Who will be the next Liberal leader?

[bizorky]

Re: question...

He is correct in a sense that the cycle has started. But so too has he started the cycle of typical reaction among English Canada.

You presume that Quebec is a monolithic unicultural francophone community of like-minded individuals. I was born in Montreal and I am not of francophone origins. It might come as a surprise, but there are over a million others in the same category. How do they fit into this Quebec "nation?" Do they matter? Does their history matter? Are they not actually representative of a Quebec that resembles the rest of the country? If so, then why does Quebec deserve a special status of nationhood? History? Doesn't every province, territory or people have their own unique history?

Words are supposed to have meanings so that they can have uses. Kinsella's point is that separatists will find a use for the word that serves their interests. Nationhood is a powerful concept, regardless of how meaningless people want it to be.

There are three propositions floating around: Iggy's "Quebec as a nation," which identifies the province as a whole, but actually is a cloaked attempt to recognize only francophones in Quebec who are presumed to all have nationalist beliefs of some sort. There is Harper's "Quebecois as a nation" which is a cloaked attempt to recognize francophones who identify themselves with the history of french-speaking Quebecois in Canada; those who presumably can trace a history back to New France. Then there is a move on to recognize "French-speaking Canadians" as a nation because the other two propositions fail to recognize any francophone communities outside of Quebec. Of course, "French-speaking Canadians" is a rather wide net, and would have to include french-speaking Haitians, Algerians and other cultural/ethnic groups who happen to share a common language with Quebecois. This starts to create specific cultural and ethnic divides in Canada that go beyond language, and will have an impact on the country as a whole.

Bad ideas can spread like a virus if repeated enough times.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: question...

You presume that Quebec is a monolithic unicultural francophone community of like-minded individuals. I was born in Montreal and I am not of francophone origins. It might come as a surprise, but there are over a million others in the same category.

Really? I never knew that. I just assumed that all those people in Montreal, the Eastern Townships and the Gatineau regions were just tourists who were staying for extended periods of time and in hotels that were designed to look like everyday homes.

Words are supposed to have meanings so that they can have uses. Kinsella's point is that separatists will find a use for the word that serves their interests. Nationhood is a powerful concept, regardless of how meaningless people want it to be.

Isn't that what politics is about though, capitalizing on opportunities when your opponent slips? If the proposal was defeated then an argument could made that seperatists will use that defeat to further show that English Canada does not care about their interests. If the Conservatives dealt with the 'fiscal imbalance' in Quebec, Kinsella could argue that seperatists will use this to further there cause just as he could argue that by not addressing fiscal imbalance the seperatists will argue that Quebec is once again being ignored. He could also argue that Liberals will use this decleration to further their agenda federalist ambitions, or the Conservatives could exploit it to show that they are not heartless kitten eaters and they do have a 'socially minded' side to them.

Kinsella could have suggested a number of other outcomes as well. But instead he took the path most travelled by English journalists and writers and simply assumed that this will lead to nothing good and that once again those seperatists are just going to take anything they can get and run with it. That leads into my next point.

Bad ideas can spread like a virus if repeated enough times.

I agree. I am not saying I fully agree with the idea of Quebec becoming an independent nation-state. Just as you have talked about, there is a lot of ambiguity in the debate and the more one learns about it, the more one also realizes that it is complex, confusing and by no means something that is going to be solved through simple political rhetoric. But my point was never to defend or criticize one specific position on that subject.

What I was saying, and will repeat is that the attitude expressed by English Canada, both through personal discussions and as written and spoken in the media, is one of ignorrance and arrogance. Micheal Ignatieff offered his opinion on the subject of Quebec, one which does not fit the mold of the current federal structure, and he is attacked by most every media source and condemed for daring to bring up the issue. Harper puts forward a resolution that includes "nation" and "Quebec" in the same sentence and suddenly the worry is that this is only going to reinvigorate the seperatist movement.

So if as you said, bad ideas can spread if repeated enough times, what about happens when ideas are simply ignored enough times? If every person in English Canada who suggests an idea that is contrary to the current federalist structure that is in place is shouted down and cast to the side, is that situation any better?

Maybe Kinsella is right and seperatists will exploit this in everyway possible. And maybe federalist parties like the Liberals will use this opportunity to push any debate and discussion on the topic as far away from the public as possible and try to put this issue back into to the closet so it can be ignored even longer. While they are at maybe they can use the Conservatives cancellation of the Kelowna Accord to push back aboriginal issues another decade and ignore that problem too. Maybe, if everyone wishes hard enough, everyone will just be quiet about the whole affair and it will be like the problem does not exist.

 

[bizorky]

Re: question...

Isn't that what politics is about though, capitalizing on opportunities when your opponent slips? If the proposal was defeated then an argument could made that seperatists will use that defeat to further show that English Canada does not care about their interests.

As for politics, this will be viewed as a short-term solution with long-term negative results. The seperatists will, themselves, work this one to defeat as they want seperation on their terms. They will push for the maximum of their aims, not the aims of parliament. Offering an empty vessel is an invitation for someone to fill it with whatever they want, regardless whether you agree or not. This is the opportunity that seperatists will take. They ARE a nation now; there is no longer a debate about it, according to them. All they have to do is define what that means. After all, it is theirs to define - they are the nation. Any opposition to these definitions will only be seen by seperatists as an attempt to thwart their nationality.

What I was saying, and will repeat is that the attitude expressed by English Canada, both through personal discussions and as written and spoken in the media, is one of ignorrance and arrogance.

As I pointed out, Quebec is not a monolithic population, nor is "English" Canada. Presenting the country in such a way is simply wrong. Everyone outside of Quebec does not think the same way. It is nothing more than a political stance designed to generate differences and opposition. It also presumes that francophones in Quebec think as one, which is not true either. So who exactly is being satisfied by this debate?

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: question...

As for politics, this will be viewed as a short-term solution with long-term negative results. The seperatists will, themselves, work this one to defeat as they want seperation on their terms. They will push for the maximum of their aims, not the aims of parliament. Offering an empty vessel is an invitation for someone to fill it with whatever they want, regardless whether you agree or not. This is the opportunity that seperatists will take. They ARE a nation now; there is no longer a debate about it, according to them. All they have to do is define what that means. After all, it is theirs to define - they are the nation. Any opposition to these definitions will only be seen by seperatists as an attempt to thwart their nationality.

So then if this resolution is such a dangerous one, why does the author not attack the Conservatives for putting this forward? After all, it was Harper who decided to put forward this contentious topic to the House of Commons and turn an ambiguous resolution by the Bloc into an ambiguous resolution by the Conservatives. The author did not do that. Instead he simply jumped into talking about how this has fired up nationalists once again and stage is set another 1995 or 1970 if things really go badly.

It is no different than if a Quebec nationalist wrote a piece which instead of addressing the issue with some intelligence launched into an attack about how the Federal government will now use this to avoid any real discussions and solutions to the issues that both nationalists and non-nationalists in Quebec by saying it recognized Quebec as a nation and be happy with what you got.

As I pointed out, Quebec is not a monolithic population, nor is "English" Canada. Presenting the country in such a way is simply wrong. Everyone outside of Quebec does not think the same way. It is nothing more than a political stance designed to generate differences and opposition. It also presumes that francophones in Quebec think as one, which is not true either. So who exactly is being satisfied by this debate?

Nobody is being satisfied if the debate doesn't actually take place. There could have been discussions and commitees in parliment that could have further discussed the ambiguities of this resolution. That did not happen. There could be discussion in the media. That really is not happening. All that seems to be taking place is an effort to rush this whole resolution so that it can go away as soon as possible. So to say a debate is taking place really is not the case.

And you are right to say that English Canada and French Canada are not simply two monolithic cultures that together form the entire political opinions of Canada. There are federalists in Quebec. There are English Canadians, such as Ignatieff who see Quebec as a nation unto itself. The are aborginal nationalists. Some people believe in a billingual country, others, one based on dualism. There are Canadian nationalists who resist integration with the United States, and their continentalist counterparts.

So who would be satisfied by a proper debate, should one take place? Everyone. Perhaps if more people like Ignatieff started to express opinions and attempt to open a dialouge then there could be some resolution. And why shouldn't it be taking place now? Unemployment is done. The economy is doing well. It is a time of relative peace. Canada has probably never been wealthier than it has right now. There are no major political rumblings from the left or the right that are going to upset the political system. And even in the past 4 or 5 days since this was all brought forward, nothing bad has happened. The economy didnt collapse, parliment wasn't defeated, no one took to the street in protest. Yes lots of people and media outlets are discussing it but by and large life went on as it always does. So why shouldn't a debate be taking place right now? Politicians always like to say that 'now is not the time', but would 'now' not seem to be an ideal time? It seems a far better time than when the country is watching another referendum or when a new nationalist movement in Quebec is creating political chaos, or even engaging in terrorism.

 

[screenplaying]

Re: question...

A little behind the scenes info on Bob Rae...

Bob Rae's Secret Life

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Re: question...

I'd say I'm 72.5 to 81.7% sure that Bob Rae is going to be the next Liberal leader. I also believe that the majority of Ontarians will vote for him, having either forgotten, forgiven Rae.

 

[bizorky]

Re: question...

Nobody is being satisfied if the debate doesn't actually take place.

What is the "satisfaction" that is being sought out? I think the negative reaction suggests that there are a number of people disatisfied by this debate - and for a myriad of reasons. This would include a number of indigenous groups within Quebec who saw the federal government getting out of contentious land claims negotiations within Quebec by nationalizing that province/people/linguistic group. There are a number of things related to this issue that are not being covered by the press or vocalized in parliament.

So who would be satisfied by a proper debate, should one take place? Everyone. Perhaps if more people like Ignatieff started to express opinions and attempt to open a dialouge then there could be some
resolution. And why shouldn't it be taking place now?

Two questions: first of all, why have this debate? The reason why this issue is on the agenda is because two political parties are vying for votes in Quebec from soft nationalists. That is the reason why this debate is going on.

Second question: how do you know everyone will be satisfied by having this debate? Pick up the newspapers, read the blogs, listen to the news hacks; there is no universal satisfaction for this notion. Not even the BQ could quite figure out whether they liked it or not. So do tell, how exactly did you come up with this conclusion that everyone is satisfied by this debate?

By the way, Iggy does not particularly open debates. Speak with him for a few minutes and you will see that he runs his own debates with himself. His strategy with this whole nation issue was to acquire votes in Quebec (he'll never admit to this, but just look at his straining efforts to take responsibility for the parliamentary proclomation). His approach was based on a misunderstanding of Quebec. He could not get by his "volk" impressions of the population of that province, and did not quite grasp that it is not a singular ethnic/cultural entity. In short, he failed to define what he was attempting to define. He provided a powerful word, yet provided no meanings or measures that could be related to its use within the Quebec context. He offered an empty vessel, a word that seperatists will be happy to fill with their own meanings down the road.

As for Harper, his notion is no better, but he did illustrate that he is politician with a better grasp of tactics in the short term than Iggy. His recognition of Quebecois no longer recognizes geography per se, but the more nebulous definitions of a self-identified people. Alas, it falls into this notion of "volk" or traditional people, or blood, or history, or whatever a member of the self-identified group might want to use as a means to provide themselves with membership to it, and exclusion of others. What is questionable is that within Quebec, it is (and has been) an exclusionary concept. It leaves plenty of people out, and those left out are a minority. What of them? They are not part of the nation, and they may even be viewed as a threat to that nation, like the money and the ethnics were, according to Parizeau. Then again, nobody has had a debate over who a "Quebecois" really is.

This debate goes a long way to undermining multiculturalism, and the irony for the Liberal party is that it undermines some of the renewal principles that it would be tabled at its convention - one being to recognize "diversity" as a central character of Canada and its population. This recognition would continue to recognize categories like ethnic or cultural origins, but go beyond in recognizing that such self-identifying memberships are a choice made by individuals. It would recognize that as individual beings, we are all quite diverse, and how we choose to identify ourselves is bounded by our choices as individuals, and not be the product of outside impositions on how important/unimportant any type of membership is.

It seems Iggy et al. are all painfully unaware of this far more progressive notion of what Canada is.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: question...

Second question: how do you know everyone will be satisfied by having this debate? Pick up the newspapers, read the blogs, listen to the news hacks; there is no universal satisfaction for this notion. Not even the BQ could quite figure out whether they liked it or not. So do tell, how exactly did you come up with this conclusion that everyone is satisfied by this debate?

I have to say that I have come to see that you are probably correct. That discussion or resolution of this issue is unimportant to most people. Personally, I see that as unfortunate, and even a little dangerous, but, being in what appears to be a very small minority, I won't waste my breath anymore.

 

[adma]

Re: question...

Can't wait 'til Howard Dean speaks...

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Rick Mercer was classic last week....

Howard Dean, because Bono's in China and Clinton said no.

 

[bizorky]

Ottawa, Charest at odds on Québécois meaning


CAMPBELL CLARK
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

MONTREAL — The thorny issue of defining just who is Québécois continued to embroil the main political parties Tuesday, with Quebec Premier Jean Charest asserting that everyone who lives in Quebec, including aboriginals, is part of the Québécois nation.

But for Liberal delegates at this week's leadership convention in Montreal, debate on the issue will almost certainly be shelved. Delegates are being asked to change convention rules so they can abandon discussion of the policy resolution calling for Quebec to be recognized as a “nation within Canada.â€

The resolution had threatened to become a divisive flashpoint at the convention — before Parliament passed a similar motion on Monday.

That motion, which recognized the “Québécois†as a nation, was passed with a heavy majority in the Commons. Since then, however, politicians of all stripes have been weighing in on what they think it means.

Mr. Harper's senior Quebec minister, Lawrence Cannon, said Monday the nation is not all Quebeckers, and suggested it includes only francophones. On the other hand, the government's Senate leader, Marjory LeBreton, said “nation†does include all Quebeckers.

In Quebec City, however, Mr. Charest said no one should have any doubt about who is in the Québécois nation.

“Let's not stumble over what it means when we talk about the Quebec nation. We are talking about every citizen regardless of their origins. We are also talking about the First Nations as well as the Inuit,†he said in Quebec's National Assembly.

“This definition of nation is inclusive. It doesn't seek to exclude anyone. ... And in no way does it contradict our Canadian identity.â€

Mr. Charest tabled a motion Tuesday stating that the National Assembly was “delighted by this significant gesture,†insisting that it “represented an important progress for Quebec.â€

The Quebec Premier has argued that recognizing Quebec as a nation could eventually influence how the Supreme Court interprets Quebec laws. The province has a different approach than the federal government on a number of important issues, from the way Quebec treats its young offenders to its claim over offshore drilling rights in the St. Lawrence River. Mr. Charest suggested that he could use his newfound status to argue his case before the courts.

On Monday, federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong quit Mr. Harper's cabinet over the Québécois resolution, complaining that it recognized an ethnic nationalism he cannot support.

Tuesday, all three provincial party leaders in Quebec said they reject the notion of ethnic nationalism in Quebec, and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe peppered Mr. Cannon in the Commons for saying it does not include all Quebeckers. He drew an unclear response from Mr. Cannon.

“It's an inclusive definition that takes in all of the Québécois who live in the Québécois territory,†Mr. Cannon said.

A poll aired on the TVA network found that in Quebec, 64 per cent of respondents said they considered the Québécois a nation, compared with only 15 per cent in the rest of Canada, according to the survey by Léger Marketing.

The House of Commons motion, adopted on Monday, has spread confusion because the French version also refers to Québécois, which translates as “Quebecker†— a broader definition that means anyone who lives in Quebec.

“No wonder there's confusion — outside of Quebec, they're reading the English version,†said Antonia Maioni, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. “It's an unfortunate use of words in English. Something got lost in translation.â€

Daniel Weinstock, a professor of political philosophy at the University of Montreal, said the term Québécois carries the suggestion of “ethnic lineage.â€

“If you want to refer to the whole of society, you say Quebecker, not Québécois,†he said, adding that Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the choice deliberately to avoid the politically explosive step of recognizing a distinct nation within Canada.

“When one chooses Québécois rather than the easily available Quebecker, it's for a reason,†he said. “But this is a clear case of a politician believing it can control the genie he's let out of the bottle, and he can't.â€

The distinction may be a semantic debate, and legal scholars have said that a Commons resolution has no legal or constitutional impact. But it raises an echo from the late-1990s debate over whether Quebec could be partitioned if it separates, with part of its territory remaining in Canada: Sovereigntists argued that under international law, nations have the right to self-determination, and territorial integrity — so Quebec could not be divided.

After weeks of talks with leadership-campaign strategists anxious to avoid a nasty and unpredictable battle between delegates, the two sponsors of the original Liberal motion, Marc Belanger and William Hogg, said they will withdraw the motion on the convention's first working day Wednesday.

The move glosses over divisions within the Liberal Party: Three leadership candidates, including third-place contender Gerard Kennedy, opposed the government motion to recognize Quebeckers as a nation, and 15 Liberal MPs also broke ranks with their party.

The proposal sparked a backlash outside Quebec against front-runner Michael Ignatieff, the only major contender to wholeheartedly endorse the resolution. “Delegates came forward with this initiative, it was one of the forces sparking a very, I think, positive resolution in the House of Commons last night. I don't think anyone's climbed down,†Mr. Ignatieff said.

Rival Bob Rae, who enters the convention in second place, said he did not want to debate the definition of the Québécois nation — and reminded people he didn't bring it up.

Last night, rival candidate Stéphane Dion said the Commons motion does not end the debate in Canada because some will continue to argue the Quebec nation should exist outside Canada.

With reports from Rheal Seguin, Ingrid Peritz, Jeff Sallot, Bill Curry and Brian Laghi

--------------

And so the crap continues. Hope Iggy et al. are happy.

Idiots.

 

[ganjavih]

^ This is why Quebec remains such a basketcase... this is the bullshit people spend their time debating.

 

[billonlogan]

The Globe & Mail
November 30, 2006

THE LIBERAL RACE
NOW, THE ENDGAME

With eight candidates, including four real contenders, there are more paths to victory at this week's Liberal leadership convention than at any time since Pierre Trudeau was chosen in 1968, CAMPBELL CLARK reports. A new Strategic Counsel poll shows 44 per cent of delegates have not yet picked a second choice, meaning the dynamics on the convention floor will be key to determining the winner. Strategists have been hashing out dozens of 'game theory' scenarios for months. Here are two routes to victory for each of the four major contenders.

How DION can win

The leapfrog

Stéphane Dion's best hope is leaping over one rival per ballot.

In fourth, but just a few votes behind Mr. Kennedy, he gets the endorsement of some of the bottom four candidates, helping him pass Mr. Kennedy on the second ballot. (It's also possible that one of the bottom four, seeking to help Mr. Dion, stays in for the second ballot to give him an extra round to emerge as the favourite second-choice candidate.) After Mr. Kennedy drops out, he endorses Mr. Dion, propelling him past Mr. Rae. Then Mr. Rae also backs him, leading him to victory.


The front-runner's fall

When the first ballot results are announced late Friday night, delegates learn that Mr. Ignatieff has done poorly, falling significantly short of the 30-per-cent mark. Even the front-runner's delegates start to think he cannot win. In the corridors of Montreal hotels, the arm-twisting by campaigns reveals that some of the bottom four candidates are moving to Mr. Rae, and some to Mr. Dion.

Mr. Ignatieff's supporters start to think primarily about stopping Mr. Rae from winning, and slide to Mr. Dion. With Mr. Ignatieff slipping and Mr. Dion rising, delegates who already see Mr. Dion as their preferred second choice start moving in his direction. After the third ballot, Mr. Kennedy backs Mr. Dion, Mr. Ignatieff's camp stampedes in that direction -- and Mr. Dion beats out Mr. Rae on the final ballot.

How IGNATIEFF can win

The cruise

After he took a 10-percentage-point lead in the election of convention delegates two months ago, many thought he could win simply by picking up the biggest share of the other candidates' delegates as they fell off the ballot. To cruise to victory now, Michael Ignatieff would have to do better than expected on the first ballot -- getting 35 per cent of the vote or more -- which would require a good turnout by his supporters and stronger-than-expected backing from party officials known as "ex-officio" delegates.

In this scenario, few of Mr. Ignatieff's delegates switch camps after the first ballot and Mr. Ignatieff picks up the support of one or two of the bottom four candidates: Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison is viewed as the most likely. A third of the delegates supporting the other bottom-tier candidates -- Joe Volpe, Ken Dryden and Martha Hall Findlay -- would also have to switch to Mr. Ignatieff, taking him over the 40-per-cent mark on the second ballot.

From there, organizers and delegates smell a winner and jump on a bandwagon.

The delegate split

A more likely path is gradual gains that keep him one step ahead of his nearest rival. In this case, Mr. Ignatieff finishes the first ballot just ahead of where he ranked in delegates elections, with 31- or 32-per-cent support. None of the bottom four back him, but he wins about a third of their delegates as they drop off after the first or second ballots -- giving him 36- or 37-per-cent support.

After that, the top three contenders drop off the ballot one by one, but Mr. Rae also suffers slow growth and no one emerges as the clear choice of delegates who oppose Mr. Ignatieff. When Mr. Dion and Mr. Kennedy fall off the ballot, their delegates split, but Mr. Dion's Quebec delegates lean more to Mr. Ignatieff, and some of Mr. Kennedy's Ontario Liberals eschew Mr. Rae. The result is that Mr. Ignatieff picks up more than a third of each rival's delegates -- just enough to beat Bob Rae to 50 per cent on the fourth or fifth ballot.

How KENNEDY can win

The rallying cry

Gerard Kennedy's stand against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's resolution recognizing the Québécois as a nation makes him the standard-bearer for Liberal delegates who oppose it. It keeps him solidly ahead of Mr. Dion on the first ballot, and he gains the support of some bottom four candidates, such as Mr. Dryden, who say he took a principled stand.

Supporters of the other trailing candidates flock to him for second ballot, as do some of Mr. Ignatieff's delegates who are uncomfortable with their candidate's position on the issue. That pushes Mr. Kennedy past Mr. Rae on the second ballot -- while Mr. Dion falls off and endorses Mr. Kennedy. With the momentum clear, Mr. Rae's support crumbles, and after the third ballot, he also backs Mr. Kennedy, boosting him over Mr. Ignatieff on the final ballot.

The deadlock

Both Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Rae fail to exceed expectations on the first ballot and their delegates are locked in a bitter rivalry on the convention floor. Although Mr. Kennedy is solidly in third, one or more of the bottom four candidates decides to stay in the vote for the second ballot, hoping to give Mr. Dion a chance to pass him.

Instead, the supporters of trailing candidates move to both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Dion, and some backing the two stalling front leaders start to slip away, too, worried that either would lead a divided party. As the ballots pass, Mr. Kennedy challenges for second place and Mr. Dion drops off. Mr. Dion's delegates split, but his endorsement puts Mr. Kennedy in second on the next tally, and Mr. Rae eventually joins Mr. Kennedy to push him past Mr. Ignatieff on the final ballot.

How RAE can win

The ABI tide

Bob Rae's easiest path to victory would be a strong anybody-but-Ignatieff (ABI) movement that quickly coalesces behind him. On Friday night, even before first-ballot voting is over, some of the bottom four candidates -- Ms. Hall Findlay, Mr. Volpe, or in Mr. Rae's best dreams, Mr. Dryden -- announce in their speeches that they intend to back Mr. Rae on the second ballot. When the first-ballot results are released, Mr. Ignatieff has stalled at or below the 30 per cent he won in delegate elections two months ago, and Mr. Rae has done better than expected through a high turnout of his supporters and the backing of ex-officios.

In the second ballot, all four bottom candidates back Mr. Rae. Mr. Kennedy remains solidly in third, ahead of Mr. Dion, whom the Rae camp sees as a rival for the ABI vote because he has support from Quebec, Liberal credentials, and is a popular second choice across many camps. But when Mr. Dion drops off after the second ballot, he backs Mr. Rae, and the quarter of delegates who say they will never support Mr. Ignatieff stampede to Mr. Rae.

The free-for-all

Before the second ballot, delegates who are nervous about Mr. Ignatieff's political judgment and gaffes on the campaign trail disperse to other candidates. Those uncomfortable with his stand on Quebec as a nation shift to Mr. Kennedy, in particular. That puts Mr. Kennedy firmly ahead of Mr. Dion, who loses a few Quebec delegates to Mr. Ignatieff.

At the same time, Mr. Rae picks up the support of bottom-tier candidates like Ms. Hall Findlay and Mr. Volpe, gaining ground on a slow-moving Mr. Ignatieff. Mr. Dion drops out after the second ballot; some of his Quebec delegates go to Mr. Ignatieff, but more move to Mr. Rae. Now, the delegates who moved to Mr. Kennedy because they oppose recognizing the Québécois as a nation harden against Mr. Ignatieff, and shift to Mr. Rae as the best hope of defeating him. After the third ballot, Mr. Kennedy also backs Mr. Rae, giving him enough of a boost to slip past Mr. Ignatieff on the fourth ballot.
---------------------------------------

I'm suspecting Iggy and Rae camps do not want Dion on the second or third ballot. A Iggy delegate friend of mine has been asked to vote for Kennedy on the second ballot. There are rumours some Rae supporters have been asked to do the same. I would not be surprised there is some behind the scenes maneuvering to eliminate Dion early and fast.

 

[bizorky]

^There are loads of Iggy delegates who plan to vote for someone else on the second ballot. Many are far more open about the fact that they won't vote for the Harvard man on round two than they are about who they will go for at that point.

There's actually some drama with the otherwise snoozy Liberals. Even the fact that the party executive is trying to bury the renewal process is fascinating. One delagate who chaired the renewal of environmental policy went so far as to hand over the document to the press in Montreal. That way it could not be swept under the rug and replaced with some typical slogans and pablum. That move apparently pissed off some executive-types. Too bad the other reports have not been aired. It would be interesting to see whether there is any actual positive response to these renewal efforts.

 

[samplain]

the Liberal party is democracy at its best. We saw how only the Liberal party had a free vote for the Quebec Nation motion while the other parties voted as a bloc.

I'm quite confident that the democratic process will choose the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.