![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
HELP! Formatting is all screwed up right now and I don't know how to fix it. Robbie dee 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I have seen him on other people's "lists" of potential candidates, although the Hill Times article is the only online source I am aware of. I realize he indicates he is not planning to run "at the moment" but he also says "Who knows?" I read that as really meaning "make me an offer." If Brison is unable to go forward because of the Income Trust situation, I think there will be a lot of pressure for another Atlantic Canadian candidate. Robbie dee
The article linked basically says that people are impressed with his performance to date and that at some point people may begin to ask him to run; I don't think that makes the criteria. Especially when one considers that Graham would be expected to resign his current position as leader in the House to run, I think it is a stretch for him to be included unless there is verification of a real movement afoot. Agreed? - Jord 15:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Joe can be added to the list of potentials. http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/02/28/1465768-sun.html
I'd like to raise the possibility of removing Cotler. For the moment, all I've seen (and the source that we're using) is that Lloyd Axworthy floated his name, along with others, as people who he'd like to see run. It just doesn't seem like all that much. Just one half-endorsement but no suggestion that he's thinking of it or that anyone is actually asking him. What does everyone think? -- JGGardiner 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a second source [1] Homey 12:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I know someone who is deeply involved in the Liberal Party and he told me a few days ago that Stronach is going to declare, that she's taking French classes and that he is going to be on her leadership team. This is after having personally spoken to her. But since this is not coming from any official or journalistic sources, there's no way I can post it on here, right?
there are 27 possible candidates and 1 declared. This is a redicilous (sp?) ammount, is there no way we can compact this? Pellaken 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well you can add another name to the list. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060304/ca_pr_on_na/liberal_leadership_prospects;_ylt=Au_K_MMCtxY_iXLegYaeufiFM1IB;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
Should he be added again? Personally I don't think so, but I'll leave it up to the decision makers around here. I guess he could become the actual Liberal leader if an election is called before the convention but I don't see how he could participate in a convention. Anyways, this link shows him as a possible candidate. [2]
Murray Elston was interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and then quit to run in the leadership convention to replace David Peterson. Also, as their is a minority government there is a chance that Graham would be asked to lead the party into an election if the government falls suddenly in the next few months. Homey 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't all this be explained in the article? Looking at it, it is only mentioned that Graham is the interim leader, and then he is mysteriously (to those of us foreigners who are not terribly familiar with the conventions of Canadian politics) absent from the list of potential candidates. It seems to me the article ought to explain that interim leaders are normally seen to be excluded from running for the leadership. This is not obvious unless you are Canadian. As an example, in Britain, the interim Liberal Democratic leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, not only ran in, but won, the Lib Dem leadership election. john k 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Murray Elston was interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party in the early 1990s. He decided to run in the leadership convention and was replaced as interim leader by Jim Bradley.
Homey
00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there's been only one person in Graham's exact position, ie "acting leader" and leader of the opposition while an outgoing leader retained the titular position of party leader - and that's Herb Grey. I don't think we can say there's an iron clad tradition when we're talking about a situation that's only existed once before. Homey 02:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the Star, John Manley is "facing pressure" to reconsider his decision to bow out of the race [3]. Homey 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Group of Que. Liberals want Martin to return to leadership. Homey 12:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
From: lrb-brl@parl.gc.ca [mailto:lrb-brl@parl.gc.ca] Sent: March 16, 2006 4:15 PM To: Liberal Research Bureau / Bureau de recherches libéral Subject: Paul Martin Resigns as Liberal Party Leader / Paul Martin démissionne du poste de chef du Parti libéral Below is an up-to-date OppFlash for MPs to use as talking points. You can either open the attachment, or, for those of you using a wireless handheld device, the text is below. Paul Martin Resigns as Liberal Party Leader ISSUE · The Right Honourable Paul Martin has announced that he will officially resign as Liberal Party Leader, following the upcoming March 19 announcement of the date of the call of the upcoming Liberal Leadership convention. KEY MESSAGES · The Liberal Caucus and the Liberal Party are grateful to Paul Martin for his years of dedicated service to his country and our party, as a Member of Parliament, as Finance Minister and as Prime Minister. · Mr. Martin's Liberal minority government had many major accomplishments: the 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care and the New Deal for Cities among them. · We look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Martin, as he continues to contribute to the party, and to serve the constituents of LaSalle-Émard. BACKGROUND · Mr. Martin announced his intention to step down and the appointment of the Hon. Bill Graham as Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons following the January 2006 election. · The Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada stipulates that a leadership convention must be held within 12 months of the resignation of a leader. · The National Executive of the Party meets this weekend. In advance of this meeting, Mr. Martin has made his intentions clear. By remaining as Liberal Party Leader until this time, Mr. Martin has given the Party more leeway in choosing a date for the next convention. · This weekend, the National Executive will be asked to formally appoint Bill Graham as Interim Leader of the Liberal Party until the Leadership Convention takes place. Problems? Comments? During regular business hours, contact us at 995-0886. Evenings and weekends, call 995-3007 and leave a message. We will return your call as quickly as possible. Materials produced by the Liberal Research Bureau are available on our Intranet site at : http://liberalcaucus
Homey has removed, first because it was "obvious" and then because Graham isn't listed as a potential candidate, the paragraph that explains why Graham cannot, by convention, run for leader while serving as interim leader. As pointed out above on the talk page by a non-Canadian reader, this is something that should be included because in other countries, most notably in Britian with recent election of Menzies Campbell as leader of the Liberal Democrats, interim leaders can, and often do, run for the leadership. I will re-add this paragraph for these reasons. - Jord 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hm. See Daniel McKenzie. Homey 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
When did this practice develop, exactly? A look at the actual facts shows there is no such practice in federal politics:
Graham will be only the third interim leader in Liberal Party history. Only one of the three has run for the position permanently, Daniel Mackenzie. Mackenzie did not resign as interim leader.
The Tories have had four interim leaders in their history, one of whom, Hugh Guthrie, ran in the subsequent leadership convention. Guthrie did not resign as interim leader. (If you count Charest they had five, two of whom ran without resigning first)
So in the history of federal political parties we have two interim leaders who ran for the job permanently. Neither of them resigned as interim leader before seeking the job permanently.
I fail to see that a) this "convention" exists or b) when it originated.
A convention that has been ignored 100% of the time is not a convention. Homey 23:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
There's also
Rita Johnston in BC who became interim leader of the Socreds when Vander Zalm resigned and ran succesfully to obtain the position permanently when the party held its leadership convention in 1991. In the Ontario Liberal Party
W.E.N. Sinclair was interim leader in the 1920s (for a prolonged period) and ran when a leadership convention was finally held in 1930, losing to Mitch Hepburn. Sinclair did not resign as interim leader when he decided to run in the leadership convention.
Quite frankly there is no "convention" of an interim leader stepping down if he or she decides to run for the position permanently. Rather, on the provincial level, you have two examples (Elston and Frenette) of an interim leader stepping aside and several examples where this did not happen. Federally, you have two examples of an interim leader not resigning upon declaring himself a candidate in a ledership convention and zero examples of an interim leader stepping down.
There is, therefore, no basis on which to say a "convention" exists. Yes, I suspect if Graham were to throw his hat in the ring he would be asked to relinquish his position as interim leader but I say this based on speculation. I do not assert it as a fact, or even a "convention". I can also see a scenario where Graham would not be exepcted to step aside - if the government falls, Graham leads the party into an early election which the Liberals win. Graham becomes PM. The Liberal leadership convention is then held. Graham runs and wins (or possibly is acclaimed). Do you think he'd be required to resign as "interim leader" before running in the leadership convention. I hardly think that's certain. Homey 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
In effect, Jean Charest was interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from December 1993 when Kim Campbell resigned to 1995 when the Tories held a convention that officially affirmed him as leader. Charest was not required to step down as "interim leader" prior to running for the position permanently.
M.J. Coldwell became "interim leader" of the CCF following JS Woodsworth's resignation over World War II. His leadership was subsequently affirmed at the following CCF national convention.
Similarly, Hazen Argue was interim leader of the CCF for two years before he was given the position officially in 1960.
Indeed, I think there may be several examples, if we dig, of someone succeeding a leader who has died or resigned suddenly and then, later on, being officially affirmed in the position. Because they ended up holding the position permanenntly (and perhaps because their leadership was never contested) the fact that they were ever an "interim leader" is overlooked. Homey 23:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Raj Pannu became interim leader of the Alberta NDP following Pam Barrett's sudden resignation. He subsequently became permanent leader. He was not required to resign as interim leader when seeking the job permanently. Homey 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, this is a Talk page, not the actual article. My point is that your assertion that there is a "convention" that one cannot be an interim leader and run for office is not only original research, it's historically incorrect. As I pointed out, there are no examples of federal interim leaders resigning in order to run for the leadership while there are two examples of interim leaders running for the leadership without resigining. Now, you may quibble about whether or not Charest was an "interim leader" but what about Rita Johnston? She remained interim leader while running in a contested leadership convention in which she defeated several candidates. And you can't say that since that's provincial politics, it's different since the *only* examples of interim leaders resigining to run are in the provincial realm - there are no federal examples of this happening, zero, zilch, nil. Homey 02:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
In what way is it original research to state that Hugh Guthrie and Daniel McKenzie ran for the leadership of their parties while retaining the position of interim leader? Homey 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Rita Johnston's example occured in the 1990s but I see that since I first cited her, rather than openly conceding my point you are now claiming your non-existent "convention" only applies to federal politics. However, if provincial precedents do not apply it also means you cannot point to Murray Elston and Ray Frenette as proof that an interim leader must resign in order to run. This means you now have absolutely no examples to support your claim of a convention that an interim leader must resign vs two to five historical examples of interim leaders not resigning (McKenzie, Guthrie and, arguably, Coldwell, Argue and Charest). Homey 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Jord, there is no precedent in federal politics of an interim leader resigning in order to run in a leadership convention. Do you concede that point? Homey 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, by Jord's logic it was impossible for Ed Schreyer to run in the 2006 election because a former Governor General of Canada had never before returned to partisan politics.
As has been pointed out, Jord, the burden is on you to prove that your contention that an interim leader cannot run is correct. In any case, I think I've proven that this is not the case and I think it is fair to cite Rita Johnston as a recent example given the fact that the federal scene does often use provincial politics as precedent and vice versa due to the similarity of design between the two levels. The fact that you only chose to restrict your "convention" to federal politics once a recent provincial precedent was cited that refutes your argument suggests that you introduced the restriction for self-serving reasons (to protect your argument) rather than because there's a chasm between federal and provincial practices in this area. The Speaker of the House of Commons does use decisions made in provincial legislatures as precedent, particularly when no federal precedent exists (though in this case federal percedent does exist - it just is contrary to your position) Homey 08:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's another modern example (two more examples, actually) --
Robert Nixon became interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party in 1966, he subsequently decided to run for the leadership permanently, did so, and won in 1967. He did not relinquish the interim leadership to run in the party's leadership convention. Nixon resigned as leader in 1972 but remained on as interim leader. He changed his mind about resigning and was a candidate at the leadership convention held in 1973 to choose his successor. He defeated opponent Norman Cafik at the convention and again became permanent leader. He did not relinquish the interim leadership when he decided to run in the convention.
Homey
08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine saying something like "As interim leader, it is not expected that Graham will be a candidate at the leadership convention" and I think we can easily find a citation. My objection is to being categorical or claiming a "convention" Homey 15:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If the only media report to have speculated on a Graham candidacy is that op-ed piece by an NDP advisor I don't think we should bother mentioning the suggestion. I have added a line saying that interim leaders are traditionally expected to be neutral in leadership contests and are also generally expected not to be candidates themselves. Unless Graham as permanent leader has been mentioned elsewhere in the media I don't think we should speculate about it. Homey 20:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Although there's always the spanner-in-the-works scenario of an early election call (We need to have an election on Afghanistan! Uh... Child care funding? ...accountability?...) forcing Graham to lead the party thereinto... Samaritan 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
To come back to this, my basic concern is that there has to be some discussion of Graham, and whether or not he is expected to run. I think that, if it is all everyone can be gotten to agree to, a basic sentence of the "as interim leader, Graham is not expected to run for the leadership" would probably be barely sufficient, but not ideal. It at least mentions Graham, and that he's not expected to run, but doesn't really make any effort to explain why not. The read is left to infer that interim leaders don't normally run. But why not just say this? It does seem like there's a fair amount of evidence for a general (if occasionally violated) convention that the interim leader is not supposed to themselves run for office. It would seem reasonable to mention that this is a convention, and, if citation can be found, to note that this is the media's expectation. john k 08:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, I have decided to join Frank McKenna, Allan Rock, Brian Tobin and John Manley in announcing that I will not be running for the leadership of Liberal Party of Canada. Ground Zero | t 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I hear Joe Clark isn't running either.
As for Goodale his reputation is no longer soiled now that Brison's daft email, rather than Goodale's office, has been identified as the likely source of the trust fund leak so I'm not surprised he's reconsidering. Homey 22:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
On CBC News Morning: The Weekend Edition 's political panel this morning, the host asked who was the front-runner in the race. Riley's answer was "Bill Graham" (she mentioned no one else). She said that while Graham would have taken the position of interim leader on the understanding they would not run for the permanent job themselves, she speculated that the lack of strong candidates will result in a movement to "Draft Graham" as permanent leader. Given Riley's status as a political analyst (national affairs columnist for the Citizen, frequent guest on political panels) I think this is sufficient to include Graham in our list of potential candidates. Homey 14:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll also add that Riley's inclusion of Graham as a contender is somewhat more credible and weighty than what we have for others on our list (eg Louise Arbour). Homey 14:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the fact remains she is a) a credible commentator and b) this means the claim of Graham as a potential candidate is now sourced. Remember, our list is of "potential" candidates, not inevitable candidates or even of individuals actively exploring the possibility of a candidacy or being actively recruited. The tag at the top of the article notes it is about a future event and thus "(i)t is likely to contain information of a speculative nature". We needen't exclude speculation from the article, we just have to ensure that it's sourced speculation (ie it's made by a credible person or group) and not an individual editor's idle speculation.
Homey
20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I wrote: "Susan Riley of the Ottawa Citizen has speculated that ... the lack of strong candidates will result in a "Draft Bill Graham" movement to make him the permanent leader." (emphasis added). Homey 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the reference to Susan Riley's comments should be retained in the body of the article when interim leadership is discussed(and Jord should be pleased about this as she provides a source for saying an interim leader would have to quit in order to run). I can go either way in regards to putting him in the list of potential candidates though I think he is a potential candidate for the reasons Riley states and I think if his name comes up again we definitely should list it. If we don't include him then we should also remove Arbour (who hasn't been referred to as a possible candidate by anyone but the Tygee and who, I think, is a far more remote possiblity than is Graham). We should also remove Copps in that case as well since there's no evidence that she is either exploring a candidacy or is being recruited as a candidate - all we have is a one-off reference in a Sun article. As with Arbour, I think Graham is a more likely candidate than Copps. Homey 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Arbour story is not hard enough news to have been picked up by any mainstream news sources in the month or so since the Tygee "broke" the story and it is hopelessly vague - "sources say". Not only are no sources named named but we don't even know if we're talking about senior Liberal officials or the members of a campus club who are behind this supposed "Draft Arbour" movement.
Unfortuntely, the Copps article is no longer available (aside from the first line which says three women are being "touted" as possible candidates) so I don't know if that can be said to be any more substantive than Riley's speculation on Graham. It's certainly not unencyclopedic to say there is no hard evidence that Arbour is thinking of running or that there is a serious effort (ie one by people with pull) to draft her and I don't know if Copps was being "touted" by someone actually willing to organize a campaign or by someone trying to come up with names of Liberal women. Both these stories are over a month old - neither has seen any echo (neither Arbour or Copps have been mentioned as possible candidates since then and they certainly aren't part of the lists being published on a daily basis in the press). I don't think it's unencyclopedic to remove them. At this point the basis on which we decided to include them in the list is far weaker than the basis on which we can include Graham. The Copps and Arbour stories are stone dead cold. Homey 01:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Homey 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
When a national political columnist who works on Parliament Hill says "sources say" (and they usually indicate if its senior sources etc) it's a bit more credible than when someone in BC writing about Ottawa does it. It's safe to say Riley has sources throughout the hiearchies of the federal political parties. Harder to say that for the Tyee editor whose article on Arbour is incredibly vague. Homey 03:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It's just that the Arbour article not only does not look credible there's nothing in it of any substance and nothing is put forward that compels one to believe that a) a Draft Arbour movement actually exists b) anyone with any standing in the Liberal Party is involved with this movement c) Arbour even knows about it. If that article had been presented to any editor at a serious paper it would have been spiked. Homey 04:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the clincher for me on Arbour is that there has been absolutely no followup anywhere since its publication a month or so ago to sustain this rumour. If it had legs then you would have seen Arbour's name creep into the lists of rumoured candidates published in each article on the leadership or some indication that the story is "developing" either by an echo story in other media or even a followup story in Tyee. So far, nothing. The story has sunk like a stone. Homey 14:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone more skilled than me put together a box (maybe under the Liberal logo) that lists the basic facts (once they are announced later today) ie date of the convention, location, entrance fee, spending limit, number of candidates? Might be useful for quick reference. Homey 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In the Star today, Susan Delacourt says that the "formal call of the convention" will happen on April 7th and that is the date of Martin's resignation. I got the impression from the press conference yesterday that Martin's resignation went into effect on the weekend. Anyone know the facts for certain? Homey 11:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Homey, et al... FYI Arbour was mentioned on Politics with Don Newman just now as one of the less reported potential candidates along with Kennedy, Pritchard and Ashley MacIassc. - Jord 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
She's also included in today's Globe's list of possible canadidates. Homey 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
MacIsaac has been known for making erratic statements, and then backing away from them. I can verify that he has a long history in the Liberal Party, but I'm not sure we should be taking his latest declaration too seriously.
Should we move this to "potential" for the time being? CJCurrie 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
He may back out later but he seems declared for now. -- JGGardiner 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I suspect we'll soon have a section for "official candidates" ie those who have put down the $50,000 fee. Once candidates start actually ponying up we can downgrade the "declared" section to "declared but not registered" and perhaps turn it into headshots as is the case now with "potential candidates". Homey 00:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This convention will be both a leadership convention and a biennial convention for the party. This means that in addition to electing the leader, routine business such as policy resolutions, constitutional amendments and the election of the party executive will take place. Should this wider scope be covered in the article? If yes, it should probably be renamed Liberal Party of Canada biennial and leadership Convention, 2006 [9]; if not then we should probably call the dates Dec 2 to 3 which will be the dates on which the actual leadership portions of the convention will take place. - Jord 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, quite a number, prehaps most, leadership conventions of all the major parties have also been policy conventions (certainly that's the case with every NDP leadership convention prior to the introduction of OMOV). Homey 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Paul Zed is quoted in today's Telegraph Journal indicating he is still considering the run and will make up his mind after the Sheila Copps tribute dinner he organized with Dennis Mills in Toronto this Thursday. It also says Brian Tobin is likely to back him. The TJ site is pay only so I am not sure if we should link it or not? [10] - Jord 14:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Stephane Dion, Unity Minister (linked to Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs) under Chretien? I've never heard that moniker before. I know we're pressed for space in the box, but that just seems inaccurate. - Joshuapaquin 06:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
HELP! Formatting is all screwed up right now and I don't know how to fix it. Robbie dee 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I have seen him on other people's "lists" of potential candidates, although the Hill Times article is the only online source I am aware of. I realize he indicates he is not planning to run "at the moment" but he also says "Who knows?" I read that as really meaning "make me an offer." If Brison is unable to go forward because of the Income Trust situation, I think there will be a lot of pressure for another Atlantic Canadian candidate. Robbie dee
The article linked basically says that people are impressed with his performance to date and that at some point people may begin to ask him to run; I don't think that makes the criteria. Especially when one considers that Graham would be expected to resign his current position as leader in the House to run, I think it is a stretch for him to be included unless there is verification of a real movement afoot. Agreed? - Jord 15:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Joe can be added to the list of potentials. http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/02/28/1465768-sun.html
I'd like to raise the possibility of removing Cotler. For the moment, all I've seen (and the source that we're using) is that Lloyd Axworthy floated his name, along with others, as people who he'd like to see run. It just doesn't seem like all that much. Just one half-endorsement but no suggestion that he's thinking of it or that anyone is actually asking him. What does everyone think? -- JGGardiner 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a second source [1] Homey 12:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I know someone who is deeply involved in the Liberal Party and he told me a few days ago that Stronach is going to declare, that she's taking French classes and that he is going to be on her leadership team. This is after having personally spoken to her. But since this is not coming from any official or journalistic sources, there's no way I can post it on here, right?
there are 27 possible candidates and 1 declared. This is a redicilous (sp?) ammount, is there no way we can compact this? Pellaken 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well you can add another name to the list. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060304/ca_pr_on_na/liberal_leadership_prospects;_ylt=Au_K_MMCtxY_iXLegYaeufiFM1IB;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
Should he be added again? Personally I don't think so, but I'll leave it up to the decision makers around here. I guess he could become the actual Liberal leader if an election is called before the convention but I don't see how he could participate in a convention. Anyways, this link shows him as a possible candidate. [2]
Murray Elston was interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and then quit to run in the leadership convention to replace David Peterson. Also, as their is a minority government there is a chance that Graham would be asked to lead the party into an election if the government falls suddenly in the next few months. Homey 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't all this be explained in the article? Looking at it, it is only mentioned that Graham is the interim leader, and then he is mysteriously (to those of us foreigners who are not terribly familiar with the conventions of Canadian politics) absent from the list of potential candidates. It seems to me the article ought to explain that interim leaders are normally seen to be excluded from running for the leadership. This is not obvious unless you are Canadian. As an example, in Britain, the interim Liberal Democratic leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, not only ran in, but won, the Lib Dem leadership election. john k 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Murray Elston was interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party in the early 1990s. He decided to run in the leadership convention and was replaced as interim leader by Jim Bradley.
Homey
00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there's been only one person in Graham's exact position, ie "acting leader" and leader of the opposition while an outgoing leader retained the titular position of party leader - and that's Herb Grey. I don't think we can say there's an iron clad tradition when we're talking about a situation that's only existed once before. Homey 02:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the Star, John Manley is "facing pressure" to reconsider his decision to bow out of the race [3]. Homey 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Group of Que. Liberals want Martin to return to leadership. Homey 12:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
From: lrb-brl@parl.gc.ca [mailto:lrb-brl@parl.gc.ca] Sent: March 16, 2006 4:15 PM To: Liberal Research Bureau / Bureau de recherches libéral Subject: Paul Martin Resigns as Liberal Party Leader / Paul Martin démissionne du poste de chef du Parti libéral Below is an up-to-date OppFlash for MPs to use as talking points. You can either open the attachment, or, for those of you using a wireless handheld device, the text is below. Paul Martin Resigns as Liberal Party Leader ISSUE · The Right Honourable Paul Martin has announced that he will officially resign as Liberal Party Leader, following the upcoming March 19 announcement of the date of the call of the upcoming Liberal Leadership convention. KEY MESSAGES · The Liberal Caucus and the Liberal Party are grateful to Paul Martin for his years of dedicated service to his country and our party, as a Member of Parliament, as Finance Minister and as Prime Minister. · Mr. Martin's Liberal minority government had many major accomplishments: the 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care and the New Deal for Cities among them. · We look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Martin, as he continues to contribute to the party, and to serve the constituents of LaSalle-Émard. BACKGROUND · Mr. Martin announced his intention to step down and the appointment of the Hon. Bill Graham as Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons following the January 2006 election. · The Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada stipulates that a leadership convention must be held within 12 months of the resignation of a leader. · The National Executive of the Party meets this weekend. In advance of this meeting, Mr. Martin has made his intentions clear. By remaining as Liberal Party Leader until this time, Mr. Martin has given the Party more leeway in choosing a date for the next convention. · This weekend, the National Executive will be asked to formally appoint Bill Graham as Interim Leader of the Liberal Party until the Leadership Convention takes place. Problems? Comments? During regular business hours, contact us at 995-0886. Evenings and weekends, call 995-3007 and leave a message. We will return your call as quickly as possible. Materials produced by the Liberal Research Bureau are available on our Intranet site at : http://liberalcaucus
Homey has removed, first because it was "obvious" and then because Graham isn't listed as a potential candidate, the paragraph that explains why Graham cannot, by convention, run for leader while serving as interim leader. As pointed out above on the talk page by a non-Canadian reader, this is something that should be included because in other countries, most notably in Britian with recent election of Menzies Campbell as leader of the Liberal Democrats, interim leaders can, and often do, run for the leadership. I will re-add this paragraph for these reasons. - Jord 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hm. See Daniel McKenzie. Homey 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
When did this practice develop, exactly? A look at the actual facts shows there is no such practice in federal politics:
Graham will be only the third interim leader in Liberal Party history. Only one of the three has run for the position permanently, Daniel Mackenzie. Mackenzie did not resign as interim leader.
The Tories have had four interim leaders in their history, one of whom, Hugh Guthrie, ran in the subsequent leadership convention. Guthrie did not resign as interim leader. (If you count Charest they had five, two of whom ran without resigning first)
So in the history of federal political parties we have two interim leaders who ran for the job permanently. Neither of them resigned as interim leader before seeking the job permanently.
I fail to see that a) this "convention" exists or b) when it originated.
A convention that has been ignored 100% of the time is not a convention. Homey 23:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
There's also
Rita Johnston in BC who became interim leader of the Socreds when Vander Zalm resigned and ran succesfully to obtain the position permanently when the party held its leadership convention in 1991. In the Ontario Liberal Party
W.E.N. Sinclair was interim leader in the 1920s (for a prolonged period) and ran when a leadership convention was finally held in 1930, losing to Mitch Hepburn. Sinclair did not resign as interim leader when he decided to run in the leadership convention.
Quite frankly there is no "convention" of an interim leader stepping down if he or she decides to run for the position permanently. Rather, on the provincial level, you have two examples (Elston and Frenette) of an interim leader stepping aside and several examples where this did not happen. Federally, you have two examples of an interim leader not resigning upon declaring himself a candidate in a ledership convention and zero examples of an interim leader stepping down.
There is, therefore, no basis on which to say a "convention" exists. Yes, I suspect if Graham were to throw his hat in the ring he would be asked to relinquish his position as interim leader but I say this based on speculation. I do not assert it as a fact, or even a "convention". I can also see a scenario where Graham would not be exepcted to step aside - if the government falls, Graham leads the party into an early election which the Liberals win. Graham becomes PM. The Liberal leadership convention is then held. Graham runs and wins (or possibly is acclaimed). Do you think he'd be required to resign as "interim leader" before running in the leadership convention. I hardly think that's certain. Homey 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
In effect, Jean Charest was interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from December 1993 when Kim Campbell resigned to 1995 when the Tories held a convention that officially affirmed him as leader. Charest was not required to step down as "interim leader" prior to running for the position permanently.
M.J. Coldwell became "interim leader" of the CCF following JS Woodsworth's resignation over World War II. His leadership was subsequently affirmed at the following CCF national convention.
Similarly, Hazen Argue was interim leader of the CCF for two years before he was given the position officially in 1960.
Indeed, I think there may be several examples, if we dig, of someone succeeding a leader who has died or resigned suddenly and then, later on, being officially affirmed in the position. Because they ended up holding the position permanenntly (and perhaps because their leadership was never contested) the fact that they were ever an "interim leader" is overlooked. Homey 23:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Raj Pannu became interim leader of the Alberta NDP following Pam Barrett's sudden resignation. He subsequently became permanent leader. He was not required to resign as interim leader when seeking the job permanently. Homey 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, this is a Talk page, not the actual article. My point is that your assertion that there is a "convention" that one cannot be an interim leader and run for office is not only original research, it's historically incorrect. As I pointed out, there are no examples of federal interim leaders resigning in order to run for the leadership while there are two examples of interim leaders running for the leadership without resigining. Now, you may quibble about whether or not Charest was an "interim leader" but what about Rita Johnston? She remained interim leader while running in a contested leadership convention in which she defeated several candidates. And you can't say that since that's provincial politics, it's different since the *only* examples of interim leaders resigining to run are in the provincial realm - there are no federal examples of this happening, zero, zilch, nil. Homey 02:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
In what way is it original research to state that Hugh Guthrie and Daniel McKenzie ran for the leadership of their parties while retaining the position of interim leader? Homey 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Rita Johnston's example occured in the 1990s but I see that since I first cited her, rather than openly conceding my point you are now claiming your non-existent "convention" only applies to federal politics. However, if provincial precedents do not apply it also means you cannot point to Murray Elston and Ray Frenette as proof that an interim leader must resign in order to run. This means you now have absolutely no examples to support your claim of a convention that an interim leader must resign vs two to five historical examples of interim leaders not resigning (McKenzie, Guthrie and, arguably, Coldwell, Argue and Charest). Homey 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Jord, there is no precedent in federal politics of an interim leader resigning in order to run in a leadership convention. Do you concede that point? Homey 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, by Jord's logic it was impossible for Ed Schreyer to run in the 2006 election because a former Governor General of Canada had never before returned to partisan politics.
As has been pointed out, Jord, the burden is on you to prove that your contention that an interim leader cannot run is correct. In any case, I think I've proven that this is not the case and I think it is fair to cite Rita Johnston as a recent example given the fact that the federal scene does often use provincial politics as precedent and vice versa due to the similarity of design between the two levels. The fact that you only chose to restrict your "convention" to federal politics once a recent provincial precedent was cited that refutes your argument suggests that you introduced the restriction for self-serving reasons (to protect your argument) rather than because there's a chasm between federal and provincial practices in this area. The Speaker of the House of Commons does use decisions made in provincial legislatures as precedent, particularly when no federal precedent exists (though in this case federal percedent does exist - it just is contrary to your position) Homey 08:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's another modern example (two more examples, actually) --
Robert Nixon became interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party in 1966, he subsequently decided to run for the leadership permanently, did so, and won in 1967. He did not relinquish the interim leadership to run in the party's leadership convention. Nixon resigned as leader in 1972 but remained on as interim leader. He changed his mind about resigning and was a candidate at the leadership convention held in 1973 to choose his successor. He defeated opponent Norman Cafik at the convention and again became permanent leader. He did not relinquish the interim leadership when he decided to run in the convention.
Homey
08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine saying something like "As interim leader, it is not expected that Graham will be a candidate at the leadership convention" and I think we can easily find a citation. My objection is to being categorical or claiming a "convention" Homey 15:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If the only media report to have speculated on a Graham candidacy is that op-ed piece by an NDP advisor I don't think we should bother mentioning the suggestion. I have added a line saying that interim leaders are traditionally expected to be neutral in leadership contests and are also generally expected not to be candidates themselves. Unless Graham as permanent leader has been mentioned elsewhere in the media I don't think we should speculate about it. Homey 20:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Although there's always the spanner-in-the-works scenario of an early election call (We need to have an election on Afghanistan! Uh... Child care funding? ...accountability?...) forcing Graham to lead the party thereinto... Samaritan 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
To come back to this, my basic concern is that there has to be some discussion of Graham, and whether or not he is expected to run. I think that, if it is all everyone can be gotten to agree to, a basic sentence of the "as interim leader, Graham is not expected to run for the leadership" would probably be barely sufficient, but not ideal. It at least mentions Graham, and that he's not expected to run, but doesn't really make any effort to explain why not. The read is left to infer that interim leaders don't normally run. But why not just say this? It does seem like there's a fair amount of evidence for a general (if occasionally violated) convention that the interim leader is not supposed to themselves run for office. It would seem reasonable to mention that this is a convention, and, if citation can be found, to note that this is the media's expectation. john k 08:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, I have decided to join Frank McKenna, Allan Rock, Brian Tobin and John Manley in announcing that I will not be running for the leadership of Liberal Party of Canada. Ground Zero | t 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I hear Joe Clark isn't running either.
As for Goodale his reputation is no longer soiled now that Brison's daft email, rather than Goodale's office, has been identified as the likely source of the trust fund leak so I'm not surprised he's reconsidering. Homey 22:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
On CBC News Morning: The Weekend Edition 's political panel this morning, the host asked who was the front-runner in the race. Riley's answer was "Bill Graham" (she mentioned no one else). She said that while Graham would have taken the position of interim leader on the understanding they would not run for the permanent job themselves, she speculated that the lack of strong candidates will result in a movement to "Draft Graham" as permanent leader. Given Riley's status as a political analyst (national affairs columnist for the Citizen, frequent guest on political panels) I think this is sufficient to include Graham in our list of potential candidates. Homey 14:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll also add that Riley's inclusion of Graham as a contender is somewhat more credible and weighty than what we have for others on our list (eg Louise Arbour). Homey 14:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the fact remains she is a) a credible commentator and b) this means the claim of Graham as a potential candidate is now sourced. Remember, our list is of "potential" candidates, not inevitable candidates or even of individuals actively exploring the possibility of a candidacy or being actively recruited. The tag at the top of the article notes it is about a future event and thus "(i)t is likely to contain information of a speculative nature". We needen't exclude speculation from the article, we just have to ensure that it's sourced speculation (ie it's made by a credible person or group) and not an individual editor's idle speculation.
Homey
20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I wrote: "Susan Riley of the Ottawa Citizen has speculated that ... the lack of strong candidates will result in a "Draft Bill Graham" movement to make him the permanent leader." (emphasis added). Homey 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the reference to Susan Riley's comments should be retained in the body of the article when interim leadership is discussed(and Jord should be pleased about this as she provides a source for saying an interim leader would have to quit in order to run). I can go either way in regards to putting him in the list of potential candidates though I think he is a potential candidate for the reasons Riley states and I think if his name comes up again we definitely should list it. If we don't include him then we should also remove Arbour (who hasn't been referred to as a possible candidate by anyone but the Tygee and who, I think, is a far more remote possiblity than is Graham). We should also remove Copps in that case as well since there's no evidence that she is either exploring a candidacy or is being recruited as a candidate - all we have is a one-off reference in a Sun article. As with Arbour, I think Graham is a more likely candidate than Copps. Homey 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Arbour story is not hard enough news to have been picked up by any mainstream news sources in the month or so since the Tygee "broke" the story and it is hopelessly vague - "sources say". Not only are no sources named named but we don't even know if we're talking about senior Liberal officials or the members of a campus club who are behind this supposed "Draft Arbour" movement.
Unfortuntely, the Copps article is no longer available (aside from the first line which says three women are being "touted" as possible candidates) so I don't know if that can be said to be any more substantive than Riley's speculation on Graham. It's certainly not unencyclopedic to say there is no hard evidence that Arbour is thinking of running or that there is a serious effort (ie one by people with pull) to draft her and I don't know if Copps was being "touted" by someone actually willing to organize a campaign or by someone trying to come up with names of Liberal women. Both these stories are over a month old - neither has seen any echo (neither Arbour or Copps have been mentioned as possible candidates since then and they certainly aren't part of the lists being published on a daily basis in the press). I don't think it's unencyclopedic to remove them. At this point the basis on which we decided to include them in the list is far weaker than the basis on which we can include Graham. The Copps and Arbour stories are stone dead cold. Homey 01:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Homey 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
When a national political columnist who works on Parliament Hill says "sources say" (and they usually indicate if its senior sources etc) it's a bit more credible than when someone in BC writing about Ottawa does it. It's safe to say Riley has sources throughout the hiearchies of the federal political parties. Harder to say that for the Tyee editor whose article on Arbour is incredibly vague. Homey 03:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It's just that the Arbour article not only does not look credible there's nothing in it of any substance and nothing is put forward that compels one to believe that a) a Draft Arbour movement actually exists b) anyone with any standing in the Liberal Party is involved with this movement c) Arbour even knows about it. If that article had been presented to any editor at a serious paper it would have been spiked. Homey 04:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the clincher for me on Arbour is that there has been absolutely no followup anywhere since its publication a month or so ago to sustain this rumour. If it had legs then you would have seen Arbour's name creep into the lists of rumoured candidates published in each article on the leadership or some indication that the story is "developing" either by an echo story in other media or even a followup story in Tyee. So far, nothing. The story has sunk like a stone. Homey 14:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone more skilled than me put together a box (maybe under the Liberal logo) that lists the basic facts (once they are announced later today) ie date of the convention, location, entrance fee, spending limit, number of candidates? Might be useful for quick reference. Homey 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In the Star today, Susan Delacourt says that the "formal call of the convention" will happen on April 7th and that is the date of Martin's resignation. I got the impression from the press conference yesterday that Martin's resignation went into effect on the weekend. Anyone know the facts for certain? Homey 11:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Homey, et al... FYI Arbour was mentioned on Politics with Don Newman just now as one of the less reported potential candidates along with Kennedy, Pritchard and Ashley MacIassc. - Jord 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
She's also included in today's Globe's list of possible canadidates. Homey 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
MacIsaac has been known for making erratic statements, and then backing away from them. I can verify that he has a long history in the Liberal Party, but I'm not sure we should be taking his latest declaration too seriously.
Should we move this to "potential" for the time being? CJCurrie 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
He may back out later but he seems declared for now. -- JGGardiner 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I suspect we'll soon have a section for "official candidates" ie those who have put down the $50,000 fee. Once candidates start actually ponying up we can downgrade the "declared" section to "declared but not registered" and perhaps turn it into headshots as is the case now with "potential candidates". Homey 00:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This convention will be both a leadership convention and a biennial convention for the party. This means that in addition to electing the leader, routine business such as policy resolutions, constitutional amendments and the election of the party executive will take place. Should this wider scope be covered in the article? If yes, it should probably be renamed Liberal Party of Canada biennial and leadership Convention, 2006 [9]; if not then we should probably call the dates Dec 2 to 3 which will be the dates on which the actual leadership portions of the convention will take place. - Jord 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, quite a number, prehaps most, leadership conventions of all the major parties have also been policy conventions (certainly that's the case with every NDP leadership convention prior to the introduction of OMOV). Homey 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Paul Zed is quoted in today's Telegraph Journal indicating he is still considering the run and will make up his mind after the Sheila Copps tribute dinner he organized with Dennis Mills in Toronto this Thursday. It also says Brian Tobin is likely to back him. The TJ site is pay only so I am not sure if we should link it or not? [10] - Jord 14:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Stephane Dion, Unity Minister (linked to Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs) under Chretien? I've never heard that moniker before. I know we're pressed for space in the box, but that just seems inaccurate. - Joshuapaquin 06:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)