Sunday, March 12, 2006

Hard To Argue

Tom Axworthy is a pretty bright guy who's been around the Liberal Party for a long time.

I agree 100% with his recommendations for the leadership race.


  • Like Toms' ideas. Just not cconfident that the executive will follow them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:09 p.m.  

  • Tom should be heard. However, I expect James Curran has probably a good read where it presently is headed.

    Maybe the direction, in particular the entry fee and the spending limit (should be much lower), can be changed. However, I doubt it since I believe the Executive may have already made up their minds.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:18 p.m.  

  • Missisauga Peter,

    I know you are a Kennedy supporter. Check out the new draft Kennedy site:

    Keep spreading the word.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:33 p.m.  

  • When I worked in the last leadership race, I was told by higher ups to just "sell memberships". This came with no guidance as to how to do so, or any kind of platform or message to go along with selling these memberships.

    As a result, I know for a fact that many university clubs and other member groups "rigged" the memberships and just held social parties to sign up random, meaningless names to the roster with overhead money to pay for the membership. Why this does any good is beyond me. Getting people involved for a total of one hour just so you get their name is worthless, especially if you just pay for their membership yourself.

    Then, group executives use the amount of memberships to secure delegates to go to the convention. You sell X amount of memberships and you get to send Y amount of delegates. The more phony memberships you sell, the more delegates your club gets to send. If your club supports a particular candidate, then the incentive to rig your membership list is even stronger.

    Can someone explain to me the merit of this kind of push right before a leadership contest?

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 2:48 p.m.  

  • Dear CalgaryGrit

    I find it hard that anyone would not agree with what Tom says, but the higher ups, may wnat to change things for their own little agenda.s

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:11 p.m.  

  • Riley; That's going to happen regardless of how long the leadership race is. Unless you go to a caucus/primary system like in the US, the focus will always be on "instant Liberals".

    But, truth be told, there are people who sign up during leadership races who stay involved.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 3:15 p.m.  

  • I think Axworthy's comments hit the mark.

    There was so much "funny" business going on for the last leadership contest with Martin that was so erosive and anti-inclusive. For example, "women's clubs" popped up everywhere in constituencies just as "fronts" to get more Martin delegates. How sickening when these clubs could do alot of good.

    If the executive does not take the ills of the past into account, our future does not look any brighter.

    By Blogger Paula, at 3:21 p.m.  

  • One member one vote, if democracy is what you seek.

    The problem is that the inbred uber-wealthy boys club which use the Liberal Party as their vehicle of choice to make sure government policies suit their needs aren't interested in democracy. The Power Corp boys look at Liberal foot soldiers as useful idiots to further their elitist agenda.

    Get this Libranos: The CPC has become the party which speaks for the middle class in this country, and whatever party performs that function is the natural governing party. The Liberals used to be that Party, but they have become the Party for the elites, Hargrove was all the proof you need. Get used to opposition.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:55 p.m.  

  • As much as Tory trolls are annoying and a waste of bandwidth this guy has a good point.
    Politics at its root is always class based and we have certainly become divorced from the middle class.
    The tories would have you believe taht they are the party of the middle class but we all know what a farce that is. the whole idea behind these kind of neo-cons is to eliminate the middle class and just have the rich and the poor.
    The democrates in the states have suffered this same kind of dislocate.
    Stage 1 the party becomes perceived to be captured by the special interests, this create disenchantment with the party by the average person.
    Stage 2 the party will be portrayed as weak and corrupt
    Stage 3 the right will wrap itself in patriotic glitz at the expense of thought. This automatically makes you unpatriotic or weak.

    We have certainly fallen into this trap. we still have some resonance with the middle class and some ties to their beliefs but we have to reestablish that connection. If we do not then we will not only lose our connection to the middle class permanently but we will see the continued shrinking of that middle class, this will put us permanetly in the minority.
    I have been reading a lot of Tom Flanangan lately including stuff he wrote with Harper and guess what! They ARE thinking of this stuff. Harper is playing chess. Right now they have us a few peices down. We have to figure out a responce to the Reagan opening Gambit that he has given us.
    We need a Clinton Response.
    Lets look for that in a leader but remember that gives us a Rove offence that no one seems to have a reply for yet. The Dean Gambit did not work. The Kerry variation failed.
    IS there a Ignatieff gambit or a Dion reply??

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:38 p.m.  

  • A couple of things. The article is wrong. The National meets on the 18th and 19th. Before the Copps event. The rules will already be decided before the love-in begins.

    It will be an interesting evening and I am definitely attending the event. Word is The Right Honorable Jean Chretien may be in attendance.

    After the Copps event comes the LPC(O) Executive meeting in Collingwood, where minimum membership fees will not be discussed and has been taken off the agenda completely. So much for a fair and open process. That means Spadina and Eglington ridings will again be sell their memberships for a buck.

    Tom is a very brilliant man and has been named to the new Liberal Red Ribbon Committee that has just been established. I'll share more on that committee at a later date.

    THe What Do I Know Grit

    By Blogger James Curran, at 11:39 p.m.  

  • Most positive and cheering piece written in recent liberal history.

    Axworthy sure has the right ideas, however there must be some ousting of Adscam king pins.

    Kinsella reminded me of things today. He's really steamed!

    Embarrassing the angels? If you have high blood pressure, please have a double and get mellow before looking into this.

    Lawyers collected millions for AdScam probe: docs


    Brown details some of the costs and makes me marvel at how the tax payer trough is still under heavy assault.

    *The basic rate of $250 per hour is a bargain and a 60 percent discount compared to private lawyer rates.*

    Lawyers complain of having to work from 6am, often for 12 hours or more.

    [At rates beginning at $250 per hour plus phone calls, plus letters, plus reports, plus transcriptions, plus plus plus, I would try to get at least 12 hours in daily too!]

    Check the link to see how they get towards [$70 million] dollars. Try not to throw things, but I heard the costs are in the $82 million area and still rising. TG

    By Blogger TonyGuitar, at 2:00 a.m.  

  • Spending limits are needed for a whole host of reasons. Axworthy hit on some, but there are others. For one, the Liberals can not afford to exhaust their funding base with an election lumming.

    By Blogger Koby, at 3:04 a.m.  

  • Are the YLC exec going to be included in this retreat thing this weekend?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:38 a.m.  

  • A lot of talk about the fact the executive probably won't follow any of Tom's ideas. Obviously the excutive is out of touch with the LPC membership. We all want change and perhaps the place to start is to get a new executive.
    As far as the leadership is concerned I think it is time the LPC took a look at the effect of having a leader who can stay forever has had on the party. Putting a limit on the time that an individual can be leader will resolve many of the problems associated with the Chretien/Martin era. A time limit, make it 10 years will give a leader time to implement a vision. This time limit should ensure that the party will always have quality individuals running for parliament who can replace the leader when his or her time is up. It should also ensure that any leadership candidates who loose don't launch a Martin type assault on the party in an effort to oust the leader since the maximum wait time for a retry at the leadership would be 10 years.
    Kennedy will run for the leadership and will probably make the announcement after the Ontario budget.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:04 p.m.  

  • Harper’s "famous five" as indicators of a snap election?

    The pieces seem to be falling into place. The last piece was Harper’s muzzling of his ministers, and the instructions to all and sundry to talk just about his Five Points.

    The evidence points towards Harper preparing to call a snap election, before the Liberals have a chance to select their leader and raise funds to pay off their election debt:

    • The recent changes to the laws have put the Liberals in a relatively worse position than the New Tories, who rely on many small donations from thousands of members, as compared to the Liberal fat-cat financing of the past.

    • The Liberals are leaderless, and are dragging their feet in selecting a leader; having many contenders would allow the Tories to decide to run against the weakest ones as and when they choose to.

    Why call an election within a few months? Because the Liberals are in disarray. Because the wheels might come off the New Tories if they start trying to implement their full platform. Because their honeymoon might end. Because the longer it takes before the next election, the more distance the Liberals can put between themselves and the corruption charges of the recent past.

    But what is the key indicator of Harper preparing for a snap election? Quoting the heading of Jeffrey Simpson's column in Saturday March 18 Globe & Mail, it is because of the "unbearable lightness of Harper's five vows".

    Simpson does a superb job of analysing these five points which Harper wants his ministers to talk about, and concludes: Harper's famous five are "political winners and policy busts", and are on the table because they are "what the Conservatives think they need to win the next election."

    Simpson tears strips off the famous five:

    • the GST cut "represents a $5-billion political bribe".
    • The Accountability Act outlined in the Tories platform "will be a mishmash of non-solutions to exaggerated problems".
    • The daycare promise is a wash (his assumption) as politics and as social policy, slightly negative.
    • The tough-on-crime stuff "flies in the face of the evidence" and an overblown response.
    • The patient wait-time guarantees "reflects the shavings on the iceberg of the health-care system".

    So why the muzzle on his ministers, and his insistence on the famous five being talked about and nothing else?

    My bet? Because he is preparing for a snap election once his famous five are implemented, based on "I honoured my promises, so re-elect me to a majority government". Run against a disorganized Liberal Party. Throw some bones to Quebecers through the francophone step and some tax rights, to buy more Quebec votes. Choose two or three of the Liberal candidates and slam each one in succession (Stronach: no substance; Brison: Mr Emailer; Rae: really a socialist ... you fill in the blanks).

    Manufacture a false crisis, and call the election based on it. Then appeal to Canadians to be fair and give his government, which delivered on the famous five, a chance to provide honest government as a majority government. During this election, avoid detailed discussion of the real policies of the New Tories at all costs.

    Then, should he win a majority government, implement his neocon policies in the first four years...

    Cunning fellow, that policy wonk. But I wonder how much of this strategy came from Brian Mulroney?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:40 p.m.  

  • Oh my god, there's so much useful info above!

    By Anonymous Билеты Формула 1 Валенсия, at 3:44 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home