| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| beaver wrote: | | Progressive Tory wrote: | "Trudeau" is the only reason why Justin Trudeau is where he is obviously. My point is though that I don't think he's had the opportunity to show that he can be a leader. He's only been an MP so it's not like he can promote his own policy ideas. He hasn't had the opportunity to be a minister so we don't know how he'd perform in a role like that.
Jason Kenney is seen as someone who cold replace Stephen Harper, why? He has a philosophy degree or something and dropped out before completing his second degree. He then worked for Ralph Goodale and I think the Canadian Tax Pay Federation. The only reason he's seen as the heir appearant is because he's a strong minister. He's not a strong minister because he has a ton of education or experience outside politics.
I have my doubts about Trudeau's abilities to lead a party or be Prime Minister, but how many Liberals look like leaders? How many backbench Conservative MPs look like possible successors to Harper? I think he needs an opportunity to perform before being critisized. |
Because we expect an attitude of responsibility, reason, and character in a potential leader. Justin Trudeau hasn't demonstrated that even as backbench MP, saying foolish things like he'd support a separate Quebec if the rest of Canada supported Harper's agenda, participating in a distasteful Vikileaks campaign, and publicly calling a Minister a "piece of s***" right inside the House of Commons, where our laws are made.
These are not attributes of a leader of vision; they are attributes of immaturity and childishness.
As you know, the world is going through turbulent times. We need a steady Prime Minister at helm and while I hate to be cliche, we need a leader who can answer that 2:00 am call. Trudeau does not seem like that type of leader. |
We do need a steady hand at the wheel running the PMO, hopefully that person is out there somewhere. |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beaver wrote: |
Because we expect an attitude of responsibility, reason, and character in a potential leader. Justin Trudeau hasn't demonstrated that even as backbench MP, saying foolish things like he'd support a separate Quebec if the rest of Canada supported Harper's agenda, participating in a distasteful Vikileaks campaign, and publicly calling a Minister a "piece of s***" right inside the House of Commons, where our laws are made.
These are not attributes of a leader of vision; they are attributes of immaturity and childishness.
As you know, the world is going through turbulent times. We need a steady Prime Minister at helm and while I hate to be cliche, we need a leader who can answer that 2:00 am call. Trudeau does not seem like that type of leader. |
Its exactly why I have no doubt the CPC wants Justin Trudeau to win the leadership of the Liberal Party.
I made no secret about it, Micheal Ignatieff was the single biggest threat to the CPC. He was an excellent speaker, he was worldly, and (till he became the leader of the Liberals) he was Conservative in a lot of the right places.
However the Tories had a warchest twice the size of the LPC's and they destroyed him in the eyes of Canadians.
For all the books, efforts, and work he has put in during his personal life most Canadians will remember him as "Just Visiting" and he will be a historical footnote as the leader of the Liberals who led them to their greatest defeat ever.
All this with a guy who was a legit heavyweight contender who by all rights could have been Prime Minister.
Can you imagine how easy it will be for the CPC to define Justin? It will be a simpler process then if Bob Rae would hang around.
Justin for the Tories is the best case scenario, as it allows one more freebie election.
Last edited by cosmostein on Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:05 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Progressive Tory wrote: |
Harper was also an unknown when he took over the CA, and even the CPC really, he didn't have much experience and wasn't well liked. He grew into the job and while many don't actually like him personally they respect a lot of what he has done. The Liberals should learn from that.
I really want to see what this David Mermer is all about. |
Lets not understate Harper's experience;
He may have be considered an unknown in the East,
but was a major architect of the Reform platform in 1988 and 1993. He also had four years of experience as an MP and then another half dozen still in politics when he was heading up the National Citizens Coalition.
Harper was unknown in the same way that Mark Holland is unknown. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Will be interesting to see how Quebec's election plays into the leadership. Have there been any ministers who have announced they won't run who could be interested in the leadership, or any other provincial politician? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Quebec election stands to be one of the most interesting Provincial Elections in a while;
The last poll had the Liberals and PQ statistically tied with the CAQ's fall from grace splatting down at 18% from its peak of 42%
QS is polling at 3x its previous finish, and to make matters more convoluted the Quebec Conservative Party is now being led by former CPC MP Luc Harvey who has secured former ADQ MNAs Monique Roy Verville and Albert De Martin to run for them
Then of course you have Option nationale who is polling at a few % and a new found bounce for the Quebec Greens
Basically:
Option nationale and QS will drain support from the PQ
The Conservatives will sap CAQ support in Conservative ridings,
And the Greens will draw it from everywhere;
We could see a situation where Jean Charest and the Liberals walk up the middle of a dozen ridings with 30% support and win them. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm rooting for the CAQ. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Progressive Tory wrote: | | I'm rooting for the CAQ. |
I don't mind François Legault,
Not a fan of him negotiating with the students of Quebec, but being a Quebec "Conservative" means you could run as a Liberal anywhere else in Canada.
If anyone short of the Liberals win (in any form) I think that Jean Charest is done as leader and someone currently sitting as an MP in Ottawa goes for his old job.
will be interesting to see if Jean Charest opts to run federally? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could he be successful federally if he loses?
I thought Mulcair may have went for his job if he lost the NDP leadership. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Progressive Tory wrote: | Could he be successful federally if he loses?
I thought Mulcair may have went for his job if he lost the NDP leadership. |
It depends on what you consider successful;
He wins Sherbrooke in any Federal Election for nearly any party.
As to if he can lead a federal party,
He is only 54 with nearly a decade of experience as a Premier as well as three years being a federal party leader and two years in Cabinet with a very polarizing portfolio.
I suspect anyone who becomes Premier of Quebec will have problems over the next few years, which I would imagine may lend some fondness to Charest amongst Quebec voters.
They always seem to go back to him. |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1977
  
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The election itself will tell a lot. Cosmo is right, in three way races the winner may only have a third of the vote. But this could as easily benefit the PQ
Will the obvious PQ strategy -- credit them for being frank -- energize voters? Or turn voters off?
Can a federalist social democratic party squeeze out a separatist social democratic party, and get power? Or will they split the social democratic vote and let Charest triumph again? (Personally, I like his chances ...)
And what does this political largesse mean ay a time when all the economic omens suggest that a stern financial discipline is what will be required -- never a quebecois strong point. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wait, who's the federalist social democratic party? I would have figured that would be Charest and his Liberals. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bugs wrote: | The election itself will tell a lot. Cosmo is right, in three way races the winner may only have a third of the vote. But this could as easily benefit the PQ
Will the obvious PQ strategy -- credit them for being frank -- energize voters? Or turn voters off?
Can a federalist social democratic party squeeze out a separatist social democratic party, and get power? Or will they split the social democratic vote and let Charest triumph again? (Personally, I like his chances ...)
And what does this political largesse mean ay a time when all the economic omens suggest that a stern financial discipline is what will be required -- never a quebecois strong point. |
It could benefit the PQ;
It really depends where their support comes from,
The Liberals hardly set the world on fire during the 2008 election securing 200,000 or so more votes then the PQ and still winning a majority.
The problems the PQ are facing are two fold;
1) They are likely to lose at least two seats L'Assomption (which François Legault will win) and likely Gouin (which QS's Françoise David will likely win) so they need to do battle with the Liberals to take their seats.
Trouble is that CAQ is technically a sovereigntist party however Legault has said that Quebec needs to take a 10 year break from that discussion to fix the economy first, which is a sentiment many Quebecois share.
Then you have QS and ON both screaming to separate.
2) There is a quiet movement within the PQ that feels that Gilles Duceppe (even at 65) is the only viable leader to lead the PQ to victory and win a debate on sovereignty.
The only way that Pauline Marois gets the boot is if she blows this election and ultimately clears a path wide open for Duceppe to lead the PQ moving forward. |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1977
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have just downgraded ... in my mind ... the chances of the CAQ. They seem too idealistic, too abstract, to know anything about the realities of power. They can only be a spoiler in this election. If they get a lot of votes, its because people are rejecting both the other two.
If Marois continues down this road, she won't have much to fear from QS or ON.
If you don't want to support the government, and you don't want to go to war over sovereignty, what do you do? CAQ or PQ? Especially when the CAQ is so obviously just starting out.
I think federalist Quebeckers are going to be thrown back to a choice between the CAQ and the Liberals ... and will end up holding their noses and voting for Charest. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bugs wrote: | I have just downgraded ... in my mind ... the chances of the CAQ. They seem too idealistic, too abstract, to know anything about the realities of power. They can only be a spoiler in this election. If they get a lot of votes, its because people are rejecting both the other two.
If Marois continues down this road, she won't have much to fear from QS or ON.
If you don't want to support the government, and you don't want to go to war over sovereignty, what do you do? CAQ or PQ? Especially when the CAQ is so obviously just starting out.
I think federalist Quebeckers are going to be thrown back to a choice between the CAQ and the Liberals ... and will end up holding their noses and voting for Charest. |
The CAQ is simply seems like the ADQ repackaged;
I have been very underwhelmed by them thus far. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find the timing of Greg Sorbara's retirement as an MPP odd;
The Ontario Liberals had a defacto majority with Witmers seat empty, and now they are in a situation where they need to retain a seat and win a seat rather then simply win a seat?
Sorbara may be too old to run for leadership federally (65) but perhaps he will assist someone to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
