Liberals Won't Win With Harper-Lite Leader

If Iggy is the Liberal leader for the next election the result will probably be a more balanced minority Parliament, which would definitely be a positive for real Canadian democracy. Iggy as Liberal leader would be good for the NDP because there would be an influx of progressive Liberals turned off by Iggy's support of militarist imperialism in Afghanistan & Iraq. Iggy would be bad for the Conservatives because they would probably lose the support of some regressive Liberals who voted for them in the last election because of their personal disgust at Liberal corruption and Paul Martin’s dithering habit.

Bob Rae as the new Liberal leader would work against the NDP, especially if he adopted a "let’s re-think our Afghanistan policy" to counter the NDP’s current and popular anti-war moral authority. Rae’s leadership would also tend to alienate regressive Liberals, who might shift all their support to the Conservatives. Rae might be the best hope for a progressive leader in a Canadian majority government, but a Harper-Rae contest would more likely result in a slim Conservative majority, a larger but still frustrated Liberal opposition and a net loss in seats for the NDP.

It's no wonder that Harper is literally praying for a Rae leadership victory – an Iggy victory shifts everybody to the right while a Rae victory would likely tilt the Liberals toward progressivism and widen the ideological gap between the Conservatives and the Liberals to the Conservatives' advantage.

Regardless of who is elected Liberal leader, the NDP should build upon its popular anti-war stance by coupling it with another very strong campaign theme along the lines of "We are the only party (besides the CAP) fighting for all Canadians, because the survival of Canada as we know it is threatened by our annexation into the NAU". The Liberals would not dare speak out against the NAU, because they are ultimately a corporatist party.

---
Michael

As I mentioned elsewhere, the only prerequisite for Liberal Party leader is a willingness to continue advocating NAU policies, in the even of either a minority or majority government. Cretien did it; Martin did it. Nothing else is of consequence.

---
"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

If you look carefully at Rae's campaign I believe you would see that he has positioned himself further to the right than might be expected. However, I don't believe that many of the delegates will vote for a candidate based on his ideas or ideology. They will vote for the candidate that they believe has the best chance of defeating Harper.

Bob Rae as Liberal leader would definitely be bad for the NDP but I don't see how a "balanced minority" gov't with Iggy as Liberal leader would be good for Canada. If anything, I think we'd see a Harper/Iggy coalition on many issues, or a PM with a split personality where Jeckyl and Hyde are constantly trying to out-do each other trying to win the favour of George W. Bush. It almost sounds like "a brand new sitcom coming this fall on CT V!"

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

Wraun, I was saying that a "balanced minority" gov't with Iggy as Liberal leader would be better for Canada than a Conservative majority, but we already have the regressive Libs teaming up with the Conservatives, so...

Innes, you bring up some good points, too. Which Liberal do you think could beat Harper?

---
Michael

Alexandre Trudeau?

---
"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

"If Iggy is the Liberal leader for the next election the result will probably be a more balanced minority Parliament, which would definitely be a positive for real Canadian democracy."
Sorry I missed where you said 'than a Harper majority'. ;-0
Yes you are right, that "we already have the regressive Libs teaming up with the Conservatives" But what I was saying is that Iggy will take the Liberals further to the right effectively removing any differences that may still exist. Iggy is not a Liberal. The only reason he is applying for this job is that the company he really wants to work for is not currently accepting applications.



---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

I don't believe Ignatieff can beat Harper and I suspect that is exactly why he's back in Canada running for the Liberals - to keep them from winning. Wouldn't that be something if he won the leadership, Harper wins another minority and Ignatieff crosses the floor?!!! That would be one outstanding way to keep the Liberals out of commission for YEARS!





---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

It seems as though all of the big three parties have shifted to the right. The Tories are now ultra-right and with Iggy as leader, the Liberals will be a lot further to the right than ever before. They'd likely lose votes from traditional centerist Libs as soon as Iggy was crowned and those votes would likely migrate to the NDP. So what is the likelyhood of the right being split (again), only this time between the Libs & cons, allowing the NDP to gain some real footing.
Right now the seats are divided up as follows...
Con - 124
Lib - 103
Bloc - 51
NDP - 29
Anyone care to predict the outcome in terms of seats?

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

Regardless which bunch wins, unless a miracle of popular uprising happens, Canada is cooked.

They all get their orders from big business and makes no difference what lapel pins they're wearing.

The only hope the NDP may have is by startig a "Take back Canada" campaign, but if there was the slightest chance for a nationalistic NDP victory, Canada would be occupied by the US, with the enthusiastic help of our major parties and welcomed by military bands.

Does anybody really believe that any US government would permit Canada to become independent ?

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

<p>I don't think things are quite that bad Ed and even if they are, that would be no reason to not try. There are a number of posters on here (myself included at times) who have a real grim outlook on politics & the future of Canada. I know it's not very rosy looking and it's easy to get discouraged but this is our country that we're talking about, so it's very important to keep a positive attitude.</p><p> Look at the voter turn out in the last election. <b>64.9%!</b> I see that as a 35.1% chance of turning things around. Things <b>WOULD</b> change if people would get out and <b>VOTE!</b> The biggest threat to Canadian sovereignty is probably "voter apathy". Now let's not get bogged down with semantics or depress ourselves with endless observations of how bad things are, let's stay focused on the problems but try to find some solutions. Otherwise, "Canada is cooked" because the people who are the problem won't change and the people who don't see the problem can't fix it, so I guess it's up to us.<br> ~ Okay I'm better now ~ </p><p>---<br>Everybody got to deviate from the norm

I like that, Ed - "Take back Canada" is necessary after the Conservatives have "Stood up for Canada"!

---
Michael

Yes there you go, TAKE BACK CANADA! That is good

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

Wraun, you can rest assured that I'll be fighting for my adopted land to my last breath, and never cease to believe in miracles, as many have happened to me, allowing me to survive many certain death situations, including a death sentence for "treason". The only thing I regret is that I was innocent at the time, but made up for it later and have been fighting dictators and ruling classes for the past 61 years.

How to get the voters out and to have them vote with brains?
I don't know, but one thing is sure, the present lame duck bunch is enough to turn anybody off.

Ed Deak.