More reports from the Ignatieff Hiding in Plain Sight Summer Tourapolozza 2009

Yesterday the Michael Ignatieff Hiding in Plain Sight Summer Tourapolozza 2009 did not take him to Cape Breton, where he didn't meet with local residents, fishermen, municipal leaders, and health workers.

Here is some of the local media coverage the tour did not generate yesterday:

Cape Breton News: Michael Ignatieff makes first visit to island since becoming leader
Chronicle Herald: Lobster, leadership on Ignatieff’s C.B. agenda
Daily Gleaner: Maritime tour

Here's a video of Michael not speaking to Cape Breton lobster fishermen yesterday at the Port Morien Wharf:



Here's a Liberal blog entry that doesn't talk about what Michael was up to in Sydney yesterday, and doesn't have photos and videos from yesterday's activities:

The weather today in Sydney was overcast, and entirely appropriate given the tough hurdles facing the local lobster fisherman we heard from down at Port Morien Wharf – from the declining price of lobster, to licensing issues. The fishermen’s message to Michael: we’re committed to making lobster fishing a sustainable industry and we need a supportive partner in Ottawa. Michael, meanwhile, reaffirmed Liberal support for the industry and referred to the pressure the Liberal team put on Minister Shea to address the issues affecting the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians. On a lighter note, he also hopped on one of their boats to have a look around.

Finally, here's a picture of Michael not speaking with a doctor while not touring the Cape Breton Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre. More pics are not on the blog.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Michael Ignatieff on Duffy yesterday

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Michael Ignatieff in the media on Wednesday

For some reason a technical hiccup prevented me from getting the press conference, but here's Michael Ignatieff yesterday with Don Newman on the Politics broadcast:



And here is Michael being interviewed by Lloyd Robertson on the CTV National News:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We're coming for you, Steve

I do feel a little cheated with the early end to this leadership race (didn't even get a Michael button, although I did get two snazzy Dominic ones), but while the process wasn’t ideal, I think the fact we’re now able to unite behind Michael Ignatieff as our (interim for now) Liberal leader is actually a blessing, and it’s an opportunity for the Liberal Party – if we seize it.

And it’s really an opportunity we have Stephen Harper to thank for. He united the right, he united the left, and now he has united the Liberal Party all together behind Michael Ignatieff to stand-up forcefully to the Conservative bullying, and quite possibly send his government packing next month. So thanks for that Steve. You rock, man.

A sincere thank-you though to Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae. I’ve already spoken of my respect and admiration for Dominic. And Bob really impressed me, and I think a lot of Liberals, with his selfless acts of yesterday. The odds may have been long for him but you never give up hope – look at Stephane’s improbable win in 2006 – so for him to put aside his own ambitions, and probably his last chance at the leadership, for the greater good of the party and the country was a truly noble act that I think gained him a lot of respect within the Liberal Party, including with some that maybe weren’t so sure about Bob.

I have some policy disagreements with Bob, but I got to see him a few times during the election campaign when he came out to B.C. to stump for our candidates and do a few Team BC press conferences. Getting a chance to watch him work a room or the media, I have to say he’s the most skilled and natural politician I’ve ever met. The man can campaign like no-one’s business. I think he and Michael will complement one another spectacularly, and I’m really impressed with the strength of our front-bench. Particularly compared to the lack of depth across the way.

While I’d have liked a full race, there’s actually a number of positives to this scenario. If it continued, this thing could have started to get really nasty; now the wounds will be easier to heal. Not that much money has been spent yet, so debt should be very minimal and we can now focus on party fundraising. We have a leader for the long-term ready to challenge, and potentially replace, Stephen Harper.

And we can now put the focus on the more important issue facing the Liberal Party: party reform and renewal. I’ve said all along that leadership wasn’t the main problem with our party. Was Stephane a factor in the last result? Undeniably. But the problems go much deeper, and they predate Stephane, Paul and Jean. I’ve written at length already about the reforms I would like to see, and I’ll continue to push them in the months ahead.

As Jason writes today, there is now a real and meaningful opportunity to use the Vancouver convention to deliver real and substantial party reform. And as a positive, I suspect it will be a little easier now to secure a delegate spot. So, if you want constitutional reform, if you want (weighted) one-member, one vote, then it’s not enough to just moan about the need for change. Push for it. Advocate it. Get specific: what change, how and why? And, most importantly, run to be a delegate and then come to convention in Vancouver so we can VOTE for it, and really make it happen.

We have a lot of work to do, but now we’re all able to come together and get down to the challenge. And we’re able to train our guns where they really belong: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

And don’t kid yourself if you don’t think they’re concerned. Look at Tim Powers, already furiously trying to raise expectations (and rather transparently and ineptly, at that). They were counting on us staying divided and fighting amongst ourselves for many more months. No longer. Let’s show them what a united Liberal Party is made of. As Michael said a little while ago: no more sitting on our hands.

We’re coming for you, Steve.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Bob Rae on Duffy

Unfortunately I didn't manage to record Bob Rae's press conference today, but I did manage to grab this interview Bob did yesterday evening on Mike Duffy Live:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Dominic LeBlanc press conference

Dominic LeBlanc's press conference Monday announcing he was dropping out of the Liberal leadership race and endorsing Michael Ignatieff.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Let's win the leadership the right way

Yesterday, Michael Ignatieff sent an e-mail out to supporters and others titled “Winning the leadership the right way.” Unfortunately, it seems neither Michael or Bob are taking that spirit to heart.

I'll update things, as the developments on the Liberal leadership front have been fast and furious. Stephane Dion has announced he won't wait until May to resign, but just as soon as a new interim leader is chosen he'll step aside. Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the race and endorsed Michael. Both Michael and Bob agree it is desirable to have a permanent leader in place as soon as possible. They just disagree about how to get there.

Unfortunately, the party doesn't seem able to come to agreement on a way to speed-up the leadership process that is constitutionally legitimate. Bob wants one member, one vote now, but that just isn't possible under the current constitution. Also, from a democracy point of view, I'd note delegates at the last convention rejected OMOV. I favour (weighted) OMOV, and will advocate for it an the next convention, but for now, we're stuck with the process democratically selected by the party membership.

There do seem to be ways constitutionally to speed up the delegated process though. A scenario suggested by Jason seems reasonable, and involves advancing the delegate selection meetings to January and then having the delegates immediately vote by phone or the Web for the permanent leader.

As I said though, there seems to be no agreement on such a process currently, leaving us with Rae pushing a constitutionally-void OMOV now and Ignatieff preferring to allow the delegated process, as constitutionally proscribed, continue until May.

Except, the party is now going to pick an interim leader to serve until May:

In this spirit, with respect to its decision to select an interim Leader, the National Executive has chosen to consult broadly with the Party’s constitutional bodies, including Caucus, defeated candidates from the last general election, Council of Presidents, and Commission Club Presidents. Through this process, an interim Leader is expected to be chosen as early as Wednesday, December 17, 2008.

This sounds like a fine process. Generally, an interim leader is just selected by the executive, in consultation with the caucus. So extending the consultation further is a positive, and is constitutionally consistent.

The wrench in the works, however, is that Michael intends to run for interim leader. Now, again, this is perfectly permissible under the rules. He has the right to run for interim leader. But just because it's allowed doesn't make it a good idea. I've already stated clearly for the record that neither leadership candidate should stand for interim leader, and my position hasn't changed.

While there is still a race on with more than one candidate, to have one of them having to campaign against the interim leader isn't acceptable. It gives an enormous advantage to one candidate, opens many cans of worms around decisions such as critic appointments, staff hirings and other decisions by the leader being seen to favour his own supporters, and will only make the post-leadership wounds all the harder to heal.

I'd advise Michael and his people to slow down a little. Now, look, were I a betting man with money to wager on this race, well, let's just say Michael would be a pretty good bet to win. So why lunge hungrily for the interim leader prize, with all the inherent downsides?

The only reasonable argument I've heard is election prep, but surely the party executive and staff can get the process underway in the interim. And both candidates should be working on policy and transition initiatives.

So why not win the right way? In a way that respects the rights of the Liberal membership to have their choice, in a constitutionally-valid process? I know we can win this race, and it would give our new leader a much stronger mandate, with the party all the more behind him.

I'd advise both candidates to do some thinking. Bob needs to stop advocating leadership processes that are constitutionally invalid, and Michael needs to revisit letting his name stand for interim leader. Both need to consider if they're acting in the best interests of the party. And the party needs to find a way to get a leader in place by late January that respects both democracy and the constitution.

At the least, let's advance the delegate selection meetings as far as possible, as early in January as we can. With two candidates, one of them is going to get 50%+1. At that point, the second-place candidate should consider stepping aside for the good of the party, given the extraordinary circumstances and the clearly expressed will of the membership (ironically, it is weighted OMOV to elect the delegates, who must vote for their declared candidate on the first ballot), and allow the winner to sevre as interim leader until its formalized by the convention in May.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dominic supports Michael

As expected, Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the leadership race to support Michael Ignatieff. As I've mentioned before I really like Dominic, I seriously considered supporting him in this race. I'm sorry more Liberals won't get to know him through a full-length leadership process, but I hope he continues to make his voice and views heard. Our party needs him.

LeBlanc out of Liberal leadership race (URGENT-Liberal-Leadership)
Source: The Canadian Press - Broadcast wire
Dec 8, 2008 15:14

OTTAWA - New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc is abandoning the Liberal leadership race and formally throwing his support to Michael Ignatieff.

His withdrawal follows Stephane Dion's announcement today that he's ready to step down as soon as a replacement can be chosen, perhaps as soon as Wednesday.

The party wants a new leader in place before the House of Commons returns at the end of January for a federal budget and a critical confidence vote.

LeBlanc, 40, said he had been looking forward to the leadership campaign and renewing the party.

But, he added, it's important to find a permanent leader quickly.

Ignatieff, he said, is the consensus choice of Liberals and the best person to lead the party and the country.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stéphane steps down

I'm having a very busy day at work, and then after work I'm off to the Maple Leafs game (go Isles!), so I won't have time until late tonight or early tomorrow to respond to the decision by Stéphane Dion today to step aside as party leader with the time and thought deserved.

For now, I'll just say I'm very sorry about the way things worked out. Stéphane is a good man and a good Canadian, and my respect for him has never wavered. No matter what the last few chapters of his political biography may read, today he's ending his leadership as he has spent his career: putting his party and his country first. Which just deepens my respect for the man all the more.

In the mean time, here's his statement, followed by an e-mail that went-out from the Michael Ignatieff campaign this afternoon.

Dion's Statement:

After the election on October 14 I announced I would stay on as Leader of the Liberal Party until my party could select my successor. One of my goals was to ensure an effective opposition to Stephen Harper's government.

I believe that decision was the right one and I am proud of having forced Stephen Harper to back away from his attempt to force upon Canadians his most ideological and harmful plans in these tough economic times.

The alliance between the Liberal Party and the NDP to replace the Harper government, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, is a solid basis to give Canada a government that reflects both the aspirations of the majority of Canadians and the support of the majority of Members of
Parliament. Such a government would be more stable than a minority Conservative government incapable of cooperating with opposition parties.

As the Governor General has granted a prorogation, it is a logical time for us Liberals to assess how we can best prepare our party to carry this fight forward.

There is a sense in the party, and certainly in the caucus, that given these new circumstances the new leader needs to be in place before the House resumes. I agree. I recommend this course to my party and caucus.

As always, I want to do what is best for my country and my party, especially when Canadians' jobs and pensions are at risk.

So I have decided to step aside as Leader of the Liberal Party effective as soon as my successor is duly chosen.

I will offer my unconditional and enthusiastic support to my successor in the same way I have always supported the leaders of our great party. I will work under the next leader's direction with all my energy in order to give Canada a better government.

I wish to close by making it absolutely clear that my earlier departure does not change the facts of the situation that the Prime Minister has created in the last two weeks.

The Prime Minister and his government refused to lay out a plan to stimulate the economy. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister shut down Parliament to save his job while thousands of Canadians are losing theirs. The Prime Minister
has poisoned the well of trust and respect that is necessary for a minority government to work in Parliament _ especially in a time of crisis. Mr. Harper took an economic crisis and added a parliamentary crisis that he then tried to transform into a national unity crisis: this is no way for a Prime Minister of Canada to act.

It is my hope that the decision I have announced today will enhance the capacity of Parliament to function effectively for the sake of Canadians in this economic crisis.

Stephane Dion, PC, MP

Micheal's letter:

Dear Friends,

Over the past few days I have been honoured by the incredible surge of support from all parts of our party for my candidacy for the leadership.

The week ahead promises to be an exciting one and I wanted to share with you my thoughts as it begins.

First, every one of us owes a debt of thanks to Mr. Dion for his public service as Leader of our party, as a cabinet minister and an MP. I hope that we may continue to count on his contributions to Canada and to the Liberal Party.

Second, I want to share with you that I will stand as a candidate to replace Mr. Dion under the process outlined in the party constitution, as voted upon by the delegates of the grassroots of our party at the last convention in Montreal, for replacement of a Leader who resigns prior to a leadership convention. I am doing so because our parliamentary caucus and party need leadership now to confront Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Third, should I succeed in winning the support of the national executive of the party and our caucus as leader, I remain committed to having that leadership confirmed by our party at our upcoming convention in Vancouver, as our party's constitution requires.

Fourth, should I become leader I hope to immediately engage the grassroots in the very real policy challenges facing our country at a time of peril and in the party renewal challenges that all Liberals must face together. I will need the best from each and every one of us in this regard.

Thanks to each and every one of you for all your hard work and support on my behalf. It is appreciated more than I can say. If you haven’t done so already please tell me what you think, volunteer or make a donation.

Michael

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sundays are supposed to be a day of rest

While Sundays are supposed to be a day of rest (myself, I watched some football and played CivCity: Rome), but it seems assorted Liberal Party mucky-mucks didn't get that message, at least judging by the media reports filtering-out this evening.

According to the reports, all unconfirmed at this point, Dominic LeBlanc is going to drop out of the leadership race to support Michael Ignatieff. As well, both Michael and Bob Rae have spoken publicly of the need to speed up the race, and supposedly there is much behind the scenes negotiating going on around just how that can happen. The Liberal executive is supposedly also meeting tonight to consider how this could be done.

This follows reports yesterday that Stephane Dion will likely announce his immediate resignation as party leader at Wednesday's caucus meeting. All the activity this weekend is geared around getting a new permanent leader in place as soon as possible, certainly before the May convention, and possibly before the return of the House of Commons and the budget presentation in late January.

There is much speculation in the media and the blogs around what possible scenarios are being supported by whom, and how this may proceed. It's all unconfirmed at this point, and some of the reports are conflicting. Fact is, we don't know exactly what “Bob's people” or “Michael's people” are proposing, and we should wait until we do before getting too worked-up about such reports.

Speaking for myself, I reluctantly support the idea of speeding this thing up, but on two conditions:

1/ The constitution of the Liberal Party is respected.
2/ All Liberal Party members have a direct vote in the selection of the leader.

Let me also state something I've said before, for the record: the caucus cannot be allowed to simply pick the leader it wants. That would be an undemocratic process leading to an illegitimate leader, and I won't support such a process.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, LPC constitution or otherwise, but I'd think there much be a way to square this circle.

The caucus and executive have the power to appoint the leader on an emergency basis. What if every Liberal member was given a chance to vote for leader, perhaps by phone or Web or a meeting in each riding. This vote would pick a leader who would then be appointed by the caucus on an emergency basis. The decision could then be confirmed by the Vancouver convention, which would go ahead as a policy biennial (which we really do need, by the way).

I don't know how feasible or constitutionally acceptable such a scenario would be, but it would ensure the leader is selected by the membership, which must be at the core of whatever solution comes forward.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More Michael Ignatieff in the media

Michael Ignatieff speaks to reporters on Thursday, following the Liberal caucus meeting:



Michael Ignatieff on CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Friday:



Michael Ignatieff on CTV's Question Period today:



In The Daily Gleaner on Saturday:

"Mr. Harper's only chance for survival is to split the Liberal Party of Canada," Ignatieff said in his first significant interview since Ottawa's descent into a constitutional crisis.

"He will try to drive a wedge between us, and he will not succeed. Our party is united in its determination to face Mr. Harper down."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We're competitive with Michael, but not so much with Bob: poll

Interesting polling numbers from Angus Reid in today's dead tree edition of the Toronto Star.

First, the party support numbers are troubling for the Liberals, and I'd say speak to our inability during round one of this coalition battle to win the public relations battle. If an election were held now, we'd be in trouble:

Conservatives: 42%
Liberals: 22%
NDP: 18%
Bloc: 10%
Green: 7%

However, asked the pollster, were Michael Ignatieff the leader of the Liberal Party, how would you vote?

Conservatives: 38%
Liberals: 33%
NDP: 13%
Bloc: 10%
Green: 6%

So with Michael, we're still a few points behind but we're competitive, and it's ground we can make up in a campaign. He gives us an impressive 11 point swing in support, and what's interesting is where that swing comes from. He pulls four from the Conservatives but he also pulls five from the NDP. I'd argue that arguers well for Michael as a solidifying figure of the political centre, which is what the Liberal Party needs right now.

The pollster also asked respondents how they'd vote were Bob Rae the Liberal leader:

Conservatives: 41%
Liberals: 26%
NDP: 15%
Bloc: 10%
Green: 6%

Not impressive numbers, with Bob managing only a four-point swing in Liberal fortunes. The Conservative figure, well inside majority government territory, is virtually unchanged, with Bob managing to pull a few points from the NDP although, notably, not as much as Michael. Now, ground can be made up in a campaign, but to close a 15-point gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives would require a miracle.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael in the media on Sunday

Michael Ignatieff on CBC News Sunday:



Michael Ignatieff on CTV's Question Period:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael Ignatieff: I've got ice-water in my veins on this one

A selection of quotes from Michael Ignatieff in a series of media interviews this afternoon/evening, following the release of the Conservative Party's economic update today. I like the energy, and the fire.



CP:

“One step at a time. But I will tell you that I've got ice-water in my veins on this one. I'm utterly unintimidated and undeterred by this stuff and the caucus is in the same mood . . . . (Harper) has misread the mood if he thinks that the Liberal caucus is going to cave on this matter. No way. No way.''

Media scrum outside the House of Commons chamber:

“We need to discuss the -- the government wants parliamentarians to be responsible about responding to this crisis to make sacrifices. We're prepared to consider all kinds of sacrifices. We understand the seriousness of the crisis but the measures they've introduced don't address the nature of the crisis. There is nothing in the auto sector. There is nothing on forestry. There is no stimulus I could go on. They've got to come back and give us something that addresses the crisis seriously and unites parliamentarians instead of dividing them.”

“Pay bargaining. Collective bargaining. Pay equity. Right to strike. All this stuff. Boom! New finance rules for political parties. This is not the way to govern on the edge of Niagara Falls. That's what we're saying. So go back and think about it again.”

“No one wants to play political chicken. I am thinking of the workers in the forestry sector, in the automobile sector. What they are crying out for is a government that doesn't play games with this, comes back to us and says, how can we make this work. And if they do that they'll have a very receptive and co-operative liberal party.”

“I can't assure you of anything. I will tell you about what i know about the mood of this party. We are tired of sitting down. Is that clear? Thank you."

On Mike Duffy Live:

“There's a deficit, although they're trying to hide it. There's an attack on pay equity, though they deny it. There's an attack on collective bargaining. And there's a crude partisan swipe at other political parties. And at a time when canadians want parliamentarians to work together, find common solutions, come together, it is the worse possible signal. And we can't support this, Mike.”

“At a time when Canadians are looking for us to work together, you don't divide. You seek to unite. The prime minister is playing divisive politics. He's gambling that we'll back down. We just think this does not help workers. It does not help people who are struggling with their pensions. We think this is just not good enough. There is no stimulus package there. There is nothing for the auto sector. There is nothing for forestry. And there are consistent -- there's a strain of partisan attack that we think is utterly unacceptable in a document like this which should be drawing us together. We can't support it.”

“We think they are actually concealing a deficit. They've got these ridiculous asset sales where they've already added in the money they're going to get from asset sales that haven't occurred. It's flimflamery, mike, and it won't wash. The most serious issue is there is no plan to get us out of what i think will prove to be a serious recession. They are underestimating the severity of the recession we're going into. They're making overoptimistic estimations of our economic situation and it comes back to a basic issue of confidence and trust. We can't trust this government to tell canadians the truth about the state of the economy or what they plan to do about it. And so the prime minister and mr. Flaherty have to go back, have a nice weekend together, have a chat and a think and come back to us with something that this parliament can work with."

“In our view, the stimulus that they put into the economy in '08 wasn't sufficient. We're going into a recession. The numbers are getting worse and worse by the day. Corporate tax revenue is plummeting. Our sense is that they're whistling past the grave yard here. They're not aware of what is about to happen to the Canadian economy. They can't tell Canadians the truth about it and therefore they can't plan adequately. We think the stimulus needs to be put in place now. If you compare what they're doing in Great Britain, this week, the British government put in a massive injection of stimulus. The Chinese government did so two or three weeks ago. I don't know what this government is waiting for. We want action. We want it now. And if we don't get it, the recession will be deeper, harder, and tougher for Canadians than it needs to be. And our job as an opposition is to stay that -- is to say that, stand up for Canadians and fight for them and we will.”

“In a word, no more sitting on our hands. You got me absolutely right, Mike.”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bob and the Bloggers

This afternoon I participated in a conference call with Liberal bloggers and Bob Rae, who announced his candidacy for the Liberal leadership this morning.

It was a well-attended call, and I commend Bob and his campaign for including bloggers that are either supportive, neutral and those that, like myself, are supporting other candidates.

For just over 30 minutes Bob took questions from those on the call on a wide-range of topics, from Afghanistan and the Green Shift to party reform and his economic record. It was a good call, and he handled all the questions thrown at him with ease. A number of accounts have been posted already (which I'll link to below) and I'll generally leave it to others to post on their questions and I'll just post on mine, and a few other points that stood-out for me.

Economic myth-making

On the issue of his economic record , and particularly this poll that indicated he ranked as Canadian's last choice amongst the current Liberal leadership candidates on the economy, Bob said he would counter his perception by being very direct about it.

“I'm going to talk about my experiences, not just in government but in a whole range of things, and talk about how that's all relates to where we are today and where we need to be. I think there's an incredible amount of myth making and mythology about what happened and what didn't happen. I just think we've got a job to do, to talk to people about what happened, and also to talk to people about a bunch of other things that happened, and how we have to move forward as a country."

"Now, I don't intend to spend the rest of the campaign talking about what happened in 1992. I'm just going to say look, we did some things right, we did some things wrong, and I doubt there's a politician or a premier in the country who wouldn't have to say that if they're being honest. And I think a lot of it is being hugely and totally exaggerated in a very propagandistic way. And certainly I'll fight back, because I refuse to let myself be defined by what various other interests might say about that time.”

We've certainly seen in media coverage the past few days, and today, that Bob intends to flip this issue on it's head, and use his record governing Ontario through recession to make the case his experience makes him the candidate best able to govern Canada through this recession.

That's certainly a bold strategy, and a valiant attempt to turn one of his potential biggest weaknesses, his record as Ontario premier, into a strength. The downside, of course, is that by putting his record on the table in support of his candidacy, it makes a critical examination of that record fair game. For example, while I agree there has been a certain degree of myth-making that has come to surround his tenure in Ontario, it's not myth to say the provincial debt doubled under his tenure, that university tuition increased 42 per cent from 1990 to 1994, or that during his tenure Ontario lost 350,000 jobs. If he's going to put his record on his table, then talking about that record needs to be fair game.

So, Bob putting his economic record on the table himself and using it to bolster his credentials, and opening that record therefore to more scrutiny and criticism, is a gutsy strategy indeed. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Party Reform

Bob spoke in support of a 308-riding strategy, emphasizing we don't just need a new leader and a new coat of paint, which is absolutely right.

With my question I pitched Bob on one of my pet ideas for party reform and grassroots engagement that I've blogged about in the past. The political parties get a per vote subsidy from elections Canada, currently its about $1.90. Currently, the Liberals split it between the LPC and the provincial wings (LPCO, LPCBC, etc.). I'd like to see riding associations cut in for a per centage share of the subsidy.

It's about motivating and energizing "no-hope" rural ridings, like the one I came up through in BC. In these ridings its tough to get people motivated knowing there's no way in hell we'll ever elect a Liberal. But, if the riding had a direct fiscal stake in the result (a fixed % cut of the per vote subsidy, which naturally goes up the more people vote Liberal in the riding) then you're giving them a direct motivation to push harder to get out more votes.

There are thousands of votes we could get in rural ridings across Canada (either Liberals staying home or soft NDP, Green or Cons), and while it's not enough to flip the riding, every vote does also mean more money for LPC central. So, in effect, any $ central loses by cutting in the ridings for, say, 10% or 20% of the subsidy, would likely be made up by the fact the pie would be made larger by the greater riding-level effort. So it would likely be revenue neutral for LPC, if not a profit.

And besides motivating no-hope ridings, the money would also enable ridings to do more organizing and outreach between campaigns, which will mean better results next election, snowballing each time, until some of these no-hopes may eventually come into play.

So it's not so much about fund raising, really, but about grassroots engagement.

Anyway, I outlined the idea to Bob, and asked him if he'd be supportive of such a proposal. I'm pleased to say he answered:

“I'm strongly in favour of that.”

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Bob come directly out in support of the idea. I intend to keep pushing the idea, and I hope he'll take it and run with it too.

When I met Dominic LeBlanc a few weeks ago I pitched the idea to him as well. He didn't commit but he was intrigued, particularly about the idea of incentivizing rural ridngs. I noticed that, at the LPCO debates last weekend, he picked-up on the idea if pushing harder in rural riding meaning more moves meaning more per vote funding for the party. So, I hope Dominic will come all the way around on this.

I haven't had a chance to make the case to Michael Ignatieff yet, but when I do I shall report back on his thoughts, whatever they may be. But I'm buoyed by Bob's support and Dominic's interest, as I think such an idea could be a real game-changer for rural Liberal ridings.

On with the conference call though. I also asked Bob about ideas for engaging and enabling rural riding associations. He went on to answer at length:

“I hadn't intended to get into some of the details around some of the things I want to talk about around party reform, but I think we need a completly new, fresh approach to party financing. I think the riding associations need to be given a stake in the success the party has in getting strong votes out.”

“I think we have to broaden the base of the membership substantially. I argued this morning we should not be charging for memberships. I think it's unnecessary – if it's any kind of barrier to people joining, we should get rid of it. I think the key is to go from saying are you a member, ok are you going to become a volunteer, ok are you going to be a contributor. I think we really need to look hard at the best social marketing and other techniques we can find to get people to be interested in joining up, then seeing what the benefits of membership are, and then once they see the benefits of membership they'll participate in other ways, in terms of volunteering and financially.”

“We absolutely must have a 308-seat strategy. It can only be successful if the riding associations are successful. We can't have successful national campaigns without stronger riding associations. I think we need to do a thorough look at what the finances of the party are, from the point of view of local riding associations.”

“As someone who has seen other parties at work obviously, my sense is the Liberal Party as got a bit too many layers, and the party suffers from what I call titleitis. It's got too many people who are looking for titles, and titleits is not a sign of organizational house. It's a sign of people looking for position rather than looking to have a broad-based, flatter organization with much higher levels of participation and much greater attention being paid to the finances of the local parties.”

I agree with nearly everything Bob said here, particularly about titleitis and too many layers of party structure. I disagree though on free memberships. I think membership needs to be more easily obtainable, and I think the price should be low, cost recovery only. Frankly, the LPC needs the cost recovery. But I really don't think $10 is a barrier to entry, and something free is perceived as being without value. That may be the perception of a Liberal membership today anyway, but that's a perception we also need to change.

OMOV

Near the end as time was getting tight, someone asked Bob if he supported one member, one vote. He answered unequivocally in the affirmative.

I didn't get a chance to clarify, and I'm hoping his campaign can clarify this for me (I'd be happy to update with said clarification), if Bob meant pure OMOV or weighted OMOV. The difference is not trivial.

With pure OMOV, a large riding association in an urban centre such as, say, Scarborough, would overwhelm and drown a small riding association such as, say, Vancouver Island North. This would give disproportionate power to large urban ridings in Toronto, and it's why I don't support pure OMOV.

I do, however, fiercely support weighted OMOV, which would see each riding association granted the same number of leadership votes, with those votes apportioned based on the votes of its members, whether it be 100 or 1000 members. In this way, urban and rural ridigns are equal, and must be equally wooed by leadership contenders.

So, whether Bob supported pure or weighted OMOV will determine whether I am pleased or concerned about his answer here.

Wrapping

There were a number of other questions and answers, but I'll leave it to the other bloggers to report on their own questions. For myself, I found it a worthwhile and interesting call. I found Bob as well-spoken and articulate as always, and I appreciated his frank and honest answers and that he didn't duck a one.

I still feel Michael is the best choice for leader, but I left the call with a better understanding of where Bob is coming from and where he would take the party, and found common ground with him on a number of issues. I look forward to the campaign and the debate ahead, and our party's future wherever it may take us.

For more on the call, visit Calgary Grit, Scott Tribe, Danielle Takacs, Liberal Arts and Minds, Impolitical, Saskboy and James Bowie.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It was 18 years ago today...

This seems like an apropos day for Bob Rae to officially launch his campaign for the Liberal leadership. It's one day after the Conservative throne speech, and it was exactly 18 years ago today, November 20, 1990, that Bob had his own first throne speech as the NDP Premier of Ontario,as the province tried to come to grips with a worsening recession.

Also making news that day back in 1990? Margaret Thatcher was fighting a caucus revolt, talks aimed at ending the Cold War had a successful end in Paris, and Mikhail Gorbachev wanted UN talks on a brewing problem in the Persian Gulf, namely Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane...

Toronto Star - November 21 1990 -- NDP Throne Speech

Get your own at Scribd or explore others:

Globe Mail - November 21 1990 -- NDP Throne Speech

Get your own at Scribd or explore others:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On the Green Shift

From CanWest:

(Bob) Rae said the Green Shift was pursued without applying common sense, good judgment or the daily experience of ordinary people. "Politics is not about philosophy or theory," he said in an interview with Canwest News Service.

Was the Green Shift sold badly, and was the timing bad? Yes. But it was the right policy. The people have rejected it, and we need to listen to them. But the intention was pure and noble. To address the issue of the 21st Century: Reconciling the economy with the environment. Stephane Dion's heart was absolutely in the right place, and I'm proud of him for that.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael and Dominic support 308-riding strategy

I think Dan had a pretty complete summary of yesterday’s informal Liberal leadership forum in Mississauga with Michael Ignatieff and Dominic LeBlanc, so I’ll just add a few things that stood-out from my notes.

In an early question on party reform, Michael made the point that too many Liberals didn’t come out in the last election, and that we need to get them back. When they’re back, he said, we’ll be back. He also called for a 308-riding strategy. We can’t give up on any riding any longer. We need to get the organizers out of Ottawa and send them into Northern Ontario, that’s one of the reasons the NDP made gains there. The leader needs to be closer to the ridings and meet regularly with riding presidents to hear from them what’s happening in the communities. Dominic also endorsed the call for a 308-riding strategy, and made the point votes gained in ridings we may not have a good shot at winning still mean more funds for the party via the vote subsidy, so it’s a good investment to make.

Both candidates spoke about breaking-down the silos between the caucus, the leader’s office and campaign staff. Neither were keen on lowering the voting age to 16. Michael said he wasn’t ready at 16; Dominic noted if the voting age was 16 provincially, Quebec would have separated. Both said they would insist MPs attend meetings like the LPC(O) executive meetings.

An interesting question was on how we allowed the Conservatives to define Stephane Dion with negative ads. Both candidates agreed that, in retrospect, not firing ads back was a mistake. They were asked how they’d respond to the likely attacks against them.

In Michael’s case, absence from Canada. Michael responded passionately, saying the Conservatives like to imply that living abroad for a time is somehow un-Canadian, but “Stephen Harper doesn’t get to decide whose a good Canadian. I’m proud of what I’ve achieved abroad, but I’m Canadian through and through.” He added a million Canadians are living abroad at any time, and we can’t let the Conservatives say people are second or third class Canadians.

In Dominic’s case, inexperience/lack of exposure. Dominic said we need to fight fire with fire. We allowed Stephane to be unfairly defined. We have no choice, we need to spend the money. “You never cede the battlefield.” He added people would know him much better after this race.

On Afghanistan, there was a little more light between their positions here (Michael supported the first extension while Dominic didn’t, both voted for the compromise to 2011), but both agreed 2011 is the firm end date. In a later foreign policy question, I thought Michael made a good point. If, as Liberals, we support sending our military on peace keeping missions to other parts of the world in the future, we have to acknowledge that we’re going to need to invest in our military to ensure they have the equipment and training they need, which will take money.

On another party reform question, Michael said we’ve got to stop trading on our past glory. We talked constantly about how we slew the deficit, but Canadians what to hear about the future, not the past. We’ve lost the last three elections (he’s counting the PM minority as a loss) and we’re not the natural governing party anymore, we need to realize that. He quoted Bonnie Crombie as saying she’s tired of always having to go into the past to explain why she’s proud to be a Liberal. We need to be proud for out future, he said. Ordinary Canadians are concerned about their jobs, the economy, their pensions, and “we’ve got to stand up for these people, and god dammit we’ve got to fight for these people.”

Let me inject a little editorial comment here for a moment. While we shouldn’t trade on past-glory alone, the face is we have a strong history and a strong brand that is an asset. In the first of those losses Michael mentioned (2004) we pretended that proud past didn’t exist. That was a mistake. It’s a fine balance, but I’m proud of our Liberal legacy, from slewing the deficit to the flag to medicare, and much more. We shoud definitely not lose touch with that past while we look to the future.

Back to the forum, and a question on the environment. Michael said he was very proud of the leadership Stephane brought to the environmental file, a statement I was glad to see drew strong, sustained applause. The voters have spoken though, he said, and our challenge is to mind a way to keep our commitment to environmental sustainability at our core while packaging it in a way that is electorally sustainable and retail saleable. We’ve got to listen to Canadians that want to be green, but have legitimate concerns about their businesses and livelihoods.

On NAFTA and Barrack Obama’s musings about reopening it, Michael said that Canada is an energy superpower. We’re not used to thinking about ourselves like that, but we are an energy power that exports more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia. “Without us, they don’t roll.” We need to use that power, he said. “If they want to reopen NAFTA watch out, it’s going to be a very different negotiation.”

Both candidates agreed the security and prosperity partnership process needs to be more public and transparent, and both stood firmly opposed to bulk water exports.

There were a few other questions, but my notes are a little messy. All in all, a very enlightening and amicable discussion with both Michael and Dominic coming off very well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Much ado about a little, and an opportunity missed

I'm just back from Mississauga, where all and sundry now know there was an informal townhall debate between two of the three leadership candidates. Inside that room it was a very positive experience. I saw two candidates field dozens of questions from loyal and active Liberals from across the province of Ontario, that gave up their weekend to drive to Mississauga at their own expense to talk about how we volunteers can get our party back on track. Outside that room, it's a different story.

Inside the room, there was no acrimony. As Michael Ignatieff and Dominic Leblanc took took questions on a wide range of topic – reaching out to rural Canadians, fundraising, a 308 riding strategy, the environment, Afghanistan, Israel – they both displayed a level of mutual respect for one another that I hope sets an example for how this race should be conducted. There wasn't one negative thing said about any Liberal inside that room. Outside the room, it was a different story.

Inside the room, there was an empty chair next to Michael and Dominic. One of the first questions asked from the floor was the obvious one: Where's Bob Rae? The president of the LPC(O), Mike Crawley, took that one.

As Mike explained it, this wasn't an official leadership debate or event. Those will come. Indeed, we don't even have any official candidates yet. I was happy to get the chance to sign both Michael and Dominic's nomination papers last night. More candidates may still run. About three weeks ago, said Crawley, the party decided, since this large group of Liberals was gathering, why not invite the declared leadership candidates to participate in an informal townhall with the attendees. The ground rules set by the party were that, as is the case for all LPC(O) executive meetings, the media would not be invited into the room. Three weeks ago, said Crawley, all three current candidates agreed to attend, under those ground rules. If all three candidates were to later come to the party and ask to change those ground rules they'd consider the request but, said Crawley, all three candidates did not. So, it went ahead under the format originally agreed to by all.

That was the official explanation. Myself, personally, I see merit to both sides. I wouldn't have minded seeing the media in there, I'd have been fine with that. But I also enjoyed the more low-key, informal, intimate nature of the event. With the media present, there would have been a tendency to mug for the cameras, to try to score the soundbite.

While I have sympathy for both positions, what I don't have sympathy for is Bob Rae's decision to take this internal disagreement to the media. This could have been negotiated and potentially resolved within the family, without giving the Conservative war room clips for their next round of attack ads. And don't doubt for a second they weren't recording every soundbite.

After I got up this morning and wrote my earlier blog entry I went down to the pub to grab lunch, and then headed over to the hall where the forum was to be held, and was greeted by a swarm of media. They had a story now, and it was their favourite story: Liberal infighting.

Apparently Michael had scrummed while I enjoyed my Angus burger with provolone and bacon, but I caught Dominic's scrum, and he made some excellent points about how this kind of snipping is exactly what we don't need. He also said that, while he wouldn't have minded letting in the media, he wasn't going to “take his marbles and go home” either.

Then I was surprised to see Bob Rae walking down the hall. Great, I thought. He's had a change of heart and, having made his point (in an unfortunately public way), he was going to take part in the debate, and share his thoughts with the Liberals that have gathered from across the province.

Nope, he made it clear right away he was still boycotting the debate. Apparently, he flew all the way down from Ottawa just so he could have a press conference outside the hall and bash Ignatieff. He hadn't come to talk to Ontario Liberals, he had just come to talk to the media.

I was surprised, frankly. I thought it would have been a much better decision for him to attend, even if under protest. This was a room of grassroots Liberal organizers from accoss Ontario, and most of them are undecided and are looking to learn more about the candidates. This leadership won't be won in the media, it will be won on the ground with the help of people like those in that room that work tirelessly and thanklessly on behalf of the Liberal cause in their communities. Snubbing them doesn't seen like good strategy to me, but then I'm just a humble blogger.

As I headed back to Scarborough, my main thought was that it's a shame that the story tomorrow won't be the mutual respect and frank debate on the issues facing the Liberal Party and facing Canada that we saw inside that room. Instead, it will be round 58 of Liberals attacking Liberals.

I hope the example that Michael and Dominic set this weekend inside that room will be the norm, and not the example we saw set outside it. Because, right now, the only people smiling are Stephen Harper and the Conservative war room. Bob got himself on TV by making a tempest out of a tea pot, but the Liberal cause is weakened today.

I'll have more on the actual debate tomorrow. In the mean time, my friend James Curran was live-blogging from the debate, and he has much of the debates up at his place.

And here's a few pictures from today. These are from the scrums where the lighting was good. I have a few from the debate I'll post tomorrow, but it was a little dark in the hall.

ELSEWHERE: Warren has thoughts, Kady has an interesting theory about the CPC war room and bloggers's role, Wells weighs-in, and much more here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Well that didn’t last long, did it?

I haven’t done the math yet, but it’s safe to say the supposed leadership détente between Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff didn’t last long, with Bob’s unfortunate decision to go running to the media to smear and unfairly attack his fellow leadership contender.

I came out to Mississauga Saturday afternoon to attend the leadership hospitality suites in the evening, and then the leadership forum this afternoon. As I attended Michael Ignatieff’s and Dominic LeBlanc’s parties and got a chance to meet them both, I found myself wondering where Bob Rae was. Then, when I dragged myself out of bed this morning (had a few glasses of wine last night) and got online, I found out.

This is all rather ridiculous, frankly, given that no one is an actual formal leadership candidate yet at this stage. The debate this afternoon is an informal one, organized as part of the LPCO executive meetings. Which isn’t some elitist gathering by the way as some have claimed, any Liberal can attend. And the debate itself is open to any party member for just $20, or $10 for Victory fund members. That’s how I’m getting in.

Executive meetings such as this have never been open to the media. That has always been the rule, agreed to by all. My understanding is that, last minute, Bob Rae wanted to change the rule to open the forum to the media. Dominic LeBlanc was fine either way, Michael Ignatieff preferred to keep it more informal and stick with the original rules, as laid down by the LPCO and agreed to originally by all.

And rather than work this out within the party and see if a compromise couldn’t be found, Bob Rae seems to have decided to boycott the entire weekend (I hear he was in the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa last night schmoozing Young Liberals) and go running to the media to break his pledge for a clean campaign and attack Michael.

As a Liberal who feels it is the internal snipping and bickering that has been the death of this party, I find Bob’s decision as more of that annoying crap that has been holding us down for too long. The initial pledge to keep this a clean race was the right one, and it’s a shame Bob has decided to be the first to break it by airing internal dirty laundry in public. And it’s a shame he won’t be here today to meet Ontario Liberals, as I was looking forward to seeing him debate.

We do have two candidates in Mississauga today though that actually do want to meet with Ontario Liberals and discuss the future of the Liberal Party with the grassroots, and I look forward to hearing Michael and Dominic’s thoughts.

And I’ll have full blog coverage on the debates later tonight.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers