— Feature, Musings —01.07.2025 10:40 AM
My latest: the contenders
And they’re off!
The Liberal Party’s leadership contenders, that is. Although some have been quietly organizing for many months. Does that give them an advantage?
Not necessarily. Here’s the LPC race card, so far:
CHRYSTIA FREELAND: She was Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister until Justin Trudeau clumsily attempted to fire her in December, and replace her with the unelected Mark Carney. Livid, Freeland hit back, calling Trudeau’s signature policies “expensive political stunts” – and warning him he faced electoral defeat. She’s been working the phones with Grits ever since. She’s a contender, but can Freeland win? She has two problems. One, she’s still going to be tarred with every Trudeau scandal and misstep. Two, going back to Brutus, history rarely ever rewards the ones who stab their leader in the back (or the front).
DOMINIC LEBLANC: LeBlanc has been the Trudeau government’s Mr. Fix It and is well-liked by most, including Conservative Premiers. He’s worn many hats: LeBlanc has been an advisor to Jean Chretien, held multiple senior cabinet portfolios, and studied at Harvard. Dom, as he’s called, is the son of former Governor General Romeo LeBlanc and was even Justin Trudeau’s babysitter. Some, however, would say that LeBlanc never stopped being Trudeau’s babysitter – and is therefore too close to Trudeau’s many scandals and controversies. Has had a leadership team in place for months.
ANITA ANAND: Telegenic, affable, capable. Lots of ambition – but no name recognition. Currently slated to lose her Toronto-area seat in a big way. Therefore not a serious contender. If you can’t win your own seat, how can you win the country?
FRANCOIS-PHILIPPE CHAMPAGNE: Frankie Bubbles, as Brian Lilley famously dubbed him, is a centrist Liberal. He is well-respected within the party and represents Jean Chretien’s former Quebec riding. That’s the biggest problem he faces, however: he’s another Quebecer. The Liberal Party has a long tradition of alternating between Quebec and non-Quebec leaders. Many will accordingly say that it’s not Champagne’s turn.
MELANIE JOLY: Joly, like Champagne, is a Francophone Quebecker. That’s a problem. Also a problem: she is arguably the worst cabinet minister in Canadian history, and has energetically destroyed the Liberal Party’s reputation with Jewish voters, likely for good. In the Trudeau government, there is no minister closer to the pro-Hamas position than Joly. If she wins, it’s lights out for a once-great political party.
MARK CARNEY: He’s got the highest IQ, and he’s run big organizations. Born in Canada’s North, fluently bilingual, Carney is clearly favored by Trudeau and his circle. But he’s essentially Michael Ignatieff with a pocket calculator: if you were to look up the word “elite” in the dictionary, you’d see Carney’s high school graduation picture. One upside: if you are getting ready to enter tough negotiations with Donald Trump about debilitating trade tariffs, having the former Governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England representing you is not a bad thing.
CHRISTY CLARK: She may not be the one to beat, yet, but she’s the one the Liberals should pick. She’s brilliant and a scrappy political fighter, and it’s dangerous to underestimate her. Unlike most of the others, too, Clark is an outsider and untouched by the many Trudeau regime scandals. Unlike most of the others, she is a blue Liberal, and actually believes in balanced budgets. Unlike several of the other others, she is a woman who has held the highest public office (Premier of BC) – and it’s well past time that the Liberal Party had a female leader. (They are the only party which hasn’t.) The one who makes Pierre Poilievre nervous.
Other names will enter the race, but mostly just to improve their name recognition. They won’t matter.
The ones above are the contenders. They are the ones to beat!
Out of that bunch, I would go with Frankie Bubbles. He is a happy warrior and has a brain. The key question though is who does Beijing want. The way the current rules are worded, the Chinese will have the most say. You would think the Liberal “brain trust” would be smart enough to fix them after the last disaster(note to self, don’t let 14 year olds who got a membership for free pick the leader of your party).
100%. Clark is the strongest candidate. One thing to add to Warren’s assessment. She was capable of picking up the baton mid race and figured out how to run two extra laps with it. That is extremely rare in Canadian politics. That’s what the Federal Liberals need right now.
Your overall arguments for Clark are good, but the idea that somehow she is elevated by virtue of her gender needs reconsideration.
The average voter doesn’t give a s**t about someone’s gender or color. That is only cocktail-party talk amongst the chattering class, who want to congratulate themselves on voting for / hiring / promoting someone who fits a particular demographic rather than solely on merit.
So while Ms. Clark’s gender may resonate well at the Liberal leadership race, the party needs to consider whether it is clouding their vision amongst the actual ability to… you know…. win a general election. They are very different things.
No one on this list is a lock to win a general election. The salvation of the liberal party will be some time in the wilderness. For this reason alone you read it here first – I’ve decided NOT to toss my hat in the ring. I expect some on this list will follow my example.
I’m not sure how fluent in French Ms Clark is (apparently at one time she was quite fluent, but that was a while ago). She also was someone who was considering a run for the Conservative leadership a few years back (according to some media sources). Some Liberals from Eastern Canada may consider her nothing more than an opportunist. That may be an issue. I can see her doing okay in Ontario, but not out West (I’m not sure how much support she would even get in BC). The problem any leader will have is that they have to defend the last ten years’ worth of decisions. I don’t see how anybody can just say “I wasn’t there” or “I’m not to blame, it was all Trudeau’s fault”. I can see the Conservatives hammering the point of “You are a Liberal, you are part of the problem, not the solution”. If the government falls as soon as Parliament is back in session, that is not a lot of time to prepare a platform and run a campaign. I suspect Ms Joly will have very strong support from the Francophone community and the Palestinian diaspora, which could be an important factor. If she comes out for Gaza, that will play well with the progressives, especially the younger university crowd. With respect to Mr Poilievre, I don’t see anybody making him nervous. I see him as being his own man; not somebody who sticks his finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing. I think he will run his own campaign based on his values, and Canadians will get to decide.
If you come from or have an interest in BC politics, Christy Clarke has a lot of political baggage.
Christy Clark isn’t the right choice. Her French isn’t good enough (she won’t do well in Quebec), she lost to the NDP in BC, and she’s definitely not an intellectual.
Watching a Baylis interview and he actually looks pretty good.
Liberal establishment has already determined the outcome: Carnival Mark.
Liberal Party’s best shot: F-P Champagne
Toughest campaigner: Son of Romeo
Say we get to March throne speech – Barring a redux of the coalition of weasels (dippers allowing libs to not face an immediate confidence kick in the crotch). How does liberaldom even have a new leader in place?
No way they can have a contested leadership contest in 80 some days? Really?
Not even sure they can have a caucus chosen leader given their constitution? I can’t see caucus going outside their own club.
I still think the clown prince has a fair shot at being the “leader” going into an election.
That said the last premier to become prime minister ? Charles Tupper.
Conservatives have brought at least three other premiers to the leadership federally John Bracken, George Drew and Robert Stanfield. None have been able to rally somewhat united caucuses to power. I believe all three were very popular at home.
Liberals have never succeeded / needed to bring an outsider into the leadership. John Turner and Jean Chrétien are truly the least thought of as an outsider but I’m pretty sure ALL other lib leaders came from caucus?
I’d like Christy Clark to buck this trend but it’s a tall order. Why would I like her? As a “blue liberal” it could give me an alternative vote to Pierre Polievre. As a small c con, no way in hell I can vote for any of the other liberal potential successors.
The fact she is a woman is a bonus for me – I’d vote for a centre to centre right woman in a New York minute. This coming from a knuckle dragging 58 year old white male in a male dominated industry – I can tell you our industry is better as the old boys club has been women – invaded. There is a difference between the sexes not a superiority but it’s differences that can be very complimentary.
My worry is that a woman will get slaughtered at the polls because the liberals will be slaughtered. I believe there is an argument that we’ve not had a second woman pm because of the very fact the first was a lamb led to slaughter.
Given that a big part of the Liberal brand is Quebec special treatment and Quebec supremacism, they might as well just choose another Quebec leader and save the furniture in that province.
So I agree with Douglas that Champagne is the best bet. He could probably retain to hold 40-50 seats to narrowly edge out the Bloc for Official Opposition.
Agreed completely. Quebec pandering is a central reason why the Libs have done so well since the early 1970s. I know many long-time Liberals (or past Liberals) don’t like that characterization, but it is entirely true if you look at things from an unbiased perspective.
Ya think?
I like Clark – Bubbles can do it next time.
I have news.
And with that LeBlanc is out. Is he perhaps ready to pick up the pieces after the imminent demise of the party this year? He would make a good heir apparent if he follows a Bay St. type like Carney.
Just for fun though, let me ask where the non-MPs in the bunch would actually run if they won. It’s not like BC (Clarke) or Ontario (Carney) are full of sure-thing seats for the Liberals these days. Maybe Scarborough?
I don’t get why people think of Leblanc as some potential kingpin candidate. He has the charisma of a brick.
My own theory is that he seems to be the most competent of the current cabinet. He may not have charisma, but he seems to be the fixer that they turn to.
Post-election, things will probably change as others who are sitting off the Hindenburg see an opportunity to exert influence over a diminished party.
The CURRENT MPs that run will very likely lose their seats. What’s the difference?
I watched a whole bunch of others say they are considering it and they actually all made me laugh. Wilkinson and MacKinnon? These people have no sense of self awareness.
Oops. Clark just torpedoed her own campaign before it started by lying on the CBC about never having held a Conservative membership and when confronted with the evidence doubled down and said it was fake.
Why we should she lie about something so easily proven? Especially when she could have said “damn right I bought a Conservative membership to support Jean Charest and ensure we had a sensible alternative to Justin Trudeau.”
Just amateur hour.