Meeting the LPC presidential candidates, and why I like Mike

The Edward Blake Society, a group of Toronto-area no longer young except at heart Liberal professionals, hosted four of the five candidates for the Liberal Party of Canada presidency on Monday in Toronto (Charles Ward couldn’t make it) and around 100 Liberals packed the Pauper’s Pub to hear what they had to say.

I didn’t take any notes so I’m going on recollection; blogging compadre BigCityLib also shared his thoughts yesterday. I thought it was a great event, and it helped me make my decision on whom I’ll be supporting in this race, which I believe is an important part (although just one part) of our rebuilding process.

I liked some of the things that each candidate had to say, and disagreed with some things as well. For reference, earlier I wrote on what I’m looking to see in our party’s next president.

Ron Hartling

As a big believer in making riding associations the key focus and vehicle for re-building the party and reconnecting with the community, I like the example of what Ron helped to do in Kingston and his plans for helping riding associations across Canada replicate that process.

Ron wasn’t the most polished speaker on offer but I’m fine with that; it’s not what I’m looking for from a party president and it’s not their job. But as much as I like his plans for riding associations, I didn’t sense he has as strong a grasp on how to manage/what needs to change at the central party level. We need a little more balance.

Sheila Copps

I liked what she had to say about multiculturalism, how the Liberal Party has taken ethnic communities for granted and how that needs to change. That definitely needs to be a priority for the party, although I think that’s something that would be led more out of the leader’s office. And that encapsulates my biggest concern with Sheila: I’m not sure she’s clear on which job she’s running for. I think she sees herself being a very high-profile spokesperson for the Liberal cause and for policy issues. That’s more the job of leader and caucus. The party presidency is an organizational role, behind the scenes working with members to reform and restructure the party and ensure it’s ready organizationally to fight and win an election.

I think we have different ideas of what the job is meant to be. I also think she’s too polarizing a figure, unfair as that may be, for a party moving forward. In her speech, her references to leadership coronations and unfair nominations couldn’t help but bring to mind her own biography. I also find her apparent stumping for a non-existent Bob Rae leadership campaign frustrating and unhelpful.

Alexandra Mendes

Alexandra spoke well and she provided the ying to Ron’s yang when she noted planning at the riding level isn’t everything; as a former MP in Quebec her own seat was wiped-out this spring in the NDP’s unplanned orange wave. She wants to make attracting more female candidates to the party a priority and I agree with that; I think the massive number of unheld seats presents a massive opportunity new candidates of all sorts.

In addition to her experience not just as an MP but also as a former riding association executive, I like her private sector experience in the non-profit sector and what she had to say about team-work really struck home with me. As much as I want to know about the candidates' ideas, much more important for me is what kind of manager and team-builder they’ll be. The next president is going to have a lot of cats to herd, and change management skills will be key. As important as the end result is, how we get there is as important if we want to stay united and grow as a party. I sense Alexandra recognizes this, which is critical.

Mike Crawley

In my “what I’m looking for” post I mentioned the need for enough insider knowledge to know what works and what doesn’t without being captured by the system; it’s a fine line but I think Mike’s experience with the federal party’s Ontario wing may offer that balance.

I liked what he had to say about embracing big ideas. I debated this with BigCityLib, and I don’t think big ideas and pragmatism are mutually exclusive. When I say big ideas, I’m not saying latch onto politically-popular gimmicks. Just the opposite. I’m saying stop playing it safe. Take the bold position and defend it; take the position that’s right, even if it may be unpopular or difficult. Say what needs to be said. I don’t know what all these ideas will be, and that’s fine. They should percolate up organically from discussion in the party and in the community. But let’s keep our infamous pragmatism while taking advantage of this third-place status to become the risk-takers that do what needs to be done, popular or not. Let’s become the party of ideas again. I’ve digressed, but point I agree with Mike on embracing big ideas.

I also liked what Mike had to say about getting more people involved in the party and opening up riding associations. If we have one area of disagreement, it’s that I sense he isn’t open to re-considering the need for commissions and PTAs as part of our structure going forward. He didn’t say this in as many words, mind you, but certainly his background as a PTA president informs his views there. I’m not saying we should shed PTAs and commissions, mind you, but I think everything should be on the table as we consider what is the best way to deliver value with the resources we have.

I did, however, like some of his thoughts on making commissions more effective. He spoke about tasking the womens’ commission with recruiting more female candidates, looking into why more women don’t seek nominations, and fundraising not just to support nomination female candidates, but female candidates seeking nominations as well. I think that’s a key part of the puzzle to seeing more strong, quality female candidates elected in winnable ridings.

My pick for party president

I went into the evening trying to decide between Alexandra and Mike, and while I like Alexandra and think she would make an excellent president, in the end I’ve decided to support Mike. I think he knows what the job is and what needs to be done, and I think he has the experience and the background to make it happen. I’ll be voting for him at the convention in January, and if you’ll be a delegate I encourage you to do the same.

I’ll end though by saying that the success or the failure of the party and the rebuilding process doesn’t rest with the party president or even the leader. It rests with each of us; it rests with every member. Too often in our party we look for messiahs; we idolize them when they succeed and crucify them when they fail. That needs to change. We must each take personal responsibility for both success and failure. It’s the only way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Democracy is too expensive is a poor argument

There are lots of good arguments you can make that just adding more and more seats to the House of Commons to address shifting populations is a bad idea. For example, at some point unless you knock out a wall, you’ll run out of room in the Commons chamber. Cost, however, is the worst possible argument you could make.

“It doesn’t make any sense in these days of financial restraint,” Liberal MP Marc Garneau said Tuesday at a Commons committee studying the legislation that would give 15 extra seats to Ontario, six seats each to B.C. and Alberta, and three seats to Quebec.

I’m sorry, but you’re never going to convince me that democracy is too expensive. That’s as foolish as the Conservative argument during the minority era that the cost of an election would be too high during the downturn. With all the countries in the world yearning for free elections and representative democracy, I refuse to seriously consider cost as an impediment to fairer representation. And in this context it’s cheap populist pandering, and I’d urge the Liberals to drop that line of attack.

If you want to make a principled argument on parliamentary representation, then do it. And the Liberals are correct on the wider point: you can’t just keep adding seats willy-nilly. It’s the politically expedient solution, to be sure, but it’s not sustainable.

It’s easy though, because a real solution is difficult. It would involve taking seats away from low and declining-population regions and giving them to higher-growth ones. Besides opening up a political can of worms, there are also assorted constitutional provisions guaranteeing parliamentary representation levels compared to Senate representation, and other factors to be juggled.

It’s like pulling a loose thread; you start to do something in one area and all of a sudden you need to do something in another. If the Liberals really want to take a principled approach to this issue, there’s no way to do it in isolation. It needs give and take on a number of fronts. Truly addressing Commons representation in a substantive way also means addressing Senate representation in a substantive way, from distribution to elections to the powers of the respective chambers. It means negotiation with the provinces and constitutional reform.

I would truly love to see the Liberals be bold here and get serious with an agenda for democratic and parliamentary reform; let’s throw in looking at voting reform at the same time. It’s all part of the wider puzzle, and it’s time we stopped nibbling around the edges and got serious about this.

But in the mean time, please stop complaining about the cost of democracy.

P.S. If the Liberals want to vote against this redistribution bill, they need to present a detailed alternative forthwith. Who would lose seats and who would gain. Otherwise, you're embracing an unacceptable status-quo that under-represents Ontario, Alberta and B.C. And that's just plain dumb, not to mention wrong. Adding more seats isn't ideal, but it's better than doing nothing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why Sheila Copps nearly made me scream at work

I should really turn off Twitter when I'm on the phone at work, because when I scanned my feed during a down moment in a conference call this afternoon and saw this story, I nearly let slip a stream of unparliamentary language that would have greatly confused the folks on the other end of the line.

As for Mr. Rae, Ms. Copps says the executive should not be able to restrict who runs and who does not. That’s up to voters.

She noted that when Mr. Rae took over the leadership, he agreed to rules set by the party’s “current” executive that the Interim Leader would not seek the top job permanently.

But a new executive could change that rule. And Ms. Copps will if she is elected president.

Speaking of rules, it's not a "rule" per se but I think it'd be nice if someone seeking to be president of the Liberal Party of Canada had some basic sense of the actual rules of the organization. Because it appears Ms. Copps either has no clue, or is just being deliberately obtuse.

For the umpeenth time, there IS NO RULE that prevents Mr. Rae from running for permanent leader. If he wants to run, HE CAN RUN.

There never was a "rule" at all. The current executive, when tasked with picking the interim leader, said they'd base their selection on several criteria: bilingualism, caucus support, and a promise not to seek the permanent leadership. Those weren't rules, they were screening criteria. They could have said we're only picking people that wear suspenders, it doesn't matter. Point is, once they make the appointment, it's done. There is no rule.

Mr. Rae is a member of the Liberal Party, and any member of the Liberal Party can seek the leadership if they gather the requisite signatures and pay whatever the entry fee will be. Even if the last executive had codified a "rule" preventing him, it wouldn't have to be changed because it would be constitutionally invalid. He has the right to run. All the executive could do is request he resign the interim leadership if he decides to run for the permanent job; we'll get to that in a second.

Once again, the only thing preventing Mr. Rae from running (besides clear statements that he doesn't want to) is his promise that he wouldn't. That is all. He is free to change his mind if he wants to. He can explain to the voters why he's changing his mind, voters can weigh that with all the other positives and negatives and decide to support him, or support another candidate.

That's why I want to scream when I read comments like those by Ms. Copps. Any motion by a new executive like she proposes would be a sham, a kabuki play, designed only to give political cover to allow Mr. Rae to change his mind. And I'm sorry, but I don't think it's the job of the national executive to do preemptive damage and spin control for potential leadership candidates.

The Interim Advantage

And if my blood pressure wasn't high enough already, I then read on:

Part of the argument in restricting a bid by Mr. Rae was that he could use his interim leadership as a launching pad for a permanent run. He’d have an advantage because of his profile and his ability to meet Liberals during his travels.

But Ms. Copps dismisses this. She doesn’t believe that being leader of the third party gives anyone the leg up.

I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. If you don't think the interim leadership gives someone a HUGE advantage in seeking the permanent gig then I'd love some of what you're smoking, because it must be pretty good. It confers a significant advantage.

I've been consistent on this point. I supported Michael Ignatieff during the last leadership race, but I told them privately and publicly it was a mistake for him to seek and accept the interim leadership while running the permanent job. It conferred a huge advantage that was unfair to his opponents, Rae and Dominic LeBlanc. They were left with little choice but to drop out, making it an acclamation. It was wrong then, and it would be wrong now.

The interim leader gets substantial media profile, is the go-to person for commentary and the lead performer in question period. They get a taxpayer and party-funded leader's office and budget. They pick who gets to ask questions in question period and who gets what critic portfolio. Lots of carrots and sticks to build support in caucus and lower the profile of potential rivals. It's a huge advantage.

And it's not one granted by the membership because the interim leader isn't selected by the membership, but by the national executive. The proverbial party elites. It would amount to the elites giving their preferred successor a leg-up, skewing the race. That would be unacceptable, and that's why it's a bad idea to use the interim job as a stepping-stool.

Bottom Line

If Mr. Rae wants to run, he is free to run. No rule prevents him.

If you want to be party president, you shouldn't be sowing disinformation and demonstrating such a fundamental lack of knowledge.

And given this recent quote from Rae (via here)...

"It won't be me. I'm not going to run for leadership."

...and similar statements since the day he took the interim job, why is this divisive can of worms even being opened? Is this really where our focus needs to be?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Primaries and mustaches

As promised earlier, I've written about the Liberal executive's open primary leadership election proposal. You've got to go over to Macleans.ca to read it though; I'll be occasionally writing for them on Liberal renewal and perhaps other exciting topics in the months to come. Here's a highlight:

I want to broaden the Liberal tent and make it more relevant to Canadians too. But open primaries are gimmicky and unlikely to build a lasting connection between the Liberal party and Canadians at large. I just don’t forsee a groundswell of Canadians rushing to get involved to pick the next leader of the third party. Gimmicks aren’t the way to engage people. I’d rather build a democratized party where membership matters, and encourage Canadians to join and support us for our ideas.

But before you go, or maybe once you're done, come on back and consider making a donation to help fight prostate cancer as part of Movember. It's why I'm growing this horrible moustache.

Anything you can give goes to a great cause, and would be greatly appreciated. And if you think I'm completely out to lunch on primaries, consider donating to one of my Movember "tecmology" teammates so I fall even further behind their fundraising totals and have to hide in shame. Everybody wins!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We need to make a Liberal membership worth having

I’m working on a piece about the Liberal executive’s open primary proposal that will hopefully run Friday, but rather than make it even longer I’d like to tackle some of the other reform proposals released today here and make a wider point about membership.

Make membership worth having

I feel we should give value to being a Liberal member, and as I examine proposals for party reform and make my own, that will be my guiding principle. We need to make a Liberal membership worth having.

We need to get people more involved in the party. Why? Because you don’t build success by having an election every four years, expect people to show up and work hard for four weeks, and hope for the best. You need to be building on the ground between elections, organizing in the community, developing policy. That’s the thankless work of party members and riding associations. And it’s my firm belief that our party reforms need to put riding associations and individual members at the centre of what we do.

How do we get more people involved at the riding level? By making membership more relevant, meaningful and valuable. Right now, it’s often meaningless. Too many riding associations are closed shops, which must change. And even if you can get involved, many feel it’s pointless in an organization that is too top-down driven.

We can start by recognizing why many people get involved, and also become disillusioned: policy development. The policy process today is largely an exercise in mutual self-satisfaction, because whatever is developed is ignored by the leader who writes their own platform. Forcing the party to run on the policy actually developed by the members would go a long way to making membership meaningful.

Another would be to reward long-term membership. Have truly open nominations (no leader protection for incumbents or power of appointment) but lengthen the period of time you need to have been a member to be able to vote. This allows for a wider pool of candidates but encourages them to get involved in the party earlier if they’re contemplating a run, and encourages people to join earlier and become active.

The executive’s proposals for reform

The key when examining the proposal from the executive is to differentiate what is proposed as constitutional change, and what is merely an “affirmation” of something. Many of the items in the summary (they haven’t officially released the full document they leaked to the media, but thankfully the media have) are mere requests to affirm things the executive has done or can do on its own authority.

And some are even more meaningless. For example, the item on unprotected nominations. As mentioned, I favour truly open nominations. But all the party proposes is that the convention “affirm the principle” of open nominations. No constitutional change. There’s language about the board only rarely approving exceptions at the request of the leader. But it’s meaningless unless the leader’s power of appointment is removed from the constitution. This isn’t change at all.

• Among the other proposals, a “don’t be mean to our leader” war chest is a nice idea. But it wasn’t a lack of will that stopped us from fighting back in the past; it was a lack of cash. You can give it a name, but you still need to raise the money and there’s only one donor pool.
• I agree with reforming and professionalizing the fundraising operation. But when I read about a major national campaign to pay for database technology I worry about national fundraising trumping riding efforts. That must be managed carefully. Again, there’s only one donor pool.
• I’m curious how the executive proposes to “enforce targets with respect to Victory Fund and Laurier Club participation in all electoral districts.” Enforcement implies consequences for non-performance. What would these be?
• I mentioned earlier that we need a major overhaul of the policy process to make it relevant and the leader accountable for running on our policy in the election campaign. But there’s no meaningful proposal on policy. It merits one item out of 19, and simply “affirms” that we all talk about policy on the Web site. It would remain the same meaningless busy-work process it is today.
• It’s proposed to keep the PTAs but evolve more of their functions to the national level. I favour efficiency of service delivery, but it’s unclear to me what model accomplishes that best.
• An annual report seems like a given.
• Open nominations for electoral district candidates by October 15, 2013. Indeed, at the latest, I agree. The more time with a candidate in place, the better.

Ending the debate too early

There are some things in these proposals I like, and some I don’t. And I’m not sure this is the way to be going about this. It seems to be presented with a certain element of finality, despite the language in the introduction about debate and discussion.

Instead of presenting specific choices as items to be voted on, I’d rather this have been presented as items for discussion in broad categories. For example, have a category on structural reform of PTA and national roles. Present a range of options, from PTA elimination to strengthened PTAs. Invite discussion, and even voting on the range of options. That would make more sense, and build more consensus, than presenting finished single options. It would signal an open process, instead of signalling the desired outcome.

All the requests that the “convention affirm the executive board decision” on a range of topics also gives me pause. Let’s remember, this document is coming from an outgoing national executive with a less than sterling track-record on some of these issues, and one without a mandate for broad reform. We’re right now having executive races for all our party offices, to elect an executive with a mandate from the membership for reform. A healthy and vibrant debate must be part of this process, and the current executive should be trying to facilitate that debate and not try to bind the hands of those that will be elected and short-circuit the debate process.

It just feels to me that this is being presented as the end of the reform process. Which is funny, because I thought it was just getting started. I know I am.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What I’m looking for in a Liberal Party of Canada president

A key part of the Liberal Party of Canada’s reform process will be electing the next national executive at the biennial convention in January, and I’m glad to see we have four capable candidates seeking the position of president: Sheila Copps, Mike Crawley, Ron Hartling and Alexandra Mendes.

I’m looking forward to hopefully getting a chance to meet all four and hear their ideas for reforming the party. And if you’re in Toronto, the Edward Blake Society is hosting a free event where you can meet all four candidates on November 28 at 7:00pm at Pauper’s Pub, 539 Bloor Street West.

In the interim, here are a few things I’ll be looking for from the presidential candidates should I be a voting delegate. These aren’t meant to include or exclude anyone, and some may even be contradictory, but then I’m a complicated fellow.

STAY OFF TV: I like to play a little game with my political friends. Who, I ask them, is the president of the Conservative Party of Canada? No smartphone googling allowed. Most draw a blank. A few will offer-up Don Plett, but he’s a past-president and better known as a Harper patronage appointment Senator. None can come-up with the correct answer – John Walsh – without Google.

And, frankly, that’s the way it should be. Walsh doesn’t do the pundit circuit on Power Play and Power and Politics, he’s not quoted in the Globe and Mail. He just focuses on quietly doing his job: building and growing the Conservative Party organization across the country. And he seems to be doing a fairly decent job.

That’s what I want from a Liberal president. It’s not your job to be on TV as the public face of the party. That’s the job of the party leader and the parliamentary caucus; let them be the public face. This isn’t a job for the limelight, and if that’s what you seek you should drop out. Focus on reforming the organization and communicating with members: directly.

COMMUNICATE WITH MEMBERS: I’ve come to believe lately that one of the biggest problems our party executive has had is one of communication. They may have the best of intentions, and arrive at the right decisions, but the process has been tainted by a failure to communicate openly, which breads suspicion and mistrust even if we’re all happy with the end result.

There have been some efforts lately at more communication, including regular e-mails to members from membership secretary Rob Jamieson. And there was a tele-town hall last weekend. But still, far too often Liberal Party members hear about party decisions and proposals second-hand, through media reports and leaks, instead of directly from the party. For example, apparently there’s a white paper on party reform floating around, according to media leaks. I haven’t seen it though. (UPDATE: It's now public.)

That is unacceptable, and it must change. We should never read about major party proposals or news in the media before we hear about it directly, as members, from the party itself. Anything else is unacceptable in an era of e-mail, social media and instant communication.

We’ll be debating our party structure through this process, but whatever happens to the national/provincial/territorial association/riding association model, I want the next party president to commit to not relying on this structure to communicate information and decisions down to the membership. Use it and leverage it, yes. But you must also communicate directly with members.

And note I said with, not to. Engage directly with members. With modern technology, there’s no excuse not to.

MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE: Now more than ever, this isn’t a job for a title hunter, resume padder or favoured insider. It’s time for the Liberal Party to be run like a corporation and we need a proven manager, ideally one with experience managing distressed assets. We need a turnaround specialist.

One of our biggest challenges is also one of change management. Ask any private sector organization that has undergone major change: the biggest obstacle has been getting their people onboard and helping to drive the change, rather than obstructing it. How you manage the change is as important asthe change itself, and crucial to its success.

I want to see management skills and experience in our next president, and a demonstrated commitment to open, consultative leadership.

A NEWCOMER, BUT WITH INSIDER EXPERIENCE: Contradictory? You bet. But like I said, I’m complicated. And as with all things, it’s a matter of balance.

I don’t want someone beholden to the current power structure, or too wedded to the way we do things that they’re unwilling to consider major changes. Because I believe everything about the way we do things needs to be on the table. What services should be delivered by the national party? What services by the PTAs? How much resources should go to the ridings? Should we starve the national office to feed the PTAs and decentralize, or eliminate the PTAs to save resources and centralize, putting more resources into ridings? Do we really need, and can we afford, the youth, seniors, aboriginal and womens’ commissions?

I don’t know; I’m still considering those issues and I welcome the debates. But there can be no taboos in this process. No sacred cows. Everything must be open for consideration, and I want a president who isn’t closed off to any possible course of action entering the debate or beholden to one part of the organization for their support.

At the same time, I don’t want a complete outsider. They need to be familiar enough with the party, its structure and its people to know its strengths and weaknesses, what it does well and what it doesn’t, what should stay and what should go, and what we’ve tried in the past that worked and didn’t work.

It’s a balancing act. I don’t put much value on institutional memory when it’s a memory of failure. But we need to know enough about the past so we don’t repeat those mistakes.

AND MORE

Of course, I'll want to hear their specific ideas and proposals. But while that's important, it's not the most important. Change and ideas should be coming from the bottom-up anyway. More important for me are these intangibles I've laid-out to recognize what kind of leader they'll be.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers