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

message: 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)
replies: text: Did the expansion on Dion help? Samaritan 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have, thanks. Robbie dee 17:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Declared candidates

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreement here -The Tom 19:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graham for permanent leader? 

message: 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)
replies: text: If that is all we have as a source then I would agree. - Jord 18:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall seeing his name mentioned elsewhere.Homey 00:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Cotler

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  There's no way I can put this in the article, is there? (Stronach) 

message: 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.
: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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Stranger things have happened.  Sometimes even politicians break the rules.  --JGGardiner 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In that case, there should be a citation.  --JGGardiner 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would invite you to find one and add it if you think it is necessary. - Jord 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bill Graham Again 

message: According to the Star, John Manley is "facing pressure" to reconsider his decision to bow out of the race . Homey 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Manley again? 

message: Group of Que. Liberals want Martin to return to leadership.Homey 12:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Martin again? 

message: From: 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)
thread_title:  Liberal Research notes on Martin stepping down 

message: 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)
replies: text: Awww man, I was really looking forward to your campaign! Ardenn 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not running

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps not, but I can't imagine him keeping up such a stunt for over eight months.  CJCurrie 23:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ashley MacIsaac

message: 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 ; 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scope of the article 

message: 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?  - Jord 14:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Zed 

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