Talk:2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 1

Gerard Kennedy Again

Sorry, but I had to edit the page. Nobody knows if Kennedy is running or not. He is very high profile. Whenever he makes his decision, it WILL NOT be with a lone CTV interviewer who cast a spin on one little comment. When he makes a decision, there will be a press conference. Kennedy is still in the running, folks. That's a fact.

Fair enough if you have some sort of source. But the blog link that you added only says the not running part. --JGGardiner 07:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit as a direct link to an article is more credible than a blog and as there is no actual source supporting the claim he's still thinking about it. Homey 13:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ruby Dhalla

Someone can add Ruby Dhalla to the list http://thedanreport.blogspot.com/2006/02/ruby-dhalla-considers-run-at.html

We don't add people based on blog reports. I have however added Dhalla per her mention in the Globe and Mail [1] - Jord 15:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gerard Kennedy

The same blog that floated his name is now saying his is not a candidate, please do not re-add him to the list link saying he'll run, link saying he won't. Even if that were not the case, I do not believe we should add people that have only been mentioned on a blog. If that were the case, we would have to add Clyde Wells and Paul Hellyer. - Jord 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken Dryden

Will not be runnings for the leadership for the simple reason that he can not speak French although he is currently enrolled in a course to learn French. I believe Dryden indicated that he will not run for the leadership at his election day party when Martin resigned. I haven't found anything in the media confirming this though.--69.156.148.99 21:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not speaking French is not enough reason to rule him out, also on the list that can't speak French are: Fry, McLellan and Stronach. There are several sources that say he may run, unless you can provide a more recent one that says he is not then he should stay on the list - Jord 21:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As things stand right now, there are no clearly declared candidates at all; all we have is media speculation on who might be a candidate. It would constitute original research to make assumptions about who will or won't be a candidate until they speak out for themselves. Dryden stays on the list until he makes a clear statement about his intentions. Bearcat 10:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank McKenna's association with Martin

I'd argue that Frank McKenna is closely associated with Martin. - User:24.78.106.131

What is the basis for your argument? He did not publicly support Martin for leader until John Manley withdrew from the race, he was a close confidante of Jean Chretien and was asked by Chretien to run in 2000 - in fact the deal that McKenna turned down is what was offered to and accepted by Brian Tobin. How does that make him more closely associated with Martin than Chretien? In any event, this is moot because McKenna is due to announce today that he will not be a candidate. - Jord 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A date hasn't been announced

I'm uncomfortable with having this article state for certain (both in text and in title) that the convention will be held in 2006 when it might not happen until 2007. Unless I missed something, no date has been set. Is there anyway of renaming this article in the interim until a date is announced? 23skidoo 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more neutral to title the article "Leadership campaign 2006" as that will obviously occur over the course of this year. Also, the article is more about the campaign than the convention itself, which will be restricted to a four day period at some point in the future.

"Post 2006 Election, Liberal Party of Canada Leadership Convention" We can rename it when a date is nailed down. On the other hand, there's not much reason it can't float with this title until things are nailed down either. --Otter Escaping North 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest changing the intro and making Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2007 a redirect. It cannot be any later than March 2007 (two years from the date of the last Liberal convention) but it also cannot be any later than the date of Martin's resignation (he hasn't technically resigned yet - but this will likely be in February) so the odds are it will be in 2006. - Jord 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The National Executive has 12 months from the date of Martin's resignation in which to call a convention. As you correctly point out, he has not yet formally resigned. A resignation tomorrow would still leave until February 1, 2007. He may also hold off formally resigning until closer to the actual return of Parliament to allow them more time to put together a convention. With McKenna's withdrawal from the race, there is no clear front-runner, and they will want to ensure all candidates have sufficient time to organize and campaign. We also have to remember that the Liberal Party has a history of disregarding the constitutional requirements concerning timing of conventions (see 2003 convention, almost 4 years after the previous one in March 2000). Also, all media reports going into tomorrow's caucus meeting suggest it will be March 2007. - User:192.197.82.203

Having a convention in late 2006 is hardly "rushing it" but the article has been renamed to reflect that it could be in 2006 or 2007. In terms of the Liberal "history of disregarding the constitutional requirements concerning timing of conventions", you are missing the facts. Their constitution used to have no provision for the timing of conventions; because of the large gaps between these times, the constitution was amended in March 2005 to resolve this. - Jord 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not missing any facts. The two-year requirement has been in the Constitution of the Liberal Party for some time (at least as far back as the 90s). You suggest that it was only implemented at the 2005 convention, but the copy of the Constitution on the Liberal website (which indicates it was as of the 2003 convention) contains it.

The old constitution said that there would be biennial conventions (i.e. every to years) but did not explicitly state what that meant, i.e. two calendar years which could be 35 months if it was Jan. 2000 to Dec. 2002, etc, etc and the only stipulation was that the executive would set the date. The constitution as amended at the 2005 convention says that there must be at least every 24 months. - Jord 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That isn't exactly true. What the amendment did was to create a mechanism for 7 provincial associations representing 50% of the population to force a convention call if the National Executive does not do so. It is not obligatory (ie. it still requires some sort of positive action), and if the provincial associations were complicit, as they were in 2003, a convention would not be called. As to the ambiguity prior to this amendment, while the previous section 16(3) did not explicitly define two years, it was explicit that a convention "shall" be called "no later" than every two years. Irrespective of the lack of definition for two years, there is no definition for "two years" that would include the period of March 2000 to November 2003 -- hence the history of violating the Constitution of the party.

Anonymous - though what you say is not what I recall, this is not the place for such a debate. In terms of this matter, I think we'll both agree that the spirit of the constitution was not followed, but there is a disagreement as to whether or not the letter of it was. In any event, in order to be NPOV we cannot assume that the party would break its own rules - Jord 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Until we know for sure it's a 2006 convention we could call the article 8th Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention.Homey

We cannot do that, while it makes sense to call the 39th Canadian federal election and the 40th Canadian federal election things like that, because they legally are associated with that number, calling this the 8th Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention would be original research: the definition of what makes a leadership convention is not clear; there are votes on leadership at all recent conventions so do they count? Conventions at which a leader is acclaimed have no vote, do they count? Perhaps we should follow the lesson of the UK general election, 2005/06 and rename this Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006/07]] until a date is hammered down as we know for certain it will occur in one of those two years. - Jord 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Positions held

Is there some sort of standard on this page to indicate what positions have been held by a potential candidate? I notice that it says Sheila Copps is a newspaper columnist while many others don't even have a single ministry listed. --JGGardiner 17:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the logic is that former minsters are just listed as "former member of the cabinet" because in almost all cases they held more than one portfolio. The current occupation is listed for obvious reasons. - Jord 20:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense for the first part and is what I had thought was the policy. But what about inclusion of current occupation? Should we list what Jane Stewart, Bob Rae and John Manley are doing now? It seems as though Copps is the exception, not the rule. --JGGardiner 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

John Godfrey

I'm told it was reported on Don Newman's "Politics" show that John Godfrey will soon announce he's running for the leadership. Has anyone else heard this?Homey 00:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Politics archives it shows online. The current one is up already. Just watching it now. If you're interested it's at cbc.ca/politics --JGGardiner 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's in the first few of minutes if you watch the video. It says he has told people that he will do it personally and may make it official as early as next week. --JGGardiner 01:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Irwin Cotler

Lloyd Axworthy has suggested Irwin Cotler as a possible leader[2]. Homey 20:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So did his brother who also mentioned Godfrey. --JGGardiner 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Pinball

Nothing against Pinball, I like him but I don't think that one article is sufficient to include him here. In fact, I don't think that article mentioned him as possible, but rather worthy. And I think even that may have been good-natured exagerration. The only bit that comes close to the Liberal leadership is the closing line: "Sometimes, it's hard to believe any political party seeking fresh leadership for the new Canada of the 21st century isn't pounding on his door."--JGGardiner 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

>> OK Fair enough (The guy who added Pinball)

Doug Fisher's baker's dozen

See his column today where he names:

• Maurizio Bevilacqua
• Scott Brison
• Denis Coderre
• Irwin Cotler
• Stephane Dion
• Ken Dryden
• David Emerson
• Ralph Goodale
• Michael Ignatieff
• Dominic LeBlanc
• Derek Lee
• John McKay
• Dan McTeague

Goodale and Emerson have already said they're not running - Fisher's last four choices are new, the last three are bizarre picks though IMHO. Homey 18:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd be inclined to discard this from falling under our "cited in media reports" condition. Fisher's hardly a titan of federal political journalism, writing for a paper that's hardly a titan of federal political journalism, and the fact he's including people who've ruled themselves out (without any proviso that he-knows-this-but-they-might-go-anyway) discredits the whole thing.

Speaking with my armchair pundit rather than Wikipedia editor hat on for a sec, I think it makes a fair amount of sense that one of the last three might decided to mount a run. That Scarborough so-con crowd represent a particularly odd strand in the current Liberal tapesty, but a substantial one nonetheless, and in a wide-open race you tend to try and get token representation of all the wings and nooks and crannies of the party. Unlike the Denis Coderres of the world, their candidacies would actually involve signing up people to the party who aren't in it already, and they might hope to last enough rounds in the convention that they could play an Orchard-like kingmaker role and give someone a shunt to get them over the top in exchange for concessions to that wing of the party. They could only improve on Wappel's performance from 1990, surely. The Tom 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, and I suspect that there will be a socon candidate in the race (there was an effort by some socon Libs to draft John Bryden in the last leadership race, but he declined).

For what it's worth, I'm betting that McTeague will run. CJCurrie 02:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, looking at those so-cons, we must recall that Tom Wappell ran relatively successfully on an anti-abortion ticket in 1990. The rumour mills in Ottawa suggest that Pat O'Brien may run in that vein. - Jord 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well ... Wappel's campaign wasn't "successful" and O'Brien is no longer a Liberal, so I wouldn't put too much stock in this particular rumour. McTeague, on the other hand, actually has a bit of credibility on some non-socon issues (mostly involving foreign policy). He'd be the most rational choice for a representative of that wing of the party.

Anyway, this isn't supposed to be a page for speculation; perhaps we should move on to other matters. CJCurrie 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Emerson

How should we deal with Emerson? Should his floor crossing be added to the timeline? Perhaps a mention in the will not run section? --JGGardiner 17:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carolyn Bennett

Metro, the Toronto Star's free commuter paper, reported that supporters of Carolyn Bennett are encouraging her to run for leader. The story had a "Torstar" byline (which usually means it's a shorter version of a longer Toronto Star article) but I can't find anything like it on the Star's website. Anyone else with a "Carolyn Bennett for leader" sighting?Homey 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the star reported that she is considering the move because several people have asked her if she intends to run. Carolynparrishfan 18:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

George Tadross

I have hidden the candidacy entry for George Tadross [3] as there is no independent verification - ie all we have is what is purportedly his webpage (literally one page). Until and unless there's mention in the media or on the official Liberal Party website I think it's prudent not to list lest it be a hoax. Once the Liberals establish the rules of the convention we'll have to distinguish between offically registered candidates (ie those who have filed all their papers with all the needed signatures and made what will doubtlessly be a hefty deposit) and "declared" candidates who would include those who have little likelihood of meeting the registration criteria.Homey 17:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Martha Hall-Findlay

An article in todays The Era Banner (a local newspaper in Aurora, Ontario) reports that Martha Hall-Findlay is the first officially declared Liberal Leadership candidate. Hall-Findlay was the Federal Liberal candidate in 2004 that ran against Belinda Stronach(then Conservative) Hall-Findlay lost by only 690 votes in that election. For the 2006 Federal election Hall-Findlay stepped aside for Stronach.

Arbour

The only source for Louise Arbour is a blog. Homey 17:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, The Tyee is no blog, but a rather well-respected and accredited news outlet out on the left coast, and pretty much the only source of political news in the province not controlled by CanWest. The fact that the story's from the senior editor makes it of ironclad veritability, and I'd personally place it a cut above Jane Taber's anonymous gossip. Let's not disregard a news source just because there are comment threads at the bottom, hmm? The Tom 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Although that does raise the problem of these single source "gossip" reports. But I'm not sure if I'm interested in setting some sort of criteria for inclusion just yet. --JGGardiner 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think at the moment the only test should be "could you or I have made it up and stuck it on blogspot?" Much as Ms. Taber's hot scoops on Countdown often prove to be anything but, at the end of the day she's the one with the lanyard around her neck at the Press Gallery whose writings and commentary are followed closely in official Ottawa. All of our current sources, Tyee included, easily meet that test The Tom 06:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Other sources: [4], [5]. --Ardenn 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The article in question doesn't say that Arbour is thinking of running or that Liberals are thinking of supporting her. It merely speculates that she would be a good leader. I don't really think this qualifies her for inclusion on this list. HistoryBA 16:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The article says that a group of Liberals are working behind the scenes to convince her to run, which I think does make her includable. - Jord 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for correcting me, Jord. HistoryBA 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sergio Marchi

The National Post has it from the former MP (York West, 1984-1999) and Cabinet Minister (1993-1999) and diplomat that he is considering a run for the leadership. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=6a7eec6f-5dec-4e85-a7ec-97f8ed576f70

Brison youth meeting

Umm, there's no way you're going to be able to document each meeting a candidate has with young Liberals or whoever.

It might be worth mentioning if he did in fact say that he was being "exploratory". There's virtually nothing in the article that comes from the potential candidates themselves. Although I would like to see a source on that, especially since the quote is the essence of the inclusion. --JGGardiner 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, I was at a meeting with one of the potential candidates on Wednesday and know many others who have been at similar meetings, not all are documented by the press and a potential candidate going to such meetings provides us no more information than the fact that they are considering a candidacy, I'll remove this bit from the timeline. - Jord 15:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Doug Fisher and Hargrove

In listing Hargrove as a leadership aspirant, Doug seems to again be pulling stuff out of some godly reservoir of information inaccessible to every other political writer in Canada. I'm tempted to guess that said reservoir is his ass.

I'm pulling Buzz out until we see corroboration from another source. Not to sound too self-important, but this article is shaping up to be quite the online clearinghouse of information on this topic, and leaving baseless stuff up is one way to start a runaway rumour train in mainstream sources and, to coin a phrase, create buzz. :)

Apologies, Homey. -The Tom 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a Hargrove candidacy is somewhat far-fetched. Homey 03:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Iggy

Will some one here tell me why Libeals should votefor an aliberal like Iggy? --M. T. W.