What would you prefer to be called? Anyway, rejoice in it: switchers are the mostly powerful group in the electorate.

mostly -> most

I prefer "Loyalists to Reason". I think we are more "mostly" than "most" as well given the disappointment the hard-thinking LTRs inevitably face.

"Informed consumers"?

Why not be a switcher when the politicians who seek your support brazenly flip from party to party in their pursuit of power and self-aggrandizement? Hello Belinda, Scott and Bob. Iggy switched countries not parties, but it is the same thing. The party machinery demands loyalty from the grassroots but craven self-reinvention among the elites is rewarded. Sickening.

On your other point, As a former card-carrying Liberal, I find all the candidates so badly flawed that none are fit to PM, with the exception of Dion who, although lacking charisma, has consistently worked on a vision that he believes would improve Canada.

Stever the biggest switcher: PCP, Reform, CP - all to form the Party of One.

From a conservative point of view, I'd quite look forward to a Bob Rae candicacy (though not a PM-ship). From a different POV, this would give voters quite a clear set of alternatives from parties capable of forming a government: left or right.

Yet as the polls and all recent elections indicate, except for Alberta and its anti-leftist-ground-fluid, this is not a left or right population. We face a spring election with a very good chance that the CPC will lose ground in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. Stalement. Who needs polarizee politics in light of that reality?

I don't doubt that conservatives are drooling at the thought of a Bob Rae candidacy. The folly of his leadership bid is that he is not playing to the right wing; he hasn't made an obvious platform plank to try to win over right-leaning liberals. With someone from such a strong lefty background, that would be a clever political move. But maybe Bob is just being Bob: he leans left.

Actually, Alan, I couldn't disagree more. Its true we don't need polarization in politics (I hate left-right debates myself) but with such an obvious and baggage carrying lefty as Bob Rae, the Tories have the perfect wedge/foil to paint people who don't agree with them as pinko, tax and spend, elitist, deficit-maker, etc. etc.. The tories are starting to use language like "working families" instead of that old chestnut "ordinary canadians". The polarization is underway. Don't get me wrong, I think Iggy is dickhead, but he would at least muddy the left-right waters. A better choice for Lib leader would be one of the dark horse bids because they don't have the baggage that would make them easy to pigeonhole as left or right.

Whomever the Libs choose, I can't wait for them to try to go head-to-head with Elzabeth may on environment issues. She chould shake things up nicely. Let's see the propaganda channels try to exclude the Greens without limp dishrag Jim Harris as leader.

I actually disagree. I think that this is an intentional leak, and that the Tories actually fear Rae a little more.

Why? Need to keep the left divided. Ignatieff, though he is very interesting and brings new ideas, isn't a very compelling speaker or leader, and would bleed off votes to the left.

Don't know which line of reasoning is right, which is why I fear both.

I see Elizabeth May as the Pat Buchanan of Canada [with an environmental conscience of course]. She is slowly positioning herself to steal a few progressive conservative votes near the centre from the CPC. And if Harper doesn't act fast on his promise to come out with a "Made in Canada" solution on the environment, he could very well see some of that tory support bleed to the Greens and even the Liberals, as well as the many who support the Kyoto protocol.

I could PROBABLY live with Dion running the country, so I hope like hell that EITHER Iggy or Rae wins.

Ben has almost completely pre-empted by thoughts on this leak. The only addition I would make is that I do not for a moment believe Conservative high command thinks Gerard Kennedy is "minor-league". Kennedy has the, well, Kennedy-factor more latterly known as Clintonesque. Ignatieff has the sole distinction of being less a man of the people than Harper, no mean feat.

That has an excellent underlying question, Fleaman. What do we look for? Kennedy is entirely zippo to me. He strikes me as a cardboard cut-out. He has told me nothing about himself and I do not care if he leaves, stays or bakes muffins. But what am I looking for in a political leader? Iggy has set himself apart and I like that. Does it mean he is the best potential leader - not a chance. I have merely noticed him. All of which means I am incredibly superficial or otherwise occupied with my own life...which I am. Harper has, conversely, not caught my attention so he has risen in my estimation. Which means I have a chip on my shoulder as far as Tories are concerned. Seems like me to me.

Oh, there's one other question raised by this post. By identifying yourself with the group called "switchers" by the Tories, are you implicitly admitting that you could well vote for the forces of darkness in the next election, Alan?

Or have you mistyped?

It's all on the table, Ben. I have voted Green, NDP, Independent Liberal and who knows what else in those 1980s Nova Scotian provincial elections of my youth. I will probably have Stephen Taylor sit down with me before any election and make the Tory pitch. I think it is very unlikely but blogging my lack of committment does fill pages.

H'm.

That, in and of itself, tells us how much the Canadian political scene has changed over the past couple of years...

Don't worry - it's just a ploy to get on the CBC election blog as well.