Conservatives to pick new leader on May 27, 2017

 #cpc #cdnpoli #cpcldr2017 #cpcldr
 It has been a long time since the CPC membership elected a leader. You'll have to go back to 2004 when Stephen Harper won the race, making this particular election 13 years since.  No different, really, then when Paul Martin took the reigns from Jean Chretien.

During Harper's time, the Liberals had six leaders:

1. Paul Martin (elected) - Prime Minister
2. Bill Graham (interim)
3. Stephane Dion (elected)
4. Michael Ignatieff (elected)
5. Bob Rae (interim)
6. Justin Trudeau (elected) - Prime Minister

Again, no different, really, than what Chretien faced against six different conservative opposition leaders:

1. Preston Manning (Reform, elected)
2. Deborah Grey (Canadian Alliance, interim)
3. Stockwell Day (Canadian Alliance, elected)
4. John Reynolds (Canadian Alliance, interim)
5. Stephen Harper (Canadian Alliance, elected)
6. Grant Hill (Canadian Alliance, interim)
   Stephen Harper (Conservative, elected) - Prime Minister

For this new race, the feelers have been sent out.  With 16 months, that gives any hopeful enough time to build interest and momentum, fundraise, organize a national campaign team in every major city and region, and campaign.

However, if we are to consider the above pattern of opposition leaders, we could surmise, whomever wins this race, would not become prime minister, but would lose the next election in four years, spurring a new race, then again that leader not winning.  It would theoretically be on the third elected leader who would have a chance at becoming prime minister.

That is not to say those who are interested should make a run for it now to get their name out there and the beginnings of a very long-term campaign organization.

But to think that Trudeau is a one-term prime minister, for a Conservative, is overly optimistic.  The NDP leadership is in a vacuum and Trudeau will continue to pull from the left.   Further, Chretien and Harper won three elections with their party remaining in power for about 13 years.  It is not unreasonable to think history won't repeat itself and we'll see the following.

2017:  Elected Leader 1
2019:  Election loss
2019:  Elected Leader 1 steps down.  Interim leader chosen.
2021:  Elected Leader 2
2023:  Election loss
2023:  Elected Leader 2 steps down.  Interim leader chosen.
2025:  Elected Leader 3
2027:  Election WIN

What would be telling, and different is if the 2019 and/or 2023 elections had a minority government.  Then it's difficult to say how the rest of the pattern works out, because remember, Harper lost his first election to Martin, although Martin won with a minority.  Harper then won a minority.  This was a long transition period for Canadians to move from Liberal dominance to a newly merged Conservative Party.

My point is, whoever is running to be leader now or later, has to play the long game, as Stephen Harper was so brilliant to achieve for his electoral success.

Alberta's Redford PCs: I can't keep up!

Friends of Hatrock's Cave Political Blog,

My apologies for not posting as frequently as I used to.  I literally cannot keep up with the crap policies, scandals, and b.s. spin coming from the Redford PCs.  It's become so daunting to post on the high frequency of issues to comment on that I've simply resorted to retweeting what many others are already saying about this government.

I will say this.  I was no big fan of the Chretien Liberal government.  But I think this Alberta PC Redford government is probably the worst one I have ever experienced in my life.

Hatrock

Waves of provincial and federal party support

A poll was just released showing 3/4 Ontarians want Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty and his party out (29% support) and Tim Hudak's PCs in (41% support).

In last night's election in New Brunswick, the PCs trounced the incumbent Liberals, 42 to 13 seats. (It could be argued though that the PCs were even to the left of the Liberals there.)

Many believe that this wave of 'conservatism' on a provincial level directly translates to votes for conservatives on a federal level.  It doesn't.  While there are numerous examples, let us look at Ontario's recent history, because how Ontario votes federally basically determines who wins for the whole country.

In Ontario in the 80's, Mulroney's federal PC government dominated Ontario, yet provincially at that time, Ontario was Liberal. And then Bob Rae's NDP came in.

Then in 1993, once Ontario went with Chretien's Liberals, a couple years later, Ontarians went with Mike Harris' provincial PCs.  Then Paul Martin (tending to be a bit more conservative than Chretien) was PM and Ontario goes Liberal provincially with Dalton McGuinty. Soon later, Ontarians support Harper's Conservatives federally.

So my theory, backed up by strong evidence mind you, is that Ontarians, feeling like they are the big province that holds the country together, generally like to balance out their politics between who's in power federally versus provincially.

So for you Ontario Conservatives who are cheering for a potential Tim Hudak PC win, keep in mind the recent history, which dictates that soon after, Ontario federally will eventually switch to the Liberals putting the Liberals back in power. 

Which is why you'd better hope to heck that after the next federal election when Ignatieff's Liberals lose, that they replace him with Bob Rae, because I don't think Ontarians are that gullible to support him again, and will hopefully make an exception to my theory.

Hopefully.

Coalition talk: Contrast the context in opposition requests to the GG

Ah, Liberals and Dippers are now using a letter written in 2004 by then opposition leader Stephen Harper 2004 letter to then Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson regarding the current minority government situation. 

From Jane Taber at the Globe and Mail:

But the Liberals fired back this morning, noting that when he was opposition leader Mr. Harper signed a letter to the Governor-General “stating that he was willing to work with the NDP and the Bloc to form the government.”

“Yes, that was a coalition between three parties, including the Bloc,” a senior Ignatieff official says. “And the Conservatives were in the thick of it. So please, stop pointing to that scarecrow!”

Scarecrow?  Um, really?  Maybe click your heels three times and come back to reality.  Contrast the context in the request in Stephen Harper's 2004 letter to the one in December 2008 written by then opposition leader Stephane Dion (pdf).

Stephen Harper 2004 letter (Bold emphasis mine):

September 9, 2004




Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Also signed by Duceppe and Layton

 
Note that while the letter reminds the GG that the three opposition parties constitute a majority in the House, nowhere does Stephen Harper suggest that the three opposition parties wish to form a government.  NOWHERE.  Yet Libs and Dips continue to use this as a gotcha tactic.  Well sorry. 
 
Now let's contrast that with Stephane Dion's infamous 2008 coalition letter...
 

December 1, 2008
 
 
 
 
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OA1


Excellency,

As Leader of the Official Opposition, I wish to inform you that, as of this writing, the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House of Commons, have been in close consultation concerning the failure of the Conservative government to address the impact of the global economic crisis on Canadians.

As a result, I wish to inform you that my party and the other two opposition parties have lost confidence in this Conservative government.  The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada are resolved to form a new government and to this end we have the support of the Bloc Quebecois for a period of 18 months. This new government will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address the best interests of the people of Canada in these critical economic times.

In light of the significant economic challenges facing our citizens, and that the last federal election was held less than two months ago, we respectfully request that, should a call for dissolution arise, you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Hon. Stephane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Note the difference?

Not only that but Dion, Layton, and Duceppe were shown in public meeting together, published a letter to the public the same day as well as put out cooperative and policy accords.

Monday, December 1, 2008




To our fellow citizens,

Canada is facing a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and, no will to effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and believes that the formation of a new Government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times is necessary.

The contrast between the inaction of Mr. Harper's government and the common action taken by all other Western democracies is striking. We cannot accept this.

A majority of Canadians and Quebecers voted for our parties on October 14, 2008. Our Members of Parliament make up 55 percent of the House of Commons.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Harper government's unwillingness and inability to address the crisis, we are resolved to support a new government that will address the interests of the people.

Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties.

Respectfully,


Hon. Stéphane Dion
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton
Leader, the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe
Leader, the Bloc Québécois

For anyone to say that Stephen Harper tried to form a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc in 2004 is dead wrong.

So now, the Lib-NDP coalition talk continues, with supposed high-level talks between former Liberal PM, Jean Chretien and former NDP leader, Ed Broadbent.  The Conservatives have already released a statement warning of the risk of a coalition, again.

“A Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois Coalition would be led by a man who left Canada for 34 years and professed his love for America,” the talking points say. “It would put our economic recovery in the hands of former NDP Premier Bob Rae and current NDP leader Jack Layton. And it would contain a policy veto for the Bloc Quebecois – a party that doesn’t even believe in a united Canada.”

All this aside, I wonder if the resurrection of the coalition wouldn't be happening if current Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff's polling numbers weren't so low.

As I always do, look at this from another point of view...  a certain someone and Jean Chretien were on PowerCorp.  Chretien likes Dion and brought him into cabinet.  In first leadership race after Martin steps down, a certain someone drops out and supports Dion on last ballot, not Iggy. 

Do you think the NDP grassroots would ever want to be in a coalition with Ignatieff?  I don't think so.  But perhaps a certain someone. Someone who was a former provincial NDPer himself.

The Coalition is dead. Long live the Coalition!

In the aftermath of the recent UK election resulting in a new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, Liberals and NDP in Canada have been saying, "See!  Coalitions DO work.  They don't even do minority governments there."

Well hold on a sec...  I read former Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella's blog posts regularly.  Let us go through the logic here.

Today Kinsella posted:

This is now. 

That was then. 

Key message: if Stephen Harper’s Reformatories do it, it’s okay. If anyone else does it, it’s Satanic.

Clear?

No, it's not clear.  Kinsella is referring to his own speech given at the Alberta Liberal Convention in Calgary where he talks about getting together with the NDP.

The "This is now" link above refers to Conservative strategists lambasting the Liberals for considering the coalition idea again, as they should. 

Now keep in mind that the FORMAL coalition between the Liberals and NDP had support from the Bloc Quebecois until June 2010.  A letter to the Governor General was signed by them in a request to to basically hand over the reigns of government to them, with Stephane Dion as Prime Minister and NDP would have cabinet posts.  While a coaliton government such as this is totally legal and constitutional, the point is that the Canadian voter was NEVER presented with this option going into the election, so many Canadians felt cheated, which is why polls for the Conservatives went up considerably after that.  Oh, and you know who else signed that letter? One Michael Ignatieff.

In the "That was then" link, Warren stretches out back in history to when Stockwell Day was leader of the Canadian Alliance. You know, before the Conservative Party existed and before Stephen Harper was even on the scene as a potential leader, let alone prime minister.  Yeah, yeah, we know Stock is cabinet now, but it's obvious here Warren's "Reformatories" moniker is slapping shit together from different piles to try and make it stick. Nice try.

(Should I mention that Warren's old boss, former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, had discussions with former NDP leader Ed Broadbent to kickstart the coalition negotiations?  Ok, there, I did.)

And one such pile is when Liberals and NDP say "How can you be against a coalition when you did it yourself!", referring to the time that when in opposition, the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc voted non-confidence in the government, which sparked an election.

Key message:  When Liberals, NDP, and Separatists do it, they want to be an instant government without voters deciding. When Conservatives do it, they want to trigger an election and let the voters decide.

Clear?

Long live the Coalition!

Prorogation, the Coalition and the Constitution

Being that prorogation has occurred 101 times before in our nation's history, that Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien used it to shut down parliamenty for 83 days to subvert the Somalia inquiry, and now that another Liberal leader, one Michael Ignatieff, is attending an anti-prorogation rally today, a fellow Alberta blogger has asked this important question:

Last year during the coalition crisis did you claim legitimacy for the coalition because of the constitution? If so, why are you now against that same constitution and the legitimacy of prorogation? Is there anything else you want to change in our constitution while we are opening it up?

Keeping in mind that Iggy recently said that if he were PM, he would use progation if necessary. He just doesn't agree with the way Stephen Harper did it this time.

But what about last time?  If Harper hadn't prorogued parliament last year, would he have ascended to the Liberal leadership so quickly after Stephane Dion was dumped?

Ah that Iggy, such a man of convenience and conviction, isn't he?

h/t Alberta Ardvark

Rethinking Senate Reform

I just found out about Libertas Post, a conglomerate Canadian blog and gave a read of this post from Joseph Ben-Ami.  He makes an important point and while I agree with the whole idea of comprehensive parliamentary reform, realistically, and in knowing modern Canadian history, I think Harper is still on the right track.

And that is, stack the Senate to get through a bill to try and limit Senator term limits to 8-10 years but then only appoint Senators who were elected by their province.  Eventually, provinces will have no choice or face not having Senators. It's a sneaky way, but it will draw even more attention to Senate reform.  And maybe, just maybe, when provinces like Ontario and Quebec are too stubborn to have elections and BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan do, then the number of Senators may naturally equalize or that we'll have no choice but to amend the constitution to appease everybody.

But in reading Ben-Ami's proposal, while it's too bad he doesn't mention Australia's elected senate, it basically sounds like what the Americans have, where cabinet is not derived from members, and believe it or not, it's perfectly acceptable in Canada. Does anyone remember one Stephane Dion who was appointed to cabinet by one Jean Chretien, yet Dion wasn't even an MP yet?

So what’s to be done?

In the first place, let’s stop talking about senate reform and start talking about comprehensive parliamentary reform. By all means, let’s elect our senators and, if a way can be found, let’s amend the Constitution to give provinces, rather than regions, an equal number of seats in that chamber.

More importantly though, let’s restore Parliament’s historic role as the people’s watchdog over the government by severing the office of Prime Minister and its executive functions from it altogether and creating a new, separate, and popularly elected office to fill that role. Under such a system, Cabinet would still be made up of ministers appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister, but they would no longer be selected from among those elected to either the House of Commons or the Senate.

Elections would be held at fixed intervals, providing MPs and Senators with greater latitude in representing what they believe to be the best interests of their constituents and the country, especially those who are members of the governing party.

A truly independent Parliament would establish independent committees comprised of members at least as interested in the subject they are deliberating as they are in promoting or opposing the executive’s – or the party’s – objectives.

So why I do continue to focus on the Senate in this blog?  It's because there's an imbalance in representation. Not just a little one, but a huge one.  It's because our Senate is totally unaccountable and it's my country and I want a say in that.  It's because a lot of Canadians don't pay much attention to the Senate and they should.  It's because I think having an upper chamber in our parliament is also important, so I'm not in favour of abolishing it. Why? Go back to the imbalance.  Ontario and Quebec's interests will always continue to dominate the country due to their larger populations, when the government and parliament should consider not just all regions, but the interests of all provinces equally.

And I believe that this understanding will actually unite the country instead of regions being pitted against regions. And I also believe that our Prime Minister believes that as well.

Prorogue to Senate Reform

It is now apparent that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is using the latest prorogue to then try and reform the senate. As I said, I fully support this prorogue if he was to do just that.

Stephen Harper will revive a contentious plan to reform the Senate after Parliament resumes in March, setting the stage for a showdown with the opposition and a handful of provinces over whether senators should be elected and held to term limits.

The Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament, and appoint five new senators during the 22-day break, could give his minority government enough clout to move its reform agenda through the Senate, and then force a high-stakes vote on the legislation in the House of Commons.

Mr. Harper promised Tuesday that any senators he did appoint “will further our Senate reform agenda.” However, he acknowledged he is disappointed that his party has been unable to effect any meaningful reform to this point, and said he is “less optimistic” than he was four years ago that such legislation would make it through Parliament.

“I thought we'd get at least something,” he said in an interview with CBC television. “We're not there yet. … What the Senate is blocking isn't just government crime legislation, it's blocking Senate reform legislation.”

And don't you just love the "insenaty" from NDP MP Libby Davies:

New Democratic MP Libby Davies argued that after Mr. Harper moved to shut down Parliament in December, Canadians will be skeptical that the Prime Minister is really interested in democratic reform.

“He wants to control committees in the Senate, he wants to get away from the Afghan detainees issue in the Commons,” she said. “When he puts [Senate reform] out there as some kind of democratic priority, I think it's laughable.”

No, Libby, you're laughable--especially for recently calling on the Prime Minister to step into the whole women's ski jump issue with the International Olympic Committee.

The NDP want to scrap the senate yet they also want proportional representation in the house of commons. Why is that? Because the NDP do not have any senators and they'd gain seats proportionally. But what they don't understand is that if we had a triple-E senate in Canada, NDP senate candidates would have a better chance at being elected to the upper chamber then waiting around for an appointment. Not only that, but if it was equal, then all the provinces would have an equal say, eliminating the need for proportionality in the house, as a balance between population and regionalism is maintained.

Anyway, this voter is mighty happy about Harper's continued focus and leadership on reforming the senate. No other Canadian Prime Minister in history has made as much progress on this issue. We have and will continue to follow this issue very closely.

Oh, and did I mention a little something about prorogation? It's quite normal you know.

Go here and take a look see.

You'll notice that in pretty much every parliament, the prime minister would end a session (also known as PROROGUE).

For example, in the 37th parliament, under Jean Chretien, he prorogued parliament twice.

This is a normal part of our parliamentary democratic system and anyone saying otherwise is a nincumpoop.

Prorogue to insenaty or senate reform?

A couple weeks ago I mentioned that Prime Minister Harper might prorogue parliament. Well, he has, until early March.  Thirty-five bills die, but several important ones got amended and some were stalled in the Liberal-dominated senate. 

So now that's done, I don't think this had much to do with the Afghan detanee issue, but that the next question is whether Harper will then appoint the vacant senate seats giving the Conservatives a majority in the senate, which Canada hasn't had in a long time. And, it's been so long, I don't remember, but I'd guess around the mid-90's after Jean Chretien made a pile of appointments. So I'd like to point out again that the Liberals have no credibility if they make a huff about senate appointments when they have never made any progress when in government on making the senate elected, equal, or accountable with their long list of appointments in Canadian parliamentary history.

My guess is that Harper will definitely make those appointments.  Then after resuming parliament again and introducing a new budget and reintroduce the bills the died, the real question at hand is...

Will we continue with "insenaty" (i.e. all talk and no action on senate reform) or will Canada finally see some real progress toward modifying the senate and improving our democracy?


Read more here.

Iggy the iffy continued..continued...

Oh man, this party doesn't really stand for anything, do they? That, or they just don't communicate with each other well, OR some people on the inside are mucking things up... or all three. Here's what was said in the news today...

Federal Liberals say they won't support the NDP in its effort to push a private member's climate-change bill through the House of Commons on Wednesday.

The proposed legislation, called Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, sets strict targets for greenhouse gas emissions and is currently being considered by a House environment committee.

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty, however, said the committee needs more time to study the implications of the bill.

"We need to hear more about the American position, the European position, the Chinese position" before considering the bill, McGuinty told CBC News.

More here...

And here's what Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said just over a month ago on September 2, 2009.

"We are not going to wait for the United States; we are not going to wait for Mr. Obama," Ignatieff said. "Canadian climate-change policy gets made in Canada. It doesn't get made in the United States."

This is too easy ... come on, you know how it goes...

"[Do something about climate change] but not necessarily [do something about climate change]."


You know, with the whole 'cheque-gate' thing with the Conservative logo and MPs signatures on big cheques, as obvious as it is, and how Stephen Harper, in 2006 got elected on being accountable and all that. Yeah, but at least the money still went back to Canadian ridings in obvious plain sight, not your tax dollars directly to Liberal cronies as cash in an envelope under a table at a restaurant.

And here's former Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien, in 2000 on taking credit for cash to ridings...

OTTAWA and QUEBEC CITY – Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister, yesterday said his government had nothing to apologize for in seeking to reap maximum partisan political benefit from disbursing $1-billion worth of federal job grants across Canada each year.

He had always made sure since taking power in October, 1993, that voters were left in no doubt that it was his Liberals who were distributing such grants, he said.

“Listen,” he added, “we are the government … I don’t see why we can’t try to get credit for what we do. I hope we do so. There is nothing to be ashamed in that.”

So in summary ... the opposition Liberals and their flip-flopping leader Michael Ignatieff have absolutely NO credibility on criticizing the Conservative gov't about anything.


h/t: cosmostein on BT, Stephen Taylor

"Good shot [pro]Rogue II" or another Rebel Alliance?

The current situation in Parliament reminds me of the Star Wars series--how an elected official, Senator Palpatine, was elected chancellor of the Galactic Senate, while as Sith Lord, Darth Sidious, secretly creates a mass crisis and war between the clones and robot army, and in order to restore "peace", single-handedly creates the Galactic Empire with himself as Emporer. Then with one swift move, wipes out the Jedi, the protectors of democracy, and rules for over a decade.

Thing is, with Parliament, I can't tell who to compare Palpatine/Sidious to.

With the release of the NDP taped conference call and claims that leader Jack Layton had a deal with the Bloc well before the Tory gov't's economic update, could this make Jack the Sith Lord. Is it Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe in helping to prop up a coalition giving the balance of power to his separatist movement? Or is it Ed Broadbent and Jean Chretien putting the deal together between the NDP and Liberals in the back room? Is it Stephane Dion who would be leader of the coalition gov't and thus prime minister, although he was resoundly rejected by voters. Or is it Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has just prorogued parliament until the new year? Or is it Tory insiders, with new leadership websites for John Baird and Jim Prentice, secretly plotting a coup against Harper, so their future leadership hopefuls have a chance to move in and save the day?

See! Hard to tell, isn't it?

But what I do know is, whomever wins this recent situation in the end and stability returns, will be deemed "The New Hope", a.k.a. Luke Skywalker. That said, by properly applying The Force, the winner will also have to finally defeat his enemies, returning peace, order, and good government to Canada (a.k.a. winning a majority).

And this could apply to Liberal leadership contender, Michael Ignatieff, winning the race in May, raising the Liberal party out of the ashes, and defeating Harper in an election.

But it could also still apply to Stephen Harper, in his quest to destroy the Liberal party.

But as they often say in Star Wars, "I got a bad feeling about this."

Federal Liblead Race -- The Roommates and the Visitor

Many people know that Liberal MPs Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff were once college roommates. Funny that.

Monday night I was discussing with a friend about how I now think this federal Liberal leadership race is turning into a coronation for Bob Rae. How so?--by eliminating the competition before the race even starts and "taking over" the party, which Bob seems to have done using his old Powercorp/Demarais connections, etc.

The Quebec Liberal wing tried to put into the rules that candidates had to be debt-free from the last race. While it didn't get implemented, the idea was put out there and basically immediately knocked out those with debt. They also put in a $90,000 entry fee (yikes!) and are limiting spending to $1.5 million (which isn't much).

Both play well for Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff.

So the other day Martha Hall Finlay decided not to run. Gerard Kennedy today announced that he's not running either. Both have around $200k of debt. It's too bad (for Liberals). I think Gerard is the type of renewal guy they need and not having any women doesn't look good either.

Bob Rae, on the other hand, did no such thing (not noticeable anyway). He actively supported Dion, and even defended the Green Shift. Iggy, not so much.

We also know MPs Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae are running. Michael Ignatieff hasn't decided if he's running yet, but he probably will. I think there's no doubt that Iggy and Co. were undermining Dion throughout his leadership, the by-elections, and especially watching him in the House of Commons whenever Dion spoke. Iggy is relatively new to Canadian politics and doesn't have the same power connections that Rae has had for some time.

I have no idea who LeBlanc is and likely neither do a lot of Canadians. Ontarians certainly know who, Bob Rae, their former premier, is, and while the left like him, the centre and centre-right likely does not at all one bit. The hope for the Liberals in this sense is that they would try to unite the left without actual merger with the NDP and Green. This would require fear mongering and attacking Stephen Harper to no end in typical Liberal fashion. Bob Rae doesn't stand for much other than trying to come across as a happy politician but attacking opponents whenever possible. With Iggy it's different. It would be a battle for the centre and a debate of actual ideas, yet I'm sure attacks would be in there for sure.

If no other candidates besides these three enter, LeBlanc has no hope as there are no other lesser candidates to support him on subsequent ballots like Kennedy did with Dion to allow him to shoot up the middle between Iggy and Rae. Which means Iggy can't win.

I'd assume LeBlanc has been well tied into the Liberal family for some time, with his father Romeo as a past Governor General, meaning I'd guess he'd be convinced to support Rae on the 2nd ballot for a plum cabinet post. Or more likely is his friend Warren Kinsella convincing him to go Iggy.

However, I don't know the insides of the Liberal party all that well and if there is a genuine desire for actual "renewal" like the Democrats and Americans did by electing Barack Obama, then LeBlanc has a chance. But I don't that's what Liberals want... an unknown. So if that spirit is there then Ignatieff is the guy. He's well spoken and intelligent.

But I do know the outsides of the Liberal Party (as do many of us) and when they mean "renewal", that's Liberal-speak for "power at all costs", so that translates to Bob Rae.

But I wonder if Bob Rae was supporting Dion so actively to try and chum his way into the Liberal party. Maybe Ignatieff has had the actual reins on the party since his last race.

Regardless, as I mentioned, Dominic LeBlanc is the guy visiting those old college roommates and the king-maker. Who will be the first to offer him a beer?

Speaking of Deep...

A study just released states that Canadians are deeper in debt than ever before (not including mortgages). This is not surprising. Everyone wants to keep up with the Joneses in purchasing the latest technologies, cars, and clothes, instead of saving or investing for the future.

Thing is, let's not forget that Canadians are also highly taxed. When the Chretien/Martin Liberals were in power, sure they eliminated the deficit and starting paying down the debt, but in order to keep inflation low, through the mid-late 90's, the average family saw their annual income tax bill increase by over $3,500... and a little each time, so we'd barely notice.

So it's refreshing to hear that the the current Conservative Finance Minister is looking to reduce our tax burden, and maybe, just maybe Canadians can pay off their OWN debt and save for the future.

Canadians have had deep wounds from high taxes for many years and even had salt poured on it. It's time to heal them, don't you think?