parliamentary party. Is it easier for the Tories to remove a leader or standard in Canada that it always requires a party convention?

In part because I think it's very challenging for a leader to lead if their MPs lose confidence even if they can't replace them. But also on the replacement I think MPs at least have some dgree of democratic accountability and legitimacy in the way that party members don't (though no issue with party members electing a leader in opposition).

So I generally feel like leadership should be up to the party membership more than caucus, because otherwise what is the point of being a party member?  Otherwise it's just "shut up and pay your money".

But yes, it can be disasterous if caucus loses confidence in a leader.  Reminds me of the Canadian Alliance (precursor to the Conservative Party) circa 2000-2001.  The new party (as the Canadian Alliance was the successor to the Reform Party) elected a new leader, Stockwell Day.  Liberals call a snap election and despite high hopes, the election doesn't go well and Chretien wins another majority.  Then in the months to follow caucus utterly lost confidence in Day, leading to several MPs quitting to sit as an independent group in Parliament.

Ultimately Day resigned (which led to Harper being elected), but there was nothing that caucus could do to force him out.

But anyways - yes Trudeau's fate is entirely in his own hands.  I believe they hold national conventions every two years, and just held one earlier this year.  So he's not subject to a vote until 2025.  I'm pretty sure Liberals know it would be suicide to force Trudeau out in 2025, what with having to find a new leader and face another election within months.

[Barrister]

So hey - remember how Justin and his wife Sophie have separated?  This was announced back in August.

Anyways there is reporting out today that Sophie has been cohabiting with a prominent Ottawa children's doctor since at least April.  This came out in divorce proceedings filed between the doctor and his own soon-to-be ex.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-is-sophie-gregoire-trudeau-dating

[viper37]

I was hoping for something for something juicier to fill the tabloids.  Oh well.  We can't even count on Justin to help the struggling newspapers.

[Zoupa]

So hey - remember how Justin and his wife Sophie have separated?  This was announced back in August.

Anyways there is reporting out today that Sophie has been cohabiting with a prominent Ottawa children's doctor since at least April.  This came out in divorce proceedings filed between the doctor and his own soon-to-be ex.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-is-sophie-gregoire-trudeau-dating

Who cares?

[viper37]

Who cares?

The National Post.

[Barrister]

So hey - remember how Justin and his wife Sophie have separated?  This was announced back in August.

Anyways there is reporting out today that Sophie has been cohabiting with a prominent Ottawa children's doctor since at least April.  This came out in divorce proceedings filed between the doctor and his own soon-to-be ex.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-is-sophie-gregoire-trudeau-dating

Who cares?

I do?

I thought others might?

[Oexmelin]

I guess the question was: why should someone care about such things?

[viper37]

I do?

I thought others might?

Honestly, I don't.  That's private life.  I joke about it, but even if Justin had a fling with another cabinet minister, I would not be concerned.

As long as it does not involved security breach, government funds or lack of professional ethics, it's none of my concern.

[Barrister]

I guess the question was: why should someone care about such things?

Trudeau is the leader of our country.

People seem to care about the various trials and tribulations of the love lives of the Kardashians, or Taylor Swift, and this seems more important than that.

Justin Trudeau and his family (in particular his kids) deserve some measure of privacy.  We don't need to know what they had for dinner, or when Justin and Sophie would squabble over who does the dishes or other such mundanities.

The Trudeau's announced they were separating in August.  But it now seems clear that their marriage was over a much longer time ago, since she appears to already be cohabitating with this doctor for some time.  It was long enough to be listed as an established fact in court paperwork filed in April.

Since Sophie Trudeau is/was the "first lady" of Canada, and the Prime Minister's wife typically does have a semi-prominent position in society and often appears at official state functions, did Trudeau have an obligation to tell the country sooner?

I mean - without googling I can name the partners of many former Prime Ministers: Laureen Harper, Aline Chretien, Mila Mulroney.

[Zoupa]

You're really grasping at straws here Beeb...

This is not relevant to canadian politics in any significant way.

[Barrister]

How about this - the cost to protect the Prime Minister has shot up significantly.

What portion of that extra cost is from having to protect Sophie Trudeau's new residence?  The divorce filings did mention the obtrusive security details.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-security-costs-1.7009159

[viper37]

People seem to care about the various trials and tribulations of the love lives of the Kardashians, or Taylor Swift, and this seems more important than that.

I don't.   Unless it reach the front page of my newspaper, I usually don't care about that.

[Oexmelin]

I guess I don't see what any of this changes. So their marriage was over. Or they were trying to figure things out. Or she was sleeping around with a million dudes during three months. Who cares? The point is: Sophie Grégoire isn't a Kardashian whose love life drama is the product they are peddling, and the fact that "first ladies" are a thing is a leftover, an anachronism which will increasingly be seen as burdensome to women.

Unless she was sharing state secrets with the child doctor, the "investigation" into those few months of discrepancy looks less like a genuine concern for state safety and more like some prurient inquiry into the sexual behavior of a woman, with some added moralizing around divorce.