[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

BB...Ok, fair on the Pollywog thing. To be honest, I ran into an issue (like you admittedly did) where I couldn't figure how to spell his name, so went with the humour thing.

PS...Turdeau wouldn't bother me...but point taken.

[Sheilbh]

Housing prices is a good issue for the Conservatives to latch on to - and the problem for the Liberals is that it isn't something that can be changed in 12-18 months.  Problem for the Conservatives is it may not be fixed in 5-6 years either, but that'll be an issue for future Poilievre to worry about.

I think voters are realistic on this stuff. If there's action and especially if there's some movement in the right direction, I think that'd be enough.

I wouldn't be shocked if Trudeau takes a "walk in the snow" and resigns.  I feel like he'd want to go out on his own terms.  Although I have to admit - I kind of admired how Harper went out.  He knew that was an almost impossible election to win, but he went out, told the truth, and took it on the chin.

How ruthless are the Liberals? Is it still entirely in his control?

[Grey Fox]

Turdeau is so good.

[Barrister]

Turdeau is so good.

[Barrister]

How ruthless are the Liberals? Is it still entirely in his control?

Institutionally?  Pretty weak I think.

Remember before Justin the party was adrift.  They were the third party in Parliament, which was unheard of.  That's why they trusted themselves to a completely untested leader with a famous last name.  And to be fair - it paid off for them, as they came back to win.

But I think it means there's no smoke filled back room to go and talk to Justin about "it's time to resign".

[crazy canuck]

That sort of system no longer exists for any party. Witness the leadership chaos of the Conservatives since Harper left.

The Chaos within the GOP.  The chaos within the Tories, Labour etc etc etc.

Are there any political system with powerful back rooms anymore?

[crazy canuck]

Opinion piece in the Globe behind a paywall saying the reason Trudeau would be able to stay on, and be crushed in the next election, is that he is their least worst leadership option amongst sitting MPs.

Also, interestingly PP is now polling ahead in all age groups and women now prefer PP.

[Sheilbh]

The chaos within the Tories is that they've deposed most of their recent leaders - May, Johnson and Truss. They've removed their most and least successful recent PMs in Thatcher and Truss. Obviously they'd justify it with high and low principle (real policy disagreement, bad behaviour, blowing up the economy), but ultimately it's because they were harming the Tories chances of re-election so would cost MPs their jobs.

Although I suppose it depends on the back room. Those were all by the 1922 Committee which is the backbench parliamentary party - and in each case the end was signalled by the chair of the 1922 Committee going to Downing Street to inform the PM. Johnson actually pushed it to a vote of no confidence which he won, but was out within weeks. It's slightly different with Thatcher as the back room was more her cabinet.

Labour have never ousted a leader (except maybe, sort of, Blair).

Australian and New Zealand politics also has back rooms removing leaders. Australia's been incredibly savage recently in both Labor and the Liberals - I feel like relatively few recent PMs have served a full term because of internal leadership spills. From my understanding in the Liberals there are differences of view (but obviously polling and the risk to MPs' job security matters), but in Labor it's all been by different factions within the Labor left who all have personal animosities (plus polling).

The back room can't necessarily pick the next leader (although there's proposals for the Tories to move back to that system - and in our system I think it makes sense), but in some cases they can still get rid of them if the MPs don't want you as leader. Doesn't quite work in Labour as MPs voted 80% no confidence in Corbyn but, unlike in the Tories (or, I believe, Australia) MPs can't actually remove a leader they can just trigger a leadership competition with the membership.

[Josephus]

Opinion piece in the Globe behind a paywall saying the reason Trudeau would be able to stay on, and be crushed in the next election, is that he is their least worst leadership option amongst sitting MPs.

Also, interestingly PP is now polling ahead in all age groups and women now prefer PP.

If I had some pull in the Liberal Party, I would seriously push for either Freeland or Joly. They tick a lot of boxes.

[crazy canuck]

The problem Freeland will have is she is easily portrayed as somebody who was in a position of power during the complete absence of meaningful policy development by this government. She is effectively Trudeau's operative.

I think Joly would be a much better option but name recognition will be an issue and time is too short to really change that before the next election.

It's the timing issue, the opinion piece stresses, that might well tie the liberals to the rock heading to the bottom of the ocean.

[Oexmelin]

Turdeau is so good.

I would have thought you'd have appreciated the typo.

[HVC]

Turdeau is so good.

I would have thought you'd have appreciated the typo.

Go back a few more posts

[Barrister]

The back room can't necessarily pick the next leader (although there's proposals for the Tories to move back to that system - and in our system I think it makes sense), but in some cases they can still get rid of them if the MPs don't want you as leader. Doesn't quite work in Labour as MPs voted 80% no confidence in Corbyn but, unlike in the Tories (or, I believe, Australia) MPs can't actually remove a leader they can just trigger a leadership competition with the membership.

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.

But the thing was - Liberal Party had been so dominated by these two men that once they were both gone the party was kind of rudderless.  I the next leadership race there was no obvious candidate to turn to.  In the 2006 leadership convention there were multiple candidates, but lets focus on three.  There was Michael Ignatieff - he was a famous public intellectual, but had never served in Parliament before.  There was Bob Rae - he was the former Premier of Ontario - for the NDP.  And then there was Stephane Dion.  He had been a long-time MP from Quebec.  I kind of liked him, but he had a kind of bookish personality and didn't have much of a public following.  Anyways, Dion came in third in the early voting, but was only able to capitalize on a "anyone but Ignatieff/Rae" energy to pull off a come from behind win.

Problem is Dion was a disaster as leader.  Liberals lose again.

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.

So now we're up to 2013.  Liberal leadership bench seems decimated.  But there is Justin Trudeau.  I think he's seen as kind of a political lightweight (his most famous political act was boxing a Conservative senator), but he has his father's famous name and he looks good on camera.  Liberals put their trust in Justin Trudeau and are rewarded - they're returned to power.

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

[Barrister]

Turdeau is so good.

I would have thought you'd have appreciated the typo.

Go back a few more posts

I specifically brought up "Turdeau" as the kind of thing we shouldn't say.

[viper37]

Opinion piece in the Globe behind a paywall saying the reason Trudeau would be able to stay on, and be crushed in the next election, is that he is their least worst leadership option amongst sitting MPs.

Also, interestingly PP is now polling ahead in all age groups and women now prefer PP.

If I had some pull in the Liberal Party, I would seriously push for either Freeland or Joly. They tick a lot of boxes.

You don't want Joly.