Bobby Bounce?

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Bob Rae was crowned interim leader of the Liberals on Wednesday and handed the daunting task of breathing new life into a party that recently suffered the worst electoral drubbing in its history.

The party's national executive is expected to rubber stamp the selection of Rae as caretaker until a full-time leader is chosen. A decision on that will be made next month, but the party doesn't want a leadership race to start until as late as February 2013.

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Darrel Bricker of Ipsos

The interesting thing about what happened in this (May 2) election . . . is that they actually put together a values-based national coalition of Tories — the first time we’ve had it in this country,” Bricker said ...

He rattled off the typical values of a Harper Conservative voter: “smaller government, law and order, pro-military, pro-trade, pro-U.S., economically focused and fiscally prudent.”

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Bob Rae

Having made a decision which is most likely contrary to section 10(2)(e) of the Liberal Party constitution (which gives every member the right to seek any office in the party), the National Board of Directors will most likely have spoiled the party's chances of making great strides in reforming itself, and competing against the NDP and Conservatives.

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

The dramatic challenge posed by Liberal MP Bob Rae on Twitter this week — “Okay, Steve...you, me, two pianos at dawn” — has raised hopes for a musical face-off between Ottawa’s two best-known political pianomen. But will Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose recent rock and roll performance at the Conservative Christmas party this month was the talk of the Hill, meet his opponent at the ivories? The Post’s Sarah Boesveld caught up with Mr. Rae Tuesday:

Q: Have you heard from Mr. Harper regarding your piano challenge?

A: No, I have not heard formally, although he did smile today. I saw the glimmer of a smile. I don’t know what it means, but it’s so unusual that I think it might be a signal.

Q: What do you think of his musicality?

A: I think he’s a good player. He’s got good back-up.

Q: You’re better, though, right?

A: I would never ever get into a contest about that.

Q: But this is supposed to be a duel!

A: I don’t know whether it’d be a duel. We may just make it into something where there are no winners and no losers and do it for charity. We’ll see.

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Forget Tory prattle about mergers; let us pay heed rather to Willie Shakespeare.

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

The result – A New Government

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Kudos to RobSilver for laying out this stunning snippet of information gleaned from the bowels of the latest Angus Reid poll on coalitioning:

When the results are compared to voting intent, "merging" the Liberals and NDP is supported by a majority of Liberals (54 per cent), materially more popular than among NDP supporters (40 per cent support) (to put this number in perspective, when Angus Reid last asked about such a scenario in October of 2009, they got 43 per cent of Liberals in favour, and 50 per cent opposed); an even larger majority of Liberals (57 per cent) are in favour of "strategic candidate support" between the NDP and Liberals (compared to 44 per cent support amongst NDP supporters). Both parties are equally enthusiastic about a "shared power" scenario (72 per cent LIB, 70 per cent NDP).

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Lest people rush to judgment about what can or cannot happen in Canada, let me quote details about the actual Canadian version of a Cameron-Clegg model of a working partnership that happened (and was legal!):

Some important elements within my own caucus and wider party were dead set against any coalition with either the Liberals or the Conservatives.  The NDP would lose its purity and its principles, the argument went,  and would do better to vote on a case by case basis in the House, leaving the Tories to govern.

LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Here is one example of sloppy coalition talk (inexactness, lack of precision in the use of the correct terms, blurring different events into one through vagueness of articulation) from Scott Reid in the Globe & Mail:

Who would suggest the party should now sacrifice its identity in the face of an opponent who has three times proven unable to secure a majority mandate? A Prime Minister who has rarely been able to rally more than 34 per cent of public opinion to his side?

And here's another one, from Steve Janke in Angry in the Great White North:
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

A very interesting analysis by Angus Reid in their May 31 poll of voters' intentions should the Liberal Party and the NDP enter into a formal coalition.

Angus Reid are to be congratulated for departing from the usual Who Ya Gonna Vote For? analysis by exploring the attraction of a coalition under the leadership of one of three men: Ignatieff, Rae and Layton.

Before we dive into the results, a few cautions.

The poll results we have from Angus Reid do not show that voters were asked supplementary questions, which could well have influenced the preferences of respondents.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

I've looked at the polls for the past 12 plus months, the current seats held in Parliament, threehundredeight's forecasted seats based on more recent polls, considered the calculus of coalitions under Canadian law and the attitudes towards coalitions expressed by leaders of the various parties, and having made several deductions, have come to some conclusions.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Breaking News: Bob Rae drops out of Liberal leadership race

Michael Ignatieff will now officially be the leader of the Liberal party by caucus vote. It is highly likely that this will be ratified in May with something closer to a leadership review. This of course puts the coalition in question.
-Darryl

***

How can anyone take Bob Rae seriously


"To take away your chance to choose the person who leads you… it just doesn’t seem right"
-Bob Rae

Update: One more post from Mr. Rae...

"All weekend, I'd been hearing rumors about this, but today I was really surprised to read press reports about various MPs moving for an immediate vote to elect our Leader next Wednesday, in the Commons caucus.

I thought I'd seen a lot of politics over 30 years of public service, but this one really came from left field.

The idea of taking away the vote from tens of thousands of grassroots activists in every part of Canada, and reducing the franchise to just 76 men and women seems so out-of-step with the modern world. It makes you shake your head."

***

I'm One of the 67,924 That Want a Say in the Liberal Leadership

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55698732400&ref=nf


A Message From Bob:

As you know, our Leader Mr. Dion is stepping down, and Mr. Leblanc is exiting the leadership race. I want to thank both of them for their contributions, past present and future.



In light of the opportunity to defeat the Harper government and replace it with a new government of national economic unity, it is clearly now time to bring the leadership selection process to an earlier resolution. We need our new permanent leader in place by the time the House returns to debate the Conservative budget on January 26th, 2009.



This obviously means we need a different selection process from the one that was put in place to lead us to a Convention in May. Press reports have some suggesting that the entire leadership process should be replaced with a single, secret vote to be held in a closed meeting of the 76 MPs, next week. I think this is the wrong thing for our Party.



The party Executive is working on a viable, timely, cost-effective and constitutional means of enabling a one-member-one-vote democratic leadership selection. This can be in place swiftly, and you can make your voice heard in the selection of your Leader. I believe that ordinary Liberal volunteers must have a direct say in choosing the new Leader. That’s the only way to go.



You are the volunteers who make this Party a living force in the life of our country. Without you, there is no Liberal Party. You give your time, your talent, your financial support, and ask for nothing in return except the chance to contribute. To take away your chance to choose the person who leads you… it just doesn’t seem right.



As well, there are real questions about representation that we need to keep in mind. A simple vote of the Commons caucus would leave significant portions of our country’s diversity silent in the selection of our Leader. Because our caucus is concentrated in major urban centres, almost no rural ridings would be represented. Literally two Liberals between North Bay, Ontario and Vancouver, BC would have a vote in the MPs-only process. Most of francophone Quebec outside of Montreal would go unheard from. Defeated candidates would be disenfranchised. So would the party executive that you have put in place. So would our youth, women and aboriginals – who are under-represented in the Commons caucus. So would our long-serving Senators, who have given so much for our Party. That doesn’t seem right either.



Finally, there’s the question of what this kind of vote would mean for our party’s ability to grow. We have a chance to welcome Canadians into our political family. We need more of them to join us – especially in the places where our support has been declining. I favour a 308 riding strategy, not a 76-person vote. I have spoken out for using our race as a chance to grow this party; a closed caucus vote would take it in the opposite direction.



Let’s urge everyone in a position to influence this to put a stop to this hasty, ill-considered idea before it goes any further. I urge you to contact your nearest Liberal Member of Parliament, and any of the following, to let them know how you feel about this attempt to take away your vote:



Party President Doug Ferguson: doug@liberal.ca



Commons Caucus Chair Anthony Rota: Rotaa@parl.gc.ca

We often use the rather clumsy centre-right or centre-left combinations to describe where the Liberal Party fits on the traditional left-right spectrum.

However, Bob Rae yesterday used the far better term “progressive centre”; methinks we should use that term in future for the LPC.

Not only will it be attractive to the former members of the Progressive Conservatives, still smarting over the rightwing takeover of their party by Harper’s neocons, but it also more accurately describes the positioning of the Liberal Party.

“Mr. Rae said he expects this leadership campaign to be very different from the one in 2006.
He said he anticipated much more discussion regarding the party's organization and internal issues, from how the leader's office should operate to how the Liberals raise money, recruit new members and reach out to the public - skills which the Conservatives have shown they possess in spades.

He also said he wants the party to hold a major policy conference after the leadership convention to examine Canada's foreign and economic policies and to rethink environmental issues in the wake of the disappointing public response to Mr. Dion's Green Shift policy.

Mr. Rae dismissed as simplistic the notion held by some Liberals that he would be working to strengthen the party on its left flank while Mr. Ignatieff would be working to shore up the right flank.

The Liberals are a party of the progressive centre, Mr. Rae said. Asked if that meant there was no ideological difference between him and Mr. Ignatieff, he said the major difference was in their adult life experience: Mr. Ignatieff had been a journalist and academic; Mr. Rae had been a politician.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081101.RAE01/TPStory/National

Bob Rae has formally announced the official reaction of the Liberal Party to the formation of the gerrymandered "non-partisan" Panel by Harper to review the role of Canada in Afghanistan.

Bob Rae's comments deserve careful scrutiny, as they form the basis for Liberal reaction to the Panel, and to actions to be taken in the next week and thereafter, by the Prime Minister.

Rae's comments on the Panel were not the open-ended "welcome" which some commentators have said they were, but rather a balanced and shrewd reaction.

He stressed two points, which the Liberals should hammer home every time they get a chance over the coming weeks and months:

One, IF (and this is a big IF, given Harper's attempt to limit the scope of the Panel's inquiry to only four half-baked options) the Panel leads to "open, public and thoughtful debate about the mission beyond 2009", then it is welcomed.

Note the use by Rae of the words "open", "public" and "thoughtful" as qualifiers. If the Panel simply veers off to closed hearings and a rightwing, foregone conclusion, then Rae's qualifications will not have been met, and the Liberals can reject the findings as biased and a sham. This will be an effective response to any attempt by Harper to pressurize the LPC into giving weight to the Panel's conclusions.

Two, Rae said nothing stops the parties in Parliament having an open debate about Afghanistan, despite the striking of the Panel, and this of course includes such a debate before the Panel delivers a report.

What this means, is that the Liberals have officially put Harper on notice that if he tries to deflect discussion of the Afghanistan issue in his Throne Speech or in an election, the Liberals, together with the Bloc and NDP, will exercise their parliamentary duty to debate the mission's course and future. So, the official stance of the Liberals is to reject Harper's attempt to bury the Afghanistan issue in the Panel.

Also, it is open to the three parties, in response to the Throne Speech, to call for a debate on Afghanistan, and to propose an amendment to the Throne Speech calling for a change in the Afghanistan mission, including a sunset date for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from that country, if certain agreed benchmarks are not met.

The benchmarks could include a proper review by NATO of the objectives of the West in Afghanistan. Rae called for this in his comments, as well.

It could also include a requirement that other NATO countries remove the restrictions they have placed on the use of their forces in Afghanistan, which restrictions have increased the risk that Canadian troops will die there.

Another benchmark might be for NATO troops to go into the region Canada is fighting in, to share some of the dangerous heavy lifting our troops are doing there. Note that Harper has tried to avoid this benchmark being discussed by the Panel, by limiting discussion to the 'replacement' of Canadian troops in that dangerous area, by other troops. This condition would, of course, limit the chances of this happening, and steer the Panel towards Harper's choice. However, a rotation of troops through all areas of Afghanistan, and mixed troops in all areas, are far more reasonable benchmarks, which Canada could legitimately require of NATO. Hopefully, Manley will act the maverick, and allow the Panel to 'openly, publicly and thoughtfully' discuss this option, rather than simply tucking their tails beneath their legs and only considering Harper's all-or-nothing option regarding where Canadian troops serve.

A further benchmark which MPs could lay down in a debate next week, would be a commitment by the USA of a much larger troop deployment in Afghanistan by the USA. A force some four to six times larger than the current US troops fighting there, would be my recommendation.

Finally, a benchmark could be the agreement to commit defined amounts, by the USA, Canada, and all NATO countries, ver the next 20 years, to the building of a decent society in Afghanistan.

Note that the MPs could add timelines for each benchmark, so that if they are not met by, say, June 30 2008, then Canada would be entitled to withdraw its troops or substantially reduce them, starting in late 2008.

The Bloc and the Liberals could cooperate on setting out such benchmarks, and invite the Prime Minister to join them. If Harper refuses, his bluff will be called, and his attempt to divert discussion to his loaded Panel will be seen as a pathetic gesture, too clever by half.

If Layton refuses to agree to the benchmarks, then he will have missed a chance to change substantially the role of Canada, and of NATO and the US, in that benighted country, and will be left uttering platitudes about immediate withdrawal, knowing that none of the other three parties are in agreement with him on that issue.

All told, Bob Rae's response to Harper is a well considered one, and allows the Bloc, NDP and Liberals to put their heads together this week, and introduce a debate in Parliament in response to the Throne Speech, and set out in amendments to the Throne Speech, and later in legislation, the benchmarks which must be met or else Canada will start withdrawing its troops.

This just in: Bob Rae favoured over Ignatieff in all provinces except Quebec!


"Canadian PressPublished: Thursday, November 30, 2006
Article tools
MONTREAL (CP) - A new national poll suggests Canadians of every federalist party persuasion believe that Bob Rae is a more electable option as Liberal leader than top rival Michael Ignatieff.
The Nov. 24-26 Decima Research survey found that Rae's perceived winnability topped Ignatieff's by a significant margin in every region of the country except Quebec. More than 1,000 respondents were asked by Decima to picture themselves as delegates to this weekend's leadership convention in Montreal

In a final-ballot showdown between front-runner Ignatieff and Rae, they were asked who they felt had the best chance to win for the Liberals in the next election.

Under this scenario, 37 per cent chose Rae and 25 per cent picked Ignatieff.

The results of the poll, which was distributed to The Canadian Press, are considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Decima CEO Bruce Anderson says the poll suggests Rae's winnability factor is perceived to be higher among all age groups, men and women, urban and rural voters, and everywhere but Quebec - where Ignatieff would get 36 per cent support and Rae 25 per cent.

Ignatieff also led in the poll among self-identified Bloc Quebecois voters.

© The Canadian Press 2006

The Cat loves cheese. This story is therefore appealing on more than one level.

Clotaire Rapaille, the professor of codes, delves into the early imprinting on people's minds, in order to find out why people prefer certain things over others later on in life. Scoffed at as a flake by some, this French intellectual turned marketing on its ear with his amazingly practical and actionable findings on all manner of things.

Take cheese. He was hired by a French company whose cheese was booming in France and a bust in America. He gathered his focus groups, delved into what cheese meant to them, going back to their earliest recollections, and found out one simple fact which revolutionized the way the French client marketed their cheese in the US. To the French, cheese is alive, and you do not put it in a fridge, just as you would not put a pet dog in the fridge. But to an American, cheese is dead, and it is best to put it in a bag and in the fridge. "I know that plastic is a body bag. You can put it in the fridge. I know the fridge is the morgue; that's where you put the dead bodies. And so once you know that, this is the way you market cheese in America." The thought of living cheese (shown in the French client's ads) horrified Americans. So the French client put the cheese in body bags (plastic) and sales took off in the US of A.

Then the professor turned to the US election to be, and predicted that George Bush would beat Al Gore. Why? Well first a few quotes from Rapaille to set the scene (from PBS.org Frontline interview):

"Once you understand the code, you understand why people do what they do. For example, the code for the French -- once you understand the code, you may understand why [French president Jacques] Chirac reacted this way to Bush, because for the French, the code is "to think." That's it: to think. "I think, therefore I am" -- not "I do," "I think." The French believe [that they are] the only thinkers of the world and that they think for the rest of the world. They believe that Americans never think; they just do things without knowing why. And so in this situation, where Bush say[s], "Let's do it," the French say, "No, wait, think; we need to think." Now, what you have to understand about the French culture is "to think" is enough. You don't need to do anything with your thinking. The French philosopher would say, "I think, therefore I am," where in America you have Nextel, this campaign, fantastic, "I do, therefore I am," not "I think." I think they're right on target with the American code."

And:

"You know, when we get this very first imprint, there is no need for interpretation. At a certain time, my clients and I do the analysis together. At a certain time, they go, "Wow -- oh, I knew it." The "wow" is when they discover the code. For the first time they get the code of coffee, [they] say, "Wow." Because they're American, they use the code all the time. They have the code in their mind, so of course they knew it."

And:

"It's a discovery, and once you get the code, suddenly everything starts making sense, and now we understand why the Americans behave like this. Now we understand why coffee this way works and coffee this way doesn't work. I understand why a small $29,000 Cadillac cannot sell. I understand why -- because it's off code."

Now, back to George Bush and Al Gore:

"Rapaille said that in the late 80's, Lee Atwater, then working for George Bush père, hired him to do an archetype study of the presidency. Though financing ran out before Rapaille could complete his work, he was able to gather useful material in the wordassociation sessions. Participants compared the chief executive to a "movie character"; they said he could "make people see things." From this, Rapaille was able to identify the core emotional nubbin. Fatherhood? Celebration? Nationalism? No, no. The presidency is: "cheap entertainment." "What does he make, $200,000 a year?" Rapaille asked. "That's a lot cheaper than Oprah." This code is a problem for the two probable presidential nominees. "Gore is boring," Rapaille said. "This is a real problem. Bush is not very intelligent. But then, who cares? Americans have never been impressed by intellectuals." So Bush's mediocre mind is not nearly the handicap that Gore's leaden personality is. Rapaille gives Bush the edge, but neither one of them interests him much. He openly pines for Bill Clinton the icon (not the politician). Mistakes weren't Clinton's only asset. America's code, according to Rapaille, is built around "hope." That's why Clinton's slogan in 1992 "was simply brilliant," Rapaille said." (From The New York Times Magazine article Does the Smell of Coffee Brewing Remind You of Your Mother, by Jack Hitt, May 7, 2000).

Where does that leave Bob Rae versus Stephen Harper? Clearly Rae is closer to Bush while Harper is closer to Gore in the above comparison.

So the only remaining question is: Are Canadians like Americans in that they see politics as entertainment? If they do, Bob Rae is a shoo-in, and Harper can start going through the yellow pages looking for a mover ...

Your thoughts?

A key factor for Liberal delegates in the second ballot is this question: Will he win the next election?

The number of delegates chosen for the convention is one indication of possible success on the hustings.

However, polls of Liberal members and voters in general are another, and here Bob Rae is leading the pack as the most favoured leader for the Liberals.

An interesting analysis of the delegate selections has been made by democraticspace at their website. They analysed the ridings based on past elections, and narrowed them down to the 163 ridings where the Liberals came within 15% of the total votes cast in the last election (up by 15% or down by 15%), and named these the "battleground ridings".

A quote from their site: "Thus, barring a shift of greater than 15 points in the polls (which appears unlikely in the near future), this suggests that the Liberals could win a maximum of 163 ridings (50 safe ridings, 50 that the Liberals won by 15% or less and 63 that the Liberals lost by 15% or less). So, while a leadership candidate may be popular in Alberta or rural Quebec, there is little chance that popularity will translate into electoral success in those ridings in the near future (since the Liberals lost these ridings by an average of 40 points). A candidate?s popularity in the 163 winnable ridings, by contrast, could make the difference between whether the Conservatives or Liberals win the next election."

And the results?

- Ignatieff's delegate share drops 9% to 26.1%.

- Rae's share goes up 2.7% to 21.4%.

- Kennedy picks up a whopping 7.7% to reach 20.5%, beating out Dion, who drops 8% (almost as much as Ignatieff), to end up with 13.5%.

Another indication that this race is far from over, with Bob Rae an very strong contender, hot on the heels of the stumbling Ignatieff-mobile, and Kennedy still in the running.