Saturday, November 08, 2008

See You in Vancouver

OTTAWA – Liberal Party President Doug Ferguson today announced that the National Executive has chosen Vancouver as the site of the next Liberal Leadership Convention. The Convention will be held at the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre from April 30, 2009 to May 3, 2009.

“After careful review of all viable options, I am proud to announce that Liberal delegates will choose the next Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in beautiful British Columbia ,” said Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. Ferguson also commented on the importance of highlighting the national scope of the Liberal Party of Canada. This decision, it is hoped, will energize our grassroots in a region of the country which has never hosted a Liberal Leadership Convention.

In addition to the date and location of the Convention, the National Executive has set the entry fee for Leadership candidates at $90,000 and the spending limit at $1.5 million. A levy of 10% will also be imposed on directed donations. As an added measure, a rebate option will be available to candidates according to their ability to raise funds for the Victory Fund, a grassroots fundraising initiative of the Liberal Party of Canada.


So far, so good. I personally would have gone with something like a million dollar spending limit, $50,000 entry fee, and 25% tax (I'm a Liberal, I love taxes...), but I can't complain with any of their decisions so far.

Full rules to be announced tomorrow.

Labels:

12 Comments:

  • Hey CG,

    What did you think of this?

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/07/que-leadership-rules.html

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:54 PM  

  • Why are they still staying with the tired delegate process?

    Why not one member, one vote? And if you are worried about insurgents affecting the results, just cut off the membership sales early.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:13 PM  

  • One member one vote was rejected at the November 2006 Leadership Convention by a vote of the delegates.

    Why can't people understand democracy????

    The vote was rejected.

    Move on!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:49 PM  

  • Hmmm...Anon at 5:49 posted...

    "One member one vote was rejected at the November 2006 Leadership Convention by a vote of the delegates."

    Does anyone think that's really definitive? Does anyone think that , maybe, perhaps, "delegates" would by definition have benefited by a delegate system, and therefore might not be all that inclined to vote for a change?

    Put the vote to the membership, and THEN it's definitive.

    In my view, lower level politicking (with the aim to being a delegate) at the constituency level is a waste of time and energy that could better be used to develop policy, fundraise, recruit new members, etc., etc.

    Also, I doubt that the delegates currently chosen are all that representative of the membership generally, as they all, again by definition, have both the time and the money to go. If you want to inject youth into the organization, don't maintain processes that generally exclude them.

    By Blogger Party of One, at 6:23 PM  

  • Dear PARTY OF ONE;

    Youth Delegates made up over 30% of the delegates at the Convention that rejected the system you advocate.

    What part of democracy do you not understand.

    A motion was tabled, it was voted on and your side lost the vote.

    Liberals like a delegated convention.

    GET OVER IT!!!

    and PS. Plenty of Youth Delegates attend Liberal Conventions and they pay 50% of the Convention Fee. This is not about youth participation.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:45 PM  

  • Biggest problem with one member one vote was that the proponents of the motion were self-interested opportunists who wanted a style of leadership they could more easily purchase.

    Ideally, I'd like to see a voter registration system in this country, one that uses the permanent voters' list. No memberships fees, but a need to register ahead of time. Until that happens, then I'll support delegated conventions.

    One member one vote simply means that the millionaire willing to buy the most memberships wins. The party went to one-member-one vote in at least two provinces where the party decided years later to abandon the scheme as it was so subject to abuse.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:53 PM  

  • Bob Rae for Party chairman!!

    I attended a gathering for Bob Rae in Vancouver today. I came away disappointed.

    Bob is a good speaker, knowledgeable and experienced. However, I did not see a winning profile.

    In lieu of a platform, he describes himself as a progressive. Apparently, he wants the policy conventions to deliver a mandate that he will execute. This sounds like an agent-leader.

    Unfortunately, a bottom up approach is not a guarantee of success. The NDP provide a sterling example.

    He also spoke against partisanship. He is willing to serve under whomever wins the leadership contest. So, does Bob have the passion to beat his rivals for leader of the party? Does he have the passion to defeat harper?

    At this time the party needs desperately to regroup, and prepare for an election within 24 months. Bob is offering an indeterminate period of organization building.

    What is the scope for the LPC under a competent leader? At best (harper weakness), the LPC may eke out a win. But this will not be decisive. At worse (harper strength), Bob will reduce the LPC's losses.

    IMO, Bob will do well as Party Chairman. But, we need a fighting leader with fresh ideas, who is more than an idealist. Oh Well! On to Michael and Dominic.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 9:10 PM  

  • Anon, 6:45, et al...

    First off, there's no need to shout.

    Secondly, as you might have recognized by my nickname, I don't belong to ANY Party, so "my side" didn't lose.

    I don't vote for "leaders", as we don't live in a republic where I have that opportunity. I vote primarily for the best candidate that best reflects my views.

    Provincially, I've been happy to support Laurie Blakeman. Federally, I voted for Wachowich last time out, but the time before was Green, mostly because I wanted them to maintain their viability and get that $1.75 per annum.

    My previous party involvement was extremely dis-illusioning. I joined the National Party (hated the name, by the way...too many negative connotations) because Mel Hurtig promised grassroots policy development and a new way of doing politics.

    Unfortunately, once he accepted a large amount of money from a single source, everything became "top-down".

    Organizationally, nothing was getting done in Edmonton; me and a few other people set up two "pro-tem" constituency organizations just to get the ball rolling, but then were shut out of further organization by the "hired gun" Victor Leginsky (ex-NDP... a commited Dipper told me at the time "You're welcome to him!"). So there went the grassroots.

    One thing I noticed was that there was a heavy emphasis on contributing money as opposed to contributing time, AND that there was a predominance of "grey heads" at the meetings. I respect the contributions made by older people, but I find them most resistant to trying new ways of doing things. But...they had both the time, and the money to get involved and have their involvement valued; I only had time.

    Youth delegates paying only 50% convention fees is a step in the right direction, but it is still often too much, PLUS people struggling to survive by working two jobs, etcetera simply don't have the time(or money, obviously) to go to conferences.

    I will not join any party, nor support them financially, unless they make a serious, concerted, and on-going effort to remove financial and logistical barriers to involvement by everybody. That's what I call democracy, and I'm not seeing that from the Liberal Party right now.

    What I AM seeing is mean-spirited internecine back-stabbing over a leadership race that seems to be missing the point entirely; the LPC has to make itself relevant to more Canadians, primarily through grass roots policy development that addresses issues more serious than political expediency and strategic calculation.

    By Blogger Party of One, at 2:02 AM  

  • I watched when that Motion - one member, one vote was put up by Stronach. I also saw that only a handful of people/delegates were there to vote on it.

    So, too tired from partying to do what is expected of them?

    To me, it was an incomplete vote because most delegates didn't even bother to show up to vote and take care of business.

    It was an absolute joke and pitiful.

    Until such time the Liberals "modernize" we will have a mess like this.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:23 AM  

  • $90,000!!!!!

    that's democracy in action...

    By Blogger mezba, at 12:24 PM  

  • I would push for a higher entry fee and a lower spending cap. The party's problem is that it is
    1. broke
    2. divided

    The rules should be aimed at
    1. Maximizing fees from candidates, while minimizing the air sucked out of the room by leadership race fundraising.
    2. Keeping the number of candidates low, so as to provide a clear early ballot victor with a strong mandate. Turner, Chretien and Martin faced backbiting, but nowhere near to the degree Dion (or Joe Clark) did. Narrow victories make the other guys think "I would have won if only just..."

    The pros and cons of OMOV

    Pros:
    A one-man-one-vote system would reduce costs, and can produce a clear winner through a run-off provision, or the use of a single transferable ballot.

    Cons:
    You don't get nearly as big a bounce from OMOV elections as you do from delegated conventions. Conventions are a marvelous piece of political theater, to which more people pay attention because the outcome is in doubt. Of course bounces may be of somewhat dubious benefit.

    The big con of a delegated convention, however, is that it heavily weights the places where the party already wins, and not the places where the party needs to win in order to form a government.

    By Blogger hosertohoosier, at 9:09 PM  

  • at 10% it's more of a tithe than a tax...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:33 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home