tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post3038507260323255051..comments2024-02-07T16:22:39.625-05:00Comments on Jeff Jedras: Ok, so what are we voting for exactly?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-56363168964324287502011-05-16T17:14:42.375-04:002011-05-16T17:14:42.375-04:00Well, we are kind of in the Pearson "situatio...Well, we are kind of in the Pearson "situation": defeated '57, in a minority opposition, elect a new leader '58, defeated '58, in a majority opposition. Pearson then went on to build the party and again lose in '62 before winning the first of two minority governments in '63. Very active minority governments as we know that built the party for future majority.<br /><br />If we're talking party building side-by-side with a Leader, it's not the worst model. Much, much better to me than 1990, 2003, 02 2006. 2008 doesn't really count, in my books. :)Quixotiquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06087377725237482826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-24793468096526110162011-05-16T14:22:34.291-04:002011-05-16T14:22:34.291-04:00James,
Perhaps, but let's be careful not to c...James,<br /><br />Perhaps, but let's be careful not to confuse people. As we adopted womov there won't be a "leadership convention" per se. There may be a celebratory event to announce the results and get press, but it won't be a delegated convention with high fees. We'll all vote in our own ridings. Therefore having both in the same year is more than possible.<br /><br />Sheila, I didn't know those historical timelines and that's interesting, but frankly I think we're in a different situation now and I don't think a 5 month or less race is desirable.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-18631153717665926202011-05-16T13:25:00.116-04:002011-05-16T13:25:00.116-04:00I agree with Sheila on this part - if the amendmen...I agree with Sheila on this part - if the amendments are voted down, then the timing is fine - in fact, longer than 1968 and 1984, as she pointed out. <br />Personally I'm still in favour of putting off the leadership vote, and I'm not all that vexed by 2013; but I do appreciate the concerns raised by others. I would hope that these amendments are a series of different ones, so that for example the bienniel could be delayed, and that any amendment could be made to narrow this timing window (if thats what the majority want). Going into a leadership now, though, and combining it with a bienniel - then we're going to spend all our energy now on leadership, not rebuilding. I don't know how you keep a lit on the leadership race, but I'd rather see it attempted than we all jump in right now.Fiddlers' Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14079804896355412855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-77205714751983413882011-05-15T19:19:38.103-04:002011-05-15T19:19:38.103-04:00Time for reform, learn about my views. http://libe...Time for reform, learn about my views. http://liberalreform.blogspot.com/Liberal Reformhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08025856451714311335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-88441203621147638252011-05-15T16:27:15.734-04:002011-05-15T16:27:15.734-04:00Jeff,
I agree with most of this and have written ...Jeff,<br /><br />I agree with most of this and have written similarly. I'd like to add a couple of points of clarification, a couple of further complications and add even more to the confusion, if I may.<br /><br />Firstly, we've got to stop referring to a Leadership Convention. There is no such animal anymore. There is a leadership vote process as you mention, but no requirement for a convention. I believe the thing is envisaged to play out like the recent BCLP leadership which was based on our new one. Lots of riding meetings, no convention. <br /><br />That doesn't mean that there couldn't be coincidental timing though; the pros and the cons of which are highly debatable.<br /><br />With respect to short leadership races of 4-5 months, that was the norm until 1990. We used to call it the convention that wouldn't die. St. Laurent resigned after the June '57 election and Pearson was chosen in mid-January 58 (less than 6 mos). Pearson resigned in Mid-December '67 and was replaced by Trudeau in early April '68 (about 4 mos). Trudeau resigned famously at the end of a leap year February and Turner was elected on June 16th in 1984 (3.5 mos).<br /><br />All were robust national races, without the advantages of today's instant and electronic communications - and all had actual conventions organized to boot.<br /><br />The reason we went so long in 1989/90 was because it was to the perceived advantage of one of the candidates, who controlled the executive at the time to have a long as race as possible. That long and divisive (both with respect to personality and policy) race unfortunately somehow became the norm for the next two.<br /><br />While I agree with you that this could be the Board's attempt to consult the membership in a kind of ultimate way, albeit it a clumsy one, I think that they may put any putative leadership candidates in an untenable situation and the leadership will begin in earnest the second they formally set the date for the leadership vote (the October 28/29 dates). If the amendments fail, that race will be legitimately on and I'm sure no candidate would want to lose those 3 weeks in addition.<br /><br />It's really messy. I get accused of being too much of a stickler for the process. Well this is a large part of the reason why. No one is served well by all of this uncertainty and second guessing.<br /><br />SheilaQuixotiquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06087377725237482826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-73920328187016010252011-05-15T15:41:40.394-04:002011-05-15T15:41:40.394-04:00The longer the amendment isn't visible, the le...The longer the amendment isn't visible, the less it can be debated. The shorter the time to the leadership vote, the more likely people will just give up and let it be delayed.Mark Richard Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16331995640397477486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-46506353619354857432011-05-15T14:14:44.716-04:002011-05-15T14:14:44.716-04:00I think we have to wake up and smell the coffee he...I think we have to wake up and smell the coffee here. If there is a biennial in January 2012, you can bet your ass we ain't getting a leadership convention in the same calendar year. So that means no leadership until 2013. That is unacceptable to me.James Curranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08064830948270604331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-61531245200049956612011-05-15T13:26:55.220-04:002011-05-15T13:26:55.220-04:00Sorry Brian, do you meas having a four month leade...Sorry Brian, do you meas having a four month leadership instead of five if we vote down the amendment and pick the leader in October? Yes, I do think one month makes a difference there. Five months is too short already, and one month amounts to a 20 per cent shorter period. That's a big chunk of an already too short time period and makes it harder for someone newish to try to mount a challenge.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-11506101518104139792011-05-15T12:26:36.926-04:002011-05-15T12:26:36.926-04:00Brian, I don't get what you're getting at....Brian, I don't get what you're getting at. They want to delay the biennial by 30 days (December 11 to January 12), I'm fine with that. My concern is giving the exec a blank cheque to schedule the leadership convention for (according to press leaks) any time between May 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 with 5 months notice. That would be a delay of up to two years, which I cannot accept.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-7259747175044801622011-05-15T12:14:46.967-04:002011-05-15T12:14:46.967-04:00Jeff, does 1 month actually make that much of a di...Jeff, does 1 month actually make that much of a difference? I don't see how an extra thirty days will change the outcome of a leadership race.Brian G. Ricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18022250772435998812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-27456852506631792972011-05-15T12:10:44.505-04:002011-05-15T12:10:44.505-04:00"That’s unacceptable for me. As I’ve written ..."That’s unacceptable for me. As I’ve written before, I can support a delay of one year, but I don’t want to go any longer with an un-elected interim leader appointed by executive who lacks a democratic mandate for reform. I don’t support giving the executive a blank cheque of over a year to set the timing. I want to vote on a specific date."<br /><br />EXACTLY! Give us some dates, because I want to delay, but I think two year is sheer madness. Get it together people, and QUICK.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.com