Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 688 votes: 1
Location: St. John's
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject:
Interesting article in the National Post. Despite just winning a large majority government Robert Ghiz "is actively considering a leadership run for the federal Liberal Party". He's been approached to run and sources close to the premier say “if those approaches were strong enough, he’d consider it fully”.
I think Ghiz would be a pretty big name to come forward and I think he could have a strong shot of taking out Rae. Unlike some potential non-MP candidates he should have no trouble winning a seat in a by-election in the province. He's got the governing experience and should be able to get the youth vote behind him like Mike Crawley did earlier the year when he ran for president.
While he's not a household name or anything Ghiz is still a big name to have come forward. I think he could be an ideal candidate for the party because he's a bit of an outsider, he's youthful but has experience unlike some younger candidates.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 5814 votes: 19
Location: The World
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 9:47 am Post subject:
I think you and I have touched on Ghiz a few a times;
In time he could be a pretty solid option for the LPC, however he is 38.
Mulcair and Harper will make him look like a kid in detention.
However; if Ghiz wins again in 2015/16 by a similar 50% margin and is 41/42 with three election wins and a higher profile then he may very well be the guy who replaces Rae after the 2015 Federal election.
Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 688 votes: 1
Location: St. John's
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:23 pm Post subject:
cosmostein wrote:
I think you and I have touched on Ghiz a few a times;
In time he could be a pretty solid option for the LPC, however he is 38.
Mulcair and Harper will make him look like a kid in detention.
However; if Ghiz wins again in 2015/16 by a similar 50% margin and is 41/42 with three election wins and a higher profile then he may very well be the guy who replaces Rae after the 2015 Federal election.
His profile will likely rise with him and Brad Wall working together on the health care reformy thing they're doing.
With a by-election set for Etobicoke Centre I'd say the chance of Borys Wrzesnewskyj running for the leadership is more likely. I can't imagine he'll have much of a chance but as I believe I've said before who would have thought a year ago that Brian Topp and Nathan Cullen would have placed second and third in the NDP leadership race.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 5814 votes: 19
Location: The World
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 5:01 pm Post subject:
Progressive Tory wrote:
His profile will likely rise with him and Brad Wall working together on the health care reformy thing they're doing.
With a by-election set for Etobicoke Centre I'd say the chance of Borys Wrzesnewskyj running for the leadership is more likely. I can't imagine he'll have much of a chance but as I believe I've said before who would have thought a year ago that Brian Topp and Nathan Cullen would have placed second and third in the NDP leadership race.
Its going to have to rise a fair bit;
He is also going to need to show he can appeal to Ontario voters; he may be better served simply seeking election as an MP for a term before going whole hog after the leadership
If Orpiz doesn't appeal, I would imagine that even then he will have a tough time raising money for a leadership run after the legal battle he just waged, if it goes to the SC I have to wonder just how effective he would be fighting the battle, contesting a by-election then running for leadership.
Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 688 votes: 1
Location: St. John's
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:00 pm Post subject:
He can pay for legal battle out of his own pocket, which for the most part I think he did. I can't imagine his profile is large enough to fundraiser enough money for the leadership, however if a Liberals set a limit of under $1,000,000 then it shouldn't be a huge problem.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 5814 votes: 19
Location: The World
Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 11:12 am Post subject:
Progressive Tory wrote:
He can pay for legal battle out of his own pocket, which for the most part I think he did. I can't imagine his profile is large enough to fundraiser enough money for the leadership, however if a Liberals set a limit of under $1,000,000 then it shouldn't be a huge problem.
1m would certainly be interesting;
And a far cry from the 50k entrance fee and 3.4m dollar spending limit in 2006.
Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 688 votes: 1
Location: St. John's
Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 5:35 pm Post subject:
cosmostein wrote:
Progressive Tory wrote:
He can pay for legal battle out of his own pocket, which for the most part I think he did. I can't imagine his profile is large enough to fundraiser enough money for the leadership, however if a Liberals set a limit of under $1,000,000 then it shouldn't be a huge problem.
1m would certainly be interesting;
And a far cry from the 50k entrance fee and 3.4m dollar spending limit in 2006.
3.4 million is way to high, the Liberal executive dropped the ball when they allowed such a high limit. Candidates also got screwed up with Harper changing the spending rules. I had found it absolutely ridiculous that candidates didn't have their debts paid off but after reading an interview with Martha Hall Findlay on it a few weeks ago it's not totally their fault.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 5814 votes: 19
Location: The World
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:46 am Post subject:
Progressive Tory wrote:
3.4 million is way to high, the Liberal executive dropped the ball when they allowed such a high limit. Candidates also got screwed up with Harper changing the spending rules. I had found it absolutely ridiculous that candidates didn't have their debts paid off but after reading an interview with Martha Hall Findlay on it a few weeks ago it's not totally their fault.
Perhaps not totally their fault but certainly mostly their fault.
The Executive allowed their best and brightest to cripple their ability to fund raise, however each campaign should have had a better understanding of the consequences of amassing the debt for a campaign which ultimately was for nothing more then better standing under a new leader (IE Martha Hall Findlay) and yielded no chance of leadership election.
The Ignantief coronation had a $90,000 entrance fee and a 1.5m spending limit,
I tend to agree with you that a smaller spending limit may ultimately help non-Rae candidates have a chance.
Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 688 votes: 1
Location: St. John's
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 4:07 pm Post subject:
cosmostein wrote:
Progressive Tory wrote:
3.4 million is way to high, the Liberal executive dropped the ball when they allowed such a high limit. Candidates also got screwed up with Harper changing the spending rules. I had found it absolutely ridiculous that candidates didn't have their debts paid off but after reading an interview with Martha Hall Findlay on it a few weeks ago it's not totally their fault.
Perhaps not totally their fault but certainly mostly their fault.
The Executive allowed their best and brightest to cripple their ability to fund raise, however each campaign should have had a better understanding of the consequences of amassing the debt for a campaign which ultimately was for nothing more then better standing under a new leader (IE Martha Hall Findlay) and yielded no chance of leadership election.
At the time though they were able to accept donations of $5000, then it went down to $1000.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 5814 votes: 19
Location: The World
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:30 am Post subject:
Progressive Tory wrote:
At the time though they were able to accept donations of $5000, then it went down to $1000.
Yes, the limit was changed to $1,100 however only after the bill received royal assent in mid December 2006, which was a few weeks after the convention concluded.
They were also aware it was coming as it was introduced in the Commons in March or April (IIRC), and had been part of the Conservative Platform in 2004 and 2006.
Its not like the leadership candidates were blindsided by the legislation.
Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 688 votes: 1
Location: St. John's
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:55 am Post subject:
cosmostein wrote:
Progressive Tory wrote:
At the time though they were able to accept donations of $5000, then it went down to $1000.
Yes, the limit was changed to $1,100 however only after the bill received royal assent in mid December 2006, which was a few weeks after the convention concluded.
They were also aware it was coming as it was introduced in the Commons in March or April (IIRC), and had been part of the Conservative Platform in 2004 and 2006.
Its not like the leadership candidates were blindsided by the legislation.
Good point.
Wonder how Bob Rae is going to face now that the party's support has collapsed to their election numbers again?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
