CalgaryGrit

An update on all the people not running for Liberal leadership - Part 2

2012-01-31T09:00:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, I looked at the ten names being tossed around most frequently for Liberal leadership - Rae, Leblanc, Trudeau, McGuinty^2, Garneau, Brison, Coderre, Cauchon, and Kennedy.

Today, a look at some long-shot candidates.

Mark Carney: The Bank of Canada governor would have instant credibility on the economy and, unlike many bankers, he's not uncharismatic. There is, of course, still the question of whether or not he's a Liberal - but no one seems too concerned about that.

Naheed Nenshi: The superstar Mayor of Calgary set Twitter abuzz when he tried out his French at a Toronto speech last year. I'd love to see Naheed toss his cowboy hat into the ring, but we're still 5 or 10 years away from having this conversation. At the rate we're going, the Liberals will have cycled through another three leaders by the time Nenshi is ready to run.

Gregor Robertson: Like Nenshi, the assumption is that Vancouver's Mayor will one day run provincially or federally. Yes, he was an NDP MLA provincially, but that's never stopped anyone from running for Liberal leader before, nor should it.

Ralph Goodale: There's a movement afoot to convince Goodale to run. Admittedly, his age and his french would make him a long shot, but the race would benefit immensely by having a Western Canadian of his stature in it.

Amanda Lang: To the best of my knowledge, there is only one Liberal in the country floating her name as a possible leadership candidate, but it may not be as far fetched as it sounds. We've seen media personalities jump to politics before, and as a business reporter she could make the economy her issue. And hey, her dad was a Liberal MP! I have no idea how she'd fare in the political game, but the idea of a well-spoken, attractive 41 year old woman from Manitoba leading the party certainly sounds good on paper.

Mark Holland: Young and fiery, Holland can give one heck of a speech. Even if he doesn't run for leader, I'd be shocked if he doesn't try to win back his seat in 2015.

Navdeep Bains: Another young star who lost his seat last May. Bains could count on widespread support from the Sikh community if he ran.

Martha Hall Findlay: Rev up the engine on the big red bus! The darling of the 2006 leadership race would enter this contest with a higher profile and would be treated as a "top tier" candidate by the media out of the gate.

Siobhan Coady: Any tour of "defeated rising stars" should include Coady, a well liked MP who can ask tough questions with emotion and confidence.

Geoff Regan: As a Liberal MP who has been in Ottawa for a decade and is still young enough to run, Regan should not be overlooked. Jane Taber recently floated his name as a possible candidate.

Jane Stewart: She's an accomplished women, with an impressive resume inside and outside of politics. As the "Draft Jane" team says, "everybody loves Jane". She's said she isn't running, but so has everyone else - we may yet get a "See Jane Run" headline or two.

Sheila Copps: She ran her presidential campaign as if she was running for leader. Even though she didn't win, she raised her profile and put a team together - two things that could be useful should she decide to try for the top prize again.

Jean-Marc Fournier: It wouldn't surprise me to see a provincial politician jump into this race, a la Kennedy in 2006, and Fournier is the name I've heard the most rumours about. Quebec's Justice Minister worked in Michael Ignatieff's office so he has federal connections to complement his 15 years of experience in provincial politics. Of course, with a resume like this, he might have his sights set on Jean Charest's job.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj: The Epoch Times, the must-read source for all your Liberal leadership gossip, reported that Wrzesnewskyj is planning a leadership bid, much to the horror of journalists everywhere who will now need to learn how to spell and pronounce his name.

Robert Ghiz: The 37 year old Premier of PEI has said "never say no" but wants to spend time with his two young children.

Belinda Stronach: She made some noise prior to the convention, so I wouldn't rule out a return to politics.

Andrew Coyne: There are Facebook ads and buttons, making this the best funded campaign to date.

Frank McKenna: You all knew this was coming as the punch line. Yet two commenters on David Akin's blog and one delegate I talked to in Ottawa suggested McKenna un-ironically. Some rumours will never die...

That's 28 names I've floated over the past two days, and I expect we'll hear a few others before all is said and done. By all means, float some more in the comments section.

Given the mood for change in the Liberal Party, it wouldn't at all surprise me if someone we're not even talking about ends up winning this thing.

An update on all the people not running for Liberal leadership

2012-01-30T09:00:00.016-05:00

It's been six months since I last looked in on the field of possible Liberal leadership candidates, and that's because, well, there's not much to report. Apart from speculation surrounding the interim leader, there's been little chatter in the media, on blogs, or in Liberal circles.

However, the Liberal Biennial convention may have marked the unofficial starting gun on the leadership race, as names were floated around the convention hall and in hospitality suites. Sure, most of the likely contenders say they're not interested, but that's unlikely to quiet the rumours.

Today, a look at the ten most talked about names. Tomorrow, a look at some of the sleeper candidates.

Bob Rae

The case for Rae: Even Rae's harshest critics within the Liberal Party acknowledge he's done a bang-up job as interim leader and he's the best politician we have.

Is he a contender? If Rae runs, he'd have an impressive organization behind him. Do I think he'll be the next leader? No, not really. As Rae himself said in May, the party is likely to look to a new generation of leadership. But if you put $10 on Rae and asked me to put $10 on just one other name, I'd have a hard time thinking of someone who is more likely to be the next leader.

Why he isn't running: "I'm focusing on the job of interim leader". Plus, he made a deal with his wife.

Dominic LeBlanc

The case for LeBlanc: Young, experienced, bilingual. Deep Liberal roots, but still a fresh face for most.

Is he a contender? If I had to put a name down on that $10 bet I mentioned above, it would likely be on Dominic. He's got pieces of an organization left over from his 14 minute leadership run in 2008, and seems to be the only "high profile" candidate who has not categorically ruled out running.

Will he run? LeBlanc was bullish after the election, but has been quiet since then.

Justin Trudeau

The case for Trudeau: He's a political superstar, who has the potential to get Liberals and Canadians excited about the Liberal Party.

Is he a contender? If he runs, he will likely win.

Why he isn't running: "My kids are 2 and 4 and I barely see them enough as it is."

Dalton McGuinty

The case for Dalton: He's the most successful Liberal in Canada right now. The man has grown immensely as a politician over the past decade.

Is he a contender? Given the name recognition and organization he'd bring to the table, he'd likely be the frontrunner.

Why he isn't running: He has an ok day job right now. And he "wants to remain married".

David McGuinty

The case for David: If you can't get Dalton, he'd be the next best thing. I likely wouldn't use that slogan on a button but, like his brother, David is experienced, rarely missteps, and has grown as a politician over the years.

Is he a contender? He'd have a better chance if he'd left Ottawa more than once or twice since being elected as an MP, but he's a capable politician and the McGuinty organization should not be underestimated.

Will he run? He's "mulling" a run.

Marc Garneau

The case for Garneau: Bilingual, respected...and he was a freaking astronaut! How cool is that!

Is he a contender? If you buy into the "alternance" theory, it might be a francophone's turn. At the very least, Garneau would be treated as a "top tier" candidate by the media.

Will he run? You may have missed it if you weren't reading the political pages on December 25th, but Garneau is considering a run.

Scott Brison

The case for Brison: Like Rae, Brison is a talented politician with the gift of the gab - well spoken, with a quick wit.

Is he a contender? His campaign struggled in 2006, but Brison's pitch should find a receptive audience this time.

Why he isn't running: “I don’t want to have one of Canada’s first same sex divorces”

Denis Coderre

The case for Coderre: I'm really not the person who should be answering this.

Is he a contender? Coderre is one of the best organizers in the Liberal Party. I wouldn't expect him to win, but he could very easily carry Quebec.

Will he run? Coderre is considering a run for LPC leadership, Mayor of Montreal, or coach of the Montreal Canadiens.

Martin Cauchon

The case for Cauchon: Has an impressive track record, is well spoken, and could be the key to winning back Quebec.

Is he a contender? Cauchon has been thinking about running for a decade, so I suspect he'd be able to put a strong team together, even outside Quebec.

Will he run? He hosted a hospitality suite at the convention. Of course, we have yet to hear publicly on the question of his candidacy from Cauchon, or his wife.

Gerard Kennedy

The case for Kennedy: I've made the case before, and I'd argue Kennedy was ahead of the game when he talked about the Liberal Party needing to rebuild itself, back in 2006.

Is he a contender? Well, the party has been moving down the "order of finish" list from 2006 (from Dion to Ignatieff to Rae...), so I guess it's his turn.

Will he run? He hasn't closed the door.

Bonus TWIA - Snelgrove Gone. Discuss.

2012-01-27T13:54:00.005-05:00

Alison Redford looks to have her first caucus defection on her hands, as former Finance Minister Lloyd Snelgrove is out, according to Redford's Chief of Staff:

While losing your first MLA is never fun, this shouldn't dampen Redford's momentum or end her honeymoon.

After all, Snelgrove has been critical of Redford since she was elected leader, and announced he wouldn't be running again shortly after he was left out of her first Cabinet. Just yesterday, he criticized Redford's province-wide listening tour - when an MLA criticizes his leader for something as innocuous as that, you know he's nearing the end of the line.

This is obviously not something Redford wanted to deal with, but in terms of PC infighting, this pales in comparison to some of the blowups we've seen in recent years.

This Week in Alberta - Flanagan Gets Back in the Saddle

2012-01-27T11:00:00.003-05:00

With an Alberta election on the horizon this spring, the Wildrose Alliance have brought on Tom Flanagan to manage their campaign. For those of you who have never heard of Tom Flanagan, he was a political science professor at the University of Calgary (go Dinos!), and a key Harper strategist during his leadership run. Flanagan was the Conservative campaign manager in the 2004 federal election, so I can only hope it wasn't his idea to hold a "victory march" across Alberta in the campaign's closing weekend.

Since his exit from politics, Flanagan has writen a well-received book and several candid and fascinating articles on Canadian politics. Among his observations are that political attacks "don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible" - so I think that should give you an idea of the type of campaign the Wildrosers are gearing up for.

As for how that campaign goes, the latest poll shows Flanagan with a 9 point gap to overcome:

PCs 38%
Wildrose 29%
Liberals 14%
NDP 13%
Alberta Party 3%

Or...errr...a 37 point one:

PC 53%
Wildrose 16%
NDP 13%
Liberals 11%

Given the media seems to have quickly recovered from their case of Danielle-mania that plagued them throughout 2010, this is being spun as part of the "PCs cruising" narrative. It's starting to look like the Wildrose Party is merely playing for second place.

I'm not so convinced.

Of course, the smart money is on PCs winning a majority, but these polls reflect the level of uncertainty out there, which is to be expected when the top three parties enter the campaign with rookie leaders. And considering Danielle Smith remains the most impressive politician in this field, it would be foolish to count her out completely - just as it was foolish to assume she was unstoppable two years ago, after an unproven party won a single by election by the skin of its teeth.

The fact of the matter is, Alberta politics have become highly unpredictable and unstable in recent years, and campaigns matter. Give me long enough odds, and I'd gladly put some money down on Danielle and Dr. Tom giving the PCs a run this spring.

Advice from South of the Border

2012-01-25T16:00:00.001-05:00

The Liberal convention earlier this month grabbed a lot of headlines - Mike Crawley's 26-vote victory over Sheila Copps for party President, the party's move to the supporter system, the decision to, like, totally legalize marijuana.

As important as those events were, the real work of rebuilding the party will happen behind the scenes. That's why one of my convention highlights was the talk by a pair of Obama operatives, Rich Mintz and Tom McMahon. I'll confess I often skip these convention workshops since many are nothing more than "so you should all sign up for this Twitter thing" - but the 90 minutes I listed to Mintz and McMahon were so chalk full of useful information that I found myself furiously trying to keep up as I scribbled down notes.

Here are just some of the many take home points I took from their talk:

When it all Works

The Obama campaign raised $550 million online during the last election, from 2 million unique donors. Yes, we're talking about the big leagues, but even when you adjust for population, that means they had twice as many donors as the Conservatives and six times as many as the Liberals in a typical year.

So how'd they do it? Well, their 13 million e-mail addresses help. That means they were in direct contact with almost 1-in-5 Democratic voters (and a few people like me who enjoy getting updates from Joe Biden).

How they got there

It might be revisionist history, but what really struck me is how their description of the Democratic Party circa 2004 sounded a lot like today's Liberal Party - "we had an unclear message", "people didn't know what we stood for", "voters said we talked down to people". So how the hell did they turn that ship around?

The key, according to the Obama boys, was connecting directly with voters and supporters - tell them a story and make them feel like they're part of something bigger.

To do that, they made an effort to help out at non-political events centered on local issues like the environment and homelessness, to bring activists into the party tent. They recruited organizers and trained them, then empowered them to recruit and train others. They invested in technology and infrastructure up front, even if it meant borrowing money.

Despite the campaign's online focus, they built relationships in person, setting up "neighbour-to-neighbour" (well, "neighbor-to-neighbor" I guess) programs, so that volunteers could work on people they knew. Similarly, when making phone calls, they always tried to pair up the caller with someone from the same region and background, since this made it easier to build a connection.

Every interaction was captured so that future e-mails and fundraising pitches could be tailored to the target. They did the work well before the election started and insisted that all candidates turned their data over to the party. Compare that to the Liberal Party where many candidates flush their files after each election or hoard Excel lists like Scrooge McDuck.

The 50 State Strategy

When asked about the Liberal Party's chances in Western Canada, Mintz and McMahon pointed to the 50 state strategy, which met with intense opposition out of the gate, but has been largely vindicated. Even in states they didn't win, the Democrats were able to put enough pressure on Republicans to force them into playing defense (something Mark Holland talked about in his speech to Alberta Liberals last spring).

The Democrats built themselves up in "hopeless" states much the same way they built themselves up in winning states. They hired 4-to-6 field workers per state, and tasked them with finding and training volunteers, who in turn found and trained more volunteers. They recruited strong candidates to run at the local and state level, and began campaigning well before 2008.

Rather than bringing the mountain to them, they went to the mountain. Literally. The DNC held its convention in Denver, and had as many events as possible in weaker areas to build up interest in the party. They found effective local issues and messages, and gave local Democrats the power to sell the party locally.

The Donkey in the Room

Now, it would be incredibly naive to assume Barack Obama had nothing to do with this. I've been preaching against the "Messiah complex" in the Liberal Party for a long time, but we do need to recognize that a popular leader can serve as a catalyst to speed up the rebuilding process.

Still, just as a good leader will help the ground game, having this kind of infrastructure in place will benefit the next leader. The Liberal Party would be wise to take a few lessons from our friends south of the border.

Drugs, Drugs, Drugs. Which are good, which are bad?

2012-01-23T09:00:00.001-05:00

The marijuana legalization policy, which passed at last weekend's Liberal convention, has been generating a fair amount of media buzz this past week. The strongest arguments in favour of it come, somewhat surprisingly, from this National Post editorial and Toronto Sun column, while this Globe article raises some legitimate questions about the feasibility of legalization.

There are many logistical hurdles to overcome, but I tend to think one of the many alcohol and cigarette distribution systems we use could be adapted to marijuana. Once a mechanism is settled on and border issues with the Americans are worked out, the benefits are obvious.

Those hippies at the Fraser Institute peg it as a $7 billion cash crop which would generate $2 billion a year in tax revenue. Those stoners in the Senate like the idea because it would deal a financial blow to organized crime by bringing the economy above-ground. Anyone watching Boardwalk Empire knows what happens when you try to enforce an unenforceable prohibition.

But those are the debate arguments, and the political arguments are a bit more complex. After all, as carbon taxes and the HST have taught us, sound policy doesn't always make for sound politics.

It's easy to point to a poll and say Canadians are onside with Liberal members on this issue, but it's not as simple as that. There are at least 6 things the Liberals need to mull over before lighting up on this policy.

1. Strength of Support: Maybe people think pot should be legalized, but do they feel strong enough about the issue to vote for a party because of their stand? The "stoned slacker" vote is a lot harder to mobilize than the "mothers worried about their kids smoking pot" vote.

2. The Liberal Coalition: It's good to be behind an idea voters like, but it also matters which voters like it. Will this win the Liberals any votes from New Democrats or libertarian conservatives? Will it be enough to get young people to vote for them? Will it win them Vancouver? Will it scare off longtime Liberals?

3. The Big Picture: How does this policy fit into the key themes of the next Liberal platform? Does it play to a larger narrative about the Liberals being bold...or being soft on crime...or being a party with new ideas...or being a joke? There are a lot of ways this can be spun.

There's also the the 2 billion in budget flexibility this policy would open up. A lot of voters may not feel a legalized pot policy impacts them personally, but if it leads to a 2 billion dollar tax break? That's something they'd be stoked about.

4. A sound byte campaign: I have no doubt that even Michael Ignatieff could best Stephen Harper in an hour-long debate on marijuana legalization. But during elections, policies are all about the 10 second elevator pitch. The Conservatives will say the Liberals are soft on crime. They'll say they've promised tax breaks for kids sports while the Liberals offer kids a joint. I can guarantee you the party that brought us Oily the Splotch is thinking up clever ad campaigns as we speak.

Is the Liberal pitch as compelling? I'm not saying it can't be, but if it isn't this policy could become an albatross.

5. Stickiness: The knock on the Liberals in past campaigns is that their policies have seemed bland - a billion for this and a National Strategy for that. Pot legalization would make Canadians take notice and talk - something a third party can't take for granted.

The flip side is that this is such an attention grabbing policy it might detract from the rest of the Liberal platform. Do you want to make a policy voters are this divided on your flagship platform plank ahead of, say, a pharmacare program that would have more widespread popularity?

6. Fundraising: Rob Silver talked about the Liberals using this policy as a fundraising tool on Power & Politics last week. After all, Liberal members clearly support it - I know I'd probably give them some dough if they put it in the platform and asked for cash to air commercials in support of it on Much Music at 2 am.

Beyond that, this would be a case of the Liberal Party doing something because their members asked them to. The impact of this in terms of engaging existing members and recruiting future ones should not be discounted. Every policy wonk in Canada would take this as a sign it's worth their time to go to the next Liberal policy convention.

I don't have the answers to all these questions, but it underscores just how big an issue this is. It's one that requires a lot of thought before it finds its way into the party platform.

The good news is, by endorsing the policy overwhelmingly this weekend, Liberals have guaranteed that every leadership candidate is going to need to take a position on pot legalization. Before they do, candidates will need to think long and hard about the questions discussed above, as well as a 7th - will supporting this policy increase my chances of winning the leadership race?

Revisiting Staggered Primaries

2012-01-19T14:00:00.001-05:00

After looking at how the supporter system was conceived yesterday, today I gaze ahead at what its future might hold. Specifically, the musings of some that the LPC could still hold staggered primaries, even though a motion to do this fell short of the 2/3 majority needed to pass at the Liberal convention this weekend.

The argument goes that the party didn't need a constitutional amendment to hold a staggered primary since the National Board has the right to "set the date" of the vote, and in past leadership contests this has given them the flexibility to select multiple dates over the same weekend. And heck, 58% of Liberals voted for staggered primaries, so members have effectively endorsed the concept.

Now, this isn't the Parti Quebecois. I believe a clear majority is needed to enact major change and I don't believe we should keep voting until my side gets its way. The amendments discussed at convention failed, and should be tossed aside until at least the next leadership race.

That said, questions remain about the supporter system, such as the exclusion of 14-17 year olds and the membership cutoff period. Logistics might also make a single day of voting impossible. The party may choose to go to its membership on these issues via extraordinary convention, as was the case when they delayed the leadership vote in June 2011.

And if they do, I don't think it would be at all inappropriate to suggest an alternative primary mechanism - one that addresses some of the real concerns about fairness and abuse raised at this weekend's convention. Here's one idea I floated during the edge-of-seat thrill-a-minute WOMOV debate of 2009:

My System of Choice

As mentioned above, WOMOV lacks some of the excitement you get from conventions. So, to remedy this, I'd propose the following version of WOMOV (copied somewhat from the primary system):

1. Carve the country up into, say, 30 regions of around 10 ridings each - so, for example, Edmonton would be a region, BC Interior would be a region and so on...it doesn't really matter how you divide them up.

2. Randomly divide up the voting schedule so that it takes place over 4 weeks. I'd set it up where you had 2 regions voting the first week, 4 the second week, and then 12 each of the last two.

3. On the final weekend, you could also hold a series of provincial or regional "mini-conventions" that anyone would be free to attend, to watch the results come in - this would include the reading of the second choice votes if candidates fail to reach the necessary majority on the first ballot.

This would give you the New Hampshire/Iowa/Super Tuesday excitement of the US primary system condensed over a month and, since the order would be drawn at random, it wouldn't favour any one particular region. You'd get Canadians more excited in the entire process, compensating for the loss of convention pizazz.

Obviously enough, you could carve the country up into however many regions you like, and schedule them as you see fit. For those unwiling to put their faith in the hands of the random number generator, we could add a disclaimer that Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, and BC must each get at least one primary over the first two weeks.

So how might this play out?

Perhaps the fates will select Winnipeg and Quebec City the opening weekend. The candidates would descend on these cities, the local media would cover them and, hopefully, Liberal voters there would decide to be a part of it. From there, the race might shift to the BC Interior, Ottawa, Northern Ontario, and Nova Scotia for week two. This would be followed with the rest of the country over the final two weeks.

By selecting the regions at random, you'd be taking the possibility of shenanigans out of the hands of the national executive and you'd avoid the "New Hampshire effect" where one region always gets to go first. The regional focus would still mean heaps of local media coverage, and the month-long timeline would generate buzz and help vet the candidates.

Now that the Liberal Party has embraced the supporter system, I'd suggest we go all in, and select the leadership selection process which is most likely to encourage supporters to sign up. Staggering randomized regional primaries would be fair and it would be damn exciting.

Why the Liberal Party Took a Chance on the Supporter System

2012-01-18T09:00:00.005-05:00

The boldest and most surprising outcome of this weekend's Liberal Renewalfest in Ottawa was the party's decision to open its doors to all Canadians by adopting a supporter system. As a result, any voter who supports the Liberal Party will be able to vote for its next leader - no need for a membership card or membership fees. I've blogged ad nauseaum about why I like this system, but I never expected it to pass - and neither did a single person I talked to at the convention.

So what caused Liberals to support the supporter system? How did this come about?

History

Systems like this are hardly new. The Americans have been using variations of it since the 1952 New Hampshire primary, but the rules and mechanisms have varied from state to state and from year to year. Currently, Americans register as Democrats, Republicans, or Independents on their taxes, and vote for their party's candidate - though rules on who specifically is allowed to vote vary from state to state.

The French socialists opened their leader-selection process to the public in 2011 and 2.7 million voted - this to choose the leader of a party with 200,000 members. The British Conservatives mailed an entire riding ballots to pick their candidate in Totness in 2009, and about a quarter of eligible voters participated. Despite these largely successful case studies, the idea of the Liberal Party trying this wasn't on anyone's radar until 8 months ago, when two events softened the ground enough to made it a distinct possibility.

The first you're all familiar with. On May 2nd, the Liberal Party was obliterated. After making excuses for years ("we lost because of Adscam", "we lost because of the income trust investigation", "we lost because of the Green Shift"), Liberals realized the party needed to change and try something new. Many of the speakers in support of the supporter resolution on Saturday gave variations of "we have nothing to lose but our third party status" - when you're down, you're a lot more willing to take a risk and try something new.

With the Liberals down, it didn't take long for them to start considering an open primary - I heard Alf Apps float the idea at an Edward Blake Society gathering in Toronto just two weeks after the election.

The Alberta Trial

Also in May, the first Canadian case study of the supporter system was launched, when a room full of Alberta Liberals voted overwhelmingly to give Liberal supporters a vote in the party's upcoming leadership contest. The party's young executive and executive director Corey Hogan had drafted the resolutions and run an aggressive "Yes" campaign with buttons and pamphlets, but even the party's 83 year old former leader Nick Taylor spoke in favour of the move. Like the federal grits, the Alberta Liberals were down and out, and were willing to take a chance.

In effect, it was that feeling they had little to lose that got the ball rolling on the supporter system in Alberta several months earlier. On February 1st, Hogan and party president Erick Ambtman held a press conference to discuss ALP leader David Swann's resignation, and fielded question after question along the lines of "Does this mean the Alberta Liberal Party is dead?". Hell, most reporters weren't nice enough to include the "does this mean" part.

According to Hogan, that's when he began seriously floating the idea of allowing all Albertans to vote for the party's next leader. Having flirted with the idea of free memberships and registered supporters for some time, Hogan and Ambtman decided to go all in. Within a week, resolutions were approved by the party's Executive Committee. Within two weeks, they were approved by the Board of Directors.

Despite this enthusiasm, many party officials described themselves as "blown away" when 95% of Liberal members not only voted in favour of the supporter system, but voted to use it in the current leadership race. They needed to draft rules, iron out logistics, and administer this new system in a matter of days.

The results of this rushed and messy experiment in democracy were mostly positive. Twice as many Albertans voted in this leadership race than in the 2008 contest that had elected David Swann, and the party added the contact information of 27,000 voters to its database. Removing the $10 fee and the stigma of being a Liberal in Alberta certainly helped, but the big catalyst in this supporter drive was the ability to sign Albertans up over the phone - a technique used to great success by the contest's winner, Raj Sherman.

That's not to say there weren't problems. Runner-up Hugh MacDonald complained about the lists, but since they were cross-checked with the Elections Alberta voter list, they were arguably more accurate than party membership lists - no cats or corpses allowed. There was a takeover attempt by Craig Chandler's right wing PGIB group, but it failed spectacularly with their candidate finishing fourth with just 7% of the vote.

The impact of the Alberta "case study" cannot be understated - it was mentioned by Sheila Copps repeatedly during her presidential campaign, and pointed to several times during the floor debate on the LPC constitutional amendment as a reason to embrace or avoid this system. Liberals are always wary of following the Americans and few had heard of experiments with this system overseas - I think it was reassuring to many that the system had been tried successfully by their fellow Liberals in Alberta.

The System Goes Federal

But it was still far from certain to go federal. After the outgoing national executive floated the idea over the summer and formalized it in November, Liberals were still mixed. I called in to a telephone debate among Presidential candidates in December and a push button straw poll showed attendees split - 40% in favour, 40% opposed, and 20% on the fence. Three of the four candidates for Party President were against the idea, and even Sheila Copps had begun muting her language around the concept as the convention approached.

The pundits were split. The blogs were split. Twitter was split. There didn't seem to be a large "vote yes" campaign in the lead-up to the convention beyond a modest "Liberals for Open Leadership" website. The atmosphere at a Friday discussion on the proposed changes was downright toxic, with former MP Maria Minna leading the charge against the ammendment.

Despite a strong Saturday push by the Young Liberals, and words of support by author Don Tapscott and a pair of Obama organizers, I fully expected a 50/50 vote, far short of the two thirds majority needed to pass this resolution.

Then on a Saturday night, with 2000 delegates watching in the convention hall (and dozens of Canadians watching on TV), Bob Rae stood up to argue passionately in favour of the supporter amendment. A murmur went up around the room - even though Rae had previously voiced support for the resolution, I never got the sense he was fighting for it. I turned to my friend and said "This could be a game changer - I was wrong, this thing could pass".

Rae was followed by a young girl...then by Justin Trudeau. Suddenly, we had a ballgame. Supporters of the supporter system spoke of "renewal", "openness", and "historic change", playing off the mood of the convention. Opponents focused on logistics and warned of outsiders hijacking the party. Then a Liberal delegate got up and said how he'd supported the Liberals for years but this was his first convention - he was here to "hijack" the party and he hoped millions of Canadians joined him in hijacking the party. Game over.

It's not often that high profile constitutional resolutions are won and lost on the the convention floor, but I truly think the speeches from the floor - especially Rae and Trudeau's intervention - tipped the scales.

And just like that, a resolution that looked dead a week earlier, and which no one would have contemplated a year earlier had passed. As the great philosopher Bob Dylan said "when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose". The Liberals took a chance on change - who knows what the repercussions will be, but we'll soon find out.

Convention Recap

2012-01-17T21:00:00.003-05:00

Despite the "blogger ban", the interwebs are full of LPC Bienial reaction. For those of you thirsty for more first hand recounts, here's what some of the Liberal delegates who were there thought about the weekend:

Kyle Peterson

Leanne Bourassa

Policy Collaboration

Far and Wide

A BCer in Toronto

Joseph Uranowski

Rob Silver

RidingByRiding

Also at the convention were CoaLM, Impolitical, Calgary Liberal, and others.

Crunching Numbers

2012-01-17T10:30:00.001-05:00

Now that the shock of Lise St-Denis' floor crossing has worn off, it's worth looking ahead to whether Jean Chretien's old riding will stay Liberal red in the next election. Eric Grenier at 308 likes her chances:

If Lise St-Denis, the MP for Saint-Maurice–Champlain who defected to the Liberals from the NDP last week, decides to run for re-election under her new party’s banner, history suggests that, despite the wide margin between the two parties in the last election, she would have a good chance of winning the seat again.

[...]

Of those 34 floor-crossers who have stood for re-election, 22 were successful – including Richard John Cartwright. The success rate of floor crossers stands at 65 per cent.

[...]

More than half of floor crossers lose support when they run for re-election with their new party, with their average drop in vote share being eight points from one election to the next. However, the parties that welcome the new MPs almost always do better when the floor crosser runs for re-election. Fully 86 per cent of floor crossers have increased the vote share of their new parties in their riding, increasing their party’s support by an average of 11 points.

Ms. St-Denis received 39 per cent of the vote in Saint-Maurice–Champlain in May 2011, while the Liberals took 12 per cent. Applying these numbers to the average change in support when an MP has crossed the floor indicates she might expect to receive somewhere between 23 and 31 per cent of the vote in the next election, perhaps only enough to win a narrow victory.

There are a lot of ways to crunch the numbers, but before we try to draw conclusions based on 34 incredibly different data points from the past hundred plus years, we should probably look at the numbers that matter most - the votes in St. Maurice Champlain last election:

NDP 39%
BQ 29%
CPC 18%
Lib 12%

In terms of vote percentage, the riding ranked 33rd for the Liberals in Quebec (a sign of just how awful they did in La Belle Province last election). Maybe their electoral chances are better than that though - the 27 points the Liberals lost by makes it their 24th "best" riding in Quebec.

That's not to say the Liberals can't ride a 20 to 30 point red wave and win the seat next election, but it's preposterous to argue St-Denis herself will have anything to do with that. Well known and well liked incumbents tend to be worth about 5 percentage points at the ballot box, and I wouldn't use either of those terms to describe St-Denis. After all, she herself admits to being a no-name MP who was elected on Jack Layton's coat tails.

The problem with looking at the historical numbers is that there's little historical precedent for what St-Denis did. When Belinda Stronach moved from the Conservatives to the Liberals in 2005, she was jumping between parties which had been within 700 votes of each other in the previous election. In comparison, St-Denis just "gave up" 13,000 votes with her move. The more apt analogy might be kamikaze PC MP Jack Horner who won the bluest of blue ridings in Canada, Crowfoot, by 61 percentage points over the Liberals in 1974. He crossed the floor to take a position in Pierre Trudeau's Cabinet and in the next election...lost by 59 percentage points. Yes, Jean Chretien's old riding isn't as hostile to the grits as rural Alberta during the Trudeau years, but Horner was a PC leadership candidate and had represented the riding for 20 years. All that was worth a few votes at the ballot box.

Let's have some fun with numbers and create a single variable to measure just how much of an impact floor crossers have. I'll take a page from baseball stat geeks and call it VORC - Value Over Replacement Candidate. Taking the Belinda Stronach example, the Liberal vote in the ridings around Newmarket Aurora fell 4 points between the 2004 and 2006 elections. So the fact that the Liberal vote actually went up by 5 points in Newmarket Aurora with her name on the ballot means she may have been worth 9 points. Of course, there are a gazillion other factors to consider, but it's the best quick and dirty estimator of a candidate's value we have.

So Belinda may have been worth 9 points at the ballot box, but using the same math, Garth Turner was worth a big "0" points to the Liberals in Halton in 2008, while Wajid Khan actually cost the Tories 3 points in Mississauga-Streetsville (KHAAAAAAAN!). So there's no hard and fast rule.

Which, after that mathematical detour, is the point I'm trying to make with this post. When it comes to unique political events like by elections or floor crossings, it's futile to look at past trends and averages to predict the future. Regardless of what may have happened to Jack Horner or Belinda Stronach or 1869 floor crosser Richard John Cartwright, Lise St-Denis' situation is wholly unique - there aren't many cases of first time MPs jumping to the party which finished fourth in their home riding.

So without precedent, all we can go on is political instinct and my political instincts tell me St-Denis' value in the next election (should she even run, which seems unlikely) is negligible. That's not to say her jump to the Liberals won't help the party create a more favourable narrative province-wide, but on the ground in St. Maurice it won't make a lick of difference come the 2015 election.

The Road to Renewal

2012-01-16T09:00:00.001-05:00

Well, that was fun.

It’s hard not to come out of this weekend’s Liberal Renewalfest in Ottawa without feeling good about the future. Considering the collective punch to the gut the Liberal Party took on May 2nd, it was remarkable to see Liberals out at this convention in such high numbers and such high spirits. And it wasn’t the delusional “get a new leader and we’ll be back in power” kind of optimism I’ve seen at past conventions. Most Liberals I talked to this weekend got that there aren’t any quick fixes and there’s a ton of work to do.

Luckily, the party took a few concrete steps in that direction.

I’ve been a big proponent of shifting to an open supporter system for quite some time, but assumed the motion was heading for defeat this weekend. Surprisingly it passed, and the Liberals will open the party to Canadians when it comes time to select the next leader. I don’t want to overhype the impact of this change - we’re not going to have millions of people signing up as supporters tomorrow. But it opens the party to Canadians who are political but not partisan and will expand the Liberal tent.

Also drawing headlines was Mike Crawley’s 26-vote win over Sheila Copps for the presidency. It’s incredibly unfair to Sheila and her supporters to describe her as the status quo candidate, but that was the media spin and Crawley’s win will be seen as a vote for change. More substantively, the man has an incredible platform and if half of it becomes reality, Liberal members will be more engaged than they’ve ever been before.

I didn’t expect to be talking about policy resolutions in my convention recap. After all, the party hasn’t even bothered to pay lip service to policies which are prioritized at convention. So when the legalized marijuana resolution passed with over 75% support, I figured it would be good for a few Twitter jokes and little else. Then in the closing address of the convention, Bob Rae did all but endorse it, specifically mentioning the resolution and saying “the war on drugs has failed”. I’m sceptical this will be in the 2015 platform, but I remember Paul Martin bluntly saying “no way” without skipping a beat when asked about controversial policies which had passed at the 2005 policy convention. A meaningful policy process is one of the best ways to turn new supporters into active members, so this new attitude is very much welcome.

For me, that’s really the take home message from this weekend: The new Liberal attitude. Who knows if going to a supporter system or electing campaign co-chairs will really make much difference? The key to rebuilding is to create an attitude of openness, inclusiveness, and engagement throughout the party - then keeping this in mind when making decisions. My sense from this convention is that for the first time since I became a member a decade ago, Liberals truly want to create a party like that and are willing to change.

2012 Liberal Biennial in Pictures

2012-01-15T21:30:00.000-05:00

The drive to Ottawa. Had there been an “annex the Turks & Caicos” policy, it would have passed overwhelmingly, simply on the prospect of a sun destination convention.

Munir Sheikh – the Bono of former StatsCan heads – gave a 9 am talk on survey sampling methodology.

The voting clickers predictably had some glitches – I think I accidently voted for Pat Buchanan on one of the policy resolutions. Luckily, Peter Miliken was there to oversee voting and “Miliken" anyone who dared bring up an ill-constructed point of order. He was hands-down the convention MVP.

Sheila Copps' "rats nest" was one of the many hospitality suites at the convention. However, the Westin shut them down at 11...something which would never have happened if the Liberals were in power.

For those of you out there who have always wanted an Edward Blake or Alexander Mackenzie button...

The momentum around "Coyne 4 leader" was unstoppable this weekend. In fact, a rival leadership camp stole his coat, in a bid to derail his campaign.

Guest Post: Why I'll Be Voting Against Nearly Every Policy At the Convention

2012-01-13T09:00:00.000-05:00

A few years ago, I was at an Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta AGM voting on policies to go forward to the Vancouver Biennial in 2009. We were debating a policy that called for a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases. A funny thing happened; someone stood up and declared that this was too high, it would hurt the economy too much and that it should be a 20% reduction instead. Cue a half hour debate over the proposal. Tempers flared, people took sides. A frustrated friend of mine stood up and asked a very simple question; did anyone know what 5% of GHG entailed? Sure enough, nobody did. The environmental-focused Liberals just lined up behind the 25% while the more fiscal-focused Liberals went for 20%; nobody had any context and the whole debate was effectively meaningless.

There’s no doubt that our policy process has significant flaws and is in need of serious reform. However, even if we had an efficient and engaging process, we would still have the serious problem of "garbage in, garbage out". If we don't take this process seriously, why do we expect others to?

I've read the resolutions for this coming Convention and I've come to three conclusions. First, we seem to be actively avoiding substantive policy. I don't want to pick on anybody, but I am going to use an example; one policy calls for a national housing strategy to address homelessness. Alright, noble enough goal, but that's all it does. No mention of what might actually be in said strategy, other than it'll address homelessness. Well, what does that mean? Clearly we've entered some metaphysical realm where we have a policy in favour of having a policy (and we'll get back to you on what it is exactly). We may as well have a policy condemning nuclear war, just in case people weren't clear on where we sat on that issue (naturally there'd be an exemption for the leader to support nuclear war in "special circumstances”).

Second, we need to put a lot more actual research into our polices. For instance, the call for a National Food Strategy. Well, I Googled "Canada National Food Strategy". The first hit was the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's National Food Strategy. The policy we're looking at calls for us to work with them to develop a policy. Well, they seem to have done the work for us. What our policy should actually have expressed is what we want a national food strategy to say, and we can then say "Hey, the CFA supports this approach". Or, "Hey, we disagree with this aspect of the CFA's policy".

Third, party members are obsessed with making sure they have a policy that passes (even if it then disappears into the ether). We're so focused on making sure our policy passes that we water them down into striking committees and seeing what other people think rather than statements expressing the will of the membership. Here, I'll use the example of a proposal that's been getting a lot of ink - the Young Liberal proposal to abolish the monarchy...except that's not what it does. No, it wants to strike a committee to examine rules to establish a Canadian Head of State.

If we want to have a debate, let have it. Debates are good, they focus us, challenge us, make us better. But even if we can’t reach that level of discourse, lets please stop having water cooler conversations designed to not offend anyone and calling these debates and policies. So what if your policy doesn’t pass? A failed proposal that started an important debate can alter the course of our thinking and a few conventions later, the membership may express a different opinion.

So aside from the few good ones that I’ll be supporting, I'll be voting against most of the polices at Convention. Policies that try to be all things to all people (a real problem we've had lately, n'est pas?), that don't actually do anything, and that haven’t been adequately researched do not deserve our support. Canadians aren't stupid; if we vote down a toothless call for a National Housing Strategy, they aren't going to suddenly think we're in favour of homelessness. They're going to get the message and know that we're taking this process seriously and going back to the drawing board to create policies for the next Biennial in 2014 that are important to us and mean something to them.

Glen Krueger is a Past President of the Dalhousie Liberals, past Board Member in Calgary and Halifax constituencies, and is currently articling at a law firm in Toronto.

In the Interim (2)

2012-01-12T15:00:00.000-05:00

After ruefully running down the field of candidates for interim leader, here's the conclusion I reached back in May:

But, above all these names, the one that stands out is Bob Rae. Rae is experienced, respected, bilingual, and well spoken. He would keep the Liberals in the headlines and would keep them relevant. It's hard to imagine a better candidate for the job.

Of course, for those reasons, Rae might very well decide to run for the top job. However, he'll be 66 by the time the next election rolls around, and my read of the landscape is that the Liberal membership is looking towards the next generation and a long-term rebuilt. I'm certainly in no position to tell Bob Rae he can't run for leader, and he would make a fine candidate. But a year or two as the interim leader would be an exciting challenge for a man who has accomplished so much over his career.

So it seems very much like a win-win. The caveat I'd place on it is that Rae must recognize this is a caretaker position. So that means no talk of leadership and no talk of merger.

But if he's willing to play ball under those conditions, I can't think of a better candidate for the job.

Since then, Rae has lived up to my high expectations. He has outperformed Nicole Turmel in the House (then again, so have most pages) and kept the Liberal Party relevant in the media. Most importantly, he has embraced his role as "Bob the Rebuilder", going to party functions and spearheading fundraising drives.

Yes, there have been whispers about Rae's ambition to drop the "interim" label, but those whispers haven't come from Rae or even his supporters. Hell, if you read the rampant media speculation closely, there aren't many "anonymous Liberals" saying Rae plans to run. By and large, there's been little reason for Liberals to doubt Rae's word that he won't run for leader.

So as someone who thought Rae would be a fine interim leader and feels he has been a fine interim leader, his speech to caucus yesterday was a bit disconcerting. In it, he passionately defended his record as Ontario Premier, arguing "better a Rae day than a Harper lifetime”. It was a good line and a barn burner of a speech...I'm sure Liberals watching wished they could all travel back in time to 1995 and vote NDP.

This has predictably unleashed another round of "Bob Rae is running for Liberal leader" articles, punctuated by Alf Apps' always helpful musings that Rae should be allowed to run for leader, so long as he resigns 6 months before the vote to "level the playing field". What Alf and others are missing is that by virtue of Rae being leader today, the playing field will not be level in a year, and Rae's speech was a perfect example of why that's the case.

Rae was given a 45 minute podium to make his case for leader in front of caucus and country. He has staff paid for by the party. He gets to lead off in the House of Commons and picks who asks the questions. He assigns critic portfolios. He sets party policy. He travels on the party dime, racking up Super Elite air miles. Together, this gives him a massive advantage over other contenders, which is why he was only given the job after agreeing not to run for permanent leader.

But beyond this issue of fairness, there's the good of the party to consider. In 2006, Bill Graham didn't go around giving speeches about Bill Graham. Rae should be talking about what Harper's government is doing and what a Liberal government will do - not what the Ontario NDP did 20 years ago. Defending the NDP record in Ontario does nothing to strengthen the Liberal brand - it only serves to strengthen the Bob Rae brand and, maybe, the NDP brand. The media story yesterday should have been about the St-Denis defection, Liberal rebuilding efforts, and this weekend's convention - instead, we had to endure more leadership speculation.

Now, Rae continues to say he won't run for leader and he deserves to be taken at his word. And if Harper attacks him, he certainly has the right to defend his record. So maybe everyone (myself included) is making too big a deal over a few minutes in a 45 minute speech. But so long as the media is hungry for Rae leadership stories, Bob will need to choose his words carefully so as to not fan the flames and detract from the Liberal message.

Primary Debates (2)

2012-01-12T10:00:00.000-05:00

Myself and Jeff Jedras follow up our online debate, with a video chat over beers on the primary resolution which will be up for vote at this weekend's convention.

After the video ended, the rest of the bar patrons joined in on the argument and it ended in a brawl.

Meet Charles Ward

2012-01-11T15:30:00.000-05:00

On Monday I voiced my support for Mike Crawley for LPC President, after profiling Crawley, Sheila Copps, Ron Hartling, and Alexandra Mendes over the past month.

I mostly glossed over the fifth candidate, Charles Ward, since I really didn't know much about him. Luckily, Charles gave me a call yesterday and remedied that problem, so I am pleased to present the thrilling conclusion to my 5 part series on the race for the Liberal Party's Presidency.

I give you Charles Ward:

Who is Charles Ward?

Ward has been an active Liberal in four different provinces for over 40 years, and moved to Alberta in 2009. He is currently the president of a Lethbridge riding association and describes himself as a plain spoken man who has avoided the spotlight this race, as he feels the party President should stay behind the scenes.

1. Why did you join the Liberal Party?

Frankly I was born a Liberal. Began my political career at age 14 campaigning door to door for John Matheson, Parliamentary Secretary to Lester Pearson. Graduated to campaign organizer/manager.

2. In 20 words or less, describe the type of party president you would be.

This is more than 20 words.

Facilitator, initiator, member driven, operations, nuts and bolts, processes and execution, to ensure a clean, open and fair situation for potential leadership candidates.

The Presidency is a behind-the-scenes volunteer business position, charged with putting consistency in place through defined, fiscally responsible processes, enabling Liberals to effectively use time and money participation to generate Canadians’ votes.

3. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to make the policy process more meaningful.

The question must be asked for answers - how did we get here?

We need define goals for achievement; communicate the information to EDAs and throughout the organization. Then allow the grassroots to release their skill sets and innovation to develop their own ideas and bring them forward - grassroots driven, from the EDAs, and up. See below.

4. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to improve its fundraising.

It all starts with effective EDAs, engagement and participation. See below.

5. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to engage members.

One at a time, participation means different things to different people. See below.

6. List one other key change the LPC needs to make.

As National Office department, revitalize the Research Bureau to work with the EDAs on real value policy development. See below.

The above four questions’ answers are encompassed within my plan for the Party and EDAs. The National Executive, National Office and PTA staff will work with and be responsible to the Council of Presidents and their Riding associations to ensure plans are prepared and Party processes are in place. Training will be provided to all associations to ensure they fully understand the workings of the tools to successfully organize their area to reach its full potential.

Example: piece of a Riding plan. Identify polls that have members. Set a target of having at least one member per poll at the end of year one; two members per poll at the end of year two; and six members per poll at the end of year three.

If achievable by the Riding Associations they will have sufficient membership to fulfill the various functional requirements of the Riding; membership, election readiness, fund raising, policy initiatives, constitution, media, local issues, etc.

WEBSITE: http://www.charleswardliberal.ca/

"Une décision en toute sérénité"

2012-01-10T11:20:00.001-05:00

I suppose we shouldn't be shocked that one of the NDP's rookie Quebec MPs decided to ~~cross the floor~~ move down the opposition benches...but it's still a bit of a surprise to see Lise St-Denis jump to the Liberals less than a year after the election.

As for her motives, even after listening to the press conference, that's still a bit of a mystery. St-Denis is 71 so this isn't a case of long term ambition. There's nothing in recent polls to suggest the NDP ship is sinking. There's been no high profile issue split between her and the NDP. The NDP leadership race is still ongoing, so it's not like she's upset with the new leader. And life with the third party in the House isn't any more glamorous than life with the second party in the House.

If I had to guess, I'd assume St-Denis found herself elected as an NDP MP without ever giving a lot of thought to why she was a New Democrat. After learning a bit more about the parties, she changed her mind.

If this all seems odd, it's because people like St-Denis rarely find their way to the House of Commons. She would never have been nominated if the NDP expected to win the riding. The fact that we have 50 accidental MPs siting on the NDP benches means things will happen that defy political convention. This may be the first example, but it certainly won't be the last.

Given that, I wouldn't read too much into this. St-Denis is a no-name who was elected on Jack Layton's coat tails, in a riding where the Liberals got 12%. Yeah, it will be a bit awkward for former Bloc member Nicole Turmel to explain this one. It's one less endorsement for Thomas Mulcair. It will mean a few days of positive press for the Liberals.

But this isn't a game changer, and its impact on Canadian politics will be fairly insignificant.

The Value of Endorsements

2012-01-10T11:12:00.000-05:00

The Presidential Election

2012-01-09T19:00:00.001-05:00

For somewhat inexplicable reasons, the race for Liberal Party president has been generating more ink in recent weeks than the race for leader of the opposition. And if you're going to this weekend's convention in Ottawa, you're probably getting 5 or 6 calls a day from candidates asking for your support.

Given the importance of this vote and the impressive field of candidates, I didn't rush into a decision, and I encourage any undecided delegates out there to do their research before voting. Read pamphlets, e-mail the candidates, and talk to them at convention. Ask them tough questions, and press them on specifics.

The Candidates

Sheila Copps: Q & A profile, website, Twitter, Facebook
Mike Crawley: Q & A profile, website, Twitter, Facebook
Ron Hartling: Q & A profile, website, Twitter, Facebook
Alexandra Mendes: Q & A profile, website, Twitter, Facebook
Charles Ward: website

The Race

The media narrative in recent weeks has framed this as a "too close to call" Copps-Crawley showdown. That jives with what I've heard in Liberal circles, but given the media has a hard time handicaping leadership races, I have my doubts about their ability to call a party president vote.

Despite Copps' high profile and media savvy, Crawley actually seems to be "winning" the air war - in the past week, nearly every article has framed him as the candidate who represents "generational change" and "new ideas". That's probably not fair to Sheila, and it certainly isn't fair to the other candidates being overlooked, but you have to tip your hat to whoever is in charge of the Crawley's media strategy.

My Take

Although I have a soft spot for Alberta Liberals, I simply haven't heard enough from Charles Ward to consider him.

One candidate we've all heard plenty from is Sheila Copps. I've been a fan of Sheila since I joined the party, was a Copps delegate at the 2003 leadership convention, and many of the first posts I ever wrote on this blog lamented the defenestration of Sheila Copps from the Liberal fold. I'm a huge Sheila fan, but I'm looking for a President who will work quietly behind the scenes, and that's just not her style. Moreover, her frustrating position on Bob Rae running for permanent leader makes me worry about the controversy that would follow her as party president. I hope Sheila finds in a prominent role in the Liberal Party, and maybe even as a candidate in the next election - but I just can't bring myself to vote for her in this contest.

On the other side is Alexandra Mendes who declares in bold font on her website that "the Leader is the face, voice and final authority of the Party, not the president" - something I firmly agree with. Alexandra is perhaps the most qualified candidate for the job. She has experience in the party as an MP, riding association president, and volunteer, and outside the party running an NGO. She was born in Portugal, is a Quebecer who describes herself as a "fierce federalist", and is quite personable in both English and en français. It's hard not to like Alexandra, and she likely would have earned my vote if I'd seen a little more meat from her in terms of concrete reforms.

One candidate who has given voters plenty of meat is Ron Hartling. I've chatted with Ron several times this campaign and have nary a bad thing to say about him. Ron has been writing strategic plans to reform the party since 2006 and has the track record to back it up - what he accomplished in Kingston-and-the-Islands is remarkable. Win or lose, the party would be well served to have Ron speak to as many riding associations as possible about how his team found local wedge issues and built alliances with activists. Ron is as dedicated a Liberal as you'll find, and would make a great President.

And before Christmas I was leaning towards casting a vote for Ron. Then I took a close look at Mike Crawley's platform and came away thoroughly impressed. For a long time, no one in the Liberal Party recognized the many problems we were facing - now, the biggest risk facing us is that we'll all spend a lot of time talking about the problems and talking about "renewal", but nothing will ever get done. In my endorsement of Kyle Harrietha for VP Membership earlier today, I marvelled at the concrete changes he was proposing. I'll do the same for Mike Crawley here.

Despite the media spin, Mike isn't just the guy talking about "big ideas" - he actually has ready-to-implement reforms of all sizes. Expanding BC's microtargeting experiment, community outreach packages for ridings, a databse of advocacy groups, the end of leader appointed candidates, an electronic welcome kit for new recruits, online polls of members, asking Liberals to submit QP questions to caucus...these aren't flashy ideas and they won't show up in newspaper profiles, but they can be implemented easily today and will eventually lead to a more engaged membership and more functional party.

So it's a good platform, but talk is cheap. What else does he offer?

I share Crawley's overall vision of the Liberal Party and feel he'd be able to "play well with others" on the national executive. He has experience running the LPCO board and people I respect who have dealt with him in that capacity speak highly of the man. I never base my vote on endorsements, but he's got a nice list of endorsements from people who have been talking about party reform for a long time and who I know put a lot of thought into their decision - Joseph Uranowski, Jeff Jedras, Steve V, Rob Silver, Gerard Kennedy, Navdeep Bains, and many others.

This election for party president is one of the most important, and most interesting, in a long time. Luckily for the grits, it's a strong field of candidates who all recognize the problems facing the party. I think any of them would make a fine President.

In the absence of a leadership race, let's look in at the exciting race for VP Membership!

2012-01-09T12:00:00.003-05:00

The much anticipated Liberal convention kicks off this Friday in Ottawa, with the internal races for party positions drawing a lot more attention than usual.

If you're losing sleep over who the next VP-French of the Liberal Party will be, Theresa Lubowitz offers an invaluable 61-page profile of all the candidates running for table officer positions. If you're going to Ottawa and want a 2-minute overview, this post will likely suffice. If you don't really have much time for boring Liberal Party contests, then it's likely best to stop reading at this point.

My post on the presidential race will follow this evening - for now, a look at the candidates running for other positions. I've added a few endorsements, but I encourage delegates to read up on all the candidates, talk to them, and make their own decision. And of course, feel free to leave your own thoughts in the comments section.

VP English: Phil Chisolm, Chris MacInnes, James Morton

VP French: Imran Ahmad, Brigitte Garceau, Pierre Lajeunesse

VP Policy: Braeden Caley, Maryanne Kampouris, Daniel Lovell, Zach Paikin, Paul Summerville

For better of worse, the VP Policy race has been drawing heaps of media attention, and it figures to be one of the most watched. I'll be voting for Braeden Caley who, despite only being 24, has a decade of experience at virtually every level in the party.

In a contest like this, every candidate is going to promise to make the policy process meaningful, so you won't find many stark differences in candidate platforms. What sets Braeden apart for me is his understanding of how the policy process, party, and caucus work, and his track record as a hard worker who will fight to bring relevance to the Liberal Party's policy process.

VP Membership: Leanne Bourassa, Matthew Certosimo, Kyle Harrietha, Kim Rudd, Mitch St. Pierre

For me, Kyle Harrietha stands out in this field. Having been a Scarborough Liberal in good times and a Fort McMurray Liberal in tough times, he has a deep understanding of the range of challenges facing Liberal ridings. Most importantly, Kyle has released a more comprehensive platform than any candidate out there - including many of the presidential candidates. Hell, there's likely more meat in it than Stephen Harper's election platform this spring.

As Kyle is fond of saying, the Liberal Party has become good at identifying what's wrong - what we need are solutions and people who will implement them. Having read his platform, I'm confident he has identified these solutions, and I'm confident he'll work hard to implement them.

The Policy Policy

2012-01-06T09:00:00.004-05:00

Next weekend, Liberals from across the country will head to Ottawa for the party's Biennial convention. The full agenda has been posted on the party's website - among the highlights:

Michael Ignatieff says thank you to Liberals: A nice gesture, which will spare us from what would have been an uncomfortable tribute to Ignatieff.

Critics Corner: This was billed as "a chance to talk to Liberal critics" which had me expecting a panel with Chantal Hebert, John Baird, and the Sun Editorial Board. Sadly, by "Liberal critics" they mean you get to ask Mark Eyking questions about International Cooperation. Still, could be fun.

Former Statscan head Munir Sheikh speaks: He will also be posing for photographs and signing Stats 101 textbooks.

Workshop on Leveraging Social Media: This will be a valuable workshop, since news stories can explode on social media. Take for example the kerfuffle over the Liberals' decision to not accredit bloggers to this convention, which received gallons of virtual ink online. I look forward to learning from the Liberal Party how to avoid social media faux pas like that.

National Executive Elections: The races for executive positions are hotly contested, and I'll talk more about them next week. For now, feel free to browse my Q & A with Presidential candidates Sheila Copps, Mike Crawley, Ron Hartling, and Alexandra Mendes.

Of course, there will also be over thirty constitutional amendments to vote on. The flashiest of these is the suggestion to move to an open primary system - I'll be voting in favour of this for the reasons I lay out here and here.

However, there are less sexy resolutions which could significantly reshape of the party. Electing one of the campaign co-chairs is an intriguing idea - so is voting on party officials and policy resolutions using WOMOV. You can read the full list of proposals here and Jeff Jedras' take here. I won't weigh in on each and every resolution because I'm sure few are really interested in what I think about the appointment of a Chief Revenue Officer (my take: "Chief Revenue Officer if necessary but not necessarily Chief Revenue Officer").

However, I do want to take the time to speak out in favour of resolution 26, which would force the party to include at least three prioritized biennial policies in its platform. This is something I've advocated on behalf of for quite some time and I'm ecstatic to see this resolution up for debate.

To provide some context, a wide range of policies proposed by Liberal Party members will be debated at this convention. No doubt, many Liberals feel strongly about these issues and spent a lot of time writing resolutions and convincing others to support them. I remember drafting policies when I first joined the party and arguing on behalf of them at my campus club, at the Alberta convention, and then at the national convention. We even made up t-shirts and pamphlets in support of our resolution. One of the reasons I joined the party was the make a difference and I saw the policy process as a great way to do that.

Of course, it doesn't take long to realize that, much like the points on Whose Line is it Anyways or a Bloc Quebecois nomination meeting in Mount Royal, this really doesn't matter. After months of debate and voting, the top policies are prioritized at convention...and then placed in a binder for the Platform Committee to ignore. I'd wager most are never even glanced at.

What this amendment does is force the party to put at least 3 of the most popular policies in the platform. This would leave the Platform Committee some leeway if something politically toxic is passed (Legalize prostitution! Invade the Turks and Caicos!), but it would force them to take a close look at every prioritized policy. Policy workshops would be given meaning...under the current system, one's convention time is far better served at D'Arcy McGees than debating policy.

For anyone who gives a damn about the policy process, this resolution is long overdue. For those who don't, I'd urge you to recognize that policy is a great way to recruit and engage members. And engaged members are far more likely to volunteer their time and money to the cause than those disillusioned over a hollow policy process.

The fate of this resolution won't garner any media attention this weekend, but passing it would be a major step on the Liberal Party's road to renewal.

What to Expect in 2012

2012-01-05T09:00:00.004-05:00

2011 was an eventful year in Canadian politics. We were treated to a historic federal election in the Spring, and five provincial elections in the Fall. Alison Redford and Christy Clark defeated the establishment in hotly contested leadership races, while François Legault put everyone on notice in Quebec. Jack Layton passed away, the Michael Ignatieff experiment imploded, the Bloc was obliterated, and Stephen Harper locked himself in a bathroom.

So what's in store in 2012?

The Government

So long confidence votes and election speculation - for the first time in nearly a decade, the Prime Minister will be able to govern without distraction.

What Harper will actually do with this newly won freedom is a bit of mystery. He had a meager election platform, with most of the big ticket promises put on hold until Canada is out of deficit. His longstanding pet projects - killing the gun registry, abolishing the wheat board, and passing crime legislation - are effectively done, and the Supreme Court poured cold water on his plan for a National Securities Regulator.

That said, there is still work to do. There's the little matter of this economic recession to deal with. There's a new Health Accord to be negotiated. There's a hockey book to finish and musicians to jam with. And hell, since Harper is now one of the longest serving PMs in Canadian history, perhaps he wants to build a bit of a legacy so that he's remembered as more than the guy who cut the GST and killed the Census.

The Opposition Parties

The NDP will pick a leader in March and will spend the rest of the year trying to define their new leader.

The Liberal leadership race likely won't kick off in earnest until September, but the whispers about Bob Rae and other potential candidates are certain to grow until then. And there's that whole matter of rebuilding the party to deal with at some point.

Provincial Politics

Due to Alberta's new "kind of fixed election dates" law, we know there will be a vote this Spring. Due to Alberta's old "no one but the PCs can govern" law, we know who will win.

BC won't vote until 2013, but Christy Clark will certainly be in pre-election mode, fending off the new Conservative Party. In Quebec, an election is possible in 2012, but likely won't be held until 2013 unless François Legault's new party flounders.

Ontario is now home to Canada's only minority government, so an election there is possible, though unlikely.

International Politics

The US election is certain to capture the attention of many Canadians, even though it likely pushes a lot of Canada-US issues to the backburner.

And given the worldwide economic recession, Canadians and Canadian politicians will likely be paying closer attention than usual to what happens overseas. Hey, maybe we'll get some kind of Canada-EU free trade deal.

Other Happenings

The are known knowns and unknown knowns, but here are a few things we can be reasonably sure will happen in 2012:

1. There will be some trivial controversy involving the NHL playoffs or Olympics. This controversy will likely involve Denis Coderre.

2. There will be some trivial controversy involving a Cabinet Minister. The opposition will shout long and hard, but Harper will stand by his man (or woman).

3. A Tory backbencher (most likely Rob Anders) will say something stupid. Hilarity will ensue!

4. The Liberals and NDP will have to cope with "anonymous insiders" complaining about existing and potential leaders.

5. The biggest political story of 2012 will likely surround a person or issue we're not even thinking about today.

Alberta 2011 in Review

2012-01-03T16:00:00.000-05:00

One of my favourite sayings is "If you don't like the weather in Alberta, wait 30 minutes. If you don't like the politicians, wait 30 years." However, the sleepy world of Alberta politics has come alive in recent years and 2011 was no exception.

A year ago, Ed Stelmach was Premier, Ted Morton was his Finance Minister and heir apparent, and David Swann was the leader of the opposition. Today, "feminist lawyer" Alison Redford is Premier and former Conservative MLA Raj Sherman leads the Liberals. Perhaps most shockingly of all, NDP leader Brian Mason shaved his stache.

So for those who haven't been paying attention to Alberta politics, here's what you missed in 2011.

Ed Stelmach and his wife share a lighter moment at his resignation press conference.

The PCs 2011 Year in Review

At the start of 2011, the PCs were leading the polls and nearing their 40th consecutive year in power. Ed Stelmach had won 72 seats in his first election as leader, a 10-seat improvement over Ralph Klein. So, of course, he had to go.

On January 25th, admid rumours of internal dissention, Ed Stelmach resigned as Premier.

Two days later, Ted Morton resigned as Finance Minister, refusing to bring in a deficit budget. Well, another deficit budget - Ted had run a $5 billion deficit as Finance Minister in 2010. Oh, and during the 2011 leadership race he promised to balance the books in 2013 - the exact same pledge as in the budget he refused to deliver.

Despite high expectations, Morton's leadership campaign lumbered along to a disappointing fourth place finish. Some chalk this off to Morton's supporters having already left for the Wildrose Alliance, but I see it as voters punishing Morton for his inability to follow up his 2006 hit, Ted Morton is the man, with a new theme song.

Instead, Gary Mar emerged as the frontrunner, scoring endorsement after endorsement, and leading Alison Redford 41% to 19% after the first ballot. Mar had it in the bag, but then women, teachers, and other left wing pinkos stormed the ballot box for the second round of voting. When the dust settled, Redford was Premier and Gary Mar was lamenting the cruelty of the PC leadership rules over a beer with Jim Dinning.

After her victory, Redford named a Cabinet, cancelled then un-cancelled the fall sitting of the legislature, and kind of kept her fixed election date promise. That may not sound like a lot, but Redford spent a great deal of time "being awesome".

As 2012 begins, Redford is still very much in the honeymoon phase. Liberals are happy that Alberta has its first liberal Premier in 90 years. Conservatives are happy that they're at 51% in the polls. Yes, everyone is happy - except for...

Get with the media narrative people! Danielle Smith is, like, so 2010.

Wildrose Party 2011 in Review

For Danielle Smith, 2011 was a harsh dose of reality. She started the year as a media darling both inside and outside Alberta. Newspapers would routinely profile her under headlines like "Danielle Smith doesn't walk on water - she runs on it!" or "Danielle Smith: Great politician or the greatest politician?". Yes, she led a party which had received 7% of the vote last election, had changed it's name 3 times in as many years, and had 4 castoff MLAs. But her midichlorian count was off the charts - she was universally seen as the chosen one who would bring balance to Alberta politics.

Politics is often compared to High School and from 2009 to 2010, Danielle was the most popular girl in school. Why was she popular? Because she was cool. Why was she cool? If you're asking, that's a sign you're not cool.

But then the new girl showed up and Danielle was, like, so 2010. So how did Danielle respond? She started spreading rumours about Alison. Not cool.

So the Wildrose doesn't smell quite as sweet as it did in 2010. Still, it could be worse. Which brings us to...

Possible election slogan: Raj Against the PC Machine

The Liberal Party 2011 in Review

I usually describe David Swann to non-Albertans as "a less charismatic version of Stephane Dion". That's likely mean but, as the federal grits learned this spring, they could do a lot worse than Stephane Dion. The provincial Liberals may learn the same lesson in 2012.

After dumping Swann, the Liberals went out a replaced him with former Conservative MLA Raj Sherman - presumably on the assumption that what Albertans are looking for is a PC leader...only with NEP baggage.

Sherman is a colourful character. The former medical doctor was elected to the PCs in 2008, then was quit/fired in 2010 after sending off a late night angry e-mail to Ed Stelmach and 40 of his closest friends, where he railed against Stelmach's health care record. (Possible PC commercial in next campaign - "When the phone rings at 3 am...it's probably Raj Sherman calling")

Since then, Sherman has raised the spectre of scandal, bribery, and coverups in Alberta's Health Care system. At times, he sounds like a Health Care crusader. At times, he sounds like Oscar Fech. Sherman is very much a wild card.

It's hard to say how he'll play with the public, but after a string of dull-as-paint leaders, no one will accuse the Liberals of being boring next election. Which is more than can be said for...

Unlike "mainstream" parties who try to "get votes", the Alberta Party is "doing politics differently".

The Alberta Party 2011 in Review

Much like Rebecca Black, the Alberta Party burst onto the scene early in 2011 as an Internet sensation.

Like most internet memes, this one appears to have been mostly fleeting. Sure, there were highlights in 2011 - Dave Taylor, frustrated with the Liberals' policy of not electing him Liberal Leader, become the first Alberta Party MLA in January. And there was the day in March they got 47 re-tweets. But despite those bright moments, the only media attention on the Alberta Party of late has been "what happened to the Alberta Party" stories.

So how did it all go wrong? Many blame Glenn Taylor, who was named leader in May, after a lackluster leadership campaign. (fun fact: the Alberta Party has 3,169 followers on Twitter, but just 1,200 voted in its leadership race)

I see the Alberta Party problem more as one of "supply and demand" than anything else. Alberta politics needs a third party left of the PCs about as much as federal politics needs a third communist party. Yeah, neither the Marxist-Leninists nor the Communist Party have been very effective, but would a tech savvy, well branded "Workers Revolution Party" do much better? Likely not.

PS. Technically speaking, the NDP are also a political party in Alberta.

Most Viewed Posts of 2011

2012-01-03T09:00:00.000-05:00

As 2012 dawns on us, a look back at the most viewed posts on this blog in 2011. While the federal election was a bad time to be a Liberal, it was a good time to be a Liberal blogger.

1. April 4th Seat Projections: A look back at a simpler time, when Liberals could dream of attending the Stornoway garden party, and the Bloc held more seats than most compact cars.

2. April 18 Poll Soup: The beginning of the NDP's rise.

3. Jack Layton in Pictures

4. Polls, Predictions, Projections: A round-up of final Election predictions

5. A Beginner's Guide to Alberta Politics

6. We urge you to vote for these losers: A look back at rather unenthusiastic Globe & Mail editorials over the years

7. "On October 6th vote for proper scaling of the Y-axis. Vote Liberal."

8. Tour Gratuit: Myself, and desperate Liberals everywhere, panic over the rise of the NDP

9. Election Post-Mortem: The Liberals

10. Je M'Excuse: Maybe that Dion chap wasn't so bad...

2011 in Quotes

2011-12-26T09:00:00.001-05:00

“Well, I’m an absolute fan of lacy lingerie. I want to make that perfectly clear.”
-Michael Ignatieff

"I mean we have the ridiculous thing of a government saying how much confidence they have in Bev Oda and she sits there like she’s in some kind of a witness protection program."
-Bob Rae

“We have debates in Parliament all the time. The Speaker rules, you win some, you lose some.”
-Stephen Harper, on the contempt of Parliament ruling

"This is not a hockey game. This is not a game here. This is democracy."
-Michael Ignatieff, on the above

"They all want to be in our bed, but no one wants to marry us."
-Gilles Duceppe

"I don't know why we'd need so many more prisons when the crooks seem so happy in the Senate."
-Jack Layton

"If you look across the country where the Conservatives have had strong representation, a lot of projects have taken place... But it's normal that you're going to focus on the areas with the people that do support you. That is part of political life."
-Larry Smith

"I'm afraid Ms. Neville has passed her expiry date."
-Shelly Glover

"Most of them are here."
—Jack Layton, on his vacationing candidates

“Opto Civitas. I choose civility. That’s the new me.”
-Pat Martin

"This is a fucking disgrace ... closure again. And on the budget! There’s not a democracy in the world that would tolerate this jackboot shit.”
-Pat Martin

"Folklore has it, that the Canadian beaver will bite off its own testicles when it is threatened and offer them up to its tormentors. I think that is a fitting metaphor for the way our Canadian government reacts to bullying on trade issues by carving off pieces of our nation and offering them over to the Americans."
-Guess who

“Multiculturalism may be a Canadian value but it’s not a Quebec one. We haven’t signed the Constitution of Canada because it contains this notion of multiculturalism.”
-Louise Beaudoin, PQ critic for secularism

"That explains a lot of the challenges I have in my dating life.”
-Calgary Mayor Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, on the city's growing gender gap

"Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world."
-Jack Layton

Meet Mike Crawley

2011-12-23T09:00:00.000-05:00

After hearing from Alexandra Mendes , Sheila Copps, and Ron Hartling, my tour of LPC Presidential candidates lands on Mike Crawley.

Who is Mike Crawley?

Mike is the former President of the Ontario wing of the Liberal Party, so Ontario Liberals are quite familiar with him. Others are most likely to know him through his op-ed in the Star this summer on the long-term decline of the Liberal Party.

1. Why did you join the Liberal Party?

I was always interested in politics from a young age. I loved that the Liberal Party always had the courage to push bold ideas, stand up for our rights and fight for a bigger, better Canada. I joined the Liberal Party in 1985, not long after a stinging defeat. I was quite young and simply looked up the Liberal Party of Canada in the phone book and got a membership form mailed to me. Becoming a member was a huge deal for me. Particularly given where the Party was at then, I really believed I could make a difference and be part of a big renewal.

2. In 20 words or less, describe the type of party president you would be.

I will be an agent of change creating a more outward looking, innovative and bold Party.

3. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to make the policy process more meaningful.

I would revamp our internal policy process to create a dynamic policy process that is going all the time and not tied to conventions. Policy proposals could originate at any time from riding associations, youth clubs or new ad hoc policy groups with a minimum of 25 members. The ad hoc policy groups would form around a particular concept and have 12 months to generate a policy proposal. Ideally they would have geographically and demographically diverse membership including some with subject matter expertise. All those working on policy resolution would have access to a group of volunteer policy advisers with expertise in various policy areas and caucus critics. Policy resolutions could be put forward for discussion online once prepared and the proponents can trigger a member vote whenever the resolution is ready (online or by automated phone system). The policy resolutions that attract most attention would be presented, discussed and debated at all our conventions and regional gatherings but all voting would take place online/by phone. All ‘live’ resolutions would be available online until a vote had concluded after which the resolutions will be ranked by the number of votes and the % of positive votes. Top ranked policy proposals would be presented to caucus. The Leader would need to inform the Party’s National Board in writing why any policy that received a threshold level of support (both % and actual votes relative to Party membership) is not included in the platform. Background materials would be made available online to assist members.

I would also reach about beyond the Party to create a forum for those with big public policy ideas to present them to us. A call would go out to academics, NGOs, think tanks, entrepreneurs, non-profits and anyone that share our core values and have a solid idea that that there is no better vehicle to advance your idea than the Liberal Party.

4. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to improve its fundraising.

We need to understand that fundraising is a product of real and meaningful engagement. It’s not a tactic in and of itself. As such, the party has to develop a culture of constant engagement with members and Canadians alike. The contact management and fundraising database should be merged into one. As we develop stronger, deeper relationships with Liberals and supporters, they will want to donate. There are no corporate donors anymore and the federal subsidy will soon be gone. Our only path to secure the resources we need is by constant, meaningful engagement.

5. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to engage members.

The Party website should regularly seek members’ point of view on issues, teleconference calls should solicit their views prior to new sessions of the House and members should be given a channel to submit question proposals for Question Period. This is just one example.

6. List one other key change the LPC needs to make.

I would reach about beyond the Party to create a forum for those with big public policy ideas to present them to us. A call would go out to academics, NGOs, think tanks, entrepreneurs, non-profits and anyone that share our core values and have a solid idea that that there is no better vehicle to advance your idea than the Liberal Party.

I would bring cohesion and accountability to the Party by getting all parts of the Party behind a single ‘campaign between the campaigns’ for the next three years. Based on input from across the Party, this plan will have clear targets and objective. The plan’s implementation would be the main work of the Board of Directors.

All levels of the Party have to be more outward looking. Riding associations (EDAs) would have a mandate to engage with community organizations as would commissions. Tools would be provided to facilitate this.

New members should receive an electronic welcome kit with 5 things they can do to promote the Party and 5 things they can do to get involved with the Party.

An organizer training program needs to be established to create a force of new organizers that can be deployed to key ridings in the next election.

For More Information: Website, Facebook, Twitter

2011 Person of the Year

2011-12-21T09:00:00.001-05:00

As 2011 winds down, it's time to pick a Calgary Grit Person of the Year for the 8th consecutive year. The criteria is simple - someone who made an impact on the Canadian political scene in 2011.

While I usually try to think outside the box on these picks, this year's selection is about as obvious as they come. In effect, I think it's the first time I've been on the same page as the Canadian Press. But before we get there, a few runner-ups.

In any other year, provincial politics would have been the story, as political junkies in nearly every province got their fix. In Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, PEI and Newfoundland, incumbent governments were returned to power in a series of fall elections that ranged from "boring" to "painfully boring".

More exciting may have been the provinces who didn't go to the polls. In British Columbia, Christy Clark become Premier by taking the BC Liberal leadership race over Kevin Fallon 52% to 48% on the third ballot. She promptly called a referendum where voters "extinguished" the HST.

In Alberta, you needed a program to keep track of the floor crossings, new parties, and surprise resignations. When the dust settled, Alison Redford emerged as Premier.

In Quebec, François Legault founded a new party and surged to first in the polls on his bold promise of not being Jean Charest or Pauline Marois.

So yes, Redford, Clark, McGuinty...a case could be made for any of them as the person of the year. Just not this year.

JACK LAYTON

There are few politicians who ever get the chance to go out on top. Sadly, Jack Layton did just that in 2011.

If we rewind back to the start of 2011, Ottawa was busy playing its favourite "will they or won't they" game of election speculation. Between Bev Oda's problem with "nots", the Conservative Party's problem with the rules of Parliament, and Bruce Carson's problem with escorts, the opposition parties smelled blood in the water. The Liberals had made it clear they were ready to vote down the government and Gilles Duceppe, knowing he was guaranteed at least 40 seats in the subsequent campaign, was set to force an election unless Stephen Harper gave him $5 billion for equalization, a new hockey arena, and daily piggyback rides around the House of Commons. Harper said he didn't want an "unnecessary election" but his eyes said "yes".

So it was all up to Jack. Layton had often mocked the Liberals for propping up the Harper government, only he himself tended to come down with a case of "making Parliament work" every time the Liberals found a backbone. Complicating the situation was hip surgery that left him needing a cane to walk.

Layton ended all the speculation 5 minutes after Jim Flaherty's budget speech, passing immediate judgment on the Harper government. We were off to the poll yet again, for what most figured to be a boring campaign with few surprises. The funny thing about surprises though, is that they tend to be unexpected, by definition.

So fast forward to April 12th, in a 70s-themed debate studio, when Jack Layton pulled off a tour de force. Barely able to stand without sweating a month earlier, Layton stood tall for two hours. Many of his lines were tacky - I rolled my eyes when he uttered "hash tag fail" and when he told Stephen Harper "you've changed, you used to care about the environment". But he connected with voters, both in terms of style and content, and left Michael Ignatieff reeling when he brought up the Liberal leader's less-than-exemplary attendance record. In 30 seconds, the great Michael Ignatieff experiment (and possibly the Liberal Party) was effectively over.

Layton was good the next night in Quebec, but he didn't need to be. He'd already made waves cheering on the Habs at local bars and everyone in Quebec was talking about his performance on tout le monde en parle. Layton soon overtook the Bloc in Quebec and, par conséquent, the Liberals. From there, all he had to do was surf the orange wave to Stornoway.

So by May 2nd, it was already obvious Jack Layton would be the newsmaker of the year. He had taken the NDP to record heights and done what Ed Broadbent and Tommy Douglas could not.

You all know the rest of the story - the tragedy and the tributes - since it dominated the headlines in August and September. Even beyond the grave, Layton left his mark, with the NDP making gains in most provincial elections. His departure also launched the NDP leadership race, and made the Liberal and Bloc races somewhat more meaningful.

Although Jack is gone, he'll continue to have a major impact on Canadian politics for years to come.

2010: Rob Ford and Naheed Nenshi
2009: Jim Flaherty
2008: Stephane Dion
2007: Jean Charest
2006: Michael Ignatieff
2005: Belinda Stronach
2004: Ralph Klein

2011 in Photos

2011-12-19T09:30:00.001-05:00

The left wing media bias rears its ugly head.

Michael Ignatieff proves he's not an elitist.

Stephen Haper in 2006: "Meeting celebrities was the other guy's schtick". Since then, he's been rather "hot and cold" on that subject, one could say.

Cabinet Meeting at 24 Sussex.

How could anyone have know she would interupt the speech? It's not like she had pictures of herself and Michael Ignatieff on her Facebook wall...

The biggest threat to democracy - 14 year old girls.

~~Merv Tweed~~Rod Bruinooge, one of those Tim Hortons Tories, stumps for votes during a hotly contested speaker's election.

Sadly, there were no pictures of Justin Trudeau and Rob Ford dancing together.

Ed Stelmach and his wife share a lighter moment at his resignation press conference.

Meet Ron Hartling

2011-12-15T09:00:00.003-05:00

After hearing from Alexandra Mendes and Sheila Copps last week, my tour of LPC Presidential candidates lands on Ron Hartling today.

Who is Ron Hartling?

Ron is the former riding president in Kingston and the Islands, one of the few bright spots for the Liberals on May 2nd.

Outside of politics, he's a former diplomat and business owner/entrepreneur.

1. Why did you join the Liberal Party?

After I left the foreign service and was free of its constraints of non-partisanship, I considered which party best reflected my top political concerns, including climate change, environmental degradation and social justice. That narrowed my choice to the Liberal and Green parties. I decided that the Liberal Party offered more scope to make a positive difference.

2. In 20 words or less, describe the type of party president you would be.

I’ll be a full-time, hands-on, proactive president urgently leading the deep cultural and organizational changes our Party needs for survival.

3. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to make the policy process more meaningful.

We should leverage the wealth of policy expertise in the Liberal grassroots. Our party has innumerable former public servants, academics and other experts who would jump at meaningful opportunities to contribute. I would recruit them into a virtual Liberal Research Bureau to support policy development by Caucus, commissions and riding associations.

4. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to improve its fundraising.

Improving our fundraising techniques, while absolutely necessary, will only take us so far. To truly compete with the Conservative money machine, we must give our members, donors and other supporter far more value than we have in the past. That means developing relationships all current and prospective donor based on a real understanding of the issues which most concern them and a demonstrated willingness to listen to what they say and act on what we hear. No more lip service.

5. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to engage members.

Encourage every riding association to identify and actively champion the federal-related issues that impinge on Liberal values and have traction in their respective communities. Doing so over a two-year period was not only key to building winning conditions in Kingston and the Islands but also reinforced our members’ pride in being Liberal and provided the meaningful volunteer opportunities necessary to engage them between elections and encourage others to join.

6. List one other key change the LPC needs to make.

Resolve our long-festering governance problems, especially those related to nomination contests and leadership succession, prior to choosing our next Leader. The problems and my proposed solutions are set out in my strategic plan for rebuilding, which is posted on my website.

For More Information: Website, Facebook, Twitter

"Most Canadians if they don’t show up for work they don’t get a promotion."

2011-12-14T11:14:00.004-05:00

The above ad was from the NDP's positive hope-filled election campaign. In it, the NDP pointed to Ignatieff's attendance record and accused him of "not showing up for work".

Funny thing though. As pointed out by Jeff Jedras in October, and the Globe this morning, NDP MPs looking for a promotion to the job of opposition leader have been playing hooky quite a bit:

Five NDP leadership hopefuls are among the top 10 MPs with the worst attendance record, and two others were in the top 30 – a far cry from the party’s strong performance of consistent attendance in the previous Parliament.

Just outside the top 10 is Peggy Nash, who has missed 37 votes this fall. Nash, you'll recall, made Gerard Kennedy's attendance record her top issue during this spring's election, repeatedly saying things like: "I do believe it is important that when you elect your member of parliament your vote be respected in the MP voting in the House of Commons".

If the Parkdale High Park Liberal campaign is looking for 2015 pamphlet ideas, that quote might look good on the front, eh?

Regifting

2011-12-13T16:00:00.002-05:00

The Liberal Party's Million Conversations campaign to raise a million dollars has featured almost daily e-mails from current Liberal MPs, past Liberal greats, and Paul Martin. These letters have taken on an increasingly frantic tone, culminating in Jean Chretien's warning yesterday that Harper may re-open the abortion and Same Sex Marriage issues.

Obviously that's not going to happen, but it's not any more far fetched than Conservative Party fundraising e-mails ("The CBC will take away your gun"), so if it raises a few dollars, well, that's the way the game is played.

That said, I do wonder about today's letter from Alf Apps, which I've reposted here:

Dan --

We warned you about what Stephen Harper would do with a majority government, and we've finally seen the results.

I didn't believe it myself until I saw the news stories today about Stephen Harper's latest act of deception. As shocking as it sounds, he has used an old photo in this year's Christmas Card, passing it off as something new.

I know Harper apologists at Sun TV will defend this move, but it is indefensible. I used to think only Liberals could display this type of laziness, but I now see that Harper can be just as lazy - no, dare I say, more lazy than Liberal elites.

Beyond the laziness is a more troubling issue. One of deception. One of lies.

I ask you this - why hasn't Stephen Harper shared a new picture on this year's card? What is he hiding? What doesn't he want you to know? This card is the clearest sign yet that he plans to ban abortion in Canada. Yes, you heard that right. Baning abortion. In Canada. He must be stopped.

When I first heard about this Million Conversations Campaign, I thought: "great, now we're finally getting serious about what it will take to fight the Conservatives".

I understand that we have already fundraised enough to start 925,885 conversations in 2012. That's good.

But our goal is a million and that means, with less than 5 hours left, you must decide if your values are worth fighting for. It's now or never.

Please donate $5 right now - that's just $1.25 after the tax credit - and we can reach a million.

You can also call 1-800-701-7789 (9am - 5pm, ET, Mon-Fri) to donate by phone.

Thank you.

Alfred Apps

Les rapports de leur mort ont été grandement exagérées

2011-12-11T21:19:00.005-05:00

Daniel Paillé, the man Stephen Harper trusted to investigate the Liberal Party, is the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois. However, the media attention has not been on Paillé, but on the anemic total of 14,000 who bothered to vote in the leadership contest.

It's certainly not a number to get excited about. After all, over 48,000 Bloquists voted in 1997, when Gilles Duceppe won on the second ballot.

Still, before we draft the Bloc obituaries, let's recall that the NDP juggernaut had under 6,000 Quebec members last time we checked. So it's far from certain that more Quebecers will vote for the next leader of the opposition than just voted for the new leader of the fourth place party.

And if memory serves me, neither the 2006 Liberal leadership race nor the 2004 CPC leadership race generated a ton of excitement in Quebec. In both contests, many ridings were won with 2 or 3 votes.

So yes, 14,000 voters is a pitoyable total for the Bloc. But even in their darkest hour, they may still be able to generate more interest than any of the three federalist parties. Let's not dismiss them as a spent force.

The Value of Female Candidates

2011-12-08T14:00:00.001-05:00

The NDP may not believe in using financial incentives to encourage environmentally conscious behaviour, but leadership candidate Paul Dewar has come up with a market solution that incentivizes political parties to run female candidates:

OTTAWA—New Democratic leadership candidate Paul Dewar wants to bring back the political subsidy the Conservative government axed after winning a majority this spring — this time with a feminist catch.

[...]

Dewar proposed that any party that nominated 50 per cent or more women candidates would receive the full $2-per-vote subsidy, parties nominating 40 to 49.9 per cent women candidates would receive $1.75 per vote and those who nominated between 30 and 39.9 per cent would receive $1.50 per vote.

Parties that did not manage to nominate 30 per cent women candidates — the threshold the United Nations set as the minimum benchmark for a critical mass of women in parliament — would receive no subsidy.

Many will either embrace or dismiss this idea outright, but it's likely fair to first look at its impact before passing judgment.

To begin with, every party would find a way to hit the 30% threshold - they'd be foolhardy not to. Using the last election as a case study, the Conservatives would stand to receive close to 9 million dollars a year had they run 25 more women. Quite simply, they'd find a way to hit that threshold, even if it meant paying for a few backbencher sex change operations.

Once a party hits the 30% mark, they'd get an extra 25 cents a vote for every additional 31 women they run. Again, basing our math on the last election, that values every additional female candidate at $188,000 for the Tories, $145,000 for the NDP, and $90,000 for the Liberals (over four years). That's a pretty strong incentive, and I have no doubt Dewar's plan would lead to more women running for office.

Of course, as with any incentive scheme, there are unintended consequences. To begin with, the easiest way for a party like the Liberals to cash in on that 90k a candidate would be to run nothing but women across Alberta and in other unwinnable ridings. Luckily for the Liberals, there are plenty of unwinnable ridings to choose from.

Other parties trying to cash in may not be quite so lucky. To reach these quotas, many parties (especially the Conservatives) would likely resort to appointing dozens of female candidates in unheld ridings. Sure, having more women in politics is an admirable goal, but is it worth overruling the will of local riding associations? And what about the lack of aboriginals, visible minorities, and youth in politics? This proposal does little for them.

I think there's some merit in an incentive structure that encourages women to participate in politics, but simply setting a threshold on the number of female candidates a party runs is the wrong way to go about it.

A more modest, but more effective, solution might be increasing the rebate female candidates get on election expenses. Right now, any candidate who gets 10% of the vote, gets 15% of their expenses paid back to them. Why not double or triple the refund for women (and other under represented groups)? That would remove some of the financial barriers women face, encouraging quality female candidates to seek the nomination in winnable ridings.

On the other side, Dewar's plan would lead to nothing more than a slew of women appointed in unwinnable ridings.

Meet Sheila Copps

2011-12-08T09:00:00.002-05:00

Having already profiled Alexandra Mendes, my tour of LPC presidential candidates turns next to Sheila Copps.

Who is Sheila Copps?

I suspect everyone going to the convention is familiar with Sheila Copps. If you're under 30, you probably remember her as the highest profile casualty of the Martin-Chretien wars, when she lost a nomination battle to Tony Valeri in 2004. If you're in your 30s or 40s, what stands out most is her time in government - most notably as Deputy PM. Older Liberals will remember her time as a feisty "rat pack" member on the opposition benches, or her run for Ontario Liberal leadership in '82.

1. Why did you join the Liberal Party?

I was asked to run as a candidate in a riding that had not been liberal since 1934. I resigned my job as a journalist and became a member because I believed, and still do, that the Liberal Party represents the best hope for an inclusive, diverse and fair Canada. I worked on my first election, sans membership, in the Trudeau '68 campaign.

2. In 20 words or less, describe the type of party president you would be.

Inclusive, democratic and energetic.

3. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to make the policy process more meaningful.

Create a formal relationship between the party and the campaign committee including a written annual parliamentary report, tabled by calendar year end, on the status of platform implementation, including leader and critic responses.

4. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to improve its fundraising.

Focus on small cap funding by recruiting new supporters. This involves targeting current issues. ie. Wheat Board campaign in the Prairies and opening a diverse dialogue ie. creation of a GLBTQ caucus.

5. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to engage members.

Assist ridings in outreach by guaranteeing guest speakers for up to four events annually IN EVERY RIDING IN THE COUNTRY. Party to provide plug 'n play media toolkit including backgrounder and press release. Party to organize all travel arrangements on a cost-shared basis for multiple riding speaker tours of preeminent Canadian Liberals including all former party leaders. Free up members to work in community on relevant issues. Grow interest first and then grow the membership.

6. List one other key change the LPC needs to make.

Open all nominations to fair and transparent competition. No appointments.

For More Information: Website, Facebook, Twitter

Outsiders

2011-12-07T09:00:00.000-05:00

Last week, I lamented that kind of dirty tactics we saw in Mount Royal are turning Canadians off politics (as did Bruce Anderson).

As luck would have it, the good folks at Samara released a report today looking at why politically disengaged Canadians are disengaged. It makes for a good read, on an important topic.

Meet Alexandra Mendès

2011-12-06T09:00:00.002-05:00

Last week, I provided my initial impressions on the field of LPC presidential candidates. Today, I begin posting posting the candidates' responses to a questionnaire I sent out to each of them. Up first- Alexandra Mendès.

Who is Alexandra Mendès?

Mendès won Brossard-LaPrairie after a recount in 2008 - a rare pickup for the Liberals on what was seen to be a disastrous election night (how naive we all were back then...). Predictably, she was swept aside by the orange wave this May.

Mendès is of Portuguese decent, describes herself as "a fierce federalist", and worked for an NGO before entering politics.

1. Why did you join the Liberal Party?

I officially joined the Liberal Party in October 2001 when I became riding assistant to the Hon. Jacques Saada. From the moment I could vote, I’ve always voted Liberal.

However, while working for an NGO heavily subsidised by the Quebec government (from 1987 to 2001), I was not allowed to be a member of any political party, federally or provincially. I did some very discreet volunteering through the years, but I’ve only been able to “come out of the closet” since 2001.

2. In 20 words or less, describe the type of party president you would be.

A team player/worker; consensus-oriented; frugal; technologically daring; accountable to MEMBERS; ready to change and ready to honour the Liberal tradition!

(22 words...)

3. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to make the policy process more meaningful.

Ensure that policy proposals and/or resolutions adopted by Convention are given a true chance of being integrated into electoral platforms. Should they be deemed inappropriate by the National Executive and/or the Leadership, make it mandatory that a full explanation be given to members, BEFORE the platform is announced.

4. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to improve its fundraising.

Collect proper data. Micro-targeting (knowing) our voters would certainly be a very useful and cost-effective manner of ensuring that we ask for support from those more likely to welcome our requests.

5. Name one thing the Liberal Party should do to engage members.

If there is one common thread to the comments I’ve heard from members since I started campaigning, it’s the generalised feeling that no one is paying attention to what they’re saying. One of the first things I’d like to do if I’m elected, is to review the many, many recommendations, reports and proposals our members have submitted to the Party in the past 5 years and prepare a summary of the elements therein that haven’t been addressed and/or otherwise resolved. It would be, for me, a good start to an action plan for the next 2 years.

6. List one other key change the LPC needs to make.

I believe very firmly that before we even begin to think about electoral platforms and leadership races and any other attempt at finding THE magical answer to our woes, we must urgently start the process of renewal by letting bygones be bygones.

No one, least of all Canadians, has benefited from the self-destroying culture of division, infighting and back-stabbing that has drained our energy and stifled our truly admirable spirit for the past ten years. We need the unity of purpose and discipline of discourse that will once again make us a Canadian movement!

For More Information: Website, Facebook, Twitter

Speed Dating with the Dippers

2011-12-05T15:30:00.001-05:00

Sunday's NDP debate was a chance to get a first look at the field of candidates, for the 99.9% of Canadians who don't have the complete collection of Paul Dewar speeches on their Ipod.

With nine debaters on stage, it's impossible to get anything more than a sense of each candidate and what they stand for. This was the case with the Liberal Leadership debates in 2006. The Grits tried to add pizazz by setting up mini 3-person debates, but this led to channel changing moments whenever the moderator announced "we will now listen to Joe Volpe, Carolyn Bennett and Ken Dryden debate the environment". Click. The NDP copied this format, and the results were equally riveting.

In his opening statement, Brian Topp said "we won't win when we talk in platitudes", but followed this up by declaring "we fight for the Canada of our dreams". I don't fault Topp for that, because it's hard to eloquently describe the Canada of our dreams in 30 seconds (I know mine has free maple syrup for all!). It was equally silly to ask debaters to explain their economic platform in 15 seconds. Even New Democrats have more to say about the economy than that.

So it's better not to think of yesterday as a debate. Rather, it was more like speed dating for New Democrats - five minutes for each candidate to introduce themselves.

From the bits of the debate I saw, Thomas Mulcair made a strong impression - while I'm not sure he'll look like as promising a suitor once voters get to know him better, he was good enough yesterday to earn a second date. Niki Ashton and Martin Singh were impressive, but only in the same way Martha Hall Findlay was impressive in 2006. In other words, don't start printing those orange wedding invitations.

Nathan Cullen seemed to be enjoying himself the most on stage, but he's already tied the "merger" rope around his neck and that will overshadow anything he says the rest of the campaign. Sort of like the guy who lets it slip on the first date that he's into Scientology...or at least that he wants to set up a non-compete pact with the Scientologists.

Unfortunately, Romeo Saganash was sick, but a sick first date is rarely the start of a long relationship (with the obviously exception of Cory and Tapanga on Boy Meets World). Robert Chisholm's weak French was likely a deal breaker for a lot of Dippers.

None of the others really stood out, and attempts to paint the Topp-Dewar scruffle as the second coming of "do you think it is easy to make priorities" are laughable. If you already liked or didn't like Brian Topp, Peggy Nash, or Paul Dewar, nothing they said yesterday was going to change your mind. If you didn't know much about them, their steady performance and status as "contenders" would likely be enough to tempt most Dippers to Google them or Facebook stalk them for a bit.

In terms of an introduction, the debate served its purpose, but anyone expecting fireworks was setting themselves up for a letdown. Of course, there weren't going to be winners and losers. Of course, no one was going to start off the first leadership debate by going on the attack. Of course they were all going to agree on most policies, especially the policy of "we don't like Stephen Harper".

Peter Goldring Resigns

2011-12-05T15:19:00.002-05:00

Edmonton East MP Peter Goldring charged with impaired driving: sources

EDMONTON - According to sources within the federal government, Edmonton East MP Peter Goldring has voluntarily resigned from caucus after being charged with impaired driving following a weekend fundraising event.

No word yet on whether or not Rahim Jaffer was in the car.

Demand Better

2011-12-01T13:00:00.000-05:00

Conservatives admit they’re behind false byelection phone calls in Liberal riding

OTTAWA — The Conservatives have confirmed they are behind a rash of phone calls to Liberal MP Irwin Cotler’s Montreal-riding over the past couple of weeks in which constituents allegedly were told of Cotler’s resignation and a pending byelection.

This is completely indefensible, only the Conservatives are doing their best to defend it:

“Every political party in the House identifies its voters in one way or another,” Conservative MP John Williamson said. “This is an important part of the political process.”

Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan added that rumours of Cotler’s pending resignation have been circulating since the Liberal was first elected in 1999. As a result, he said, saying there were rumours of a byelection was a perfectly legitimate thing to tell constituents.

Cotler has asked House Speaker Andrew Scheer to investigate the matter and determine whether his privileges as a member of Parliament have been breached by the calls.

Van Loan said if such a finding is made, it would have widespread ramifications for freedom of speech.

“To say that one cannot speculate on his future,” he said, “that that form of freedom of speech should forever be suppressed, is to me an overreach that is far too great.”

This is, of course, complete hogwash (and if I had Pat Martin's mouth, I'd use harsher language).

This is NOT an important part of the political process. Just because something is rumoured, it doesn't mean you can broadcast it to voters. I've heard my fair share of rumours about some of Mr. Williamson's colleagues, but never in a phone call from a rival party. I'd also add that if Cotler's "imminent" departure has been rumoured for 12 years, that's a pretty good sign it's unfounded.

The "free speech" argument is even more absurd. Would Van Loan be alright with Karl Rove's 2000 primary phone calls which asked South Carolina voters if they would be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if they knew he'd fathered an illegitimate black child? Is that freedom of speech?

There are dozens of articles published every year asking why voter turnout rates are declining and why young people are turned off politics. After hearing stories like this, I think the better question to ask is why anyone actually takes the time to care in the first place.

Preliminary Thoughts on the LPC Presidential Race

2011-12-01T09:00:00.003-05:00

Elections for Liberal Party President have tended to be mundane affairs in recent years. In 2008, Alf Apps was the only candidate - either because the powers-that-be made it known he would win, or because everyone else was too lazy to run. In 2006, the presidency was overshadowed by the excitement of the leadership race. Before that we were in power, so no one really cared who the party president was, perhaps explaining how Stephen LeDrew found himself holding that office.

But this year, there's a veritable buzz in Liberal circles about the contest. Maybe it's because Liberals have bought into the renewal talk. Maybe it's because Borys Wrzesnewskyj seems to be the only person interested in the party's leadership. Maybe it's because there's a diverse and high-profile field of candidates for President.

I had my first opportunity to seriously size up the contenders on Monday, at an Edward Blake Society event, recapped here, here, and here. I'll be posting candidate profiles in the coming weeks, including their answers to a short questionnaire I sent them - today I offer my preliminary run-down of the field.

Full disclosure: I have nothing to disclose, because I'm still genuinely undecided on who to support. I am, however, quite impressed with the entire field. While I've offered a few gentle critiques of each candidate, in each case their strengths far outweigh their weaknesses, which is why I haven't ruled anyone out at this point.

Sheila Copps: Sheila is loud, proud, and can still fire up a crowd. I'd likely prefer a "behind the scenes" president who will build the party and stay out of the limelight, but there is something to be said for a president who will rally the troops and energize the base.

Behind the flash, there's also substance. I share her desire to open the party, and she showed the strongest understanding at Monday's Q & A of what the party needs to do to reach out to new Canadians. All that said, her incessant talk of "letting" Bob Rae run for leader has injected leadership politics into a convention that should have stayed clear of the topic.

Copps is a polarizing figure, but it's a first-past-the-post vote, so you have to consider her the front runner at this point.

Mike Crawley: I generally share Crawley's view on the state of the Liberal "brand" and where the party needs to go; his Star op-ed on this topic was fantastic. The man is energetic, thoughtful, and well spoken.

While Crawley has the vision thing down, I'd be more impressed with a few unsexy nuts and bolts proposals to make the party more efficient than by speeches about what the party stands for.

Ron Hartling: Hartling, meanwhile, is all nuts and bolts. His website contains a detailed platform, full of flowcharts and graphs, and his speech Monday was all about the need for a plan.

His record as Kingston and the Islands riding president is impressive, but his message often sounds like "if all ridings did what we did in Kingston, we'd be in government", which ignores the millions of other factors that go into play during an election. Similarly, blaming Mike Crawley for the Liberals losing Ontario seats is an unfair attack Hartling should have avoided.

Alexandra Mendes: If the voting system favoured a consensus candidate, Mendes would probably win. There's nothing about her campaign that especially stands out, but she has a lot going for her - she's likable, has a good understanding of the challenges facing the party, and has experience as an MP, organizer, and in running non-political organizations.

Charles Ward: Charles is an Alberta Liberal, which gets him a few marks in my books. Beyond that, I know absolutely nothing about him.

The Value of Endorsements

2011-11-30T18:21:00.003-05:00

Leadership races are notoriously hard to handicap, due to the absence of credible polling data. Asking Canadians who they want as the next NDP leader is pointless, since only 3 or 4% of NDP voters will buy a membership. Despite the best efforts of the Globe & Mail, few Canadians have heard of Brian Topp, never mind Nathan Cullen or Paul Dewar.

One way you can stickhandle around this is by counting endorsements, which is what the website 308.com has started tracking. His system assigns points based on endorsements from federal and provincial politicians, and was calibrated on data from the 2006 Liberal and 2003 NDP leadership races. It currently ranks the candidates as follows:

Topp 40.8%
Mulcair 23.2%
Nash 18.2%
Chisolm 5.0%
Dewar 4.0%
Ashton 3.9%
Cullen 3.1%
Saganash 1.7%
Singh 0.0%

It should be noted that nearly half of Topp's points comes from Ed Broadbent's endorsement, which would be by biggest quibble with the scoring system. Still, the model does a decent job of quantifying establishment support.

What it is likely less successful at, however, is predicting actual support. Many of these endorsers won't sell more than a couple dozen membership forms and I suspect their influence over existing Dippers is negligible. Yes, sometimes there's a correlation between endorsements and support...but sometimes that correlation is actually negative.

For proof of that, we need to look no farther than the Alison Redford and Christy Clark victories from earlier this year. Redford had the support of just 2 MLAs (one of which was named Alison Redford) on the first ballot and 5 on the second. Redford would have been projected as an also-ran under any endorsement model - especially one which weighted former leaders so heavily (Ralph Klein was a Mar man while Don Getty was all about Horner).

Clark's case is perhaps even more remarkable because, unlike Redford, she was the undisputed frontrunner of the campaign from start to finish. While she did have some support from former caucus members, she counted only one MLA endorsement and would have projected out in third under any formula (unless it assigned God-like status on Harry Bloy). This, despite the fact that everyone knew she would be in front on the first ballot.

None of this is meant to knock the 308 model which, as I said, does a decent job approximating establishment support. It's just important to recognize that support among the establishment doesn't always translate into support among party members, just as support among the general public doesn't always translate into support among party members.

There are significant risks in being seen as an establishment candidate, so I remain unconvinced that the Topp juggernaut is as unstoppable as these numbers would suggest.

The reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated

2011-11-28T09:05:00.000-05:00

There's a lot of excitement in Liberal land over the latest Nanos poll:

CPC 35.6%
Lib 28.1%
NDP 27.3%
Green 3.9%
BQ 3.9%

As much as I'd love to jump up and down and chant "suck it Peter Newman", the reality is that this poll is essentially meaningless.

We've just been through an exhausting few years politically and voters are thinking about hockey and Christmas and the latest Justin Bieber gossip - federal politics is the last thing on their minds.

On top of that, the Liberals are leaderless, the NDP are leaderless, and we're almost four years away from the next election. The popularity of a Nicole Turmel led NDP is simply not indicative of how popular a Brian Topp or Thomas Mulcair-led NDP is going to be.

So yes, this is great for rallying the troops, and it shows there's at least some life in the Liberal brand - but it's by no means a sign that the Liberals are on the road back to power.

Party of Principle

2011-11-24T09:00:00.001-05:00

While Peter C. Newman has been getting headlines with his diagnosis that the Liberal Party is dead, Andrew Coyne offers his recipe for resurrection here.

While I generally agree with Coyne's article, like Far and Wide, I would quibble that his criticism of the roadmap to renewal is unfair ("do you think it is easy to make a roadmap!?"). After all, opening the party to all Canadians is the first step towards the type of "grassroots, democratic party" Coyne urges the Liberals to become. And regardless of what the Liberal Party becomes, it's going to have to organize, fundraise, and communicate better.

That said, I agree with Coyne's thesis that the Liberals will not vault from third to first by defining themselves as nothing more than a "party of the centre". Instead they need to be seen as a "party of principle", taking bold and risky stances - sometimes zigging right and sometimes zagging left. As the Tories and NDP attempt the squeeze the Grits out of the centre and out of existence, it will become harder and harder to find differentiating positions. It's not simply enough to say "we're not Stephen Harper", because the NDP also happens to be "not Stephen Harper".

If life were like the West Wing, it would be enough for the Liberals to boldly declare themselves as the party of principle and, presto, they'd be back on top by sweeps month. Reality is a bit trickier. Principled positions aren't always popular and bold ideas aren't always practical. It's also not like there's an abundance of bold ideas laying around, though Coyne suggests a way to find them:

The answer will lie as much in the way the party develops policies as in the policies it ultimately adopts. On both scores, it will need to capitalize on its own misfortune—to seize the opportunity that defeat affords. Parties that are in close contention for power tend to have little room for dissent, or for that matter democracy. The Liberals, being nowhere near power, have an opportunity to build a truly grassroots, democratic party, one that holds its leaders closely to account, and to let its own example serve as a model of democratic reform for the country.

Bingo. The currently policy process of the Liberal Party is a joke. Policies are debated at convention every two years, prioritized, and forgotten. The top policies rarely find their way into the platform, and I'd be surprised if they're even read by the leader or the platform committee.

The candidates for LPC President and Policy Chair have all talked about making the policy process ongoing and more engaging, but that won't make a difference unless it becomes meaningful.

One solution to this would be to force the party to adopt prioritized policies in its platform. The Alberta Liberals recently passed a bylaw mandating that 2 of the top 3 policies passed at convention find their way to the platform, while the Canmore Renewal Document suggests 5 of 10. Whatever the number, it would make the policy process at convention worth the price of admission, rather than a prime time to visit the hotel bar.

A system like that would not only engage members, it would force the party to take a serious look at the principled and bold ideas they need to take a serious look at.

Bag 'O Links: Alberta Edition

2011-11-22T11:00:00.001-05:00

1. We've known Rob Anders has been asleep on the job for years...though this may be the first literal instance:

Still, I'm sure most who have heard John Duncan speak will have some sympathy for Anders.

2. Alberta Liberal MLA Bridgit Pastoor is heading back to the Tories, as part of the "future considerations" in this spring's Raj Sherman deal.

3. But who can blame Pastoor for jumping ship when the Tories are at 51%, according to a new Environics poll? With the opposition parties all under 20%, the Tories appear poised for a crushing victory on...umm...

4. ...sometime this spring. Yes, Redford has kind of delivered on her "fixed election date" promise, scheduling elections for sometime between March 1st and May 31st this year. Officially, this flexibility has nothing to do with poll numbers, and everything to do with the ability to adapt to unforeseen events, such as a natural disaster or one of Alberta's hockey teams going on an extended playoff run.

Time for some F'ing Civility

2011-11-17T16:16:00.003-05:00

I bookmarked this news story as soon as I saw it in May because, Pat Martin being Pat Martin, I knew it wouldn't be long before it would be worth resurrecting:

"This is my new policy," Martin said, holding up a handful of party-coloured buttons he had made reading "Opto Civitas."

"I choose civility. That's the new me."

He had 300 buttons made up in all party colours -- including a green one for Green party MP Elizabeth May -- and plans to hand them out when the House resumes sitting next week.

For an update on how Pat Martin's quest for civility is going, I recommend this story.

Asymmetrical Federalism

2011-11-17T14:00:00.001-05:00

The NDP has made a lot of noise arguing Quebec deserves a fixed percentage of seats in the House of Commons. At the same time, they continue to move full speed ahead with a leadership race where Quebecers will be little more than an afterthought.

After some enthusiastic headlines about the party's membership numbers "soaring" and "tripling" in Quebec earlier this week, comes a dose of reality:

The NDP has attracted 11,200 new members since the launch of its leadership race in August, with the addition of 3,900 new card holders in Quebec providing the biggest boost.

Overall, the party has now 95,000 official supporters, up from 83,800 when Jack Layton died three months ago.

Still, Quebec continues to be under-represented in the race to find a new party leader with just 5.9 per cent of the party cards in the one-member, one-vote leadership race.

The 5.9% figure isn't the worrisome number for the NDP - that number is due to the fact that no one (not even some of their MPs) had membership cards in Quebec a few months ago. What's more relevant is that Quebecers made up just 35% of the new members the party has signed up during the leadership race. If the NDP keeps adding 12,000 members a month, with 35% coming from Quebec, Quebecers are going to cast just 15% of the votes in the leadership race.

This from a province home to over half the NDP's caucus. This from a province the NDP has recognized as a "nation" deserving special status in all areas...except leadership races apparently.

Maybe that's fair, but it's certainly not good news for a party hoping to build an organization in Quebec. And it's certainly not good news for Thomas Mulcair, who hopes to ride Quebec to victory.

Opposition for the Sake of Opposition

2011-11-16T15:00:00.005-05:00

The Liberals have come out against an expanded House of Commons, arguing we have enough MPs as it is. I personally feel the problem is one of quality rather than quantity, but most Canadians would likely agree with the Liberal position and it makes a certain amount of sense when you consider Canada's population-to-MP ratio.

However, this smells a lot like a party opposing something for the sake of opposing it. Because the reality is, there's no way the Liberal Party could ever follow through on this pledge if they were in power.

Given the screams of horror that come out of Liberal ranks whenever the NDP even hints at opening up the constitution, it's a safe bet the Liberals aren't about to go down that road anytime soon. Which means each province must have at least as many MPs as it has Senators, and cannot have fewer seats than it had in 1985.

So even if the Liberals wanted to piss off a few smaller provinces to achieve true rep-by-pop, their hands are tied - Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, Newfoundland, and the territories are all at their 1985 seat totals.

If the Liberals want to keep the total at 308 seats, all they can do is shuffle chairs around between Alberta, BC, and Ontario, unless they repeal the laws of mathematics. Come to think of it, that might actually be easier than opening up the constitution.

So while there's some value behind the intent of this position, it's completely unworkable in reality unless the Liberals want to leave Ontario, BC, and Alberta seriously under-represented. Which might be a good thing, given the number of votes a plan like that would cost the Liberals in those provinces.

Primary Debates

2011-11-15T09:00:00.002-05:00

In his Macleans.ca debut, my friend Jeff Jedras takes aim at the proposal Liberals will be voting on in January to move to a US-style primary system to choose the party's next leader and nominate candidates.

While I've already voiced my support for this system, Jeff raises three valid critiques which I want to take the time to rebut - one logistical, one conceptual, and one on the decision-making process.

1) Logistical: "One concern is the potential for shenanigans; supporters of another party signing up as Liberal “supporters” to vote in the primary and negatively influence the process, such as voting for the least-favoured candidate."

Again, I point to the Alberta Liberal example, where such shenanigans were tried (against a much weaker party) and failed spectacularly.

The reason for this is simple enough - most people don't give a big enough damn to try something like this, and those who do are too high profile to risk getting caught. Finding 50,000 rabble rousers willing to sign up and make Tony Genco the next Liberal leader simply can't be done under the radar, and whoever tried to organize a campaign like this would seriously hurt their credibility.

Seventeen US states let Democrats vote in Republican primaries and vice versa. Their rationale is that a candidate who earns primary votes from across the aisle, will also earn general election votes from across the aisle. If Karl Rove can't find a way to get Denis Kucinich the Democratic nomination, then I don't think we have much to fear here.

I know some are concerned about special interest groups taking over a nomination meeting, but a $10 membership fee isn't going to stop them - if anything, a supporter system makes a takeover harder since it takes more votes to win. If an anti-abortion group goes from needing 100 votes to 120 votes to win a nomination meeting, it makes it that much more difficult for them to get their candidate of choice nominated (remembering of course that all candidates still need to be green lit by the party).

2) Conceptual: "One of the key incentives for joining a political party is the opportunity to vote in leadership and nomination races. This proposal devalues membership. Already, during each successive election, it has become harder to get Liberals to volunteer to knock on doors, stuff envelopes, and get out the vote. We need committed members, and more of them, to successfully rebuild this party."

Here's the thing. By itself, party membership means nothing. The point of signing someone up to be a member is to get their contact information so that you can get them to knock on doors, stuff envelopes, and get out the vote. I agree we need more of these people, but the way you get them is by making it easier to join the Liberal fold. Consider the supporter system a gateway drug to lure liberal-minded Canadians into the big red tent (and yes, I totally intend to put that line, creepy as it is, on a button at the Ottawa convention). Once they've registered, they can be invited to become full fledged members, volunteer, and donate money.

Yes, we need to make membership meaningful to retain and engage members. But if we want to grow the membership, we need to tear down the barriers to becoming involved, and a primary system would do just that. You don't think a few of the millions who signed up to vote for Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries also gave their money and time to get him elected in the ensuing general election?

I know many are uneasy about "instant Liberals", but if this change means thousands of new Canadians pouring into our ranks, then that's fantastic. There are instant Liberals I signed up for leadership votes who are now more involved in the party than I am.

3) The Process: "The party executive wants to amend the constitution so the new leadership selection process can be adopted at the biennial convention in Ottawa January 13-15, 2012, barely two months from now. Meetings to elect delegates to that convention are happening now, and many are being cancelled and the delegates acclaimed due to a lack of people willing to fill all the available spots. It’s not as if this concept has been debated in Liberal circles for months. We’re just getting this now. We’re talking about fundamentally changing the most important thing we do—selecting a leader—and we’re rushing into it."

I know the Liberal response to every problem is to call a Royal Commission, but this gives delegates to the January convention two months to debate the idea - plenty of time to make up their minds. Liberals have talked about "renewal" for years without anything happening - it's time to get off the pot or shift the way we do politics.

The reality is we need to lay down the ground rules for the next leadership race before we find ourselves in the next leadership race. We're now a third party, and a series of rolling primaries would add much needed excitement to the contest, helping us introduce the next leader to Canadians.

I don't think the end result would be any different under one-member-one-vote or the registered supporter system. But, like Jeff says, process matters, and this new way of electing leaders would send a message to Canadians that the Liberal Party is willing to change and open itself up to Canadians.

UPDATE: Jeff responds to my responds here, to which I respond here and he responds here. At this point, I call him and argue Hitler was against a primary system, to which he calls me a redneck and hangs up. Let's agree to disagree and call it a draw.

Copps' Laws

2011-11-14T22:00:00.003-05:00

I haven't picked a horse in the race for LPC President, but Sheila Copps is certainly the candidate I'm most familiar with - I was, after all, one of a very very small number of Copps delegates at the 2003 Liberal Leadership Convention.

And while I like a lot of what I've heard from Sheila so far, I completely disagree on this point (and I'm not alone):

As for Mr. Rae, Ms. Copps says the executive should not be able to restrict who runs and who does not. That’s up to voters.

She noted that when Mr. Rae took over the leadership, he agreed to rules set by the party’s “current” executive that the Interim Leader would not seek the top job permanently.

But a new executive could change that rule. And Ms. Copps will if she is elected president.

The thing is - there's no rule against Bob Rae running for leader. Rae promised he wouldn't run when he accepted the job, and whether or not the executive repeals a non-existent rule isn't going to change that.

It's like a candidate who spends an entire election saying "no coalitions" then forms a coalition. There's no law against it, but it's certainly a breach of trust, and there would be political fallout.

But this isn't a post about Bob Rae. Rae has consistently said he won't run, and until we start hearing "anonymous Liberals" urging him to, he should be taken at his word.

Rather, the issue here is Copps who is, intentionally or not, turning the national executive elections into a proxy leadership war. The point of delaying the leadership race for 63 years (or whatever it was) was to give the party time to rebuild before turning its attention to leadership. As naive as this was, that was the deal, and everything should be done to make sure the national executive elections are about rebuilding the party, not the next leadership race.

I'm not sure what Sheila hopes to accomplish by continually promoting Rae's candidacy, but she's not helping her own by doing this.

A Roadmap to Renewal

2011-11-11T13:00:00.002-05:00

The Liberal Roadmap to Renewal has been released and can be read here. There are several longer drafts floating around I've put on my weekend reading list, but at 80-100 pages, I may just wait for the movie version.

While the process feels a little too top-down for my liking, we've been talking about renewal for years so I'm glad something is being done and that members have concrete proposals before them to debate and vote on at January's Biennial convention.

As for the proposals themselves, some are unnecessary, some are flowery, and some skate around the real issues. Why we need to affirm the policy process is beyond me - I'd much rather see it reformed and made meaningful.

At the same time, there is some real meat in this document. The most visible and flashiest change would be moving leadership and nomination races to the primary-style system I blogged about earlier this week. This, coupled with the end of protected nominations for incumbents and the end of leader's ability to appoint candidates would be a significant leap towards creating a more open and grassroots party.

I won't go into detail on some of the bookkeeping changes being discussed, because if I do you'll never visit this blog again. It's not exciting stuff, but I will say that the move towards streamlining and centralizing accounting, fundraising, and operations will save money. And raise money too, come to think of it.

Fundraising to defend the new leader and buy more technology doesn't require constitutional amendments, but those are worthy initiatives I'd be willing to open my chequebook for. The party needs to adopt a culture of data collection, so good on them for moving into the 21st Century.

The document is rather quiet on what must be done to engage existing members, but those kind of initiatives don't require constitutional change - just a willingness by people in positions of power to make things happen.

Luxury Tax

2011-11-10T22:53:00.004-05:00

The Conservatives admit to overspending by $420,000 and are found guilty of breaking election laws.

The punishment?

A $50,000 fine...or about the amount they'll raise from their next anti-CBC e-mail.

Which is kind of appropriate, since they never got more than a political slap on the wrist for the "in and out scandal". The blame for that may rest on the opposition parties for bad branding - had it been dubbed the "Conservative money laundering scandal", they might have got some legs out of it.

The end of whatshisnames campaign

2011-11-10T11:18:00.001-05:00

Not since the Dean Scream has a Presidential campaign imploded in a matter of seconds.

This clip may go down as one of the worst debate performances in US history:

An Open Party

2011-11-09T18:00:00.001-05:00

The Liberal White Paper on party reform has been leaking out over the past few days, and will reportedly be released in full tonight. I'm sure there will be a lot of worthwhile ideas within it, but the one likely to grab the most headlines is the proposal of moving to a primary-style system where any Canadian could register to vote for the next Liberal leader (and perhaps in local nomination meetings too). Without a doubt, this will be a hotly contested vote at this January's convention.

Before the rhetoric starts flying, both sides of this debate need to recognize this isn't going to lead to millions of Canadians stampeding out to vote in Liberal Party primaries. A $10 membership fee and the stigma of political party membership is a deterrent for some, but if you give a damn about who the next Liberal leader is, those are pretty small barriers to jump over. So when supporters argue it's going to double the party base and opponents argue it's going to lead to a takeover, they're both being melodramatic.

With that caveat given, I come down strongly in support of the concept, for the following reasons:

1. It will get more people involved in the party. Not as full fledged members, but consider this a gateway drug. First you hook them with the primary system, then you lure them into the seedy world of political rallies, membership forms, volunteering, and donating money.

2. The party will get valuable information from these supporters. In the new age of micro-targeting and fundraising, having additional data on Liberal-inclined voters is worth a lot more than a $10 membership fee.

3. Symbolically, it's the right play to make. It would send the message that the party is changing and that it's open. Voters have grown increasingly cynical of backroom old-style politics, and this would counter that.

4. It would create excitement and draw media attention to the Liberal leadership race. In the past, this would have been a given, but life as a third party is different. The next leader is likely to be an unknown to voters, so getting media attention during the race makes introducing him or her to voters afterwards a lot easier.

The argument opponents of the primary system usually raise is that it opens the party to a takeover. Poppycock. The Alberta Liberals switched to an open supporter system for their recent leadership contest and, sure enough, Craig Chandler's PGIB group threw their weight behind a far right candidate (who has since jumped to the Wildrose Alliance). The result? Their man finished fourth with 626 votes. If a weak Alberta Liberal Party can shrug off a right wing takeover in the heart of Conservative country, surely the federal grits have nothing to fear.

Even at the riding level, if a special interest group wants to stack a nomination meeting, they'll find the 10$ a head to do it now. A supporter system actually makes takeovers harder, since it means more votes are needed to win. Instead of signing up 100 anti-abortion activists to win a nomination meeting, you might need 120 or 150.

No, the only downside I see is on the financial ledger. Any leadership format outside of royal succession is going to lead to instant members, so there's an argument you might as well get some money out of it. This move will likely wind up costing the party over half a million dollars.

That's not an insignificant sum of money to write off. In the end, I think much of it will be made back by eventually getting donations from some of the new members and by making membership meaningful enough that supporters will want to join.

The payoff of opening the party up to all Canadians exceeds this cost. It would be a bold move, at a time when the Liberal Party is hungry for boldness.

NDP Hits a Wall in Saskatchewan

2011-11-08T09:59:00.002-05:00

The year of the incumbent continues in Canada, with Brad Wall taking 49 of 58 seats and 64% of the vote.

Since when did the Tories worry about contempt of parliament?

2011-11-08T09:57:00.001-05:00

CBC in contempt of Parliament if it doesn't produce documents Access Committee requests: Del Mastro

The Race for Stornoway

2011-11-03T09:51:00.008-04:00

The NDP leadership race appears to have solidified, with nine candidates vying for the keys to Stornoway.

While I doubt any of the contenders are causing Stephen Harper sleepless nights, it's a diverse field which is good news for the Dippers. Every true-orange New Democrat will be able to find a candidate to their liking, and a lot of membership forms will get sold. Nearly every imaginable demographic is represented...all that's missing is Pat Martin to provide comic relief.

It's too early to seriously handicap the field, but a nine candidate field and a 5-month race means it would be incredibly premature to declare this a Topp-Mulcair showdown. Someone will emerge from the pack to challenge the frontrunners, and it's likely to come down to second and third choices.

Pundits Guide appears to be the place to be for NDP leadership news, while Far and Wide puts the candidates under a Liberal lens.

Here, I present a brief overview of the field:

Topp of the Pack

Brian Topp: The media crowned him as the race's frontrunner within hours of Jack Layton's death, though that may have simply been a case of journalists unable to resist a good pun. Topp has the most establishment support, but as Alison Redford and Christy Clark recently showed, that may not necessarily be an asset.

Topp has released a "tax the rich" proposal which should be popular with NDP members, but it's not without risks. I can guarantee eight other leadership camps will be whispering about the Tory advertising onslaught this would bring about, in an effort to brand Topp as unelectable.

The Challenger

Thomas Mulcair: The longtime NDP Dauphin has had a rocky start to the campaign, spending more time complaining about the rules than giving Dippers a reason to vote for him. Still, Mulcair is experienced and is the party's best bet at holding Quebec (at least according to Thomas Mulcair).

Unlike Topp, Mulcair's pitch has been directed more at the general public than the NDP faithful, promising to ween the NDP off their union dependence. He's clearly trying to portray himself as the candidate most likely to lead the NDP to the promised land. That's not a bad pitch - even though federal NDP members might be less concerned with power than most, it's a message that should resonate with provincial Dippers in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia who have tasted power. Hell, who am I kidding - everyone wants to be in power.

Dark Horses

Paul Dewar: Dewar would probably be my choice at this point if I had a bit more orange in my veins but I'm always a sucker for an underdog. He's a good communicator, though some questions remain about his french.

His urban strategy is smart politics, since that's where the votes are in a one-member-one-vote leadership race.

Peggy Nash: She's relatively well know and relatively well liked, and I imagine she has a good network of NDP, union, and activist contacts to solicit for support. I can't imagine anyone is overly excited by her, but she's the highest profile woman in the race and might have some appeal as a consensus candidate.

Nathan Cullen: His proposal to work with the Liberals in some ridings will help him stand out, but it might make him too polarizing a figure to get the second a third ballot support he'd need to win. He has a strong social media presence so far, and all indications are he'll get his fair share of media coverage.

Cullen also has geography working in his favour. He's the lone BC candidate, and one-third of all current NDP members are from that province.

Long Shots

Robert Chisolm: On paper, Chisolm is a strong candidate - he's a former union leader and former leader of the Nova Scotia NDP. He has the ability to clean up in Nova Scotia, but lack of name recognition will be an obstacle elsewhere. He's going to need to find an issue to call his own, to distinguish himself from the crowded field.

Romeo Saganash: Saganash was the first candidate out of the gate, and is intriguing enough to warrant a close look - he's from Quebec, is fluent in English and French, and has been actively involved with the Cree Regional Authority. I'll confess to knowing little about him, but if his political skills are polished, he's likely to get media attention and could be this season's break-out star.

Martin Singh: Singh is likely the least known candidate in the contest and doesn't have the House of Commons platform to raise his profile. I can't see him winning, but his pro-business stance could help him stand out.

Singh is from Nova Scotia, but launched his campaign in Brampton - his support in the Sikh community could make him a formidable threat in a one-member one-vote contest, and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see him in the top 5 or 6 on the first ballot. Growing from there will be more challenging.

Niki Ashton: Ashton is expected to declare shortly, and it's no secret this will be more about raising her profile than about winning. At 29, her support will come predominantly from youth and from her home province of Manitoba. If she does well, she could position herself for a future run in 10 or 20 years.

This Race Is Unfair, Vote For Mulcair!

2011-11-02T09:05:00.000-04:00

Some leadership campaigns like to make a policy announcement every week.

For Thomas Mulcair, it appears he had adopted a "complaint-a-week" strategy. The latest:

NDP's Mulcair blames 'whisper campaign' for tough slogging in leadership effort
Candidate says the fact he's from Quebec is being used against him by some party members

Outremont MP Tom Mulcair blames "a whisper campaign" and clever spinning by competitors for a perception he's trailing Brian Topp in the NDP leadership contest.

During a recent trip to Vancouver, the 57-year old lawyer and father of two told me: "The people who spin for Mr. Topp use the word 'front-runner,' as they have done from Day 1.

"But there have been a fair number of polls so far and every one has put me ahead, so I'm happy with that."

Mulcair also cited "a whisper campaign by anonymous sources" about his having a bad temper and not being a team player. "My best calling card to answer that," he said, "is there were 33 people standing on stage with me the day I announced my candidacy" on Oct. 13.

Happy Halloween

2011-10-31T17:00:00.002-04:00

If anyone is still looking for last minute Halloween costumes, here are a few politically-themed ideas:

At the Party...

Senate Page: Black dress, white gloves, and long braided pony tail. Be sure to hold up home made "Stop Harper" stopsign at the most inoportune moments - when people are making out, going to the bathroom, etc...

Gilles Duceppe: This may be your last chance to wear the costume (or not), so pull out the hairnet for nostalgia's sake. Start the night with 47 paper seats glued to your shirt, and gradually shed them until there are only 4 left.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Long blond wig, and a Vegas t-shirt. The good thing about this one is you might win the Best Costume prize, even if you skip most of the party.

Going Door-to-Door...

Rob Ford & Marg Delahunty: This year's top couples costume. The woman ears a Xena-ish dress and barges into homes asking for candy, even if their lights are off. The man wears a suit and whenever parents ask "and who are you?", he fucking tells them.

Thomas Mulcair: Wear a suit, with a fake beard. Complain about how unfair it is to be trick-or-treating in a low-candy neighbourhood and make it clear to your neighbours you will only knock on their door if they meet your candy demands.

Bob Rae: Flash your super elite card on the doorstep to get extra candy.

Rocco Rossi: Shave head and spend the evening telling loud bombastic stories about yourself. When trick-or-treating, do the first pass of your block wearing a red shirt then do a second pass wearing a blue shirt. Act surprised, if people refuse to give you candy the second time around.

Backs against the Wall

2011-10-28T11:00:00.001-04:00

I don't intend to write much about the Saskatchewan provincial election because, truth be told, there's not much to write. When the incumbent is literally more popular than God, you can usually call the campaign before it begins.

So all that's left to determine is just how bad it gets for the opposition.

Don't expect the orange wave to hit land locked Saskatchewan on November 7th. The NDP are attempting to avoid a historic defeat - just once since the days of Tommy Douglas have they fallen below 20 seats, yet they could be down to a dozen ridings once the dust clears. I'll leave the "what went wrong" posts to those who actually follow Saskatchewan politics, but I have a tough time imagining a scenario where someone named "Dwain Lingenfelter" could beat someone named "Brad Wall". Just say those two names out loud and tell me who sounds like the stronger leader.

For the Liberals, the situation is even more dire. They're only running 9 candidates this election, and have gone all in on the Elizabeth May tactic of trying to get the leader elected - in this instance, Ryan Bater in the Battlefords. If they're shut-out for the third straight election, there's a very real chance the party could drift away into nothingness, prompting another round of "is the Liberal Party dying" columns.

The video below gives some background on Bater. Click here to donate and help get it on the air.

Redistribution Update

2011-10-27T20:00:00.001-04:00

Just what we need - 30 more MPs!

Ontario will get 15 new seats, British Columbia and Alberta six each and Quebec three in the latest and probably final attempt by the Harper government to rejig the House of Commons in favour of the fast-growing provinces.

I took a look at the impact of this last week, by seeing who holds the ridings most likely to split. Updating for the new seat totals announced today gives the following breakdown of the "new" ridings:

CPC 19.8
NDP 7.2
Lib 2.7
Green 0.2
BQ 0.1

Obviously enough, a lot will depend on where the new boundaries are drawn and what the political landscape looks like in four years. What's currently a CPC seat might not be a CPC seat next campaign.

But the bottom line is this - the creation of these new ridings gives Harper a 10-seat cushion over the opposition heading into the next campaign, making the job of dethroning him that much harder.

This Week in Alberta - Redford's Honeymoon

2011-10-26T18:30:00.000-04:00

Since becoming Premier, Allison Redford has faced a barrage of attacks, the latest over a "backroom deal" between her Finance Minister and a pair of energy companies:

EDMONTON - Two energy companies learned of potentially lucrative changes to a $350-million incentive program before cabinet ministers approved it, documents obtained by the Alberta Liberals show.

Internal emails reveal that days before cabinet approved the program, aides to then-energy minister Ron Liepert were working with a Williams Energy lobbyist who was already preparing to announce the company's plan to take advantage of the incentives.

The records also show a former vice-president and lobbyist for Nova Chemicals helped redesign the program, aimed at boosting ethane production, which ultimately benefited his one-time employer.

There's certainly something unseemly in the whole ordeal, but this shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with how the PCs operate. It's unlikely to bring down Liepert and certainly won't bring down Reford, who is still very much in the honeymoon phase. Consider the latest vote intent numbers from Angus Reid:

PC 44%
WRP 22%
Lib 16%
NDP 13%

When asked who would make the Best Premier, more Albertans name Redord (32%) than Smith (15%), Sherman (8%), and Mason (6%) combined.

While it's usually easy to cherry pick a few nuggets from a poll of this size for the purpose of spin (look at that Liberal momentum in Atlantic Canada!), there's little good news for any of the opposition parties.

The days of the Wildrose polling neck-and-neck with the PCs have passed, and the election of a Liberal-in-PC-clothing has done little to boost their support. Redford is more trusted than Smith on all issues tested, including the economy, job creation, and debt management. Danielle Smith could do no wrong a year ago, but she's now about as popular as Raj Sherman. My how the mighty have fallen.

The Liberals have had a difficult time holding onto their 2008 voters (all twelve of them) and would lose seats with these numbers. The only bit of good news for them is that Sherman is as trusted as Redford on Health Care, the province's top issue.

Although 13% is hardly an orange wave, these aren't bad numbers for the NDP, and they find themselves tied with the Liberals in Edmonton. Encouraging, but it's not any more impressive than the Layton-bump the NDP has enjoyed in other provinces this fall.

The Alberta Party and Glenn Taylor were given as prompted choices on this survey, which is a score for them. After all, the Greens usualy poll about 3 or 4 points higher on when they're listed as a voting choice than when survey respondents are forced to name them without prompting. But at 2% support, the Alberta Party has a long way to go until they can even match the Green Party's ability to rally the "none of the above" crowd on polls, never mind the ballot box.

Majority-ish

2011-10-25T18:00:00.002-04:00

Frank Klees, the runner up to Tim Hudak in the 2009 Ontario PC leadership race, has announced he will be running for speaker when the Ontario legislature resumes sitting.

If you're wondering why we should care, the answer is "math" - with Klees as speaker, the legislature would be split between 53 Liberals and 53 opposition MPPs. By convention, the speaker sides with the government on confidence motions, leading many to call this a "working majority".

The thing is, just as it was premature to panic over the Liberals being one MPP short on election night, it's foolish to call this a working majority. To start with, the speaker votes for the status quo, which means he'd have to oppose Liberal initiatives which aren't confidence matters.

More importantly, there's a certain fluidity in these numbers. MPPs miss votes, they resign, by elections are held. It's happened in every session since the beginning of parliamentary time, and it boggles my mind that no one expects it to happen again.

At some point, someone is going to get sick or call it quits, and that will tilt the scales in one direction or the other. It's great to have a "working majority", but this by no means guarantees us four years of smooth sailing.

UPDATE: Then again, a Liberal might still wind up in the speaker's chair. Which will make life for Mr. Klees in the PC caucus rather uncomfortable.

Revirement

2011-10-24T09:00:00.001-04:00

While the latest round of elections suggest Canadians are craving stability, the situation is starkly different in Quebec. Consider the latest poll from Leger:

Legault 36%
Lib 22%
PQ 18%
ADQ 9%
QS 7%
Green 5%
Other 3%

"Legault" refers to "a new party led by Francois Legault", the former PQ Cabinet Minister who heads the Coalition pour l'avenir du Quebec, a group hoping to move beyond the sovereignty debate with a bold "pro-future" agenda. The coalition won't declare their electoral intentions until November 14th, yet they sit in first place, with nearly as much support as the Liberals and PQ combined.

It seems far flung to image a party being able to form, organize itself, and take power in a year or two but after seeing the orange wave sweep across Quebec in a matter of weeks this spring, it would be rash to count out Legault. Quebecers are clearly not satisfied with their options, and haven't hesitated to mark "none of the above" in the past.

Redistribution Winners and Losers

2011-10-21T09:00:00.001-04:00

Even though it was the right decision, the Harper government likely didn't do itself any electoral favours by shutting Quebec out of the new ship building contract and the 15,000 jobs that go with it. However, they did announce two new jobs they will be creating in Quebec:

Ontario and B.C. will get fewer new seats than the Harper government originally promised, according to the Conservatives’ latest plan to redraw regional representation in the House of Commons. The move, meant to address growing populations in B.C., Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, adds seats in all of those provinces. Compared to an earlier plan, though, B.C will receive five rather than seven new seats, while Ontario will get 13, down from the 18 it was originally promised. The Tory stronghold of Alberta will receive six new seats, and two more will go to Quebec, which had argued its representation was disproportionately low compared to English Canada in the Conservative’s original redesign.

While everyone will try to predict what this means electorally, a lot will depend on what the new ridings look like. Even in a place like Saskatchewan (who will stay at 14 seats) the new boundaries could be a game changer. Redrawing the nonsensical rurban ridings that go from downtown Regina and Saskatoon to 100 miles outside city borders could cost the Tories seats...or it could mean the end of Ralph Goodale's reign as the king of Wascana. We won't know the new boundaries for another two years, so anything before then is just speculation.

But speculation is fun, and it's better done using numbers than the guesswork we've seen in many newspapers this week. So I've taken a crack at analyzing the electoral implications of the new ridings in what is sure to be one of the most exciting edge-of-your-seat posts in the history of Calgary Grit.

Identifying New Seats

To figure out where the new seats will go, I took the average riding population post-redistribution and carved anything above this number off into new ridings. For example, once Alberta grows from 27 to 33 seats, the average riding population will be 87,000. Ridings smaller than this are assumed to stay the same, while 30,000 "excess" voters from Calgary Centre get sent to a new ridings...when tallying the numbers, this means Calgary Centre gets counted as about a third of a "new" riding.

In short, we know big chunks of big ridings will be carved up to make new ridings. This analysis identifies just how big those chunks are.

What It Means

Using this method, the popular vote for the 26 new ridings breaks down as follows:

CPC 46.9%
NDP 26.8%
Lib 20.0%
Green 4.6%
BQ 1.7%

That spells good news for the Tories and bad news for the NDP, but that's mostly a reflection of Alberta getting three times as many new seats as Quebec. Within each province, the support level for each party in the "new" ridings is quite similar to their province-wide numbers.

It's risky to project seats since a lot will change in 4 years, but based on 2011 election numbers, the new seats break down as follows:

CPC 17.8
NDP 5.7
Lib 2.3
BQ 0.1

Things will change, but this plan adds a de facto 10 seat cushion to the Tory majority. That's a big deal.

This will make the job of the Liberals and NDP harder in 2015, but they have no one to blame but themselves. The Liberals especially, have written off Western Canada for over 30 years, even though the electoral math makes that strategy riskier and riskier as time goes by. Going 0 for 19 in Alberta in 1972 is one thing...going 0 for 33 in 2015 makes it that much harder to form government.

One Final Note

Even though the addition of these new seats will benefit the Tories, these gains may be offset by other intangibles. Redistribution hurts incumbents, since new borders will force some MPs to campaign in neighbourhoods where they are unknown to voters. Given the Tories have the most incumbents, this works against them.

Redistribution also risks opening up is a Copps-Valeri situation, where MPs are forced up against each other. There aren't many benefits to only having 34 MPs, but this is a problem the Liberals won't have to worry about this go around.

Liberal Renewal

2011-10-20T09:00:00.001-04:00

There was a lot of ink spilled about Liberal rebuilding in the wake of the May 2nd shellacking - both among pundits and party members. Although much of that talk has cooled, with January's biennial convention approaching, it's likely time to renew the renewal discussion.

What I like about the renewal discussion so far is that it has happened organically, from all corners of the party. There has been talk about the road ahead at riding association meetings, in Facebook groups, and on blogs. One of these ad hoc renewal groups I've been involved with started up in May with a flurry of "reply all" e-mails among 20 or 30 passionate Liberals. After sharing our rants and ideas, we decided to hold a face-to-face meeting in the heart of Liberal Country - Canmore, Alberta.

So on the August long weekend, an eclectic group of Liberals met to talk about the future of our party - we had grey haired PMO staffers (from a time when there was a Liberal PMO), organizers from the west coast, party officials from Quebec, and new Liberals from out east. Many of us had never met in person before, so it was a great opportunity to throw a mix of perspectives and personalities into the blender.

We gave presentations and shared ideas. There wasn't always consensus - we remained divided on the merits of a primary system during both sober and not-so-sober debates. In the end, we were able to agree on a list of over 30 concrete proposals.

I've included a few of the recommendations below as a sample - if you're interested in reading the executive summary and all proposals, just drop me an e-mail:

Party & Caucus
• Create a mentorship program to develop leadership skills within the Party
• Develop an on-line national schedule of yearly events, anniversaries, etc and populate with events of national, provincial and local significance in collaboration with PTAs and EDAs
• MPs and Senators increase communication across the country as part of a comprehensive and consistent plan that can be aligned with micro-targeting data, Liberal List and critic responsibilities

Organization
• Establish quality templates for every aspect of campaigning - from fundraising scripts to campaign plans
• Outline rights/responsibilities of candidates and party officials - develop a training program to communicate them
• Green light candidates once they decide to stand as a candidate
• Consider holding all nominations in Q3 2014 with set membership submission deadlines

Policy
• Half the LPC priority resolutions passed at national Convention must be in the National Platform
• Include a section on each province/territory in campaign platform to put national themes in regional context
• Engage third-party stakeholders in the policy process and undertake appropriate follow-up
• Caucus critics should organize network events with stakeholders on selected policy issues across the country as part of their critic responsibilities

Administration & Fundraising
• Develop a culture of data collection at every level utilizing as many sources as possible
• Implement a comprehensive training regime for data managers and campaign managers
• Develop a fundraising vehicle to recognize contributions of $2200 (National/EDA) and consider raising Laurier Club contribution amount to $1500 within a combined contribution
• Leader and Caucus members should call Laurier Club and Victory Fund members
• Do not restrict party field workers to major urban centres

Tous Ensemble

2011-10-19T09:36:00.004-04:00

Nathan Cullen shakes up the Mulcair-Topp cage match with an interesting idea:

His plan would be to let grassroots members of the three parties [Liberals, NDP, Greens] decide in each riding currently held by the Conservatives whether they wanted to hold a joint nomination meeting. If they agree, all parties could run candidates at that meeting and all card-carrying members of the three parties would get a vote, but only the winner would go on to run for a seat in Parliament under the banner with which they ran in the nomination.

Something like this is a lot more realistic than a full blown merger. It at least deserves consideration, since the death of the per-vote subsidy removes some of the incentive for parties to run kamikaze candidates.

Still, I question how many ridings would actually agree to a proposal like this. From a pure game theory perspective, there's no incentive for the Greens to participate since they'd never win a joint nomination. Similarly, I can't see Liberal and NDP members agreeing to an open nomination unless they were both convinced their candidate could win it - that likely limits this to a dozen ridings coast-to-coast. Even if things made it that far down the track, the logistical nightmare of a joint nomination meeting might be too much to overcome.

Cullen himself admits the Liberals and Greens are unlikely to go along with his plan, and he's probably right. But good on him for putting the idea out there for debate. I'm a staunch anti-merger Liberal, but even I concede it's worth at least considering.

In leadership news...

2011-10-15T11:00:00.004-04:00

...Justin Trudeau won't run, but Thomas Mulcair will.

So this sets us up for a Mulcair-Topp battle for Stornoway. All early indications are that Topp and Mulcair will play nice with each other, while their supporters mercilessly smear each other in the press.

After watching Liberals do this very thing for years, I'd caution against this war-by-proxy. You'd be amazed how many people pick a candidate to support just because someone else's supporters come across as complete assholes. By sending their supporters out to do the dirty work, Mulcair and Topp are opening the door for someone like with Paul Dewar or Nathan Cullen to come "up the middle" and win.

I know it sounds unlikely now given all the media attention on Topp and Mulcair, but this is a long race, and things like this have been known to happen before.

Leadership Vote Totals

2011-10-14T19:00:00.000-04:00

Three of Alberta's political parties have now held leadership races this year, with the Wildrose Alliance having picked their leader two years ago.

Below are the number of Albertans who voted in each contest:

Progressive Conservatives: 59,359 on ballot one, 78,176 on ballot two
Alberta Liberals: 8,640
Wildrose Alliance: 8,200
Alberta Party: 1,200

Yes, the PC total is down from their 2006 leadership contest. The dynasty has seen better years.

But for those writing their obituaries, it's important to remember just how large an organizational advantage they hold over their opponents.

Rule Britannia

2011-10-14T14:00:00.000-04:00

Stephen Harper speaks out in favour of "modernizing" the rules for succession when it comes to selecting Britain's, and Canada's, head of state.

...just so long as this modernization doesn't including allowing Canada's head of state to be Catholic, Canadian, or born outside a certain gene pool.

Reg Alcock 1948-2011

2011-10-14T13:00:00.000-04:00

Sad and unexpected news, as former MP Reg Alcock died this morning at the age of 63.

I'm sure most will remember his time in Cabinet, but what will stick in my mind was a mild controversy I helped stir up at the 2005 Liberal Policy Convention. I was president of the University of Calgary's Liberal Club at the time, and having not yet grown jaded about the LPC's policy process, our club had put forward a resolution to legalize marijuana. We'd pulled off a small miracle by getting it prioritized at the Alberta convention, a feat that required hung over youth showing up bright and early Sunday morning to vote.

So this sent the policy to Ottawa, where we'd created a bit of buzz with pamphlets and t-shirts. Reporters began asking MPs about the policy, and Reg was blunt saying he supported legalization, since it was the only way to break the back of organized crime.

Maybe he should have stuck to the government line, but I respected his willingness to speak his mind, even if it meant having to field an angry call from the PMO. We invited him out to an event at our club shortly afterwards, and he was equally blunt there, speaking honestly on a range of issues. I know everyone came away impressed.

It's hard not to like a Western Liberal who speaks his mind. He will be missed.

The Fall and Rise of Dalton McGuinty

2011-10-07T14:30:00.001-04:00

If I told you a few months ago there would be a picture of Dalton McGuinty waving on newspaper front pages October 7th, you'd have assumed it would be on the Sun, directly below a "GOODBYE! GOOD RIDDANCE!" headline .

After all, when the unofficial campaign kicked off this spring, McGuinty was 10 or 15 points down. You couldn't turn on the TV without seeing a PC "Taxman" commercial. Over a dozen MPPs saw the way the wind was blowing and decided against running for re-election. Opportunists viewed a Tory nomination as the easiest way to power.

Yet Dalton McGuinty earned a rare third term last night. How the hell did this happen?

The first, and perhaps most important, decision of his campaign team was to highlight the Liberal record. Rather than going neg in response to the taxman ads, the Liberals ran a series of crisp and clean commercials featuring nothing but Dalton McGuinty talking about his record. The ad started with McGuinty sheepishly admitting he wasn't the most popular guy in Canada, before making the case for re-election. The supporting arguments were easy to understand and were backed up with facts and figures.

The Liberals carried this largely positive tone into the fall. Important, considering the grumpy nature of the electorate and the dynamics of a three-party race - simply hitting Hudak over the head day in and out would have left Andrea Horwath free to pick up the pieces. By selling McGuinty, the Liberals were better able to capitalize on Hudak's missteps.

And misstep he did. I'm not talking about the "foreign workers" slip, the homophobic pamphlet, or Cheryl Miller's unfortunate case of honesty. Hudak's biggest mistake was his campaign message, which could be summed up in four words - "taxes bad, McGuinty bad". Yes, no one likes taxes. Yes, many agree McGuinty is the taxman. But Hudak wasn't promising to remove the HST and McGuinty wasn't promising to increase it. Sure, Hudak's platform contained a few tax cuts in it, but he didn't talk much about them and never really explained how he'd balance the books. Hudak's campaign was curiously silent on all other issues - except for the all-important issue of BBQ abilities.

The Liberal campaign was equally focused and on message, but was cooking with more ingredients. They played to the Liberal strengths of Health Care and education, while promising new jobs. Their platform was more modest than their opponents', so when the markets began to teeter, they were able to quickly pivot to the same "experienced leadership in uncertain times" pitch Stephen Harper rode to victory this spring. Let's all say it together now - we need a strong, stable, ~~Conservative~~ Liberal government!

Now, I don't want to oversell this - after all, the Liberal vote fell 5 percentage points, and they lost 17 seats. They barely got more votes than the Conservatives. It was a humbling result.

But McGuinty still won. He won by talking about issues that mattered to voters, and made a convincing case for why he deserved re-election. Tim Hudak talked a lot about about McGuinty's shortcomings and talked a lot about "change" - but never articulated what it was he would change.

So while the end result may be a bit of a surprise, it shouldn't be. The Liberals made a better case for why they should be in power than the PCs, and won. It's as simple as that.

Majority-ish

2011-10-06T23:43:00.004-04:00

With nearly all the votes counted, here's how it looks:

Lib 53
PC 37
NDP 17

Which, as you will hear about fifty billion times this weekend, leaves the Liberals one seat shy of a majority government. However not all minorities are created equal, and failing to win that last seat isn't the complete failure many will paint it as.

For starters, it shouldn't be too hard to find an opposition MPP willing to take on the job of speaker...and the raise and perks that come with it. That would leave the Liberals and opposition tied at 53 seats and, as we all learned during the Chuck Cadman confidence mayhem, the speaker would be required to vote with the government on non-confidence motions to preserve the status quo.

There's also bound to be some fluidity in the seat count. MPPs will resign, and there will be by elections. Perhaps we may even get a floor crossing - though, sadly, the most poachable candidate for this went down in a blaze of glory in Eglinton Lawrence tonight.

Beyond the math, there's also the politics. Ontarians have gone to the polls three times in the past year, and given the abysmal turnout rate tonight, the appetite is definitely not there for another election anytime soon. Don't expect anyone to force an unnecessary election and bear the wrath of the electorate - at least not until campaign debts have been paid off.

So while McGuinty won't be able to write his name in the record books with three straight majority governments, he got the strong mandate he was asking for. That should be enough to keep Ontarians away from the polls for at least 2 or 3 years.

Ontario Votes

2011-10-06T19:27:00.004-04:00

I won't be providing many updates tonight, but will offer some thoughts before heading off to bed, with the mandatory post-mortems coming tomorrow.

By all means, share your thoughts in the comments section as the results roll in.

Ontario Votes

2011-10-06T09:00:00.005-04:00

Ontarians head to the polls today, with ~~the two parties deadlocked~~ ~~a Liberal majority looming~~ ~~a PC victory likely~~ the outcome still up in the air.

I'll be voting for Dalton McGuinty. No surprise there. But I still want to take a moment to explain why, because I truly believe this is a government deserving of re-election.

When I first moved to Ontario in 2008, I had rather lukewarm feelings towards the Premier. He'd spoken well at an Alberta Liberal convention a few years earlier, but it's not like he had the crowd chanting "yes we can!". My sense was he'd been a competent Premier but had largely wasted his first term, preferring to govern towards re-election than towards some grander vision.

But during my time in Ontario, I've grown more and more impressed with McGuinty, both in terms of his political abilities and, more importantly, by what he's managed to accomplish.

Throughout his second term, McGuinty hasn't shied away from thinking big. His push on green energy has had mixed results - smog days are down and Hydro bills are up...but the important thing is that Ontario has begun shifting from the industries of yesterday towards the industries of tomorrow. McGuinty introduced the HST knowing full well it would be popular with experts and economists, but not with the public.

In less controversial moves, he has continued to make improvements to Ontario's Health Care and education systems. Ontario wait times have gone from the longest in Canada to the shortest. I was at a party a few weeks ago, and people were remarking about how easy it is to find a family doctor these days. Full day kindergarten has come to Ontario. Ontario schools are now ranked number 1 in the English speaking world. If I sound like a Liberal commercial, it's because I am. And that's another reason I'm proud to be voting Liberal.

Back this spring, McGuinty was getting the snot punched out of him by everyone. PC ads calling him "the Taxman" were airing on every channel. The temptation must have been uncontrollable to punch back. Instead, the Liberals began airing minute-long commercials with nothing but McGuinty talking about his record. He used facts. He cited third party validators. He made the case for re-election.

Of course he has taken some jabs at his opponents this campaign. That's the name of the game. But the Liberals have been the only party treating voters like grown-ups. It showed in the debate, when McGuinty spent the night boring the audience with facts, Hudak spent the night finding new ways to say "taxes bad, McGuinty bad", and Andrea Horwath spent the night producing a string of platitudes and charming stories.

The grownup tone of the Liberal campaign was also matched with a grownup platform. The Liberal platform is more modest than the Tories', who pretend they'll be able to cut taxes without cutting services. The NDP platform is even more troubling - in addition to promises that would cripple the economy, Horwath has abandoned the NDP's traditional role of looking out for the little guy, in favour of gimmicky promises. The environment? She likes the idea of it, but wants to cut taxes on gas guzzlers and home heating. Taxes, I would add, which are paid disproportionately by the richest Ontarians.

Those are some of the reasons I'll be voting Liberal today. I'm sure a lot of Ontarians - the majority in fact - disagree with me. If you do disagree, then make sure you too get out and vote today, so that your voice is heard.

What Saturday's Win by Red Tory Redford Means in Alberta

2011-10-05T11:00:00.003-04:00

Alison Redford was Saturday's surprise winner of the Alberta PC leadership race. As stunned as frontrunner Gary Mar was, the most surprised may have been Alberta's opposition parties, who had no doubt begun positioning themselves against Mar.

So how does this shocker change Alberta's already rocky political landscape?

Progressive Conservatives

Redford's first task will be assembling a new Cabinet - expect that announcement in about a week. Her second will be deciding when to go to the polls.

There had been speculation Mar would call a snap election this fall, but Redford's victory has ended talk of this, with the Premier-designate saying she will not call an election before June. Although Redford campaigned on fixed election dates, it's unclear whether this was a real promise, or one of those silly things one says to get elected. So the exact timing of the next election is still up in the air.

Redford will use the time until the next election (whenever it is) to earn the trust of a caucus she had only a handful of supporters in, and to introduce herself to voters. Redford ran a policy-heavy campaign, and enacting some of these policies into law would be the perfect way to define herself to the electorate.

Alberta Liberals

After Gary Mar, the biggest loser on Saturday may have been the Alberta Liberal Party. Running a single issue Health Care campaign against Gary "two tier" Mar must have been a tantalizing prospect for newly elected Liberal leader Raj Sherman. Now Sherman finds himself up against a red Tory who is popular among women and lists education and Health Care as her top two priorities.

Redford looks like a Liberal and sounds like a Liberal - she likely would have run as a Liberal if Liberals stood a chance of being elected in Alberta. That makes her a very formidable opponent for Liberals. Hell, even Margaret Atwood is excited.

The Danielle Smith Party

For the same reasons Redford's victory is trouble for the Liberals, it should help the Wildrose Alliance. They can now portray themselves as the only "true" conservatives, and might be able to poach a few disgruntled PC MLAs or organizers.

At the same time, the Wildrosers should be careful about toasting Redford's win. After all, much of Danielle Smith's appeal transcends the political spectrum. To many, Smith isn't a conservative ideologue - she's a strong female candidate willing to take on the establishment. That was very much Redford's M.O. during the leadership contest, so if the choice boils down to Redford or Smith...well, maybe voters will opt for the leader whose party has been tested and whose candidates aren't as extreme.

The short of this is to say Redford adds another wild card to an already unpredictable political game in Alberta. The challenge for all parties becomes shifting strategies and defining this largely unknown leader.

It's hard to get re-elected during a recession...

2011-10-04T22:18:00.004-04:00

...except in 2011 in Canada.

Add the Manitoba NDP to the growing list of parties re-elected with a strong, stable majority government.

The Newfoundland PCs and Saskatchewan Saskies will join then shortly. We'll find out about Ontario on Thursday.

“The Tories are not going to win. This campaign is all but finished"

2011-10-04T21:15:00.002-04:00

Those are the words of Ipsos' John Wright.

If Tim Hudak is worried about a Liberal-NDP coalition, there's only one way to prevent it at this point - and it's not by voting PC.

Ipsos (Sep 30 to Oct 3; n = 1200 phone)
Lib 41%
PC 31%
NDP 25%
Green 3%

Nanos (Oct 1 to 3; n = 826 phone)
Lib 38%
PC 33%
NDP 26%
Green 2%

Ekos (Oct 2 to 3; n = 1065 robo dial)
Lib 39%
PC 29%
NDP 25%
Green 6%

Quick! Someone get Dean Del Mastro to run a poll to prove these numbers wrong!

UPDATE: No need for Del Mastro. Angus Reid shows the PCs leading by 3.

Alison Redford's First Mistake

2011-10-04T09:00:00.001-04:00

Alison Redford is seen to have won the Alberta PC leadership on a policy-heavy campaign. She promised change, so one would imagine she's eager to get going and introduce herself to voters through a bold agenda.

After all, here's what she said after winning the leadership:

“I am not going to unnecessarily delay decision-making,” she said. “I believe that Albertans have said that now that we are through this leadership campaign they expect this party to govern. They expect this government to get back to business, and we are going to do that.”

Turns out, not so much.

Redford has cancelled the legislature's fall session. When MLAs return to their seats in February, it will have been 9 months since their last sitting, and over 4 months since Redford's election as Premier.

The argument being advanced by Redford is that she needs time to settle in and draft legislation. That may be true, but the optics of this are horrible.

Here you have a newly elected leader promising change...but then taking a 4-month vacation before enacting the change. I fully recognize that's not the case, but as we learned in the prorogation fiasco, Canadians interpret going to Parliament as showing up for work - it's not hard for the opposition parties to spin this as Redford not being ready for her new job. It also doesn't help that members of her team are now on the record as saying: "If you have nothing else to do, you can't really call the Leg into session for an hour or so, so the opposition can rake you over the coals".

The criticism writes itself. She's not showing up for work. She promised change...after a 4 month vacation. She's afraid of criticism. After 40 years in power, the PCs consider democracy a nuisance.

Take your pick. Redford, who came to power on a wave of goodwill, has now hand-delivered talking points to her opponents. Even if they won't get a chance to use them in the legislature until February, that's not a wise move.

UPDATE: It didn't take long for Alison Redford's first flip-flop. The fall session is back on!

Rejoice Liberals!

2011-10-03T19:40:00.003-04:00

Down to third-party status federally. Teetering in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. In opposition everywhere else.

Except in PEI.

The province that makes up 9% of the federal Liberal caucus decides to stick with Ghiz:

Ghiz’s Liberals return to power in PEI

The Liberals came back to power with a reduced majority in Prince Edward Island Monday, leaving incumbent premier Robert Ghiz with a weaker hand to tackle the province’s looming financial problems.

The Grits were projected by The Canadian Press to win more than half of the legislature’s 27 seats, a clear victory but considerably fewer than forecast at the start of the campaign.

The Sleepy World of Alberta Politics Gets Another Jolt

2011-10-03T15:00:00.002-04:00

Although 40 years of one-party rule and pre-ordained election results can make for dull politics, I will give Alberta's PC dynasty credit for tossing the occasional surprise towards us political junkies.

And surprise us they did on Saturday night. For the third consecutive PC leadership contest, the frontrunner fell in spectacular fashion. Alison Redford is Alberta's new Premier, and the third Canadian woman to take on that title over the past year.

Gary Mar defeated Redford 41% to 19% on the first ballot two weeks ago, and every candidate dropped from the ballot went to Mar. Yet somehow, Redford tripled her support and surged to victory.

So what happened?

For starters, this wasn't a case of Mar losing supporters - he received over 8,000 more votes than in round one, and his vote total only dropped in 5 ridings. Rather, it was a deadly stall for Mar, a candidate who should have had all the momentum, but who couldn't increase his share of the vote by more than one or two percentage points. There are many theories as to what went wrong - the most popular being this was a backlash to the "establishment" which had lined up en masse behind Mar.

If that is the case, it would certainly explain why Alison Redford was there to pick up the pieces. Although she was Justice Minister at the start of this leadership race and Mar had been out of the province for years, Redford was very much the race's "outsider". You could count her MLA endorsements on one hand...even if that hand were short a few fingers. She showed herself to be the most "mavericky" of the candidates, not hesitating to criticize the Stelmach government throughout the leadership contest.

While running as the outsider means Redford enters the Premier's office with few favours to repay, it also means she'll be greeted to rousing cheers at her first caucus meeting by MLAs who wish someone else were standing in her spot.

Ed Stelmach was done in by an unspoken caucus revolt - rather than unifying the PC family, Redford now inherits a party even more divided.

Turns out Albertans like "feminist lawyers", after all

2011-10-03T14:02:00.004-04:00

Rob Anders, back in 2003:

Anders, speaking of his Calgary West nomination opponent, Alison Redford, says he is confident he'll have little trouble rounding up enough party votes to defeat Redford, "unless she's got some magic support base of people who like feminist lawyers."

On Saturday, Redford came out of nowhere to triple her first ballot support and win the Alberta PC leadership race. She will be Alberta's next Premier.

The Sun Won't Come Out For Hudak

2011-10-02T23:09:00.005-04:00

The Toronto Star's endorsement of Dalton McGuinty shouldn't surprise anyone. Yes, they were briefly the "Orange Star" this spring, but anyone who has read their Ontario election coverage saw this one coming a mile away.

Today's Globe endorsement is likely a bit more meaningful - at least, if you think newspaper endorsements mean much of anything (they don't). After all, the paper has endorsed Stephen Harper the last three federal elections. And although their endorsement of McGuinty is measured, it's far less measured than the most Globe endorsements which are usually typed with one hand while the other one firmly holds the editorial board's nose.

So this leaves Tim Hudak with nothing but the Sun endorse...what? Yikes.

Yes, even the Sun has decided against endorsing the Tories this campaign. They admit they "wanted" to like Tim, but just couldn't. Guess he doesn't look as good in the flesh as his eHarmony profile.

Of course, Hudak could still win the election. But these (non) endorsements speak to the type of campaign he has run - at times juvenile, always negative, with no more than a minute or two of substance sprinkled on the "taxes bad" talking points. As the federal Liberals have learned of late, if you don't give people a good reason to vote for you, they usually don't. The same goes for newspaper endorsements.

UPDATE: Hudak lands the Post.

Entitled to their entitlements

2011-09-30T09:24:00.002-04:00

Foreign Affairs Minister Baird demands gold on new business cards

MacKay racks up nearly $3-million in flights on VIP jets

Peter MacKay Under Fire For Using Search-And-Rescue Helicopter Following Vacation

The Morning After

2011-09-28T14:25:00.001-04:00

Last night was the lone televised debate of the Ontario election campaign. With the vote too close to call, a lot was riding on it, and after last night...

...not a heck of a lot changed. I have a hard time seeing how anyone would actually change their mind as a result of last night's debate, and the Ipsos flash poll largely confirms that.

After all, if you're like me and you like Dalton McGuinty, you liked what you saw. While the opposition focused on buzzwords and empty anecdotes ("Gary the accountant tells me he lost his job because of the HST"), McGuinty made his case his facts and figures. He responded to attacks, defended his record, and talked about his plans. He looked and sounded like was a grown up - some might even say a Premier.

That's not to say it was a masterful performance we will all rave about years from now. He fought much of the debate on weaker ground - there was a lot more talk about taxes and energy prices than about Health Care and education. He took some hits. But that's the life of an incumbent - the important thing is, he held his ground.

Hudak was the leader who most exceeded my expectations, but that likely says more about my expectations than about his performance. I liked his "big screen TV" and "lemonade stand" metaphors, and he showed real emotion when talking about his daughter's experience in the Health Care system. If you were scoring the debate on points, Hudak landed the most blows. His "nobody believes you anymore" soundbite will probably lead off most clip packages.

However, the one knock on Hudak's performance is a biggie. Quite simply, he looked and sounded like an opposition leader, not a Premier. He mentioned "Changebook" and his "5 point jobs plan" a few times, but there were only scattered descriptions of specific platform promises. He went after McGuinty at every opportunity - even when asked directly about what bold ideas he had for Ontario. It was a good performance, but not one that screamed "Premier-in-waiting".

And then there's Andrea Horwath. Horwath had the most to gain from this debate, and she likely helped herself out a bit. She was likable, and played those tried and true NDP hits - "hike up corporate taxes", "results for people", "putting people first".

Personally, I wasn't moved. She talked about the difficulty of balancing a family budget as a mom...on her lowly six-figure MPP salary. She talked about the awful treatment her son received at a Hamilton hospital...and later admitted the story was more "illustration" than fact. She told a story about a woman who gave her a big hug because she loved the NDP platform so much.

Personally, I found it all manipulative and lacking substance. But it will play to Horwath's base, and may even rope in a few undecided votes.

Add it all up, and after 90 minutes of debating, we're no closer to figuring out who will win on October 6th.

Debate Live Blog

2011-09-27T18:28:00.007-04:00

6:35 pm: Quite the tie Tim Hudak is sporting.

6:46 pm: For those keeping track of mentions of random "hard working Ontarian" anecdotes, we've heard about the problems facing Ryan, Kevin (the Wallmart worker), and Katherine so far.

6:54 pm: Interesting set...is everyone up for a game of paintball afterwards?

6:56 pm: McGuinty has put on his glasses and is taking notes. Nothing says "don't harm our fragile economic recovery like wearing glasses."

7:20 pm: Anyone else wish Gilles Duceppe was up there, just for old time's sake?

7:23 pm: "Facts are always helpful" - that basically sums up McGuinty's debate so far.

7:29 pm: Andrea Horwath tells a touching story about a young girl who came up and hugged her because she thought Andrea's platform was so amazing.

7:45 pm: Horwath has now brought up her mother, her brother, and son during the debate. Still waiting to hear what Uncle Bud thinks of the HST.

Ontario Debates

2011-09-27T16:10:00.001-04:00

No one knows who will win the Ontario election, two of the three leaders remain virtual unknowns, and the campaign still lacks a ballot question. Yet somehow, without warning, Ontario finds itself just 9 sleeps away from Voting Day.

So tonight's debate will be important.

I'll be live-blogging the festivities starting at 6:30, and will offer my thoughts on why Dalton McGuinty won afterwards.

For those just tuning in tonight, here's a look at the players:

Dalton McGuinty: McGuinty has taken his lumps over the past eight years, and was written off by most pundits just a few months ago. Voters wanted change, Ontario's economy was sputtering, and the HST was about to claim its second victim. Yet here we are, closing in on E-Day, and "The Taxman" is tied with Tim Hudak.

McGuinty has looked cool and been on message since day 1. He has played up his "experienced leadership" through tough economic times, and cautioned voters against risking Ontario's stable economic recovery on unproven leaders. The man is one blue sweater vest away from being mistaken for Stephen Harper. I know Liberals will squirm at those words, but I mean it in the nicest way possible.

Tim Hudak: The PC campaign has focused almost exclusively on two isses - taxes, and Hudak's BBQ skills. While most voters concerned about these two issues will no doubt vote PC on October 6th, Hudak's set list hasn't moved much beyond this (with the exception of his controversial "foreign workers" jab). Given McGuinty hasn't actually promised to raise taxes, and is likely a fine BBQer himself, Hudak will need to show he's more than a tax cut sound machine tonight, if he wants to win.

Hudak always struck me as a bit of a Stockwell Day type, so he's the odds-on favourite to use a prop during tonight's debate.

Andrea Horwath: Most Ontarians can't pronounce her name and wouldn't recognize her on the street, yet they'll still tell you they like Andrea Horwath.

Being liked and unknown means Horwath has the most riding on tonight. A strong performance, and it's not impossible for her to pull off an "accidental" win on election night à la Bob Rae. If she Iggies the debate, all the positive Jack Layton feelings in the world won't be enough to keep her in the mid-20s.

Horwath will be standing centre stage tonight, which is appropriate, since all eyes will be on her.

Dean Del Mastro: Champion of Democracy and Scientific Polling Methodologies

2011-09-27T14:00:00.001-04:00

The biggest fireworks so far in the sleepy Ontario election campaign have not come between the candidates, but between the pollsters. And there's a new pollster on the block - Dean Del Mastro:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s parliamentary secretary has stepped heavily into the Ontario election for the second time, this time commissioning a 1,000-person poll because he felt a local newspaper underplayed the popularity of the local Progressive Conservative candidate. [...]

The Peterborough This Week telephone poll suggested Liberal candidate Jeff Leal had a 45.5-per-cent share of the vote compared to 28 per cent for Progressive Conservative candidate Alan Wilson.

“I was deeply concerned that publishing numbers in the fashion as presented on the cover of a weekly large circulation paper could significantly suppress voter participation,” he said. “The methodology was not released and the responses could have just as easily been provided by six-year-olds as registered voters.” [...]

“I dispute that I’m heavily involved in the provincial election, I want people to vote in each and every election,” he said. “When information is published that suggests the election is decided based on flawed methodology it runs contrary to one of my core democratic values which is that people need to exercise their right to vote.”

Yes, whenever a poll that doesn't "feel" right is published, you can count on Dean Del Mastro to settle the issue. It's just one of the many things Dean does to help protect democracy in Canada.

So what cutting-edge methodology did Del Mastro use, to ensure that (natoriously pro-Liberal) six-year-olds were not skewing survey results?

Well, he surveyed 1,000 voters over the course of an hour Sunday night...presumably using the exact same push-button polling technology as the Peterborough This Week poll. But what sets Del Mastro's survey appart are the unbiased questions he posed before asking respondents which candidate they intended to vote for:

1. "Given that jurisdictions like the United States and Europe have invested billions of dollars trying to create green jobs with disappointing results, do you believe that the 7 billion dollar Samsung deal will create 16,000 jobs in Ontario?”

2. “Given that families and seniors are struggling today in Ontario, do you support eliminating HST from energy bills as well as income splitting for families to reduce their provincial tax burden?”

Sadly, Del Mastro did not ask the most important question on the minds of voters - "Given Dalton McGuinty is a poopy head, do you support his secret puppy genocide agenda?". Sadly, we may never know what the residents of Peterborough think on this burning issue.

So again, thanks to Dean Del Mastro for championing democracy, one demon dialled push poll at a time! I salute you sir.

"On October 6th vote for proper scaling of the Y-axis. Vote Liberal."

2011-09-22T13:06:00.005-04:00

For those worried the Ontario election lacked a meaty ballot questions, comes the most exciting statistical controversy since the scrapping of the mandatory long form Census:

There are 13 statistical graphs in the Changebook. Every single one reveals significant errors in labelling, citation, scaling, and proportion. In a few cases, the illustrated data is actually false. In almost all, axes and scaling have been skewed and manipulated, without proper labelling, to exaggerate political points. In some cases, it appears the graphs were simply hand-drawn.

Whatever one thinks of a political party’s platform, voters have the right to expect honesty and transparency in its presentation. The consistent pattern of distortion in the Changebook’s 13 graphs reveals a willingness to sacrifice integrity for political optics. And that approach is consistent with the other controversies that have dogged the Conservative campaign so far.

Yup. 0 for 13. That's 0%. Or, as the Changebook writers would express it:

Gary Mar is the Man

2011-09-20T17:00:00.003-04:00

After Saturday's first round of voting, it seems all but certain that Gary Mar will be the next Premier of Alberta:

Gary Mar: 24195 (41%)
Alison Redford: 11129 (19%)
Doug Horner: 8635 (15%)
Ted Morton: 6962 (12%)
Rick Orman: 6005 (10%)
Doug Griffiths: 2435 (4%)

Yes, Ed Stelmach turned 15% on the first ballot into a win in 2006, but those were very different times. The frontrunner had received just 30% after a lackluster campaign. Voters were looking for a third way in what had become a polarized Dinning-Morton feud. The 4th, 5th, and 6th place candidates all threw their support behind Stelmach.

Sure, Mar's supporters could become complacent. But the also-rans have all seen which way the wind is blowing, and Alison Redford would need to triple her vote to take it. Only something truly remarkable can prevent Mar from becoming the 5th Premier in Alberta's Tory dynasty.

So how did this come about?

The most surprising number in round one is not Mar's total, but Morton's. Morton received 26,000 votes in the first round in 2006 and 41,000 in the final. Since then, Morton beefed up his resume with a stint as Finance Minister. Yet there he was, unable to rally even a third of his former supporters.

Morton blamed the harvest, but the reality is most people who were supportin' Morton in 2006 have long since migrated to the Wildrose Alliance. I don't think Morton will follow them, but it wouldn't surprise me to see the 62 year old professor hang up his spurs before the next election. Maybe him and Tom Flanagan can do a weekly podcast together, or something.

ROUND 1 BY THE NUMBERS

For pretty maps, mosey over to labradore or Daveberta. It was interesting to see Mar sweep Edmonton, given he's a Calgary boy.

Some will no doubt chalk up Mar's win to his edge in establishment support - after all, he had endorsements from 26 MLAs and some guy named Ralph Klein. There's some indication this paid off - Mar received 54% of the vote in ridings where he was backed by the local MLA, compared to 35% elsewhere.

Which sounds impressive until you consider that Ted Morton's support was 14-points higher in ridings where he was endorsed (24% vs. 10%) and Doug Horner's was 38-points higher (46% vs. 8%)! Yes, in a lot of cases, MLAs endorsed candidates they knew were popular, but Mar's team still delivered in ridings where the local establishment was working against him.

For those curious, here are the MLAs who were most effective at boosting the support for their candidate of choice (based on how much the candidate exceeded their province-wide support in the riding):

1. Ray Danyluk (Horner) +67%
2. Frank Oberle (Horner) +54%
3. Ken Kowalski (Horner) + 50%
4. Hector Goudreau (Horner) + 48%
5. Doug Horner (duh) +48%

All are Horner backers, unsurprising given his concentrated support in the rural north. On the Mar campaign, Thomas Lukaszuk (+30), Dave Hancock (+26), and Naresh Bhardwaj (+24) delivered the most, while George Groeneveld (+27) and Evan Berger (+21) were both more effective at delivering for Ted Morton than Ted Morton was.

And for those curious, the "thanks, but no thanks" award for the least effective endorsements is shared by Lindsay Blackett, Yvonne Fritz, Len Mitzel, Barry McFarland, Richard Marz, and Ken Allred. For these 6 MLAs, their candidate of choice did worse in their home riding than elsewhere.

Hat Tip to Tim Duncan for the endorsement numbers.

It's bad enough the NDP are letting other candidates run

2011-09-19T12:47:00.004-04:00

September 2nd: Thomas Mulcair says he won't run for the leadership of the NDP unless the party agrees to hold its convention in late winter or early spring, because he wouldn't be able to compete in a short race.

September 19th: [Muclair] told reporters on Monday that he has truly not decided if he will throw his hat into the ring because the numbers for a Quebec candidate do not add up well. Although the majority of New Democrat MPs are from Quebec, “Quebec is the only province that does not have a provincial wing of the NDP,” said Mr. Mulcair.

I've spent the last hour wracking my brain to come up with a rationale for how Mulcair's musings might help him in this contest, but can't think of anything.

This Week in Alberta - the PCs pick a leader

2011-09-16T11:00:00.002-04:00

Given that general elections only matter in Alberta every 30 or 40 years, the PC leadership race is really the one chance Albertans get to have their say in who becomes Premier. Not surprisingly, over 140,000 Albertans voted in 2006, and we could see close to that number casting their ballot tomorrow.

Assuming no candidate nets 50% + 1 on the first ballot, the field would be narrowed to three for a showdown in two weeks time. The fun thing about this race is that you can keep selling memberships right up to the final vote, adding an element on unpredictability. That's how Ralph Klein beat establishment darling Nancy Betkowski in 1992 and how Ed Stelmach came from nowhere to win in 2006.

While it's difficult to know what to expect, we were treated to a poll of PC members this week. Unlike previous polls of the general public, this one is somewhat meaningful in that it was of card carrying conservatives. Of course, there's obviously the question of how Environics acquired a party member list, so the numbers should be interpreted with some caution:

Gary Mar: 31%
Alison Redford: 20%
Doug Horner: 12%
Ted Morton: 10%
Rick Orman: 5%
Doug Griffiths: 4%
Undecided/Won’t vote: 17%

If these numbers are to be believed, we're looking at a final ballot of Mar, Redford, and either Horner or Morton.

With the undecideds factored out, Mar would be in a better position than Jim Dinning was in 2006 when Jim was held to 30% on the first ballot. But remember, Ed Stelmach came from 15% and third place to take it, so a Redford or Horton win isn't unfathomable, depending on what we see tomorrow.

The more polarizing Morton will have his work cut out of him - even if he comes in at 20% on the first ballot, I don't see him having the growth potential he'd need to pull it out. With many of his supporters having already jumped to the Wildrose Alliance, Ted Morton does not appear to be the man this time around.

On Top

2011-09-13T10:59:00.004-04:00

Yes, we all had a good snicker at last week's Decima poll which showed the Liberals 11 points up in Ontario. But lo and behold, a double dose of polls last night, both showing Dalton McGuinty back on top:

Nanos (Sep 10-11, n = 507 phone)

Lib 38%
PC 35%
NDP 24%
Green 3%

Ipsos (Sep 7-11, n = 800 phone)

Lib 38%
PC 37%
NDP 24%
Green 1%

Sure, we're only in the third inning, but this is encouraging for the Liberals for reasons beyond the obvious. It will energize the ground troops and, most importantly, will shift the media narrative in McGuinty's favour. No doubt, had the polls shown Liberals losing ground, we'd have seen stories about a Liberal campaign in turmoil over its controversial immigrant tax credit proposal. Instead, it's Hudak who will likely be on the hot seat.

We shouldn't let polls dictate the narrative, but it's foolish to think they don't. For a party down 10 points earlier this year, this buys McGuinty a few days of positive coverage.

On Topp

2011-09-12T19:48:00.003-04:00

I find the media generally tends to assign too much importance to endorsements during leadership races. After all, Christy Clark came out on top in BC earlier this year with a lone MLA backing her.

But some endorsements do mater. And since Olivia Chow has said she will stay neutral in the race, this is as big as it gets:

Broadbent backs Brian Topp to replace Layton as NDP leader

OTTAWA Brian Topp burst out of the blocks in the NDP leadership race Monday, taking an early head start powered by some muscular endorsements.

The Montreal-born party president became the first official candidate in the race to succeed the late Jack Layton, who died of cancer last month.

He was accompanied by party icon Ed Broadbent, the most popular and successful federal NDP leader — until Layton.

Without fail, the quickest way to get intoxicated during a federal election is to play the "Ed Broadbent" drinking game at an NDP rally. Broadbent is adored within the NDP and his endorsement is widely considered to have been the tipping point that pushed Jack over the top in 1993.

So this was a big score for Topp who, despite never holding elected office, is now considered the frontrunner in the Race for Stornoway. That said...a little perspective people! From Stephen Maher:

With Broadbent behind him and deep roots in his party, Topp now looks to be in the same situation as Paul Martin in 2003.

Thomas Mulcair, the most likely effective challenger, must have been very disappointed to see Broadbent today. He may not want to play the role of Copps in this race.

Ummm....no.

There's a long list of frontrunners in leadership contests who found out 6 months is a long time the hard way. Topp will be building an organization from scratch. He lacks both experience and charisma. He's also spilled a lot of ink over the past decade as a pundit, so I imagine there are at least one or two controversial comments he'll need to climb down from.

Broadbent's endorsement makes him the frontrunner. But being the frontrunner doesn't mean much.