Banning floor crossing is a bad idea

I think Peter Stoffer is coming from a good place and I think his intentions are pure, but I feel strongly that banning floor crossing is a bad idea that, rather than improving parliamentary representation and responsibility to constituents, will only further tighten the yoke of party discipline.

A stalwart New Democrat is hoping to ban his colleagues from crossing the floor of the House of Commons without asking voters if they can change parties first.

Peter Stoffer, the New Democrat critic for Veterans Affairs, tabled his private member's bill Monday.

"If I pick up the phone right now and call Mr. Harper's office and if they're in agreement, within an hour I can become a Conservative member of Parliament," Stoffer said Monday. "I don't have to go to my constituents, I don't have to tell my party, I could just sit tomorrow as a Conservative MP.

That's wrong on every count."

I know I was as pissed off as any Liberal when David Emerson crossed the floor from the Liberals to the Conservatives mere days after the 2006 election. Obviously my emotions were somewhat different when Belinda Stronach left the Conservatives to join Paul Martin’s Liberal cabinet. (Mainly stunned disbelief, actually)

I still wouldn’t ban floor crossing though, because it plays into a general ignorance amongst the population, one exploited by the Conservatives during the coalition drama, about how our parliamentary democracy works.

Yes, it’s true that most voters make their decisions based on national party platforms and leaders. The influence of the local candidate in the voting decision is important, but generally minimal in the wider scheme. In a tight race, it can make a difference (many of the Liberals that hung on in May were good constituency people). But generally, the local name on the ballot is secondary (see the NDP in Quebec).

While many may think we vote for Prime Minister, in fact we don’t. And we don’t vote for a party either. We vote for a Member of Parliament to represent us in Ottawa. We send 308 members of parliament to Ottawa and, from their ranks, the governor general calls on one to form a government and test the confidence of the House of Commons.

Whatever people may base their voting decision on, the fact is we’re electing a person to represent us. If they change parties, or do something else that we disagree with, then we can defeat them when and if they run for re-election. But taking away their legitimate right to change party affiliations only serves to further re-enforce this fundamental mis-understanding of our political system and further dilute the role and responsibility of individual members of parliament.

Stoffer’s bill would also have another un-intended effect: further tying MPs under the suffocating yoke of party discipline. You shouldn’t need to risk your job to stand against your party. The system of party discipline has already reduced MPs of all parties to little more than trained seals loyally parroting the party line, so it’s little wonder most Canadians see themselves voting more for a party than an individual representative. Banning floor crossing will only further exacerbate this by giving party bosses even more power and control over MPs that may stray from the flock.

I agree with the spirit of Stoffer’s motion, but it’s a bad idea for so many reasons. It’s cheap populism masking horrible policy. Punish floor crossers at the ballot box, and in the interim let’s bring more relevance to the role of Member of Parliament, not less.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals, we must commit to using this time for rebuilding

Well over 2000 Liberals spent a few hours Saturday afternoon taking part in an extraordinary convention via teleconference to make a few decisions about the path forward for our party. It was just one step in the road to renewal, but an important one and while the outcome wasn’t my preferred choice, the energy and the numbers on the call give me some confidence in our prospects for the years ahead.

The delegates decided to postpone the next leadership race to between March and June of 2013. We also scheduled the next biennial convention for January 2012 in Ottawa.

I proposed a sub-amendment that would have scheduled the leadership for between September and November of 2012. I felt delaying into 2013 would leave us too long without a leader democratically elected by the membership at large with a moral mandate for renewal, and would leave us for too long distracted by leadership drama.

There was enough support for this position to bring the sub-amendment to the delegates at convention, and many spoke in favour of this option. In the end, though, a sub-amendment introduced by Stephane Dion and supported by a number of caucus members to delay the leadership as late as June 2013 found more support amongst the delegates, and was adopted.

I’d like to thank everyone that helped me bring the sub-amendment to the convention, spoke in favour of it on the call, and voted for it. I felt it was important that we give the delegates the option of an earlier date and while, in the end, they preferred another option, it was important to have that choice available. More choice is always a good thing.

Like all Liberals, I accept the decision of the convention and we move forward united in our shared mission to reform, rebuild and renew our party. Having given ourselves over two years before the next leadership, it is now crucial that we all commit to not wasting this time. We cannot spend two years just spinning our wheels. We must all commit personally to making every day count.

As I said, this convention and the decisions made Saturday were but one small step on the road. We need to work in our ridings. To many riding associations are closed shops, cliques that won’t let new members in, suspicious of their motives. That must change. We need all the help we can get. We need to open our riding associations and begin building local organizations that are active, connected and open to all. The Liberal Party is only as strong as its riding associations.

Many provincial and territorial associations will be meeting in the months ahead. Here the work must begin on policy and constitutional reform to bring to the biennial next January. More importantly, we need to begin having the discussions about redefining ourselves and the kind of party we want to be.

And at the biennial in January, Liberals from across the country will gather together in one room to chart the course for the future of our party. We’ll debate policy, we’ll begin reforming the structure of our party, and we’ll elect a new national executive to help us renew and rebuild that structure. All three areas are important but we can’t treat the executive elections like an after-thought. We must find candidates that share our values and support them, and ensure they’re committed to building a new Liberal Party that is more open, inclusive and responsive to the membership.

It’s also a time to be bold, and put every idea on the table. (Here are some of my thoughts on reform) We need to examine every aspect of our organization with no taboos and ask ourselves is this the best way to do this, is this meeting our objectives? My own feeling is that we need a leaner organization that puts the riding association and the people on the ground first. The party structure should be geared primarily to helping each of our 308 riding associations build the organization and community connection needed to be successful. Today we’re too much a top-down party; we need to flip that on its head.

Bob Rae said recently we need to be a wiki-party, and I think he’s right. We need to cut down the barriers to entry, flatten the structure, and directly empower the membership. This teleconference was a great example of that. No $800 delegate fee, no need to fly to another city and stay in a hotel room. Just 2000+ Liberals who paid a $20 fee to take part in a teleconference, debate and directly vote on key decisions. And many more Liberals and members of the public listened-in online, and took part in the online chat or on Twitter. It was an example of the kind of open access and transparency that must guide us going forward.

We’ve got much to do and many important decisions ahead. Let’s use this time wisely, and let’s get to work.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals: Let's not wait until 2013 to pick our leader

I've been informed that my sub-amendment on leadership timing has been accepted and will be debated during the Liberal extraordinary convention tomorrow. Thanks to everyone who pledged their support to help get it onto the agenda.

I'll have a chance to introduce the sub-amendment on the call tomorrow, but time will be limited so I'd like to speak to it at a little more length here. First, here's the original amendment from the National Board of Directors which I'm seeking to amend:

1. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(1) the following:

Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 54):

(a) the meeting of the National Board of Directors required by subsection 54(3) as a consequence of the resignation of the Leader in May 2011 shall be held at any time on or before October 1, 2012; and

(b) at the meeting referred to in Paragraph (a), the National Board of Directors, in consultation with the Caucus and the Council of Presidents and on five (5) months’ notice to the Party, shall set a date for a Leadership Vote between November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013.

This subsection (1) shall no longer be of force or effect on the later of the conclusion of the Leadership Vote contemplated by Paragraph (a) and February 28, 2013.

And here's my proposed sub-amendment:

Be It Resolved That proposed constitutional amendment number one be amended as follows:

i. in (a), strike “October 1, 2012” and replace with July 1, 2012
ii. in (b), strike “November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013” and replace with “September 1, 2012 and November 30, 2012”
iii. in (b), strike “February 28, 2013” and replace with “November 30, 2012”

Essentially, I'm proposing we move the window for the leadership election (remember, it will be one member, one vote in our ridings instead of a convention) back to ensure it will take place in Fall 2012, between September 1 and November 30 of 2012. Under the current proposal, it could be delayed into 2013.

My proposal would also shorten the window in which the National Board could chose to schedule the vote from four months to three, to give a little more certainty on timing. The requirement for five months notice would remain intact.

Why do I object to the timing proposed by national board? Quite simply, I feel it delays the leadership process too far. Right now we're faced with two choices. A Yes vote means we might not have a permanent leader in place before the winter of 2013, nearly two years since the election. But if we vote No, that means a quickie race and a vote in October. That's way too soon for a credible, substantive race with a large field of candidates.

I think many feel like Goldilocks making her porridge choice: one is too hot, one is too cold. Where's the porridge that's just right?

I hope that Fall 2012 can be that just-right option. Very good points are made by those that favour both shorter and longer races. We don't want to rush into this; we need to begin rebuilding and decide the party we want to be before picking a leader that will buy into it. But we also need a leader with a mandate for reform from the party membership at large to carry forward with the rebuilding. It's a balancing act.

I also believe that, no matter what rules we put in place to try to limit or delay leadership organization activity, it's going to happen anyway. I'd be surprised beyond belief if it wasn't already. I don't want to see us distracted by leadership drama into 2013. Let's do this in Fall 2012, and send the leadership troops home before Christmas. Shortening the leadership window also reduces the influence of the National Board, and reduces the motivation for leadership camps to use the executive races at the next biennial to fight a leadership proxy battle.

In short, I feel that Fall 2012 is the compromise position with the best chance of success. It gives us enough time to begin on reform discussions. It allows time for credible leadership candidates to emerge and gather support. It allows for a race long enough for leadership candidates to travel the country and engage Liberals in all 308 ridings. And it will elect a leader before 2013, leaving us time to continue the reform and rebuilding process ahead of the next federal election, united as one party.

If you're a Liberal delegate I hope you'll consider voting for this sub-amendment Saturday, and I welcome your questions and comments.

Thank-you,

Jeff Jedras

UPDATE

The full list of officially approved sub-amendments is now available online. In addition to mine above, there are several others that would delay the leadership past February 2013, the end of the window proposed by the national board, to as late as mid-2013. Another would also delay the biennial convention even further.

While they seem well intended, I have to disagree with these proposals for several reasons. Given that I feel the current proposed process delays the leadership too far already, I certainly couldn't support delaying it to the point where we would be going over two years without a permanent leader with a democratic mandate. I feel part of the renewal process needs to be a leader that has been elected by the membership of the party with a strong mandate for change and reform from we, the members. We shouldn't rush to that step, yes, but mid-2013? That is way too long to go with leadership drama and machinations distracting us from the work that needs to be done. It wouldn't help renewal; it would delay it.

I also object strongly (perhaps more strongly) to the proposal to delay the biennial. I think that’s the very wrong thing to do for renewal. Delaying biennial would mean going even longer with the current national executive (and president), and I feel change at the top is necessary for renewal to truly begin.

The biennial isn’t the end of the renewal process. Rather, it is the beginning, and there will be many more biennials to come as we reform and rebuild the Liberal Party. I’m disappointed we’re already delaying it to January; I can’t support delaying it further. It will be the first chance for we Liberals to all get together and discuss who we are, what we want to be and where we want to go. It’s an important first step, and we can’t delay it.

As a technical aside, delaying the biennial would cost the party a lot of money in lost deposits and cancellation feels for the convention centre in Ottawa and for hotels; I’m not sure we can afford to that right now.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals: I need your help changing the leadership selection timeline

(UPDATED: See bottom of post)

If you're a Liberal who was acclaimed as a delegate to the upcoming extraordinary convention to change/set the timing for the next leadership race and you're not satisfied with the choices on offer (voting No and picking a leader in October, or voting Yes and letting it drag out as late as late February of 2013), I need your help.

I'm proposing a sub-amendment to the amendment proposed by the National Board of Directors (read their original here) that would see a permanent leader selected next fall, between September and November of 2012.

Here's the text of my sub-amendment:

Whereas the leadership selection timeline proposed by the National Board of Directors would leave the party for too long without a permanent leader,

and Whereas it is desirable to have a permanent leader in place by the end of 2012 to join with the grassroots in the rebuilding of the Liberal party of Canada,

Be It Resolved That proposed constitutional amendment number one be amended as follows:

i. in (a), strike “October 1, 2012” and replace with July 1, 2012
ii. in (b), strike “November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013” and replace with “September 1, 2012 and November 30, 2012”
iii. in (b), strike “February 28, 2013” and replace with “November 30, 2012”

Moved by: Jeff Jedras, Scarborough-Centre

As mentioned, this change would move the timeline forward by three months and prevent us from going into 2013 without a permanent leader. My originally preferred timeline was spring 2012, but I think Fall 2012 is a good compromise between those who want a shorter timeline (but feel going this October is crazy) and those who want a longer race. Three months sooner may not seem like much, but I feel we can't allow this to drag out into 2013. This timeline would allow for a long enough race to allow for fulsome open debate in ridings across the country and for new entrants to consider throwing their hats in the ring, while allowing us to also move past the leadership issue and move forward on rebuilding the party together.

If delegates are to have a chance to vote on this compromise position though, I need your help. To be put to delegates my sub-amendment needs the written support of at least 25 delegates to the extraordinary convention.

Delegates: Need your help ASAP

If you were acclaimed as a delegate and would like to see this sub-amendment voted on at the extraordinarily convention:

* You need to send an e-mail indicating "I support the sub-amendment proposed by Jeff Jedras" (paste the text of the sub-amendment into the e-mail to be safe) to the Liberal Party at convention@liberal.ca.

* Please cc. me at jjedras(at)gmail.com so I can track the number of submissions.

* The e-mails must be received by LPC at Noon Eastern Time this Friday, June 17, so please send it now. Won't take but a second.

* Note: you must send the e-mail from the e-mail address you used to register for the extraordinary convention or it won't be valid and counted.

(UPDATE): Please use the subject line "Support for sub-amendments submitted by Jeff Jedras" for your e-mail to help LPC classify them.

Give delegates a better choice

Right now, like many delegates I feel I'm being forced to choose between two bad options.

The timeline as proposed is much too long. Even if the race won't officially be called for some time, the unofficial race will begin immediately and I don't want to see our party distracted by leadership drama when we should be focused on re-building.

At the same time, if we vote against the executive's proposal we'll be forced to pick a leader in just four months, which is far too short to allow for a proper race with a full field of credible candidates campaigning across the country.

Instead of being forced to hold our noses and pick the lesser of two bad options, let's give party members a third choice: a better choice. That's what I hope to do with this sub-amendment.

How will it work

Before voting on the main amendment proposed by the executive, the sponsors of any sub-amendments will be given a chance to speak to their proposal, and delegates given a chance to debate it, followed by a vote. If the sub-amendment is passed (by a simple majority) then debate proceeds to the main amendment as amended. If it fails, debate proceeds on the original unchanged amendment. The amendment itself will require 2/3s support to be successful. (Read the rules here)

Happy to answer any questions by e-mail or in the comments. But if you're an approved delegate and want to see delegates given a third option, please follow the instructions above. And thanks!

UPDATE: One little wrinkle to my amendment was pointed-out in the comments by Peter.

I just moved all the dates back a few months from those in the main amendment, but I also cut the window for the leadership vote from four months to three. In doing so, the date in (a) is one month past the five-month notice window to meet the end of the three-month window I set in (b). It doesn't invalidate the amendment I've proposed, but it does make it a little less neat than it should be.

Therefore I've informed the party I've changed the (a) date of my amendment to July 1, 2011, and I've asked those who have already e-mailed their support to resend reflecting their support of the changed amendment. The text above has been edited to reflect the change.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons keep leadership system Finley says wide-open to abuse

In an convention that was seriously lacking in news (which is the way the Conservatives wanted it, incidentally) the one bit of drama was the battle (which seems to happen at each of their conventions) to re-write the rules for selecting Stephen Harper's successor.

When the Alliance and PCs merged, PC leader Peter MacKay insisted on an equal-riding system instead of the Alliance's pure one member, one vote where ridings with large membership bases (primarily in Alberta) would overwhelm smaller ridings in the rest of the country, giving candidates no incentive to campaign nationally. At his insistence they adopted a system of riding equality, where each riding gets 100 points regardless of membership, and so candidates need to gain support accross the country.

Some of the old Alliance folks have been trying to change the system for years, arguing it's unfair to large membership ridings (a vote in a small riding is worth more than one in a large riding), and it discourages all ridings from recruiting since they're capped at 100 points no matter how many members they have.

At this convention Ontario MP Scott Reid, generally seen as a proxy for future leadership candidate Jason Kenney (who would draw support from populous Ontario and Alberta ridings) put forward an amendment for what he called a compromise position: 100 point minimum, but if you sign up more that 100 members you could increase your points, to a maximum of 400 points. So there would be some incentive to sign up new members, but smaller ridings wouldn't be completely overwhelmed. Senator Don Plett lays out their argument here to delegates at a pre-vote hospitality suite:

On the other side is MacKay and a lot of old Tories, who see such a change abandoning one of the core principles on which the party was founded, and as a move that would stop the Conservatives from being the truly national party they seek to be.

The debate played out quite dramatically on the constitutional plenary floor, following some procedural wrangling. Usually amendments make it to the floor via workshops but the Reid motion was soundly defeated in workshop Friday. He managed to get it to the floor by a petition drive, which the MacKay side tried unsuccessfully to get ruled out of order.

Once debate proceeded, with Reid kicking off the for and MacKay the against, many of the speakers were high profile caucus and cabinet members. Michael Chong and Peter Kent sided with MacKay, while Doug Finley (who ran Harper's successful leadership campaign under the 100 point system) sided with Reid, describing the current system as wide-open to rampant abuse. And he's not entirely wrong; before she crossed the floor Belinda Stronach ran against Harper (and Tony Clement) in that leadership race, and became competitive by sending paid organizers into defunct Quebec ridings and taking them over for 100 points each.

In the end, delegates rejected the Reid motion so soundly by a show of hands the chairs didn't even bother going to an electronic vote. Interestingly, they also rejected an amendment from the MacKay side to enshrine riding equality in the party's core principles, which they argue would make future motion's like Reid's out of order. An interesting bit of balance.

I think Finley will come to regret those words if he's still around when a race to replace Harper does eventually happen. But in the interim, here's MacKay reacting to the day's events:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Barely news today, forgotten tomorrow: live-blogging the policy plenary

1:30 PM: And we're back, or we will be in 5 minutes, the voice from on high just informed the hall. It's time for the policy plenary, and apparently we have 30 or so to deal with in one-and-a-half hours. We'll see how that goes.

Policy plenaries are a funny thing. Well-meaning people spend months getting a policy to the plenary and lobbying for its passage, with much vigorous debate. The media and opposition will loo for controversial policies to highlight. And then after the next day, we'll never hear of these policies again because party leaders write their own platform, never mind what their memberships have to say.

It seems to be a bit of a kabuki play in all parties; after all, developing policy should be a prime reason for joining a party if you're joining for the right reasons. Alas, it's usually just for show.

1:37 PM: They're reading the rules. One requires a "clear majority" to demand debate on a policy for there to be debate. Hmm, how will Guy define a "clear majority"? Is it 50+1? More? Jack Layton definition or Clarity Act definition? Ah, fun.

1:45 PM: After 15 minutes of rules, we're underway. They're not naming them, so it's a it hard to follow. No debate on the first, which I think was basically we love veterans. It passed. They also oppose human smuggling.

1:48 PM: Still no debate. Policy on shared parenting (joint custody mother and father) passes. And motion on family and marriage, saying we don't want to force religious institutions to marry people they dont' want to. Which no one is forcing them to do. Anyway, it passes. This is going too fast.

1:50 PM: Finally debate on a motion which I support, to remove parental means test from student loan eligibility determination. Ridiculous speech against saying it's the millionaires resolution that kids of rich people that don't need it could be getting loans. Really, why would they? That's dumb. Speaker for makes point families can be asset rich/cash poor, like farmers, and shouldn't have to sell land to put kids through school. Glad to see it carries fairly clearly.

1:53 PM: Point of order from a delegate asking the chairs to slow the heck down is met with applause from the floor. I agree, but no clapping allowed on media row.

1:55 PM: This is too fast so I'm not going to comment on each one, just the major ones, and I'll let you know if one is actually killed.

1:59 PM: Point of order from floor, if it's close to wanting debate just have the debate, don't waste our time with the electronic voting. Given that it's two minutes of debate and takes at least that much time to do the e-vote, makes sense to me, and the floor and chairs agree.

2:00 PM: Now it's a motion to require immigrants adhere to "Canadian values." A speaker against asks just how you would define Canadian values anyway. It goes to an e-vote. It passes 65-35 on vote count, and it gets 9 of 11 provinces/territories, so it passes.

2:05 PM: A lot of people's votes aren't being counted electronically, because they're not using the machines properly. First you need to initialize it with the number of people using each machine, to a maximum of six. When you enter the votes, the yes and no votes must equal that number. Apparently people are trying to initialize six, or are trying to enter more votes than they initialized. In the last vote over 30 machines were invalidates, that could be as many as 200 lost votes.

2:08 PM: Debating a motion on refugee determination, #75, and it's the first to be defeated. It would be tougher on refugees, basically, and seems similar to government policy around the ship/s of Tamil refugees. So its defeat was interesting.

2:13 PM: Tension between delegates at the back and the chairs. Delegates say there's an echo in the room, we can't hear what you're saying and don't know what we're voting on, so slow down. Chairs have little sympathy, say we're following the order in your booklet so pay attention losers. Guy and friend are getting a bit chippy; so are delegates.

2:22 PM: That was social policy, now we're on to Government, Taxation and Crime.

2:23 PM: What looks to be a stealth anti-Sharia law motion passes soundly (B-98).

2:24 PM: Legalized prostitution? Not these Conservatives. They also oppose government waste. Wish I could have seen how Tony "Gazebo" Clement voted on that one. And ha, they're in favour of tax code simplification. Et tu, Jim Flaherty? This government has done more than any other to complicate the tax code than most, with all these ridiculous tax credits designed to buy the votes of target groups.

2:28 PM: Debating a motion to lower the number of convictions for dangerous offender status from three convictions to two. Young guy speaks against saying you don't want to have some lowly pot dealer named dangerous offender; I laughed, delegates not so much. I thought it passed by hands, but it goes to e-vote. And the "two strikes you're out" policy passes handily.

2:38 PM: And now it's the Khadr motion, which would remove right of citizenship even of people born in Canada that take up arms against Canada or its allies. I mean seriously, how do you strip a person born in Canada of their citizenship? Where would you send them exactly if they're not a dual citizen, Atlantis? Narnia? This is silly and dangerous. And it's thankfully defeated on a hand vote; good job delegates.

2:39 PM: Vote on clean air and green house gas policy that can be summed up as an anti-cap and trade policy. It appears to pass by hand, but they go to e-vote and confirm that yes, it carries by only by seven provinces to four. One speaker said this policy would condemn the government's current policy. Opps. I suspect they'll get over it though.

2:44 PM: Resolution that basically supports ending the per vote subsidy, passes easily but still with opposition. And now we're on to economic issues.

2:46 PM: Motion for union strike votes to be by secret ballot passes without debate, as does one to oppose penalties for picket line crossers. They also oppose red tape and support arctic sovereignty.

2:51 PM: We're actually now well ahead of schedule, knock wood. Just a handful of economic policies left and nothing controversial.

2:59 PM: And with the last motion passing, the policy plenary finishes one hour early. That was speedy. We'll see if they can move to the closing festivities early or not. Fingers crossed.

3:02 PM: Closing fun moved-up by 15 minutes to 3:45 pm, so see you then.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Let's get ready to roberts rules rumble...liveblogging the constitutional plenary

(refresh for updates)

10:14 AM: After sleeping in a little and grabbing a muffin and a diet pepsi (breakfast of champions) I'm settled in on press row again for more Conservative mainhall drama. Actually, we may have a modicum of drama today because the constitutional and policy plenaries are the main orders of business.

The hall has been reorganized into tables and chairs with delegates seated by province, and the usual yes and no microphone positions have been set up. And on each table is what looks like an electronic voting do-hicky for delegates to enter their votes. Interesting set-up, we low tech Liberals just used voting cards and counters. This could potentially go more quickly, but the show of hands can be more fun.

Up first is the constitutional plenary at 10:30 am, followed by a buffet lunch and then the policy plenary at 1:30. The folks at iPolitics.ca have posted the resolution booklets here. I don't see Scott Reid's one member one vote reform one in there, but while it was defeated at workshop I did hear the petition drive to get it to the plenary floor was successful, so we'll see. I'm sure there's some fun policy stuff in there too. And Guy Giorno is going to chair the session, that should be...interesting.

I'll sign back on in a bit when the festivities get back under-way, so stay tuned for updates.

10:42 AM: OK and we're underway, just 12 minutes late. Guy Giorno has some sort of fluorescent green shirt on; it's hurting my eyes from the very back of the room. Hard to miss Guy in a crowd. Anyway, apparently there's voting-cards too, they only go to the vote machines if it's not clear. Pretty poor audio here, they're asking people to shussh. I see speakers at the back here, but they don't seem to be working.

OK, maybe it's a green tie Giorno is wearing. If that's so, it's overwhelming his shirt from back here. Wonder if the green is a message; a new environmentally-friendly CPC? Nah...

Each provincial group is cheering in turn. Alberta was the loudest group, but Ontario looked to be the biggest with over 1/3 of the hall. BC was probably second, and broke out into a spirited "Go Canucks Go!" chant.

10:50 AM: They're testing the vote machines with a best tie contest between Steve Blaney and Guy Giorno. Apparently there's some blue in Giorno's and it's his coalition tie; Blaney's is a majority tie because Conservatives hate majorities. Yeah, the delegates didn't find it overly funny either.

And they seem to have trouble initializing the voting machines; they're resetting the system and starting again. Or maybe Guy's tie lost and he's demanding a re-vote. And other request for people to stop talking because some people can't hear the chairs.

11:00 AM: We're still stuck on the tie voting. You know, this seems like one of those examples of technology not necessarily improving the process. Everyone can raise their hand...

11:03 AM: No tie results yet, but they've finally got the room to quiet down to a dull murmur so that's progress. But they're resetting the voting machines again; still having technical difficulties. I'm sure this is even more exciting on CPAC than it is here. And we're trying the tie vote again...

11:06 AM: And Blaney's majority tie beat Giorno's coalition tie with 69 per cent of the vote. There's no accounting for taste, I guess. Onto the rules: the chair makes the rules, the authority being granted by grand maker of all rules, Stephen Harper. No amendments from the floor. Speakers get a minute, yada yada.

11:10 AM: Lots of rules. To pass, constitutional reforms need a double majority: voters and provinces. And before the first resolution, a point of order! A real one or fake one, we'll see. Someone from Toronto is asking if these are the real rules, or, I don't know, rogue breaking all the rules rules. Blaney and Giorno confer and confirm yes, these are the real rules, but apparently there's another four resolutions or something. I don't know.

11:13 AM: First resolution is up, on secret ballot votes on national board vacancies. But there's apparently a difference between the text on the screen (which I can't read from back here) and the handout, so they're moving to the next one while they figure it out.

By the way, it occurs to me that the reason they're seated by province is because of the double-majority needed to pass constitutional amendments.

11:16 AM: Someone from Rona Ambrose's riding is introducing their housekeeping motion, and calls her the most civil MP. Being civil is easy when you're invisible, I suppose. The motion passes easily by a show of hands.

11:18 AM: Now it's a change to give Conservative Fund workers delegate status. Guy moving it says they do hard work we need their perspective. Guy opposed says only elected people should be delegates, we don't want to open the door to ex-officio nonsense. Neither do the members, they defeat it by a show of hands. By the by, do unelected Conservative Senators get automatic delegate status or do they need to get elected by an EDA?

11:21 AM: Next is an item that says the national board needs to inform EDAs what's going on in a timely fashion. A few people speak against it, saying it's nice but it's vague apple pie that doesn't belong in a constitution. It's defeated by a show of hands.

11:22 AM: Motion to give each territory it's own seat on the national board. There are three territories, they each want a seat; makes sense. One speaker says they don't have enough people to have one each, Alberta with its huge membership only has three speakers and it's not fair. Now another guy says Ontario would be screwed by this too. Foreshadowing of OMOV? Looks defeated to be but it's close; crowd sighs as Blaney says they'll move to electronic vote.

11:26 AM: Motion is defated by electronic balloting, looks like about 2/3s opposed. Next is a similar motion for representation on a policy committee. Speaker for says it's not a voting group, it's about policy discussion, and we have three territories so don't lump us all into one for the love of pete. Speaker against says dido the last vote, and you're territories not provinces so suck it. Clearly defeated in a hand vote.

11:29 AM: Membership motion that says if you're CPC you can't be a member of another party. It seems pretty clear it's a yes vote, but they're not sure of the regional majority so they're going to do an electronic vote. And they're going to re-boot the system because more people have been arriving. The electronic vote is barely yes, compared to what seemed like an overwhelming show of hands. Seven provinces in favour so it carries, but that was closer than I'd thought.

11:34 AM: Some guy on a point of order says people were being moved around and may have voted at different provincial tables, and we may need to revote. People boo, and Giorno says not gonna happen.

11:34 AM: We're back to the national council one we delayed because of the different texts issue. It would elect national council members by secret ballot; speaker says there's been intimidation in the past. Guy from Red Deer notes there's a mistake in the French text, which everyone finds amusing. Giorno makes a joke about the BQ having less seats than a Toyota Corolla. Vote by hands is overwhelmingly in favour.

11:39 AM: Now we're on to the motions that made it to the floor by petition instead of workshops. Apparently there's three, including Reid's OMV leadership one that has caused some drama.

Reid's motion is up first. On a well-cheered point of order though, a speaker says this motion is our of order because the petition process isn't meant for do-overs of things defeated in workshop. Giorno tells the cheering crowd they'll base decision on rules, not cheers, so shut it, and the point of order continues. He seems quite well argued, and I'm not a CPC rules expert but he seems to be making a good argument. It was defeated in workshop, after all. Now he's on to a slippery slope argument though, which is always lame.

11:44 AM: Points of order aren't generally debatable, but Guy says they're going to use their discretion to let a few people add further input. Which seems weird. Aren't the rules the rules. Someone has another interpenetration though, and says workshops are more guidance, not votes, and don't replace the plenary. Chairs are now conferring on the point of order.

11:58 AM: The point of order is over-ruled; the plenary will get to vote on Reid's motion and Reid is now speaking to his motion, telling the history of merging the CPC and PCs and saying why his hybrid approach is the way to go until he's cut off by the timekeeper.

Speaking against the motion is Peter MacKay, who also helped merge the parties and opposes this motion. He says it's about equality, about confederation, this system elected us a great leader and led to a stable majority government, let's keep it.

Over to Doug Finley speaking for; he says this system is broken. He ran Harper's campaign under this system and there is ample and unbelievable room for abuse and shenanigans. And in a rebuke to MacKay, he says the system didn't give us a majority, it accidentally elected a great leader that won a majority.

Michael Chong says the current system is fair, it works, don't tinker with a system that works.

A delegate from BC is for it, one from Quebec speaks against. Unsurprising. Getting the regional support will be a challenge for Reid's motion.

12:04 PM:Hey it's Peter Kent. He opposes the motion, and says it is symbolic of the creeping horror of proportional representation or something. Now to electronic vote, after re-initalizing the system again. Apparently hungover delegates are still trickling in.

12:08 PM: Motion is defeated by a show of hands, to cheers and a standing-ovation. Blaney said it was a clear 60-70 per cent majority, but don't publish that. Sorry, Steve. So that was interesting, but not surprising given the workshop results. So now the next CPC leader will be selected under what Doug Finley says it's a broken system subject to rampant abuse...

12:10 PM: Now they want to enshrine equality of ridings in the principles section of the constitution, which apparently would make amendments like Reid's out of order in the future. Speakers from the west opposed, east in favour. Interesting regional splits in the CPC. Motion is "clearly defeated" by hand vote, so Team MacKay loses one too. So we'll probably see this OMOV issue raised next convention, and the next...

12:13 PM: Last motion is something to do with who can run for national council; they want to ban spouses of caucus members from national council to avoid conflicts of interest. Is this an anti-Doug Finley motion (his wife Diane is in cabinet.). Interesting... Motion looks defeated by hand vote, but they're going to electronic vote. And it's defeated.

12:20 PM: Before breaking for lunch, Blaney admonishes people to be more discipled next time. I thought they did fairly well. Signing off, back for policy at 1:30pm.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My day two video blog from Conservative Convention 2011

Back again with my day two video blog of Friday's fun and games at the Conservative convention in Ottawa.

We got shut out of the good stuff, such as the constitutional and policy workshops where, once again, the creation of a youth wing was soundly rejected, perhaps on orders and pressure from the party brass. Scott Reid's semi-one member one vote motion also got a rough ride, but it appears he has enough signatures to get it to the convention floor through other means.

Things I did get to see though included a panel of pundits, research on Conservatism with Preston Manning, heckling protesters and a speech from Stephen Harper. Here's my video blog:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Navigating the anti-Harper protest line (video)

After venturing off campus Friday afternoon to have a drink with an old Carleton friend, I returned to the conference centre to find the road out front closed and filled with about 200 protesters there to greet Stephen Harper who was due to speak to delegates that evening. I proceeded to work my way through the rather profane cloud who were swearing at anyone in site they thought might be a Conservative. This included me, in my Walmart sportcoat and Zellers shirt. I particularly enjoyed being told to choke on my money, as we all know how well blogging pays...

Here's a look on video:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liveblogging Harperpalooza gloat-a-thon 2011

7:01 PM: I've settled in on press row for the evening keynote by Stephen Harper. I'm a little late but, thankfully and true to form, Harper is even later and the event shows no sign of starting, so it's all good.

Was off campus meeting a friend from my Carleton days for a drink, and had to run a bit of a protester gauntlet to get back in. The area in front of the conference centre is cordoned off from traffic and there were maybe less than 200 people making their feelings felt. It seemed like a rainbow of issues, united only by their dislike of Steve.

Flashing my blogger badge I managed to finally get past the activist cyclists who tried to block me with their bikes, finally crossing the barricade as a protester told me to go enjoy my money. Hey, I'm a blogger, if only...

The keynote hall isn't filled with chairs but it is now standing-room only and then some. Apparently delegates launched a raid on the press section for chairs (I think the press let them have five chairs, but five only). Staff replenished the press riser (in the far back of the hall) and press are now trying to guard their seats.

With that, I think you're caught up. I'll pause until the program begins, hopefully soonish.

7:12 PM: And we're starting; about 42 minutes late masters of ceremony Steve Blaney and Pam Wallin are on the stage getting things started. I'm distracted by more chair marauders, but I just heard someone say "strong, stable blah..." so I'm doing a shot in my mind. And wondering how far they're going to run into the Canucks game...

The pre-show is still going on though, with Jacques Demers interviewing James Moore on the floor, a Canucks fan celebrating his birthday today. And the crowd breaks into a not overly spirited rendition of Happy Birthday. It's also Preston Manning's birthday today.

Meanwhile, pretend reporter Mike Duffy is talking to delegates as well. But diverging for a moment, the Conservatives don't have near enough chairs here. The room isn't full, tons of empty space, but a few hundred are being forced to stand. Including a number of seniors. The media are being forced to give up chairs or be jerks, when really the party should (and could) put out enough chairs for attendees.

My head down, but Duffy just made a comment about "little women visiting native reserves" by themselves or something; yeesh.

7:21 PM: Wallin is going on about how Harper doesn't look for parades and lead them, he's guided by his principles. His principles, and massive taxpayer-funded polling and public opinion research to fund out where parades that he can lead are.

Now she's building a Harper as Rocky theme, or maybe Rodney Dangerfield. Always been underestimated, can't get no respect, yada yada. Trying to build a prompt and response rythym, but the crowd isn't buying into their "they were wrong" part that enthusiastically.

7:27 PM: And nearly 30 minutes after he was supposed to start speaking, Harper is slowly making his way to the stage, kissing hands and shaking babies to non-de-script rock music, as is the custom.

7:31 PM: Harper welcomes us to the new Ottawa Convention Centre, which is apparently the house that John Baird built (actually, the taxpayers of Canada through Canada's Economic Action Plan, but whatevs). With a hammer and nails, I'm sure.

Harper says there's two Ottawa, including the one "the media" refers to as Ottawa, the big government town. And then there's the real, hard-working Ottawa filled with good citizens who vote Conservative. Umm, sorry Steve, but the Conservatives bashed "big government Ottawa" for years, so give me a break. Of course, now Harper's party is the establishment, so the establishment is now ok.

7:36 PM: Harper was winning a few points from me with a well-placed Seinfeld reference, but then he ruined it by a baffling line "but it wasn't me that learned from George Kostanza, it was the Liberals." I don't get it, did we buy cheap wedding invitation envelopes or something?

7:40 PM: Harper is lauding his taxable day care subsidies; meanwhile with funding from the Liberal daycare program now gone daycare spots across the country are drying up. You can't have choice in child care, Steve, unless you have choices to make.

7:42 PM: Tax breaks for corporations now, and for families when we get around to balancing the budget. On crime, he affirms the crime omnibus bill will be introduced within 100 sitting days. Fairly sure he said sitting days. Was that the promise in the campaign, or was it 100 days overall?

He promises legislation this fall to scrap the gun registry, pitching it as part of supporting victims of crime. Umm, no. The registry was created in response to the concerns of victims of crime. Killing it has nothing to do with helping crime victims.

7:46 PM: Now it's on to using the troops as props. I'm fine with giving the military the tools it needs, I agree with that. But I can't stand lines that pretend other people don't support the troops as well. Don't use the military as a partisan prop, it's pathetic.

Meanwhile, he's moved on to righteously promising to continue not sucking up to dictators at the United Nations. Particularly, I suppose, after under Harper's leadership Canada for the first time failed to win election to the security council.

7:54 PM: Conservatives aren't a party of entitlement, declares Harper. Someone save that clip for future commercial use, because these guys are rocking-up the arrogance scale at an accelerated rate. Trust me when I say that, we Liberals no arrogance when we see it...

7:56 PM: The honeymoon with the NDP will pass, he says. And it probably will. And then he switched to French to speak to those Quebec NDP voters. Sounds like he's wrapping, hockey game starts shortly. But he wants to remind us that Conservative values are Canada's values, and the Conservative Party is Canada's party. He used to think it was arrogant when Liberals said things like that, but this time he thinks it's true, I'm sure, so it's different.

By the way, every speaker has their crutch lines. For Paul Martin, it was "let me clear." For Steve, it's "my friends."

Harper wants us to "be all we can be." Not by joining the army though, I hope? No, by building a better Canada in the years ahead. And hey, hockey game dude, wrap it! Canada is the best country in the world, he says. And the biggest hockey fans, Steve.

God bless all of you, god bless Canada, and he's done and walking out to more non-de-script rock music. I'll sign off for now, may have some thoughts later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dean Del Mastro's lie-based campaign techniques

At a punditry panel this morning at the Conservative Convention in Ottawa, Conservative MP and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Dean Del Mastro, took to the microphone to share some of his campaign techniques.

Apparently his primary technique is deliberately misleading his constituents. In this video, he talks about how he told voters that a private member's bill from Ruby Dhalla about immigrant pension reform was a Liberal Party policy, even though he knew full well it was a private member's bill that not only wasn't Liberal policy, but was officially opposed by the party leadership.

Stay classy, Dean.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gettin' our conservative on: live blogging Preston Manning at #cpc11

10:30 AM: Had to run over to the Rideau Centre for a cold beverage because none seem to be available in the conference centre, but I'm back in the same hall. It's now packed; with the delegates having sent a message to Canada's youth by massively rejecting the creation of a youth wing, they're now here for a panel on the Manning Centre's "everybody's conservative" report with headliner Preston Manning, who is looking greyer than I remember him.

10:34 AM: Apparently everyone is becoming conservative and is finally realizing how right they are and how wrong everyone else is. I find it just amazing how research commissioned by a conservative think-tank just happens to confirm and buttress he organization's world view. Fascinating, that.

10:37 AM: And here's Preston Manning. Directly over his shoulder is a sign for the ladies room; I hope CPAC frames that out of the camera shot. On the report, Manning says more and more conservative values are being shared by more and more Canadians and are becoming mainstream values, which he says is a good thing. But as a note of caution, as they become more mainstream a challenge will be that they become less identified with the conservatives.

He goes on Canadian views on the perception of government is changing; we're getting more sceptical of it's ability to do big things and are turning more to community groups. Left unsaid is the Harper government's strategy to make the government less relevant; it's self-fulfilling to a large degree in my view.

He also says it'd worrisome more people said they had a worse view of politics after the election than they did before, and feel people don't get into politics for good reasons. Preston wants to change this. Hey, here's an idea Preston: tell Steve to stop spending millions attacking people's personal motivations for getting into politicians as part of your party's partisan strategizing. Your party is feeding this problem you claim to lament.

10:43 AM: Now Carleton University's Andre Turcotte, who put together the research, is diving deeper. He says while Cons built popular support from 2004 onward the number of those identifying with conservative values was actually decreasing, but something really changed between 2008 and 2011.

People don't want big things from the government and don't trust them, except on public safety. There's no appetite for grand designs at the moment, he says. People want the government to work with other organizations and governments.

Now they're getting into the specific questions, and some of their methodology really becomes questionable. They ask if you have a problem, who do you turn to first, and say it's telling that you turn to themselves and and their friends first, before the government. Well, of course we do. And then he says the only thing they turn to the government first on is public safety. Again, so what? I'd agree to both and that hardly makes me Conservative. If I'm out of work I'd turn to friends and family to help find new opportunities; if I'm mugged I call the cops. So what?

10:52 AM: Oh, some of these questions: do you want a government focused on today's challenges or doing bold things about the future? Yeah, because you can't do both, it's totally an either/or. How about asking if you want a government that can walk and chew gum at the same time? That's what I want.

10:59 AM: Apparently Canadians are increasingly isolationist and want government to solve problems at home and not everyone else's overseas. This counts as increasing Conservative values, but only if you ignore strong Conservative support for the mission in Afghanistan, in Libya, and elsewhere.

11:04 AM: Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans here. The link between their data and their conclusions is being seen through blue-tinted glasses. Some of these questions are just silly, and besides, left unsaid is the huge gulf between so-called conservative values and the actual policies and actions of this conservative government.

11:13 AM: Now it's questions form the poll. One questioner wants more conservative professors preaching conservatism in universities; alrighty then. Manning uses that to segue to the need to educate and train campaign volunteers, something his Manning Centre does. Another questioner from Ottawa takes an offhand crack at Quebec on pork-barrel politicking.

11:17 AM: They're talking about people wanting more choice and control over their lives; meanwhile somewhere else delegates are debating the definition of marriage.

11:18 AM: Questioner now doesn't like human rights tribunals, calls them a "debate blanket" that stops debate. What, debate on not exposing human rights violations?

11:22 AM: Now a Lyndon Larouche-supporting "journalist" is on a diatribe about financial market conspiracies, and killing cattle or something. Manning says the biggest threat to private enterprise isn't socialist NDPers, it's irresponsible corporations that give everyone a bad name.

11:24 AM: A questioner is now complaining that her daughter is being brainwashed by "left-wing teacher" and is developing opinions that don't match her own world-view, requiring her to re-educate her daughter by forcing her to share her perspective. Oh, boy. Yeah, don't let her form her own views or anything.

Former Nanaimo-Cowichan candidate John Koury says he was looking to create wedge issues in the campaign; the budget has good policy but the NDP were talking electoral reform. He's wondering if there's anything in their research on rep by pop and if democratic reform has merit.

Manning says while he's not against electoral reform, he'd ask why NDP governments in power provincially in a position to change election laws haven't done anything about it. It's hypocrisy, he says, and he's right.

11:31 AM: And that's about if. I'm off to lunch. Looks like the afternoon is closed off to the media for the most part, so I'm off for lunch and I'll be back early evening for the big Harper speech, and the protests outside.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Don Plett rips into Peter MacKay on one member, one vote

As promised, here's some video of a speech Conservative Senator and former party president Don Plett gave at a hospitality suite Thursday night sponsored by MP Scott Reid, who is leading the movement to do reform the system of riding weighting for leadership voting that the party adopted when it was formed through the merer of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.

Former PC leader Peter MacKay had been leading the charge against Reid's proposal, and when Plett refers to a letter that's been circulating, he's referring to MacKay...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liveblog: Panel of Conservative pundits

(refresh for updates)

9:05 AM: Whole delegates are off doing fun constitutional things blogger/media types like me are banned from, I'm with a small group in a large room for a panel of pundits hosted by Monte Solberg. Other pundits on the panel of men in suits include twitterer Mike Storeshaw, recently former PMO staffer Dan Robertson, a fellow whose name I didn't catch, and Jamie Watt.

9:08 AM: Monte is talking about cratering Liberal support. Geez dude, I'm right here? But his question to the panel is how do we pick up cratering Liberal support without selling out and becoming *gasp* Liberals ourselves?

Jamie replies first step is solidifying support of the fight-leaning Liberals that voted CPC in 2011. One advantage is Harper was very clear on what he put on offer in 2011 campaign, he says. His research shows right-leaning Harpers were willing to give Harper a shot. To keep them, he says CPC needs to honour their promises by doing exactly what they said they'd do in the campaign.

Dan says rising NDP with the prospect of government is causing nervous Liberals to go CPC to keep NDP out of power, and best thing to help CPC keep gained LPC votes is Jack Layton as NDP leader.

9:12 AM: Monte cites the Manning Centre's "everyone is becoming more conservative" research (which I find less than compelling), and asks if the CPC just communicates better how awesome they are, won't everyone flick to them.

Guy I don't know says people are no longer identifying as partisans, it's about issues that impact them. Storeshaw talks about the importance of working between elections, being pragmatic and working for the people. Oh, and I see on Twitter the other guy's name is Jason Lietaer.

Jamie adds that writ periods are getting shorter, and for Ignatieff it wasn't long enough for him to kick the crap out of the CPC and sell his "family pack" or "whatever the hell they called it." Four days of Facbook story cost him 10 per cent of the campaign and his bandwidth to sell his message to Canadians.

Meanwhile, Robertson is writing the obituary of the Liberal Party. I remember when people wrote his party off; I guess he has forgotten though. Of course, no one will remember his definitive statements when they're proven to be full of crap. But Motne is excited about it.

9:20 AM: Question from floor, member from Ottawa-Centre doesn't like loyalty of his riding association and wants to know how to build a better one so they can knock off Paul Dewar, of whom I'm guessing he's not a fan.

Monte notes that Mark Holland actually kept his vote in Ajax-Pickering; when I heard Holland's name I expected something bad because they dont' like him; particularly after Mike Duffy's Nazi reference last night.

Meanwhile, Robertson is ranting about vote splitting as a myth.

9:25 AM: Apparently I'm in a CPAC camera shot, particularly when questioners are at the mic, so I guess I need to work on my posture. Anyway, a delegate from Don Valley West walks about the hard slof they've had there, and asks how they can keep with the multicultural support they've won in order to keep the riding.

Watt has nothing on topic, just repeats about Harper needing to keep his promises. Robertson continues in that theme, but the questioner gets back up and complains they're not answering her question, which is about how do we keep faith with the poor and disadvantaged that voted for them, because if they're not helped they'll lose their votes. Monte jumps in to list all sorts of great things the CPC has already done for the poor folks.

9:31 AM: Delegate from Quebec feels communications response needs to be better when the party was getting slagged for Harper not visiting the flood sites. Apparently he was in Europe and Afghanistan, but all the media were being mean because he didn't visit Quebec and he party didn't respond well, comms wise.

Jason, who works on comms team in PMO and the campaign, says they could have done better in Quebec in the campaign but comms wasn't their big challenge and their quick response was fine, the media was just mean to them. Internally, he says their focus was on talking to journalists quickly rather than getting into to riding associations, and they need to do better on the second half.

Meanwhile, Storeshaw answers her question in the language she primarily asked it, French.

9:41 AM: Parliamentary secretary to the PM, Deal Del Mastro, takes the mic to say as important as doing what we said we'd do is saying what we won't do. He says CPC is better for poor people than the NDP, and boasts about how he lied to voters by pretending Ruby Dhalla's pensions bill was a Liberal bill. Of course, he knows it wasn't and that the Liberal leadership didn't support it.

9:47 AM: Robertson says Conservatives have replaced Liberals as the patriotic party of Canada, and Storeshaw questions Ken Dryden's performance in the 1927 Summit Series with the Soviets.

9:52 AM: Former candidate says he doesn't see many people from his riding or volunteers here, because it's so expensive to attend the convention; it's mainly MPs and staffers because to much. He wants to know if anything can be done to make these events more affordable and inclusive and make all members feel included. Monte says more can be done with technology, and strong ridings can fundraise and help support delegates.

9:56 AM: Question on NDP Quebec support. Watt says it's not orange crush, it's a box of cracker jacks. It's entirely Jack Layton. When the BQ stumbled, people looked at the LPC and apparently we're toxic, and they looked at the CPC but apparently Jamie's party is awesome but just misunderstood. so beer-goggled Quebecers went home with an ugly Layton. Watt also switches from saying we need to make the NDP seem close to government so we can scare people to saying they're not close to government so they won't keep support.

10: 00 AM: And that's about it. Back in half an hour with a session with Preston Manning.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: James Moore and Mark Strahl on one member, one vote

As I mentioned earlier, an attempt led by MP Scott Reid to change the equal ridings one member, one vote method of leadership selection is generating buzz at the Conservative convention. I'll have a fiery speech on the topic shortly, but here are BC MP Mark Strahl (son of Chuck) and BC Minister James Moore trying to avoid definitive statements on the topic.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Touring Conservative hospitality suites

At least until the day when policy developed at conventions has any impact even remotely on campaign platforms, for many the most important part of most political convention is the hospitality suites,which seek to woo delegates with free booze and snacks.

Here's a look at a few of the suites from the first night of the 2011 Conservative convention in Ottawa, with stops at suites sponsored by the Canadian Real Estate Association, the Canadian-Israel Committee & Canadian Jewish Political Action Committee, MP Scott Reid (for OMOV reform) and Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My day one video blog from Conservative Convention 2011

Here's my video blog from the first day on the 2011 Conservative convention, which I'm attending as a blogger. It includes cameos by Tony Clement and Jacques Demers, close-up shots of cheese, and failing to negotiate a bargain on a Stephane Dion t-shirt.

For more of my thoughts on the first say, see my live blog of the evening's festivities. And I have several more videos I'll post later this morning including a tour of hospitality suites and a fiery speech by Don Plett that had Peter MacKay's ears burning, and not in a good way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Night One: #cpc11 live blog

6:30 pm: I have my blogger/media pass, I've navigated my way through the brand new Ottawa convention centre, I've paid $33.90 for WiFi (you're welcome, dear readers) and I'm settled into the front row of the media section (at the waaaay back of the convention hall) for night one of Conservative Majoritypalooza 2011.

I'll be liveblogging the evening's festivities right here in this post, so keep refreshing for regular commentary, sarcastic and otherwise.

6:35 pm: The cover band in the hall is trying to get Conservative delegates out of the wine and cheese mixer and into the hall. They just played No Satisfaction; can't help but feel it was dedicated to the Liberal blogger at the pack of the hall...

Did I say cash bar? I didn't. But it is. $8 for wine, $7.25 for hard stuff, beer from $3.75 to $7.25 if you want the elitist imported stuff or a microbrew. There is, however, lots of free cheese and some very tasty kettle chips. I've become a big kettle chip fan over the last few months. It's really the only way to do chips, in my view.

6:40 pm: So what's on the program tonight? Apparently Stockwell Day will give the big speech tonight. I saw his wife Valerie earlier on her way into the hall. Senators anthem singer (and OPP constable, IIRC) Lyndon Slewidge will sing O'Canada. I hear Canucks anthem virtuosso Mark Donnley did the same deed for a Conservative campaign rally (news that really choked-up this Canucks fan, I tell you). The CPC seems to have a lock on our hockey anthem singers, although maybe the NDP has the Canadiens guy. Anyway, Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Jacques Demers, and MP Steve Blaney, will MC.

6:51 pm: The shindig was supposed to start 21 minutes ago, but people are still filing in. The PA is getting increasingly pissed off as he implores everyone to take a dammed seat, already. Actually he still sounds nauseatingly perky, but that just means he could break into profanity-laced rage at any moment. I'll keep you posted.

Meanwhile, in the halls the topics of debate seem to be one member one vote and the youth wing. James Moore, for one, didn't want to be seen within a country mile of a position on omov. Every system has its merits, he said. Debate is good. Now how can the Canucks manage to solve Tim Thomas?

OK, looks like we're starting.

6:56 PM: Lyndon Slewidge with a stirring rendition of O'Canada. I'm shocked not one member of media row (besides me) stood for O'Canada. You don't need to be neutral on that mes amis; it's the national anthem...

Meanwhile, apparently John "Canada's face to the world" Baird is the convention host. He's on stage now, and I think he gets $10 every time he says "strong, stable Conservative majority government." Someone owes him $50.

7:01 PM: It's the first political event in the new Ottawa Convention Centre (which is really very nice, but not as nice as Vancouver's -- the reclaimed pine beetle wood makes the difference) which Baird notes was made possible by a contribution from Canada's Economic Action Plan. Because if it was a gazebo is Muskoka, it would be funded from the border security fund.

7:06 PM: Baird is turning the stage over to Wallin and Blaney. Wallin jokes letting foreign affairs minister Baird out on the word stage without adult supervision could be dangerous. At least, I think she was joking. No, I'm sure she was joking. Fairly sure.

Wallin reminds crowd she covered Ottawa as a journalist (ed. opinion elite). Send money, they're infiltrating the caucus! No one boos, anyway, and then they cheer when she says they're going to finally kill the gun registry. They're going to really reform the Senate too, she says. Well, not really because they won't open the constitution to give the West proper representation, but they're going to pretend to be reforming it at least.

7:11 pm: Blaney says unlike some new Quebec MPs, he can find his riding on a map, and Wallinm adds he has a driver's license and is drinking age too. This is conservative humour typified: ill-intentioned cracks at others.

Demers and Duffy will be "floor reporters." Duffy is now introducing Ajax-Pickering MP Chris Alexander, who defeated Liberal Mark Holland. After a few classy(less) shots at Holland, he makes a crack about "liberating Holland" again which, surely, can't be comparing the Liberals to the Nazis,c an it? Oh, wait, it was Mike Duffy, sure it could be.

7:18 PM: Demers is interviewing someone from Quebec who spends two minutes ripping on Jack Layton and the NDP. There's your new era of decorum, Jack.

7:20 PM: The Conservative Party president is speaking now; John Walsh. I hadn't heard his name before today. Apparently he doesn't regularly go on TV and say baffling things, keeps a low profile, and competently does his work behind the scenes. My, that's quite the concept...

7:26 PM: Hey, it's that campaign ad the CPC ripped off the Tim Pawlenty campaign. Actually, as a student of political communications I really like this ad. It's a nice piece of film-making.

Anyway, if you're drinking at home do a shot every time a speaker says "strong, stable..."

Walsh is now introducing Jason Kenney, minister for curry in a hurry.

7:29 PM: Kenney says the likes the sound of foreign affairs minister John Baird. Because he totally didn't want that job...

Kenney is taking us on a trip down revisionist history lane, when Liberals raised taxes (untrue, we cut taxes across the board) and slashing military spending (Reform wanted bigger DND cuts) and insulting our allies (like the UAE?).

7:34 PM: Kenney is saying "they" dont' think the CPC's majority victory is real, that it was a fluke. Who are they? The strawman in Jason's head. He looks like the scare crow from the Wizard of Oz. Anyway, he's going on and on attacking the Liberals saying they barely won seats thanks to vote splitting, and citing stat after stat on historical vote counts and margins. Because nothing stirs a crowd like random statistics!

7:37 PM: Now Kenney is ripping on the CBC. Now where's James Moore again... Big cheer for talking about the return of Tory Toronto. And a shot at the Toronto Star, the only endorsing major media organization that didn't endorse his party.

7:42 PM: Now he's moving from the Liberals to the NDP, whose orange crush was apparently no match for the blue wave. Apparently "downtown" Jack Layton doesn't share your values like "uptown" Stephen Harper does. Leaside is totally rural, you know.

7:47 PM: Kenney says every CPC MP won their nomination on their merits, no appointments. *cough* Rob Anders *cough*. He goes on that they're going to govern for a long time beause "conservative values are Canadian values." You may recall they used to rip on the Liberals saying "Liberal values are Canadian values" but that's totally different, you elitist loser.

You know, it's amazing how quickly these folks have come to think what is now will be forever, and will never change. They are so quickly becoming that which they have always (and still) despised.

7:54 PM: Stock Day gets a welcoming video montage. Keeping my fingers crossed or jet ski or Niagara Falls footage...

7:55 PM: No such luck. Anyway, Stock thought he'd just be here to do damage control after Kenney's speech, didn't realize it would be a tribute. Anyway, after thanking some folks Stock says now that he doesn't have to worry about a cabinet appointment, he has a few words for "Steve." But then his wife comes out on stage with a stop sign that says "we love Harper", in a Senate page reference.

8:02 PM: Stock tells whiny Liberal MPs those offices don't belong to them. Cheap shot, Barney, but whatevs. Now he's saying he's glad it's the media, and not his party, taking shots at young now NDP MPs. The crowd applauds. The same crowd that applauded Wallin and Blaney for taking shots at young NDP MPs. And I'm sure none of the delegates will see the contradiction, but I found it hard not to heckle (I'm trying to bring some decorum to media row).

8:10 PM: Anyway, a few silly partisan remarks aside, Stock's speech is fairly good. A call to his colleagues for decorum, for values, for respect, and to work to build the nation in their vision. The freedom of a former politician...

Stock is warning that the NDP takes one example of legitimate suffering and wrongly condemn the system. A tactic the Conservatives would totally never employ.

Now he's talking about global financial markets; I drifted off and thought Paul Martin was on the stage.

8:16 PM: Days talking about the G8/G20. He says we totally mispent all that money and misled Parliament, we were wrong and we're sorry.....no, just kissing. He's trumpeting a pledge to reduce debt and help women in developing countries that don't want abortions.

Now he's talking to the media and says with freedom comes responsibility; he wants them to improve their decorum too. And taking a page from his caucus, the media heckles him (not really). Now in urging the media not to attack politicians, he's attacking the media for personal attacks and attacking people's personal difficulties. Because those bastards should really be nicer.

8:21 PM: OK, Stock has gone off the rails. No personal attacks, so the Taliban-coddling Liberals should start supporting the troops for a change. Mmmm kay. And we'll just ignore the tens of millions his party spent demonizing Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion. Seriously Stock, get your head out of your ass. I agree with your call for more civility, but you don't usher in a new era of civility by calling everyone you disagree with assholes and pretending your record is as clean as virgin snow. You've jumped the shark, dude.

8:27 PM: Now he's talking about Chinese innovations in steel production. No, really.

8:35 PM: OK, he's done. Peter MacKay is up now with a wooden box to thank Day. "Strong, stable, national..." drink!. He thinks Harper got the Jets back in Winnipeg, and is the latest speaker to doom the Canucks cup chances.

8:42 PM: MacKay is talking about how we're fighting so the people of Afghanistan can have costly, unnecessary elections that prevent Hamid Karzai from doing the important work of governing Afghanistan, because a sea of troubles laps at its shores.

In the wooden box is a Canadian flag that flew over the memorial at Kandahar air field by our task force commander in Afgianistan; tat's cool.

8:46 PM: Retired and defeated Conservative MPs coming to the stage to be recognized.

8:52 PM: And that's it. Delegates are off to drink in hospitality suites paid for by corporations like Visa Canada. And I may just do so too. Will try to post some video later. But for now, good night, and good luck.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'll be blogging from the Conservative convention in Ottawa

After starting the week in Las Vegas, during which time my Canucks forgot how to play hockey, I'm onboard a Via train at the moment on my way to Ottawa, where I'll be through Sunday evening covering the Conservative convention and patronizing some of the capital's finer public houses.

I've been accredited to the convention as a blogger, so I'm looking forward to going into the belly of the beast to provide a different perspective on the goings-on at Conservative Majoritypaolloza 2011. It should be an interesting few days.

Will the majority glow keep everyone smiling and happy, or will the temporary cessation of the permanent campaign lead some of the restless fringe folks to feel free to raise issues they'd put aside in the minority era? That's something I'll be watching for this weekend. Already, some interesting themes and stories are emerging.

One is an issue we tackled at the last Liberal convention: weighted one-member, one-vote (WOMOV) for selecting the leader. Equal riding weighting was a key issue in the Canadian Alliance/Progressive Conservative merger; the PCs didn't want small membership ridings being swamped by the high member ridings in, for example, Alberta. MP Scott Reid is leading a movement to dilute the weighting to somewhere between full OMOV and the current WOMOV system, while Peter MacKay and old Tory stalwarts are speaking out against it.

Another is a move by a number of ridings to try to create a youth wing, something that te establishment of the Conservative Party has traditionally vehemently opposed. This web site seeks to lay out the no-side; I've not seen a similar campaign for the yes camp but Tasha Kheriddin lays out their argument. I'm generally a supporter of flatter structures, although reading the motion the body created would be much less formal and involved than the Young Liberals. I had to chuckle reading that anti web site though; marijuana is a hard drug? Anyway, the motion isn't expected to pass and, while there may be good arguments for that, it would be symbolic of Conservative antipathy to youth.

Those are constitutional-type things. There's sure to be lots to follow on the policy side as well. One interesting one already emerging could be dubbed the "Khadr Policy" and would strip Canadians that take up arms against Canada or her allies. Criminal charges for sure, but I'm curious where they'd deport non-dual citizens too exactly.

Things get underway tonight with the opening festivities, followed by hospitality suiting and what not. Watch this corner for live-blogging, tweeting, and maybe some video. And if you're in town and want to connect, feel free to drop me a line.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers