84

Where will Rae take the party? Speaking as a Liberal, I think we have the answer

It’s been 12 months since Rae became Interim leader; what do Liberals have to show for that? I’m afraid it isn’t much


 

There’s no need to speculate about what kind of Liberal Leader Bob Rae would be – he’s spent the past 12 months showing us. At the end of the day, Liberals have nothing to show for it.

“It’s important for the party to look very much to a new generation of leadership,” Mr. Rae said in the days after the 2011 election. Many of us were too dazed, too exhausted from the previous years’ battles to look for that new generation of leadership, much less ask what would the future hold for the Liberal Party. As those of us in Michael Ignatieff’s office packed up our desks and updated our resumes, we should have recognized what was happening. We should have recognized, because it was the same interim-to-permanent leader power play we had pulled a few short years ago.

Bob Rae was a gift in those early days of post-historic defeat. He was a strong voice to mind the shop, a jovial substitute teacher who genuinely seemed to have no ulterior motive beyond ensuring that Canadian liberalism had a voice, a hope and a champion.

How wrong we were. Like the captain of the Costa Concordia, Mr. Rae has taken the helm of the ship he was trusted to mind and steered it into shallow waters in a brazen attempt to showcase his own attributes – his quick-witted comebacks in the House; his ease in off-the-cuff interviews; his ability to run a leaner, more disciplined organization on a smaller budget – rather than use his leadership position to ensure Canadian liberalism makes it safely to its final destination – one that has increasingly become something along the lines of “get at least 36 seats in the next election.”

While no formal rule prevents Mr. Rae from running for permanent leader, he made a promise when he took the job that he would not do so. A politician’s word is the promise that binds him not only to his constituents and his party, but to every Canadian, to folks of all political stripes. Just like political staffers serve at the pleasure of their bosses, politicians can and should be held accountable by the public they seek to represent.

Bob Rae could have been upfront with Canadians. Rather than playing coy about his not-so-secret desire to be Liberal Leader, he could have admitted he had leadership ambitions, stepped aside from the interim job, and kicked off his campaign by advancing bold new policy ideas that would propel the party forward, to the benefit of all Canadians. He still would have had the opportunity to showcase his political skills in the House, while at the same time raising the bar for other Liberal leadership candidates.

Instead, his dithering took the spotlight away from efforts being made by Liberals across the country to rebuild the party and regain the trust of those who have left in recent years, only to find themselves wandering in the political desert – too socially progressive for the Conservatives but too fiscally responsible for the NDP.

Mr. Rae made the decisions that were in his own best interests, and it is centrist Canadians who will pay the price. Under Mr. Rae’s watch, political moderates have been left with a shadow of policy. When viewed in aggregate, through the lens of Mr. Rae’s leadership desires, even the most casual observer can detect that policy appears to have been crafted as a bargaining chip to attract support from the 34 other Liberal MPs, rather than designed in an attempt to solve any of the problems that Canadians face on a daily basis.

This isn’t the fault of the staffers in Mr. Rae’s office, nor is it the fault of the Liberal MPs who sit in his caucus. An individual staffer or a lone MP can only go as far as her leader will permit. The Liberal Party used to provide Canadians with bold policies – the Green Shift, the Clarity Act, the Kelowna Accord and the Learning Passport, just to name a few. Under Mr. Rae’s watch, the Liberal machine has withered to a campaign-in-a-box. Instead of serving as their champion, Mr. Rae offers the centrist majority of Canadians a strongly worded online petition or a call for the resignation of a minister. Liberal voices have disappeared into the abyss that is the “also said” at the bottom of a news article, leaving the headlines for Thomas Mulcair’s divisive politicking and an increasingly undisciplined Conservative backbench.

Canada didn’t get legalized gay marriage, a legacy of peacekeeping, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, bilingualism, a strong economy, universal healthcare and national unity with an online petition. Liberal leaders made bold declarations, that this is the Canada we want for ourselves and for generations of Canadians to come.

Individual Liberals have made remarkable strides to rebuild their riding associations, reinvigorate former members and reach out to the next generation of Liberals to ensure the party exists long into the future. But this is a country of remarkable, motivated people; likely these grassroots members would have done so on their own accord.

It’s been 12 months since Bob Rae became Interim leader; what do Liberals have to show for that? I’m afraid it isn’t much more than what we woke up with the morning after Election Day.

Jordan Owens is a Toronto-based communications consultant and was a communications aide to former Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.


 
Filed under:

Where will Rae take the party? Speaking as a Liberal, I think we have the answer

  1. The Liberal Party has generally polled higher under Bob Rae than its election result under Michael Ignatieff.

    • Wrong. Ignatieff was polling in the 30s for more than half of his term. Rae is polling in the high teens.

      • What was Iggie’s ELECTION result?

  2. 1) Rae has too much baggage from his days as Ont premier

    2) Rae is currently 64. He’ll be approaching 70 by the next election.

    3) Rae had all that time when the NDP were busy choosing a leader, and there was no one else for the media to go to for Opposition quotes to revive the party, and test drive new ideas and policies. Yet even though Mulcair isn’t universally popular the NDP and Tories are currently tied in the polls….while the Libs are still in the basement. So we already have a verdict from the voters.

    4) Rae gave his word he wouldn’t run. Breaking his word would be another strike against him. A big one.

    5) It’s the French turn.

    Personally I’m “too socially progressive for the Conservatives but too fiscally responsible for the NDP”…so I won’t vote for either of them….but Rae isn’t the answer either. I’d vote for the Pirate Party before I’d vote for him. It’s time for a dynamic new leader with new ideas.

    • “too socially progressive for the Conservatives but too fiscally responsible for the NDP” may be one of the best lines I’ve read in a Canadian political news article. It just captures the CPC and NDP perfectly.

      • It’s more like a whole bunch of dubious received wisdom – much like Rae’s actual performance in Ontario.

      • I agree….I always said I was ‘socially progressive, and fiscally conservative’ so I was PC for 30 years. But then they got eaten by the Tea Party, and Harper emerged as the head Tea Bag.

        I haven’t changed my political philosophy, but the parties have.

    • Well said. The Liberals need some fresh blood and attitude. I would not vote Liberal with Mr. Rae as leader.

  3. Look, the last time a Liberal made a bold decision you let harper screech about a permanent tax on everything then jettisoned the guy who tried it for Iggy. Scott Brison was right when he pointed out how timid Liberals really are when it comes to standing up for what’s right.

    • Liberals are timid with good reason. The world has passed them by.

  4. The only way the Liberal party can truly revive itself now is to pick a leader who inspires rather than divides people and has the guts to campaign on a positive conciliatory platform that puts social justice and equality of opportunity at the center unapologetically.

    Given that the other two major parties focus so tightly on divisive politics and represent the ends of the political spectrum, the Liberals must be able to take the center and that requires bridge building, not negative attacks and innuendo against their opponents.

    If enough people are tired of the division and are motivated to vote, the center has the greatest potential for support really. It always has.

    The real key for this type of messaging though is to be able to motivate younger Canadians to vote in numbers, and to do that I think the Liberals need someone young enough to understand what motivates them and serve as a representative they can relate to.

  5. I guess Owens isn’t looking for a job in the near future, unless it’s with the Tories. I doubt Harper’s team could craft such a negative response to a popular, affable, well-spoken politician … unless, of course, Owens is already on the payroll.

    • If I were prone to wild speculation, I might guess she has plans to be actively involved in someone else’s campaign in a few short weeks. Note the last sentence in the second paragraph about pulling tricks on your own party.

      • In fact, Ms. Owens owes it to Macleans and readers to disclose if she has been approached by anyone planning to run for leader and what she has said. Otherwise the only honest position for her to take is to not be on anyone’s campaign team in the leadership race. Out with it, Owens!

        • She uses her real name when saying stuff on the internet. Why don’t you?

          • I am a concerned citizen who has sometimes but not always voted Liberal. My concerns are non-partisan and valid and if we find a candidate suddenly comes forward with Ms. Owens on his/her team I think people have a right to be very disappointed.

          • Translation @GFMD is too cowardly to step forward with his/her real name.
            Thank you for clarifying.

          • if you can’t rebut my argument don’t try to change the subject.

          • How does one rebut nonsensical speculation about someone’s reasons for writing an article? Keep trolling troll.

          • If Ms. Owens will come out and say “I currently have no plans to support a specific candidate for the Liberal party and/or have not been approached by any potential candidates”, I will believe here.

            But if she does….

          • Will you say the same? Also, will you use your real name, or continue to hide behind your computer screen?

          • Wow, now low level ex-staffers have their own attack dogs?

          • Hahahaha, you kill me, Jan. Anonymity on here seems like such a ‘bone of contention’ that “attack dog” is an apt metaphor.

            Now sit, Kaylee. Good girl.

          • How do we know you`re really Kaylee Anderson?
            Could you please reply with your home address, telephone number and email addy just so we can check you out and be sure? And if it’s not too much trouble could you also provide a background check and DNA sample?

          • Yeah; as we learned from Rick Omen,”real” names – even with full background stories – are no more (and in Rick’s case at least, even less) trustworthy than the screen names the rest of us use.

            So, Kaylee, you’ll have to excuse us for doubting you are who you say you are. You haven’t been on here long enough to have established bona fides (whereas GFMD has).

          • Since we don’t know who you are, we don’t know if *you’re* working for a candidate. Or if you are planning on becoming a candidate. Or if you are actually Bob Rae.

          • Anything is possible, Mr. liar who claimed to work for a specific company who he didn’t.

            I have no ulterior motive for my concerns but they’re worth discussing. Believe me or not, I don’t care.

    • Well, she has Guy Giorno calling her courageous on twitter…

      • But what does Bruce Carson think?

  6. Jordan Owens is an affable and good writer, but this is unhelpful to Liberals. I`m a Liberal, and while Bob Rae has never been my choice for leader, I appreciate the work he`s done. Before the NDP elected Mulcair as leader, Rae had Liberals in the headlines, and seeming more like official opposition — and now Mulcair has that bounce and the ability to make noise.

    No it is not true that the interim leader could have been making policy; did Turmel, the NDP interim leader, do that — no she did not. During her tenure, Rae was stronger and got more attention.

    Personally I would love to see Justin Trudeau run for this. I think we always knew Bob Rae wanted to run, and the whole thing of making him sign a promise was silly in the first place. I do not think he will prevail as leader, but I also think Jordan did Liberals no favours by seeking to publish this stuff. Ditto her backroom buddy Adam Goldenberg — not that what they are saying is wrong, just that there`s no need to go public to say it. Just say thank you, let him run, and work like a dog for your preferred candidate. After all, the man stepped up and looked out for the party for more than a year now.

    • As said above, I think Owens is already working for someone else and that was the reason for this piece.

      • Why don’t you disclose your name and who you support?

        • I don’t know who is runnung, so it’s a little premature to support someone, isn’t? But those that plan on running will have reached out to would be staff. and it’s likely Ms. Owens is in the know. Mind you, why anyone would hire anyone from the Iggy camp is beyond me.

    • In fact, I take great offence at the policy sections of this rant. Because, Liberal MEMBERS created the policy at our Convention. It wasn’t up to Bob Rae or anyone else. The Leader’s role is then which policy to use in the platform, and augment with policies of the National Board during an election campaign–but the making of regular policy (i.e., policy not dependant on an election) is the members’ domain. It was the members who timidly put forward the decriminalizing of marijuana, for example, and who agreed with our National President on the supporters role–but not for riding association votes.

      So, while I don’t know if Bob Rae is even going to run, and I certainly don’t know if I would vote for him, I can surely say I won’t be voting for this Owens person, or anyone she supports.

      • Strong point.

      • No, a leader can’t make policy on his own….he could, however, use trial balloons. Rae was certainly quick enough to oppose the pot resolution.

        Refusing to vote for someone because of what one of his supporters says is pretty short-sighted. All this ‘moral indignation’ over minor stuff gets the party nowhere.

        The leadership race has been underway for some time now….so Libs are going to say a lot of things in the next little while. It would make more sense to learn from it, instead of attacking the messenger.

        • Point taken about the “anyone she supports” business. I meant anyone she was campaign manager for or some such thing–meaning that this post had the approval of the candidate.
          But Rae didn’t oppose the pot resolution. He mentioned it wasn’t about to become law because a) we aren’t in power, and b) it will take a fair bit of time to clear the way (I assume that means prevent the U.S. from totally freaking out). But apart from those practicalities, and we are a party of pragmatists, he spoke favourably.

          • ” In a post-convention press conference, he said he supports the spirit
            of the resolution but has to look at the practical implications.”

            That means it will never see the light of day….however it may not be his to do.

            I don’t know why people are discussing Owens…Rae is the topic. However as the title says, she’s a Liberal so she has the right to discuss the leadership just like anybody else….whether she’s working for, or plans to work for a candidate.

          • Oh, she certainly has the right to discuss the leadership. She even has the right to take us back five years to the infighting days of old with a blog post on a national magazine’s website. I have the right to be mad about it, and I have the right to say so on said blog post on a national magazine’s website. I also have the right to talk about her instead of Rae while doing so.
            I don’t know what Rae said in a post-convention press conference. I only know what he said in an end-of-convention speech. And as you say, Rae’s opinion of the policy may mean little.

      • I roke my ‘never join a political party’ rule and joined the Liberal party so that I could vote for the new leader. I am up to here with former staffers who seem to think they get to choose who the next leader is.

  7. I love watching Liberals destroy each other. It’s great sport!

    • Party above country forever and always, conbots!

      • Huh? Are you suggesting that anybody who doesn’t support the Liberals, doesn’t support Canada? Give me a break.

        • In a reply to me on another thread, you certainly implied just that about Canada and the CPC.

          • No, I did not. I said that our government funding organizations that actively seek to damage Canada’s economy was a bad idea. I can’t believe you find it that confusing.

          • And by “actively damage” you mean “promote a viewpoint not in alignment with CPC doctrine.”

            ALL taxpayers have an equal right to be heard; the CPC (and you, apparently) think only those who kowtow to Harper deserve funding.

            For instance, I pay taxes, and I think the CPC will do more damage to this country by 2015 than we will be able to undo in my lifetime, if C-38 is any indication of the direction they are headed. I think any organization with a similar view is at least equally deserving of government funding as the Big Oil front organizations.

        • Here’s some food for thought. We are, at least in theory, a democratic country. There are a number of people in said democratic country who are “too socially progressive for the Conservatives but too fiscally responsible for the NDP” including me. Now, that doesn’t mean Liberal, per se–if they are environmentally engaged it could easily mean Green. Sadly, I fear that ship has sailed about five years ago now, but am most willing to be proved wrong. Still, Green isn’t quite for me. But an entirely new party could also come up and take the Liberal spot on the spectrum–but why go through all of that organizing and building from scratch when we can just organize and build from slightly above scratch with the Liberals?
          Because having a democratic country with no voice at all for a large number of its citizens isn’t really democratic. So your laughing strikes many of us as laughing at the silly notion of democracy. I understand that Conservatives enjoy authority, and being told what to do and think (that isn’t a slag, some people feel more comfortable with a great many rules through which to order their lives. Just a fact.)
          I was saddened by the rise of the Reform/Alliance Party. I was saddened that so many people felt the need for it. But I would never, ever, wish they were destroyed! I recognize that they spoke for some Canadians.
          You appear to be wishing erstwhile Liberals have no voice. Or at least that’s what I got from your great spectator sport.

          • I agree that everybody should have a voice in a democracy, for sure. And I actually do believe that having the Liberals around could be a good thing. But only if they become a party with an actual purpose. As it stands now, the party is an empty shell with no ideals, no principles. All they’ve believed in for the last 10 years is political expediency, and populist rhetoric.

            That said, you’ll note that I was referring to the individuals in the party, not the party itself. You know, the ones who claim that there’s not enough respect in Canadian politics, then send out their attack dogs to ruthlessly savage someone who *should* be a political ally.

            And it’s not just me. The media eats this crap up, obviously because readers/viewers are interested in it too.

          • Get over it. Trudeau is the man and he will certainly be ready before the next election.

          • That’s super, Rick. Thanks so much for clarifying.
            I’m not going to deny the Liberals need work. That’s why I joined, after all. And I’m certainly not going to deny that the media has been the biggest enabler of this sort of back-room nonsense–if not the cause. And of course, if there was no market for it, the media would soon stop.
            But there is another Liberal party, which I see more often. It’s hard to see, because it’s much quieter. But, there are people in the party because they believe in social justice, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, and fiscal responsibility. Altogether and equally. People like Stephane Dion, who I think you’d agree had the sh$t kicked out of him by his party, and yet still answers the call. He may not have been a leader, but what a role model!

          • To answer your question, 2Jenn.. history. Building from scratch has the advantage that it’s from scratch. Building from something just above scratch has a history. That can be a good or a bad thing. Lately (and by lately, I essentially mean from the Chretien/Martin feud to the days as official opposition) it hasn’t been a very good one.

            My own opinion, for instance, even though I support the Liberal policies more so than others, when I think of the Liberals, I think of screeching and hollering and concentrating on minutiae, instead of substantive issues. And while we both know how untrue that impression actually is, it’s still the impression that has been left over. Harper’s campaign team and his media sycophants have been very effective in pushing that message, and so if that’s the impression that even I have, what do you think the impression of the average Canadian is?

          • But you are throwing out ALL the history. And a lot of it is good. Besides, if Harper and his allies can give you the impression that none of recent history is substantive, why on earth wouldn’t he do it with a new party? Like how the Occupy movement is a protest about nothing. That isn’t remotely true either, and no matter how many times people say “income inequality” it doesn’t get through the media filters. So you’d be throwing out good history for no benefit.

            Believe me, I get frustrated to the point of thinking this will never get fixed and we might as well start over. But then I realize how much further that would set us back–like the Progressive party or whatever the progressive conservative party calls itself these days. Most people call them “who?”

          • No argument with any of that. The problem is, voters work on what the impressions are now. I don’t know of any who are thinking of the good history, and nobody’s bothering to remind anybody.. so what’s left is what’s left.

            If anything, take the lessons from the Reform/CRAP/CPC. Changing the name as you shift policies can do a lot to ditch the old history while keeping the brand awareness alive.

            Changing just the policies doesn’t do that unless some sort of radical change in action is shown — and even then, how do you really show that’s happened? Who knows, maybe a new leader can do that, but it’ll have to be a hell of a shift in the prevailing attitude and even the texture of the media attention the party gets. How you get that done with just a new leader, I dunno.

    • ‘ckoff now, racknine.

      • Hahahahahahahaha. And what if I don’t want to? You going to continue to childishly curse at me? Hahaha. You can blame me for Liberal in-fighting, but my taking pleasure in it isn’t the cause. Maybe if you clowns learned to discuss things with people of different view-points, you might have a chance at actually gaining share of vote for the first time in the last decade. But instead you continue telling those who disagree with you to ‘ckoff. How’s that been working out for you?

        But seriously, you guys should just continue what you’ve been doing. It might not be working out too well for the party of Downtown Toronto and it’s cabal of elitist Bay St lawyers… but it’s working out pretty great for Canada!

        • I’m replying to you this one time only. You came onto an article about the Liberal leadership for no reason except to troll, to bait. And then you insulted everyone who rose to your bait, even though all had posted thoughtful comments before — which you could not stand so you had to jump in a bait. And you have been doing this for months, baiting and lying and then acting all arrogant.

          You are a jerk. I know you claim involvement with Racknine — are you also the guy who runs Bestgore? You seem like that kind of guy. So post away, I will not bother to tell you to f’ck’ff any more, but I will think it every time I see your stupid name. Your stupid fake name.

          • You think this one is something thete was a troll on cbc called ashleigh1 that changed tococklaramous and still posts thinking no one knows he/she is paid #cpc paid racknine or other robocall/ information suppression shill

          • The cbc and G&M sites are rife with these troll-jerks, but this site tends to be better — and the trolls are obvious here because they have nothing to say of any consequence. I work from home and I truly appreciate the conversation that often takes place here, an opportunity to understand what other Canadians think about things. I can take BS, heck I can even sling it, but I hate the targetted baiters who arrive now and then just to throw off the conversation. Cheers!

        • “Maybe if you clowns learned to discuss things with people of different view-points…”

          That’s rich, coming from where it does.

  8. Bob Rae gives just what he always has… less than nothing. Doesn’t anyone remember him spending Ontario into the poor house. A lot like the current Ontario Liberal Leader.

    • A lot like the current PM for that matter.

    • I have a clearer memory of what the Harris government did to Ontario, and they’re running the country. This Ontario reputation criteria doesn’t seem to be applied equally.

      • This is a great point.

  9. Unfortunately the reason the Liberal Party isn’t growing or attracting new members is because it has become a party which really doesn’t stand for anything.
    As Owens pointed out the Liberals were the ones to force policies that many Canadians did not want. If anyone wants to be truthful in that party – they should start by asking all Canadians what kind of Canada do they want! Not what kind of Canada do some of the liberal leaders want! That is not how politics works but that is what is killing your party.
    You forgot what you stood for, initially! Hope one day you will find yourself again but it will take a good strong leader who has the courage to stand up for all canadians not the minority groups who fund you .. Who knows – there just might be a few leaders left who actually have courage, ethics, morals — things that few political parties even talk about!


    • If anyone wants to be truthful in that party – they should start by asking all Canadians what kind of Canada do they want! Not what kind of Canada do some of the liberal leaders want! That is not how politics works…”

      Swap out “liberal” for “CPC” – or “NDP” – and it still holds true. So that alone is not what’s killing them

  10. I got to this point and went no further, ” Like the captain of the Costa Concordia, Mr. Rae has…”

    I don’t know who is teaching these kids to write like morons, but they are not doing them any favours.

    • That they ge hired to do communications for would be PM’s is amazing.

    • Funny. I thought that line showed real talent for populist smarm.

  11. I find it sad and frightening that Canada does not have one upstanding, ethical, intelligent, statesman-like person to come forward and lead the Liberal Party, to bring us back to the Canada we all cherish, a Canada of social values, of caring for one another. People like Irwin Cotler, Steven Lewis – but there must be at least one other person with whatever it takes to rise above petty politics and personal power plays, to stand up to the extremely frightening right wing government we have now. Where are our leaders?

  12. Maybe the Liberals should talk to Liz May about switching parties and running for leader. Her one-person show has been far less partisan and far more positive and on target than that of any MP on either side of the HoC.

    I’ve gone from thinking she’s a kook to being a fan. Who knows what she could do with the backing of the Libs?

    • I have been thinking the same thing.

      • Seconded.

        • Thirded, except why on earth would she? No, May will not lead the Liberals–at least as a Liberal.

  13. We’ll all just have to wait and see. Especially those outside the Liberal Party but watching with interest largely based on the Party’s historical foot print. At the moment it’s a hard to sell tickets for the event.

  14. Bob Ray is the worst possible choice. He is an NDP hack. Been Premier of Ontario and did a lousy job at it. Surely there is someone else who can take the helm. This is a sure way to destroy the Liberal Party.

  15. I’m sorry but this article of this past staffer is too little too late. As a former staffer myself, I have been asking when some of you on the Hill were going to wake up and smell the coffee. Some of us saw this coming miles away and honestly many rookie mistakes were made. Please own up and start listening .

  16. One of the funniest columns I’ve ever read. “Moderate” liberals, the new oxymoron, “moron” perfectly juxtaposed with liberalism. Funnier still, liberals salivating over the idea of Trudeau light being the next P.M…. for Perfect Moron. Hmm… Rae, Trudeau, Rae, Trudeau. Surely Canadians aren’t that stupid. Okay, apparently liberal Canadians are!

  17. Interesting to read that Jordan Owens was a communications aide to former liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. Wasn’t communication one of Mr. Ignatieff’s most evident weaknesses! No alternative to Mr. Rae is suggested by Owens other than a vague reference to “that new generation of leadership”. When a bold representative of that generation appears, I imagine the liberal rank and file will recognize that long before the Liberal brass do.

  18. Stop whining! You moan about there being no place for centrist Canadians when there was never a Canadian center to begin with. It is a figment of the Liberal mind, spawned by the first lefty liberal Lester Pearson and fanned into fire by Trudeau and Mulroney, the two media darlings. The only reason the Libs got majorities was because the right was split due to the so-called progressive conservatives. Joe Clarke allowed Chretien to enjoy at least three majorities with less than 39% of the popular vote. The next election will really show up the house of straw that the Liberals live in.

  19. Mr Rae is the best thing for the Conservatives

  20. This is the first woman named Jordan I’ve ever encountered.

  21. But “Canadians” didn’t ask Bob Rae to promise not to be the next Liberal leader. The clearly-out-of-touch-with-Canadian-politics Liberal party leadership did. Why should Rae, or Canada for that matter, be responsible for their autocratic sensibilities? Since the author is clearly identifying himself as someone who gamed the system to get Ignatieff into position as leader of the Liberal party (and we all know how that turned out) why should we care what he has to say anyway? Ignatieff certainly took the Liberal party new places – into Conservative-lite territory, and a humiliating defeat. Why is this man a credible source on anything to do with politics or the future of the Liberal party?

  22. Where will Rae take the party? Hopefully over the nearest cliff.

Sign in to comment.