Talk:2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 2

Declared candidates

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)

Did the expansion on Dion help? Samaritan 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have, thanks. Robbie dee 17:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Geoff Regan

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

Graham for permanent leader?

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)

Agreement here -The Tom 19:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Joe Fontana

Joe can be added to the list of potentials. http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/02/28/1465768-sun.html

Cotler

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)

If that is all we have as a source then I would agree. - Jord 18:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I recall seeing his name mentioned elsewhere.Homey 00:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've hidden him for the time being. If we can get another source to link to, then bring him back by all means. The Tom 01:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a second source [1]Homey 12:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Homey, please see the above discussion about Fisher's columns. It has been agreed that they can't stand alone as a source. And a non-source + a "I wish Cotler would run" from Axworthy is still not really any sort of source. - Jord 15:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at that article, it seems as though it doesn't show an indication that Cotler might actually run but he is rather suggesting that he has the ability to be leader. Personally, I'd like to see something that suggests that the candidate is either looking at himself or that their is a team forming around them. --JGGardiner 15:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no way I can put this in the article, is there? (Stronach)

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?

Sorry, definitely not. However, you can leak this story to a newspaper, and if they publish it then we can. Sorry, but those are the steps you have to take (and I'm being serious. Wikipedia's original research page actually suggests this). JackO'Lantern 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely not. If you'd like to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, I'd suggest checking out Wikipedia:Verifiability. --JGGardiner 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

28 "candidates"

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, sometimes reality is ridiculous. There are 27 possible candidates named in media speculation, and we have been fairly judicious about making sure that they have been named in the context of exploring bids, not just rattled-off predictions.

Anyway, I think we're unlikely to see many more additions at this point. Pretty much everyone's doing the dance at the moment, trying to line up organizers. The field will narrow naturally soon enough. I've been running Google News checks every so often to see what's coming of certain less-likely bids, and they may quietly bow out soon enough... I think Copps is all-but-gone, for instance, I'm just looking for a decent source. The Tom 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there were 11 people that actually got in to the Democratic race in the US in 2004 and many more that were considering it (Tom Daschle, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Gary Hart, Bob Kerrey to name a few off of the top of my head) so this size of a list isn't really that big at this point - Jord 22:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The number will fall as time passes, particularly as people start declaring (I suspect serious potential candidates will not declare until after the March 18 Liberal executive meeting is held in which the date of the convention, spending limits etc are decided). You will see a number of the "possible candidates" endorsing actual candidates as they declare. Homey 14:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say our job has been adequate. I don't think that we have been all that judicious. Basically if your name is mentioned in any news source, you're in. But in fairness there are a lot of potential candidates because there are several positions. You have maybe 10 people jockeying to be on of three or so serious candidates and the rest looking to become one of several lesser candidates. If only potential winners ran, the field would be a lot smaller. As for compacting, I don't think it should be all that long until we can divide into declared and potential candidates. --JGGardiner 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Being non-judicious would involve throwing Dan McTeague, Pat O'Brien, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, John Parisella, Clyde Wells and Paddy Torsney up there, just because they've picked up some buzz. Is there anybody who shouldn't be listed who's on the page? The Tom 23:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the job has been adequate, like I said. Cotler was up there for some time until a couple of days ago when I mentioned the problems. I've noticed that the source we have on Mills just have his name thrown into a long list with no details. That might be problematic. I haven't checked the others because I don't really care that much. I only checked Mills because I knew somebody who'd worked for him and was curious, as I was about Cotler and a few others. --JGGardiner 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually now that I've looked at a few, I notice that some now link to subscriber based stories. At least Clark, Ianno, Coderre. I didn't check them all. So it would be good to find alternate sources if they exist. The McLellan article is pretty thin. She wouldn't rule herself out when asked. She said a woman and a french-speaker would make a good leader (she's one for two there). But no real indication that she's actually thinking of running. The one article that links to both Bevilacqua and Cauchon was really a piece speculating who might replace Martin (it ran nine days before the election). Maybe they should be there but there's some pretty thin gruel there. I wasn't going to complain but since you asked. --JGGardiner 00:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all :). I've nabbed better articles for Mills, Bevilacqua and Cauchon. McLellan is one of those cusp-of-removal people: there were rumblings that she was backing Rae on Duffy the other day, but I can't find a source online, and until Rae declares she's probably not going to rule herself out. The Tom 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Prichard

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--

Bill Graham Again

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]

I'm fearful that this article is becoming an actor in the whole process, and Graham's appearance here might have prompted him to be added to someone random list. He's certainly said nothing, and Canadian political precedent is pretty firm about interim leaders. The Tom 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Indeed and Ray Frenette was the interim leader of the New Brunswick Liberals and then quit to run for leader. But the precedent is clear, in order to run Graham would have to quit as leader first, until such time as he does, I don't think he should be included. The point that Graham may lead the party into an early convention is irrelevant as he will not be chosen to do so in the convention which this article describes. - Jord 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbour would also have to quit her position and has also said nothing (that I know of). But she's up there. --JGGardiner 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

True but the rules would require that Graham couldn't even really explore it from his interim leadership post. - Jord 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened. Sometimes even politicians break the rules. --JGGardiner 05:13, 6 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)

Very good point john k, I've added a paragraph to the article explaining this. - Jord 19:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to remove or modify your paragraph just yet but you should remember that Graham is not the interim leader of the party per se but rather the leader of the Liberal caucus in the House ("parliamentary leader" is usually used) and also of the Opposition. The leader is an office of the party, currently held by one Paul Martin. That job comes with powers within the party and strings that can be pulled. Mr. Graham's job is not official and he has no powers (within the party). Mr. Graham could rightly claim that he would be running for a job that is different from the one that he holds now. It is also a job that was quite deliberately and unusually, denied him. Therefore I think that it is rather POV to claim the he cannot run. --JGGardiner 20:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

While there is a subtle difference between the interim leadership of the party and Graham's leadership in the House (I should know, as I wrote the parliamentary leader article in order to make sure it was understood); if he were to run for leader it would be just as expected for him to step down from his post because whether he is interim leader of the party with a seat in the House or just leader in the House he gets the same about of visibility, the same lead of in question period, the same unlimited time to speak in the House, the same media draw, etc, etc, etc which are the reaons why he would be expected not to run. - Jord 23:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he would likely have to step down. However, the article suggests that he is not allowed to run at all: "the tradition in Canadian politics bars interim leader's from seeking the leadership". You say that the difference is "subtle" but how do you know what the difference is at all? It is quite unprecedented as I understand it (or do you know of another such case?). As well, one should remember that conventions, especially such weak ones, are broken all the time. Apparently the convention against elected senators is about to be broken for example (or one could say that is was broken in 1991). To unequivocally say that Graham can not run is just an opinion. How do we know this? --JGGardiner 00:13, 16 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)

Yes, I'm aware. It was mentioned above. But my point is that, unlike Mr. Elston, Mr. Graham is not interim leader of his party. He was only delegated certain of the leaders powers in parliament. While I might think that is tantamount to being leader, which I happen to believe, my expert opinion is only an opinion. No doubt Mr. Graham could claim otherwise. --JGGardiner 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Graham receives his mandate from caucus, he was elected by them as their leader and they could replace him, it would be expected for him to step down and, if not, he would almost certainly be removed by caucus. Though he is not de jure the interim leader of the party, he is de facto according to his and Martin's statements. In terms of this being an unprecedented case, that is not actually right, this is the exact same scenario as in the 1990 Liberal race when John Turner continued to lead the party until Chretien was chosen but Herb Gray led it in the House. - Jord 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear above. I meant that nobody in Graham's position has run. I am aware of other people having held his position or something like it. Since nobody has run (or is there an example of that?) any guess as to what he would have to do it just speculation. I personally agree with the guess you put above. But I feel that WP shouldn't include our best guesses. In any event, my problem is not so much with suggesting he would have to step down but, as I said above, that the article implies that he can not run at all. --JGGardiner 01:51, 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)

Yes however, not withstanding this, Graham is viewed as the de facto interim leader and it is fair to suspect that he would have to step down and run. That is what is understood in Liberal circles and in the media. - Jord 02:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is fine and fair to suspect that. But I personally don’t think that it is proper to print our suspicions in this encyclopedia. --JGGardiner 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it would not, because that would be original research, but these are not our suspicions, they are the "facts" as presented by the news media which is our primary source for this article. - Jord 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, there should be a citation. --JGGardiner 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would invite you to find one and add it if you think it is necessary. - Jord 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the author. I don't know if one even exists. I think the easiest thing would be to use the source that you found in the first place. --JGGardiner 17:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Manley again?

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)

I don't think that really makes the cut. I think we should probably be careful of things that have only one source which is a throw away line in an article. I think the McTeague article makes the cut because one of his staff is quoted, but if there is only one source and the source neither quotes anyone credible enough to suggest there is a campaign nor any details about who, where, why people are making a push then it probably should be grounds for inclusion. - Jord 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Martin again?

Group of Que. Liberals want Martin to return to leadership.Homey 12:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The article does not suggest Martin should run, but that the party should refuse his resignation and that there should therefore be no leadership race. - Jord 15:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Research notes on Martin stepping down

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

See the above, a source for some stuff I am going to put in the article - Jord 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Explaining interim leader's not running for leader

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)

That was the first ever political convention in Canadian history, the practice developed later. - Jord 22:53, 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)

Homey, thanks for all of your original research. You are missing the point that in most cases in recent federal history those who have been chosen as interim leader have been chosen because they have said they will not run for leader, thus there aren't many examples of interim leaders stepping down to run for leader because they are normally made interim leader on the condition that they will not run. There are plenty examples (Joe Clark, Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Stephen Harper) to name some on the top of my head) of leaders who wanting to re-affirm their leadership resigning in order to run (and in turn being replaced by interim leaders who are chosen so they don't run). Your point on Charest is not valid, Charest did not run for leader while he was interim leader, the party executive decided that as their were only two MPs and only one wanted the leadership, it was the best choice to keep Charest as leader, he was affirmed as leader at a convention at which no one else was allowed to run. Now, let's look at the interim leaders we have had in the past generation or two on the federal level, none of them have run. If it makes you more comfortable, you can write in the article that as interim leader Graham cannot run and then people can infer that, in order for him to run, he would have to resign if you do not wish to state that explicitly. Here are some sources that say the interim leader can't run, I invite you to find some that say the opposite...

• "Redman likely won't run for the leadership ... both critical conditions for an interim leader" [4]
• "Traditionally, Canadian political parties do not choose interim leaders from among those who intend to go after the job in a leadership convention." [5]

-- Jord 00:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually both of those stories say that parties tend to choose interim leaders who won't run. Neither one says that interim leaders can't run. --JGGardiner 00:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No one is says not running is a "critical condition" of being chosen interim leader, the other says that, "traditionally" parties chose an interim leader who win not be a candidate. Dictionary.com defines critical as "Indispensable; essential" and "tradition" as "A time-honored practice or set of such practices" or "A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present" - Jord 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A condition of being chosen as interim leader. It does not say that interims may not run. --JGGardiner 01:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Homey, thanks for all of your original research."

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)

The point was that you are using the above original research to justify your claim that interim leaders can run for leader and therefore removing text from the actual article that says they cannot. I don't deny that Charest was interim leader, he was, but the party executive created a mechanism for his leadership to be coverted to the real deal, he did not run for leader. As I said above, if you prefer, we do not have to use the language that says an interim leader must resign in order to run, that is a logical extension of, but not necessarily the exact meaning of the precedent that is in place. Interim leaders, at the federal level, in recent history do not run for leader. The two news pieces I have cited back that up. I again ask you to cite something that says otherwise. - Jord 02:41, 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)

Those two examples are from the first leadership conventions of both of Canada's political parties, there are all kinds of things that emerge and change from the first run of things, there are also other things that emerge overtime. You are talking about conventions 80 years in the past. Precedent is something that is set over time. Your original research is that you suggest that because no interim leader on the federal level has resigned to seek the leadership therefore they could have sought it if they wanted to. That is original research and it leads to the wrong conclusion. No federal interim leader in modern history has run for leader. I have cited two news articles which I found on the first page of a Google search, the syntax of which I will link for you "interim+leader"+will+not+run&hl=en&lr=&cr=countryCA, which state quite clearly that it is tradtion that interim leaders do not run and that it is critical in the selection of an interim leader than the person to occupy the post is not going to seek the leadership. I ask you - for the third time - to please cite something that says otherwise - Jord 02:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are misreading your own sources. They say that parties tend to choose leader who will not run. It is your own extrapolation to assume this means that leaders may not run. Read carefully your own analysis "one is says not running is a 'critical condition' of being chosen interim leader, the other says that, 'traditionally' parties chose an interim leader who win not be a candidate." It is about choosing leaders, not about what those leaders may do. I think that in this case, the Liberals chose someone who would likely not not run, consistent with your articles. But when the "A Team" declined to run, a Graham candidacy became possible. --JGGardiner 03:02, 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)

Elston was not my arguement and Frenette I added as an aside after Elston was mentioned because I like to plug New Brunswick where I can, moreover this was a LONG time ago, relatively speaking, in a somewhat different part of the debate. I think I have said two, it could be more times now, that I am not trying to assert that an interim leader must resign in order to run. I am asserting that an interim leader cannot run. Other than the first two of each major party's respective leadership conventions from 79 and 87 years ago, you cannot cite a federal example of an interim leader running. Moreover, you still fail to comment on the fact that I have sources to back up my side of the arguement and you do not. Why? - Jord 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That an editor "cannot cite a federal example of an interim leader running" misses the point: if there's no physical or in this case legal impossibility, there's a first time for everything, and the universe of Canadian interim federal party leaders Jord has in mind is far too miniscule to draw such a convention from. All it means is that if Graham ran we'd have greater confidence note on his article that he was the first to do so. Further, there is no bar in the federal Liberal constitution (last amended 2005) against the interim leader running, and I haven't seen any sources citing Graham, or a party official charged with interpreting the constitution, purporting an unwritten element of the constitution, a convention, or indeed a specific pact Graham entered into to that effect. Homey is arguing that you can not make claim x, but should rather say nothing. The burden is on the proponent of the claim to provide an authoritative source, and this I haven't seen; there is no such burden on Homey (who's gone out of his way, anyway, to point out counterexamples from closely parallel situations). Samaritan 04:31, 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 guess the point I am trying to make here is that according the media an interim leader doesn't run for leader and because of that we should never include Graham as a potential candidate just because a media source that he would be a good candidate on paper who people might at some point in the future want to convince to run. This is something that both Homey and JGGardiner agreed with above. I only wanted to add the paragraph which is now in such contention when User:John_Kenney, a non-Canadian, asked for it as he found the article confusing for a non-Canadian because in other Westminster jurisdictions it is the norm for an interim leader to run and they are often the frontrunner. I can see that this argument is one that I am not going to win, but we should still be looking at an alternative in which we can try to make this article useful for a world wide audience. - Jord 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that I'd like to see our potential candidates include only those who have shown some interest themselves or are being seriously pursued by others to run. I think that a few candidates have been hastily added in response to an opinion piece that simply praised them. --JGGardiner 14:58, 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)

Ok, let's stay away from being definitive but the above would lead to someone in john_k's shoes saying "Why?". So can we say, "Though some media reports have suggested that Liberals may look to Graham as a permanent leader, it is not expected that he will be a candidate as, in Canada, interim leaders are not usually candidates for the actual leadership." - Jord 15:17, 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)

Homey, you're missing the point a bit. Yeah, there are some examples where an interim leader didn't resign the interim leadership before contesting the "real" leadership. However, it's not valid to compare those situations only to cases where the interim leader was a permanent leadership candidate but did resign — you're missing the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the interim leader was not a permanent leadership candidate at all: Deborah Grey. Grant Hill. Andy Brandt. Erik Nielsen. Elsie Wayne. John Reynolds. Dan Miller. Joy MacPhail. And on, and so forth. There are exceptions, but normally the convention is that the interim leadership goes to a person who isn't campaigning for the permanent leadership at all, not necessarily that they have to resign if they want to campaign. Bearcat 07:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There was reportedly a push to extend Andy Brandt's interim leadership so as to position him as the permanent leader-presumptive (source: some credible book I read, though I can't remember which). Joy MacPhail could easily have declared for (and plausibly been acclaimed to) the full leadership without giving up her interimcy, had she wanted... Grant Hill, I'm pretty sure, had already announced he wouldn't even contest his seat again, so they had chosen him with that foreknowledge. ...Anyway, I gather we've all resolved the disagreement anyway and are left trying to impress each other with esoteric trivia. :p Samaritan 10:51, 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)

Not running

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)

Awww man, I was really looking forward to your campaign! Ardenn 21:56, 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)

Graham Again

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)

I would disagree here. I didn't see the panel, but your own recollection of it is that she say "the lack of strong candidates will result in a (draft)" (emphasize added). Essentially, she is crystal balling that a draft may come to be, not reporting that one already exists. In terms of Arbour, the cited article indicates that people are actively courting her to run, while this bit from Riley just says that she thinks eventually the time will come that he will be courted to run. - Jord 19:37, 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)

"I didn't see the panel, but your own recollection of it is that she say "the lack of strong candidates will result in a (draft)" (emphasize added). Essentially, she is crystal balling that a draft may come to be, not reporting that one already exists"

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)

My two cents: we should include/omit based on regular press coverage, not punditry (regardless of the credibility of those individuals floating those names), and based on actual reported organizational activity, not just what tongues are wagging about. I imagine we'll have six declared candidates by the end of the week, anyway, so a lot of this is going to be rather moot rather soon. The Tom 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with The Tom, and in fact this has been our grounds for inclusion several times earlier on this talk page. - Jord 22:29, 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)

Turning this into us assessing "remoteness" and X being more likely than Y blows encyclopedicity out of the water, though, Homey. I also think that the odds of Graham running could well be better than those of Arbour running. I also happen to think Jean Chretien is more likely to seek the leadership than Hedy Fry. But we have a hard-news (not opinion) article saying people are asking Arbour to run, and we no hard-news articles saying people are asking Graham to run. Susan Riley or Mike Duffy or Chantal Hebert or Andrew Coyne can appear on TV and say "Graham might make a good leader" or "Liberals might try to get Graham to run later on" until they're collectively blue in the face, but that shouldn't change this pretty cut-and-dried rubric that news = inclusion, opinion = nada. The Tom 00:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom here totally. For what it is worth, I am a fairly involved Liberal and I know of one very key and well known name in the Liberal Party who is working on the Arbour recruitment. I can't say the same for Graham largely because if he resigned as interim leader to run, it would cause a fair degree of chaos and would be bad for the party at least in the short term. - Jord 00:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree Homey that the Riley bit should be included in the interim leader section wholeheartedly and would have left it there if I left it there if I removed Graham as a potential candidate, not only because it provides a source for what I've been arguing (I already found two others above) but also because it allows for a greater explanation of his status as a candidate as per john_k's request as a non-Canadian reader. - Jord 00:57, 19 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)

I've been meaning to pull Copps for a while, but I haven't found a quote where she's ruled herself out. If anyone could find one I'll quite happily remove it because, yeah, the general sense is that she isn't interested—we just need hard evidence before our article can reflect that sense. As for Arbour not popping up in the MSM, well, (a) I'd hate to be beholden to CanWest and BCE for our article, and (b) Pritchard hasn't made a repeat appearance on the various lists yet, to my knowledge, but I'll note you have no problem with him because the initial report appeared in a suitably mainstream paper. The Tom 01:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for finding that Copps article, Homey. There we go. Mission accomplished. The Tom

Oh, and an addendum: Re:"At this point the basis on which we decided to include [Arbour] in the list is far weaker than the basis on which we can include Graham.". I still don't think you get what I'm saying above.

• Number of news articles claiming Liberals are trying to draft Arbour = 1
• Number of news articles claiming Liberals are trying to draft Graham = 0

There's your basis. There's no place in an encyclopedia for us plucking "stronger" and "weaker" addendums to candidacies out of thin air. The Tom 01:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of mentions of Bill Graham as a possible candidate by members of the parliamentary press gallery: 1

Numbers of mentions of Louise Arbour: 0

Numbers of mentions of Bill Graham as a possible candidate in national media: 1

Numbers of mentions of Louise Arbour as a possible candidate in national media: 0

Homey 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are coming from the opinion side of the news/opinion divide. Arbour is firmly on the news side. That's the most important distinction of all, not the relative influence of the person saying it The Tom 02:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if you consider the blog that carried the Arbour story a serious news source. Homey 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tyee is not a blog. - Jord 03:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a serious media source. "Sources say", come on. Homey 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Without "sources say" Susan Delacourt would be out of a job. The Tom 03:18, 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)

I very nearly filed for membership in the Parliamentary Press Gallery when I was working on a student magazine a few years back. No joke. I didn't wind up spending enough time in Ottawa to justify it, but suffice it to say, it's not the be all and end all of credibility. Secondly, David Beers is no lightweight, and it seems that you're holding the Tyee to considerably different standards than any old CanWest rag purely on account of geography and its independent status. The Tom 03:39, 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)

Don't tell that to the CBC or Canadian Press. A quick search for the string "sources say" on their sites finds all kinds of stories based solely on the accounts of unnamed sources [6] [7] - Jord 05:48, 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)

One might argue that this could be easily explained by the fact that Arbour (and presumably those closest to her in terms of professional advisors) is in Switzerland and neither they nor her in the venue of scrums is available for easy access and comment by Canadian media. Moreover, Gerard Kennedy was completely off the radar of the media for almost a full month despite the fact that his people were busily organizing and he had a big fundraiser in Toronto on February 23. There are lots of candidates that are easier to persue and by and large investigative journalism is dead due to the work load that political reporters are expected to do. I would say that she should stay until she says other wise or at least until a week or so when candidates start making decisions. - Jord 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox?

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)

Sure thing. I also had the idea of doing a template for the various candidates. The Tom 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, she's up. I'm going to try and templatify 'er so she can be recycled back for previous conventions. The Tom 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought with the info box. For number of candidates, while I recognize that Hall Findlay has declared she will run, should this number perhaps be used only to list officially declared and registered candidates (ie. once they've filed their papers with the party)? This would help avoid any of the speculation and are-they-or-aren't-they that goes on with the rest of the list.PoliSciMaster 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have the line read "declared candidates" (since it's been widely reported there is one candidate and if we say there are none it will look odd) but add a section for "Registered candidates" above the existing "declared candidates" section?Homey 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Martin's resignation date

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)

I would suggest someone make a call to Liberal headquarters to clarify. Martin's letter did in fact say say that his resignation would be effective the formal call of the convention, which is still pending (and I didn't even realize would be as early as the 7th).

The text of Martin's letter is avaiable here [8] - Jord 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbour

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)

Ok, well let's keep her then. Homey 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

She's also included in today's Globe's list of possible canadidates.Homey 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ashley MacIsaac

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)

FWIW, I'm actually inclined to believe him on this one. The flip side of the $50k buy-in is that it makes the race a rather cheap publicity stunt. And Ashley has an even longer history of not passing on those. The Tom 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I can't imagine him keeping up such a stunt for over eight months. CJCurrie 23:59, 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)

Scope of the article

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)

I think it's fair to broaden the scope a bit without necessarily changing the title. This will, as far as terminology is concerned, be known as a leadership convention, and policies passed here will be known in Liberal circles "that policy that we passed at the leadership convention." IIRC, the 1968 convention had policy debated at it, too. The Tom 23:59, 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

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)

Dion

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)

It was a pretty common enough term. See this. The Tom 06:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)