How about doing what’s best for the country. Why would any intelligent individual want to run for leader. You are making the wild assumption that every poll in the last 12 months is wildly wrong. The next leader will be crucified. Go to the governor general and dissolve parliament. By mid-March we could have an election.
I also thought that Mark Carney's piece in the G & M might have been written by ChatGPT.
More seriously, I think that your timeline has a major problem. It would leave Canada essentially leaderless for a good two months after Trump takes office. We need a leader in place during this time, as soon as possible. If Mr. Trudeau were to stay on, he could provide some leadership, if he were so inclined and if others became aware of the danger and formed a unity front. Trudeau as a caretaker during a leadership race would not be as effective, because everyone would be running in all directions, trying to position themselves. That would destroy the last hope of a Team Canada.
Agreed about Carney's piece, also think "the last hope of a Team Canada" is to keep the conservatives out of power because the extent to which THEY and they alone have undermined "Team Canada" is matched only by the Bloc.
Where they ultimately want to go is where Alberta currently IS, fittingly since this is where the wrecking ball Reform Party started, with separatism always a feature, still alive and well with the UCP, but like most things they've been rushing in, the majority of Albertans don't want it.
Begs the question why the UCP won again for sure, but more inroads were made than ever before, and part of the answer may be how tribal and complacent this province still is after 40 years of conservative government, AND how macho/misogynistic they've become. The proud boys were truly apoplectic at the small blonde woman and her socialists having power, so many not formerly involved in politics climbed into their giant black trucks and went to vote the first time and probably the second.
The timelines may work on a paper but I am bit concerned that it may make more harm than good for the party. The Liberal Party of Canada will need to redefine itself after Trudeau and it is not usually a task that could be done in a couple of weeks. We don’t want to revisit the Martin/Ignacief/Dion area and put PP in power for at least two mandates because the liberal party is lost. Also, it could be a crowded leadership race and there will have absolutely no time to solve potential divisons. That said, I still think Trudeau should resign but I am not sure what could be the way foward
"There are rumours swirling that the PM might actually go next week."
With respect, Evan, there have been such rumours [sic] for just a long, long time and the Face Painter has simply refused to co-operate. Again, with respect, Sir, why in Hell should we believe that these particular rumors will be accurate?
I agree with the thrust of your analysis, Evan, but I need to object to two of your arguments.
Firstly, the Liberal Party of Canada cannot hold a leadership contest within the timeline that you suggest and still honour its Constitution - the LPC Constitution is clear that the process must take several months. Making the LPC Constitution a dead letter would be creating existential problems for the party in order to avoid a shorter-term defeat for the party - that would be disastrous for any potential rebuild.
Secondly, it is not ethically defensible to prorogue parliament at this time, even though it would be legally permissible. Parliament should in principle be sitting as much as possible, and especially during a crisis like massive tariffs - there's other important business besides potential confidence votes. And there is no cause of national interest to prorogue parliament - only a case of Liberal self-interest in such a prorogation, which won't setup the would-be successor for a non-disastrous outcome.
I think that at this point Liberals should brace themselves for the prospect of running an election with an Interim Leader. Running a campaign with a faceless brand might be the least worst of a bunch of bad options...
The LPC Constitution was entirely rewritten by Justin Trudeau to protect himself and needs to be rewritten in a rebuild anyways
And fuck your moral imperatives, stopping Pierre Poilievre from 250 seats is absolutely in the national interest if you believe he’s dangerous to key programs and should be opposed
"... stopping Pierre Poilievre from 250 seats is absolutely in the national interest ..."
Hmmmm ..... so, to summarize, you think that the democratic will of the citizenry is not acceptable .... hmmmm ... have to consider your rationale (or lack of ...)
Yes, the LPC Constitution was rewritten entirely in favour of Trudeau's short-sighted interests in 2016 (I wrote about that in a piece last year for Gurney and Gerson's The Line). It's still a slippery slope to the complete destruction of the party if the one document that binds every member together has its authority completely suborned without a democratic mandate. If you don't have a constitution that is binding, except where reformed by means identified within the constitution itself, then you don't have a viable political party - you instead have the People's Party!
Stopping Poilievre from winning this year is not the one and only sensible political goal - a viable and sustainable party that can overcome Poilievre or his ilk for the perpetual future is my goal. (Not that the Liberal Party shredding its own constitution would look great to the electorate in the short-term!)
The fight for democracy cannot be won using shortcuts that disregard long-term implications, Evan.
The concept that the LPC constitution matters in the slightest - that it means anything, that it confers any legitimacy whatsoever - is so ludicrous as to not be worth engaging in
I think we see the problem with today’s progressive parties. While conservative parties are ready to do anything to win, we are losing our times meaningless debates for 99% of the population
You are making a better case for giving up hope on the LPC entirely, than for making the case for a democratic-but-not-democratic transition where somehow members are supposed to respect the authority of the would-be successor "leader" even though the very process that chose said "leader" would have no legal standing.
You are misunderstanding party politics if you think that obeying a constitution is an optional nicety. The constitution is the fundamental force that keeps the Prime Minister from declaring, "Fuck you all, I am Leader for life," and that stops the rest of members from subserviently obeying him - because the constitution is the only power that is above the Leader.
If the Liberal Party "elected" a Leader in a process that was explicitly contrary to its own Constitution, what do you think are the chances that Poilievre would *not* trumpet that obvious illegitimacy to high heaven in leadership debates and elsewhere?
Poilievre trumpets indiscriminately, provocatively, and smirkingly for the sheer love of trumpeting; seeing him in ANY debate will probably reveal that. The guy takes himself super seriously, so seriously he won't even come on "22 Minutes" when all the other leaders have, even Harper; it's like his refusal to get a security clearance.
He's not a serious person, especially as PM, is just riding a frothy, social media wave of spectacle.
I’m not sure there’s been a single member of the voting public in history who’s cast a vote based on the contents of the LPC constitution, or how faithfully it was followed
I’m not saying it isn’t something that the party itself needs to be mindful of, but if at any point the constitution is stopping the party from addressing obvious real world problems, it’s the constitution that needs to change not the real world.
The LPC is in electoral trouble primarily because it is not perceived as a serious institution that is capable of addressing major contemporary policy issues. Recent instability within the party has brutally reinforced that perception.
Suborning the Liberal constitution by itself would move virtually no votes, but it would further reinforce these above perceptions.
On your last statement I'd like to point out that dire/extreme times call for the same measures, including "shortcuts," since a series of such upstart irregularities have worked like a charm for the cons. (And "cons" they are; language is telling; we didn't call them that before, did we?)
So quibbling over the relative integrity of the constitution of the Liberal Party in the context of the CPC voting with a straight face that climate change "isn't REAL" FFS, and then proceeding to openly devolve into the Convoy Party of Canada....and how about them also being the Christian Party of Canada with their disproportionate number of evangelicals (I live in bible belt Alberta unfortunately, so am suffering the ultimate manifestation/test case of Manning's loathsome, religious Reform revolution with the asshole UCP) which means that women's basic rights are up for grabs with the likes of Leslyn Lewis, (bona fide enough to run for leader) sitting proudly on the front bench next to Mr. "Unfair Elections Act" Poilievre, ultimate boy in short pants/Harper acolyte, he of the International "Democratic" Union that is paradoxically intent on destroying democracy.
"Shortcuts" doesn't even touch this level of ongoing subterfuge.
And speaking of leadership and the "People's Party," recall that the CPC also came within a hair of electing the leader of that shit show for their own.
And btw, in the context of that depressingly effective subterfuge of hiding in plain sight while undermining not only all of our institutions but also everything we hold dear, like the very fragile but precious IDEA of "Canada," "The Line" is conservative, as is "The Hub," making them part of that subterfuge.
Never has politics been so binary, which really should simplify picking which party to support, but when journalists keep acting like it's business as usual while scrupulously ignoring ALL context, conservative style, they've very much become part of the problem, and are quite simply enabling the banality of evil/Trumpism.
You seem to me to be arguing to the effect that "Circumstances are so dire that we must take party laws into our own hands." The problem with your thinking is that the Constitution is the basis for ALL assignment of authority within a political party. Whenever it has been collectively decided that the Constitution has no force, then all authority within the party becomes arbitrary and lacking in legitimacy.
If the Liberal Party "elected" a Leader in a process that was explicitly contrary to its own Constitution, what do you think are the chances that Poilievre would *not* trumpet that obvious illegitimacy to high heaven in leadership debates and elsewhere? Violating the LPC Constitution does not solve any of the party's short-term problems, let alone longer-term problems.
Your massive assumption that its the LIBERALS who are the corrupt, not to be trusted to do the right thing party who would also unscrupulously and freely use "deep faking" wherever it served a purpose since the end always justifies the means, which is simply NOT TRUE. The opposite is true, like everything with these right wing assholes who have deliberately created the horrible post-truth/ pre-fascist world we're all stuck with now, a link suggested by Timothy Snyder in his prescient book "On Tyranny."
It reminds me of attack dog Poilievre's relentless and algorithmed vilification of the federal government that has focused very personally (also quite weirdly and avidly btw) on Trudeau, representing the party who supposedly, theoretically wants "smaller" government. I mean, where in hell in the world does that work anyway, especially NOW?! We're about to live the actual nightmare of that reality vicariously via Trumpism and Project 2025, but how far into it do we need to GO to recognize what's happening?
I have not said anything about Liberal corruption in these threads. We are discussing the strategic implications of LPC members disowning their own constitution.
The constitution isn’t some immutable document dictated by divine authority. It’s a collective agreement for how to organize ourselves. If the party broadly agrees that the current document is no longer reflecting the needs and wants of the party it can and should be changed
“We didn’t foresee these circumstances, so the constitution does not cover our current needs” is a perfectly normal reason to do hasty revisions. It’s not a suicide pact
The key words are, "If the party broadly agrees that the current document is no longer reflecting the needs and wants of the party it can and should be changed." There is a process within the Constitution for changing itself that can and should be used. But what Evan seems to be proposing is that the LPC's National Board simply disown constitutional rules on a whim - even though the National Board's authority is wholly derived from that same constitution.
Once we reach the point that the constitution's assignment of authority has no force, then everyone has equal authority and no one in the party has any authority anymore. And then all that is left of the party is anarchy. There's no stability left in the party if Evan's suggested process is implemented fully.
How about doing what’s best for the country. Why would any intelligent individual want to run for leader. You are making the wild assumption that every poll in the last 12 months is wildly wrong. The next leader will be crucified. Go to the governor general and dissolve parliament. By mid-March we could have an election.
I also thought that Mark Carney's piece in the G & M might have been written by ChatGPT.
More seriously, I think that your timeline has a major problem. It would leave Canada essentially leaderless for a good two months after Trump takes office. We need a leader in place during this time, as soon as possible. If Mr. Trudeau were to stay on, he could provide some leadership, if he were so inclined and if others became aware of the danger and formed a unity front. Trudeau as a caretaker during a leadership race would not be as effective, because everyone would be running in all directions, trying to position themselves. That would destroy the last hope of a Team Canada.
Agreed about Carney's piece, also think "the last hope of a Team Canada" is to keep the conservatives out of power because the extent to which THEY and they alone have undermined "Team Canada" is matched only by the Bloc.
Where they ultimately want to go is where Alberta currently IS, fittingly since this is where the wrecking ball Reform Party started, with separatism always a feature, still alive and well with the UCP, but like most things they've been rushing in, the majority of Albertans don't want it.
Begs the question why the UCP won again for sure, but more inroads were made than ever before, and part of the answer may be how tribal and complacent this province still is after 40 years of conservative government, AND how macho/misogynistic they've become. The proud boys were truly apoplectic at the small blonde woman and her socialists having power, so many not formerly involved in politics climbed into their giant black trucks and went to vote the first time and probably the second.
“smearing the press because they accurately report things you don’t like..”
it’s to laugh .. how ‘infantile - indeed ‘broken - you perceive - so many of us .. 🦎🏴☠️💋
The timelines may work on a paper but I am bit concerned that it may make more harm than good for the party. The Liberal Party of Canada will need to redefine itself after Trudeau and it is not usually a task that could be done in a couple of weeks. We don’t want to revisit the Martin/Ignacief/Dion area and put PP in power for at least two mandates because the liberal party is lost. Also, it could be a crowded leadership race and there will have absolutely no time to solve potential divisons. That said, I still think Trudeau should resign but I am not sure what could be the way foward
"There are rumours swirling that the PM might actually go next week."
With respect, Evan, there have been such rumours [sic] for just a long, long time and the Face Painter has simply refused to co-operate. Again, with respect, Sir, why in Hell should we believe that these particular rumors will be accurate?
I think you made a typo
"recently passed a confidence motion exercising a reverse power."
I think you meant reserve power?
I agree with the thrust of your analysis, Evan, but I need to object to two of your arguments.
Firstly, the Liberal Party of Canada cannot hold a leadership contest within the timeline that you suggest and still honour its Constitution - the LPC Constitution is clear that the process must take several months. Making the LPC Constitution a dead letter would be creating existential problems for the party in order to avoid a shorter-term defeat for the party - that would be disastrous for any potential rebuild.
Secondly, it is not ethically defensible to prorogue parliament at this time, even though it would be legally permissible. Parliament should in principle be sitting as much as possible, and especially during a crisis like massive tariffs - there's other important business besides potential confidence votes. And there is no cause of national interest to prorogue parliament - only a case of Liberal self-interest in such a prorogation, which won't setup the would-be successor for a non-disastrous outcome.
I think that at this point Liberals should brace themselves for the prospect of running an election with an Interim Leader. Running a campaign with a faceless brand might be the least worst of a bunch of bad options...
The LPC Constitution was entirely rewritten by Justin Trudeau to protect himself and needs to be rewritten in a rebuild anyways
And fuck your moral imperatives, stopping Pierre Poilievre from 250 seats is absolutely in the national interest if you believe he’s dangerous to key programs and should be opposed
"... stopping Pierre Poilievre from 250 seats is absolutely in the national interest ..."
Hmmmm ..... so, to summarize, you think that the democratic will of the citizenry is not acceptable .... hmmmm ... have to consider your rationale (or lack of ...)
Yes, the LPC Constitution was rewritten entirely in favour of Trudeau's short-sighted interests in 2016 (I wrote about that in a piece last year for Gurney and Gerson's The Line). It's still a slippery slope to the complete destruction of the party if the one document that binds every member together has its authority completely suborned without a democratic mandate. If you don't have a constitution that is binding, except where reformed by means identified within the constitution itself, then you don't have a viable political party - you instead have the People's Party!
Stopping Poilievre from winning this year is not the one and only sensible political goal - a viable and sustainable party that can overcome Poilievre or his ilk for the perpetual future is my goal. (Not that the Liberal Party shredding its own constitution would look great to the electorate in the short-term!)
The fight for democracy cannot be won using shortcuts that disregard long-term implications, Evan.
The concept that the LPC constitution matters in the slightest - that it means anything, that it confers any legitimacy whatsoever - is so ludicrous as to not be worth engaging in
Its a nonsensical document, who cares
I think we see the problem with today’s progressive parties. While conservative parties are ready to do anything to win, we are losing our times meaningless debates for 99% of the population
You are making a better case for giving up hope on the LPC entirely, than for making the case for a democratic-but-not-democratic transition where somehow members are supposed to respect the authority of the would-be successor "leader" even though the very process that chose said "leader" would have no legal standing.
You are misunderstanding party politics if you think that obeying a constitution is an optional nicety. The constitution is the fundamental force that keeps the Prime Minister from declaring, "Fuck you all, I am Leader for life," and that stops the rest of members from subserviently obeying him - because the constitution is the only power that is above the Leader.
If the Liberal Party "elected" a Leader in a process that was explicitly contrary to its own Constitution, what do you think are the chances that Poilievre would *not* trumpet that obvious illegitimacy to high heaven in leadership debates and elsewhere?
If he’d like to waste his time on such a niche inside baseball argument I’d love him to
Get out of the weeds.
Poilievre trumpets indiscriminately, provocatively, and smirkingly for the sheer love of trumpeting; seeing him in ANY debate will probably reveal that. The guy takes himself super seriously, so seriously he won't even come on "22 Minutes" when all the other leaders have, even Harper; it's like his refusal to get a security clearance.
He's not a serious person, especially as PM, is just riding a frothy, social media wave of spectacle.
I’m not sure there’s been a single member of the voting public in history who’s cast a vote based on the contents of the LPC constitution, or how faithfully it was followed
I’m not saying it isn’t something that the party itself needs to be mindful of, but if at any point the constitution is stopping the party from addressing obvious real world problems, it’s the constitution that needs to change not the real world.
The LPC is in electoral trouble primarily because it is not perceived as a serious institution that is capable of addressing major contemporary policy issues. Recent instability within the party has brutally reinforced that perception.
Suborning the Liberal constitution by itself would move virtually no votes, but it would further reinforce these above perceptions.
On your last statement I'd like to point out that dire/extreme times call for the same measures, including "shortcuts," since a series of such upstart irregularities have worked like a charm for the cons. (And "cons" they are; language is telling; we didn't call them that before, did we?)
So quibbling over the relative integrity of the constitution of the Liberal Party in the context of the CPC voting with a straight face that climate change "isn't REAL" FFS, and then proceeding to openly devolve into the Convoy Party of Canada....and how about them also being the Christian Party of Canada with their disproportionate number of evangelicals (I live in bible belt Alberta unfortunately, so am suffering the ultimate manifestation/test case of Manning's loathsome, religious Reform revolution with the asshole UCP) which means that women's basic rights are up for grabs with the likes of Leslyn Lewis, (bona fide enough to run for leader) sitting proudly on the front bench next to Mr. "Unfair Elections Act" Poilievre, ultimate boy in short pants/Harper acolyte, he of the International "Democratic" Union that is paradoxically intent on destroying democracy.
"Shortcuts" doesn't even touch this level of ongoing subterfuge.
And speaking of leadership and the "People's Party," recall that the CPC also came within a hair of electing the leader of that shit show for their own.
And btw, in the context of that depressingly effective subterfuge of hiding in plain sight while undermining not only all of our institutions but also everything we hold dear, like the very fragile but precious IDEA of "Canada," "The Line" is conservative, as is "The Hub," making them part of that subterfuge.
Never has politics been so binary, which really should simplify picking which party to support, but when journalists keep acting like it's business as usual while scrupulously ignoring ALL context, conservative style, they've very much become part of the problem, and are quite simply enabling the banality of evil/Trumpism.
You seem to me to be arguing to the effect that "Circumstances are so dire that we must take party laws into our own hands." The problem with your thinking is that the Constitution is the basis for ALL assignment of authority within a political party. Whenever it has been collectively decided that the Constitution has no force, then all authority within the party becomes arbitrary and lacking in legitimacy.
If the Liberal Party "elected" a Leader in a process that was explicitly contrary to its own Constitution, what do you think are the chances that Poilievre would *not* trumpet that obvious illegitimacy to high heaven in leadership debates and elsewhere? Violating the LPC Constitution does not solve any of the party's short-term problems, let alone longer-term problems.
Your massive assumption that its the LIBERALS who are the corrupt, not to be trusted to do the right thing party who would also unscrupulously and freely use "deep faking" wherever it served a purpose since the end always justifies the means, which is simply NOT TRUE. The opposite is true, like everything with these right wing assholes who have deliberately created the horrible post-truth/ pre-fascist world we're all stuck with now, a link suggested by Timothy Snyder in his prescient book "On Tyranny."
It reminds me of attack dog Poilievre's relentless and algorithmed vilification of the federal government that has focused very personally (also quite weirdly and avidly btw) on Trudeau, representing the party who supposedly, theoretically wants "smaller" government. I mean, where in hell in the world does that work anyway, especially NOW?! We're about to live the actual nightmare of that reality vicariously via Trumpism and Project 2025, but how far into it do we need to GO to recognize what's happening?
I have not said anything about Liberal corruption in these threads. We are discussing the strategic implications of LPC members disowning their own constitution.
The constitution isn’t some immutable document dictated by divine authority. It’s a collective agreement for how to organize ourselves. If the party broadly agrees that the current document is no longer reflecting the needs and wants of the party it can and should be changed
“We didn’t foresee these circumstances, so the constitution does not cover our current needs” is a perfectly normal reason to do hasty revisions. It’s not a suicide pact
The key words are, "If the party broadly agrees that the current document is no longer reflecting the needs and wants of the party it can and should be changed." There is a process within the Constitution for changing itself that can and should be used. But what Evan seems to be proposing is that the LPC's National Board simply disown constitutional rules on a whim - even though the National Board's authority is wholly derived from that same constitution.
Once we reach the point that the constitution's assignment of authority has no force, then everyone has equal authority and no one in the party has any authority anymore. And then all that is left of the party is anarchy. There's no stability left in the party if Evan's suggested process is implemented fully.