Reflecting
on last weekend’s Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention, where delegates
voted against reducing the powers of the leader and put much of their hope for
rebuilding into one key initiative – admitting supporters into the party ranks
and giving them a vote for the next leader – it seems clear to me we’re betting
much of our hope for a revival and return to relevance on a leadership race
that will culminate with a vote by all members and supporters sometime betweenMarch 1 and June 30, 2013.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
If we’re betting everything on leadership, Bob Rae must be clear on intentions
Monday, January 16, 2012
Both hope and fear drove Liberal delegates in Ottawa
Looking back on my three days in Ottawa for the 2012 Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention it’s impossible to craft one clear narrative – did delegates embrace bold change or put their faith in the status quo – because the evidence is highly contradictory. And that, I suppose, is typically Liberal: hard to and pin down and define clearly.
On the hopey-changey side, delegates elected as president a candidate who promised a “bold new red,” Mike Crawley, over a veteran party stalwart of the 1980s and 1990s, Sheila Copps. For the first time in Canada a political party will let a new category of members, called supporters, into the fold to vote for its next party leader without actually taking out a membership. Instead of the leader appointing both national campaign co-chairs, one will now be directly elected by members. And not only was a controversial policy on marijuana legalization actually passed by delegates, the *interim* leader put aside his earlier opposition on the issue to signal he had been swayed by the debate and would advocate for the policy and defend it against the inevitable Conservative “soft on crime” onslaught.
On the other side is an equally impressive list of actions delegates took to timidly embrace the status quo and avoid taking power from the leadership for themselves. Delegates rejected a plan to end the leader’s ability to veto any policy developed by the membership they don’t like. The leader can still appoint all the candidates they want. A total ban on appointments wasn’t on the table, and even a compromise proposal to limit appointments to 20 was rejected. A “ballot initiative” proposal to allow any Liberal to put a constitutional amendment or policy on the agenda at a national convention if they can gather the support of 5000 members, bypassing the need to get the support of a provincial wing or party commission, was rejected. Delegates even rejected an amendment to allow them to set their own rules of procedure for conventions.
There was also a balancing on the supporter front. After welcoming supporters to vote for party leader, delegates rejected letting supporters help pick local riding candidates. And the leadership race will happen across the country on one weekend, not over successive weeks in a series of rolling regional votes.
Taking it all in, I’m left with delegates expressing an odd combination of hope and fear. The sense that we needed to do something big and bold was prevalent. They recognize the party is at a crossroads, and will either return to relevance or fade away. Underlying it all was a current of fear. Time after time, delegates expressed concern over what the media headline would be Monday if they didn’t do something big and bold, whatever that may be. Be bold, or the Ottawa pundit class will pounce. Members were even scared of themselves, insisting the leader continue to be vested with power on policies and appointments members can’t be trusted with themselves. “How can you expect a leader to run on a policy they don’t believe in?” one Liberal asked me when ending the leader veto was rejected. Sure, but how can a party expect to engage and mobilize thousands of supporters and members to campaign for a platform they have no stake in?
This week’s convention was never going to be the final verdict on the great Liberal rebuilding project, but it was important as both a starting-point and to set the tone for the task ahead. With the mixed results, we’re clearly pinning our hopes on a new national executive, a leadership race that is still over a year away, and opening up that leadership race to every Canadian that’s not a member of another party that would like to participate. In a sense, we’re putting a lot of our eggs in a few key baskets.
I opposed opening up the leadership selection to supporters for a range of reasons, such as the devaluation of membership. I stand by those concerns, and I’m disappointed other initiatives that would have helped strengthen membership’s relevance, and the responsibility of members in our success or failure, were rejected. I’m willing to put those concerns aside and work to help make this supporter system a success. However, my concern is that it’s not the panacea its advocates, including much of the party caucus and establishment, expect it to be.
That’s because I believe many Liberals still don’t yet fully understand why we were rejected soundly by Canadians not just last May, but in several successive elections. There’s a sense that if we just throw open our doors by making it easier to get involved as a supporter, people will come flooding in. It’s not that simple though. We want them to sign up so we can get their data and market to them, but we’re not asking WHY THEY would want to come to us.
It was easy enough for Canadians to mark an X for us in the last election, but they didn’t. Why? We weren’t offering anything that was relevant to them and to their lives. One non-Liberal observer made a salient point to me: partisans think everyone wants to be partisans. But most people don’t. They couldn’t care less about how we pick our next leader. They just want to live their lives. If we want to mobilize them it’s not enough to just let them vote for our leader. We need to find a way to speak to the issues that matter to them and their lives, and convince them that we are the vehicle that can bring change on the issues they care about, or they won’t be interested.
That is the challenge the party is facing, and on which the verdict of our future, or lack thereof, will hinge. We have made it easier than ever before for people to get involved with the Liberal Party of Canada. But now, we need to give them a reason to want to. If we do, this bold experiment will be proven a success and we’ll look back on this weekend as the beginning of a great comeback. If we don’t, our slide from public relevance will continue. The delegates left Ottawa excited about the promise of the future, but the hard work is only beginning.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Kyle Harrietha's speech to Liberals about membership
As I speak Kyle Harrietha, who I'm proud to support for Liberal membership secretary this weekend, is speaking to the nearly 3000 delegates at the Liberal biennial convention about his vision for membership and for the Liberal Party. Here's his speech, which so far I have to say he's knocking out of the park...
• Delegates…members…amis Liberaux
• Bienveue à Ottawa and thank you for your dedication to our Liberal Party.
• My name is Kyle Harrietha and I am asking for your support in my campaign for National Membership Secretary.
• Over the past 15 years I have had the honour of working on Liberal campaigns from Nova Scotia, to Ontario, to Saskatchewan and now in Alberta.
• And what I have learned is that leadership does not begin with a select few – Leadership must be embodied by all of us.
• I would like to talk about the ways in which we can empower every Liberal to spearhead the ideals that will transform our Party and our country.
• Leadership is about individual responsibility, mutual trust and accountability.
• Yet, until now, we have allowed for the development of two parallel parties.
• A party for insiders and another for the rest.
• That…must end.
• We must commit ourselves to becoming a Party that promotes the empowerment of the many and puts an end to control by the few.
• We should not mimic the Conservatives who are governed by one decision maker at the top. We can’t wait for a messiah; it’s up to each of us.
• Real change requires policies that inspire every member to build local organizations in their communities.
• Nous avons des choix à faire. We have choices to make.
• The choice between confidence and doubt.
• The choice between optimism and frustration.
• And the choice between success and stagnation.
• We must create a fair, open and honest Party that generates change from the bottom up – and captures the hopes and aspirations of every community in our great country.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Kyle Harrietha’s eight-page plan for Liberal membership
Before Christmas, when I wrote about why I was supporting Kyle Harrietha for Liberal membership secretary I spoke about his dedication to the Liberal cause, working for the party on the ground in Atlantic Canada and in Toronto, helping to rebuild a Liberal riding association in Northern Alberta, and working as a staffer on Parliament Hill. I also mentioned he was preparing a rather detailed policy agenda that spoke to not just his priorities as membership secretary, but to his ideas for building a more member-drive Liberal Party. I’m pleased to say that platform has now been released, and I encourage you to take the time to give it a read:
'Open Platform for Liberals' by Kyle Harrietha
Since he first sent me a copy I’ve been teasing Kyle about the length, but the fact is it’s a very detailed and comprehensive document that shows how much he has thought about the issues facing our party, and how seriously he takes the challenges ahead. Presidential candidate Mike Crawley also has a pretty detailed platform but otherwise, I think Kyle's is the most meaty on offer from any of the candidates by a healthy margin.
The platform is divided into four sections. The first focuses on “values & principles” and makes a very simple point: if we’re to be successful as a party we need to lead with our values and our principles and our members need to be able to articulate and carry those values forward. That’s why Kyle would work with members to create a plain-language “Red Book” for Liberals, a ,member’s handbook if you will, outlining our values and principles, our history, our structure, and other information to help members engage in a conversation with Canadians and grow the party.
The second section is focused on “dialogue & relationship building” and recognizes the importance of providing our members the training, tools and skills they need to succeed in whatever they wish to in the party, whether its policy development, communications, or campaign organization. Too often, I can tell you, we’re just tossed into a campaign to sink or swim and any training is ad hoc. Kyle’s proposals include creating a comprehensive curriculum for all aspects of riding and campaign management and an online forum for sharing best practices. I had no formal training before I became a campaign manager in the last election; Kyle’s proposals are very necessary.
The third section is called “transparency & integrity” and addresses an issue dear to my heart: reforming the nomination process. There will be some tinkering around the edges in Ottawa with a constitutional amendment proposed to limit leader appointments to 25 (including any incumbents he or she wishes to protect) but we need to do much more. While he doesn’t commit to supporting an outright ban (I’ll keep pushing him on that) he does suggest a number of other very needed reforms publishing all cutoff deadlines at least three months in advance, having clear and consistent guidelines for nomination candidates, make the “greenlight” process ongoing and timely and approving candidates to seek a nomination in any riding, not just a specific one. While there’s been much debate around candidate appointments, and rightly so, the secretive “greenlight” candidate approval process has been abused for years by the Liberal establishment to stack the deck for their preferred candidates. Kyle is absolutely right to recognize this process needs both serious reform and the disinfectant that is sunshine.
Finally, the fourth section is dedicated to “organization & leadership.” Recognizing the advent of the permanent campaign (well, it’s been here for a little while now but we’re catching-up) Kyle has a number of proposals to modernize our voter identification and mobilization systems, such as micro-targeting data for predictive vote modeling, continuous voter and brand research and creating an open, data-driven culture. I also like his ideas for a 36-36-36 approach to campaign organization, with planned action increasing in intensity in the 36 months, days and weeks leading up to election day. This includes a strategic communications plan utilizing our caucus members into all ridings, regular events across the country, and working with every level of the party, EDA, PTA and national, to define their responsibilities and help them deliver against them.
I think this is a great platform that shows a depth of understanding of the challenges facing our party developed from years of working for the Liberal cause in the trenches, and puts forward concrete deliverables that can begin to move us in the right direction. And it all comes down to membership: recognizing that as members we have not just rights, but responsibilities. This platform will help arm members with some of the tools we need to fulfill that responsibility, and that’s one of the reasons Kyle has my support for membership secretary.
Blogger debate video: BCer in Toronto vs. Calgary Grit on primaries
Well, it's the eve of the 2012 Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention and one of the debates generating the most interest and discussion (besides the great #lpc12 vs #ott12 hashtag debate with threatens to tear our fragile party asunder) is the proposal to adopt a primary-style system (see 2, 3, 4 and 12) to pick our next leader.
It would involve creating a new category of non-member, called supporters, who could vote for the Liberal leader if they pledge they're not a member of another party, say they abide by certain Liberal principles, and agree to give us their contact information so we can send them fundraising pitches. As envisioned in the proposal, both members and supporters would cast their votes in a serious of rolling regional votes over as long as seven weeks, timed for maximum media attention.
I'm opposed; I feel its a gimmick unlikely to generate the wave of participation its proponents predict while, at the same time, further devaluing Liberal membership at a time when we need to engage, empower and grow our membership more than ever before. Canadians could care less about how the third-place party picks their leader; they care about their everyday lives and its convincing them that we genuinely care about and will fight for the issues that matter to them that will engage Canadians in the Liberal Party.I also feel our need to be seen to be bold and innovative is leading us to rush into primaries without thinking it through; I'd rather begin with a pilot project on the riding level. At our last convention we brought in bold, innovative change that we haven't even tried yet -- one member, one vote -- which opens up the leadership from a delegated convention to every Liberal member. Let's give it a try.
Proponents, such as my friend Dan "Calgary Grit" Arnold, point to the recent Alberta Liberal primary as a success, and feel the system will both generate the voter identification data critical to modern campaign as well as energize and democratize the Liberal Party, growing our supporter base and earning oodles of free media as our bold experiment captures the attention of Canadians during American Idol's off-season.
Dan and I recently went to a bar, as Liberals are known to do, to debate the issue. Also, stay tuned until the end for our predictions of whether or not the primary proposal will succeed this weekend.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Why I’m supporting Braeden Caley and James Morton for Liberal Party executive
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Endorsing a roadmap from an old Liberal executive before electing a new one
Friday, January 06, 2012
10 Liberal policy resolutions that caught my eye, from abortion and the Queen to marijuana and a preferential ballot
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
36 proposed Liberal constitutional amendments dissected and explained
Amendments proposed by the the national board of directors
You can join the Liberal Party at age 14, but you need to be 18 to register as a supporter. The supporter rules seem to mirror those for voting in a general election. But if this is about nurturing and building support, why exclude youth? Why not try to involve them early, and try to convert them into members and/or general election voters when of age? I’d support an amendment to lower the age.
Other concerns: there’s no time-period on being a supporter, it lasts until you opt out, your snail mail bounces back, or you’re kicked out. Also, they seem to anticipate making PTAs process all the supporter applications, which will cost money. The only mention of a fee is in the section on supporters voting in the leadership selection, but no fee seems anticipated to simply become a supporter. What will it cost to process these applications? And it LPC downloads it to PTAs, will they download resources to pay for it too?