As I've mentioned in the past, I have a coffee bet that says that Paul Martin will not survive as Liberal leader after the next election.
Douglas Fisher (h/t Norman Spector) speculates that my bet may not be sound.
...At this moment it is hard to read how dissatisfied current Liberal MPs are with Paul Martin's leadership. My guess is they are more lukewarm than hostile. Whatever the case, as yet there is no movement within the caucus wanting and working for his departure.
More significantly, no one in politics or journalism has divined any emergence within the caucus of an alternative leader -- as happened in Turner's years as party leader and in the second and third Chretien caucuses. Chretien, in torpedoing John Turner, and Paul Martin in sinking Chretien, may have put a pragmatic end to that most hallowed of Liberal virtues, "Loyalty to the Leader." If so, you wouldn't know it today. There are no signs of disloyalty to Martin.
There are other cracks in any likelihood of an early and voluntary Martin departure. There's his money. He has plenty -- and it has already talked. He is also likely to live a long and healthy life, an inheritance from both parents. Although Junior is nearing 70, remember that his father was politically active to his 80s. Further, a lot of prime ministers were "seniors" and then some when they left office: Mackenzie King at 74, Louis St. Laurent at 75; Mike Pearson at 71; John Diefenbaker at 68; Jean Chretien at 71.
Reflect on how Martin Jr. rose to the top. He used both his own money and shrewd outside-government contracts to establish and sustain a tight group of advisers -- the so-called "Earnscliffe Gang" which is still largely in place. One finds it hard to imagine the Earnscliffers, who have served Paul Martin so absolutely for so long, letting him disappear quietly from the PMO. My hunch is "the Gang" won't disappear from Parliament Hill until their boss loses his seat in an election or comes back with a much reduced number of Ontario MPs.
