A Roadmap to Renewal

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.

An Open Party

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.

Report to the LPC Membership...

...by ALF APPS. As posted on Facebook earlier today:

REPORT TO THE MEMBERSHIP

from the NATIONAL PRESIDENT of the LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
June 3, 2011

FELLOW LIBERALS:

I AM PLEASED TO REPORT TO YOU ON THE RECENT ACTIVITIES OF YOUR NATIONAL BOARD AT THIS EXTREMELY CRITICAL MOMENT IN OUR PARTY’S HISTORY.

EXACTLY ONE MONTH AGO, ON THE MORNING OF MAY 3RD, LIBERALS ACROSS CANADA AWOKE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE WORST ELECTION DEFEAT IN OUR HISTORY – INCLUDING THE DEFEAT OF OUR LEADER IN HIS OWN RIDING.

THAT VERY DAY, MICHAEL IGNATIEFF ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD BE STEPPING DOWN AS LEADER.

HIS ANNOUNCEMENT, TOGETHER WITH A FORMAL LETTER THAT FOLLOWED CONFIRMING HIS RESIGNATION, IRREVOCABLY SET SOME EVENTS IN MOTION UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION.

FOR GOOD OR ILL, THE NATIONAL BOARD IS CURRENTLY THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF OUR PARTY BETWEEN CONVENTIONS. IT IS A BODY WHICH CONSISTS OF THE ELECTED OFFICERS OF THE PARTY NATIONALLY AND FROM EVERY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY ACROSS THE COUNTRY, FROM ALL FOUR OF OUR PARTY COMMISSIONS AND FROM THE CAUCUS.

[snip]

I HAVE CONVENED A MEETING OF THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR JULY 9, 2011, AT WHICH TIME, WORKING CLOSELY WITH OUR INTERIM LEADER AND CAUCUS, WE WILL ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING KEY CHALLENGES:

1. A PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING A NATIONAL ELECTION POST-MORTEM ENGAGING CAUCUS, CAMPAIGN PERSONNEL, DEFEATED CANDIDATES, PARTY OFFICERS AND OTHER LIBERALS;

2. THE NEAR-TERM FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL RESTRUCTURING OF THE PARTY REQUIRED DUE TO OUR REDUCED STANDING IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND IN RESPONSE TO THE REDUCTION IN OUR PUBLIC SUBSIDY AS A RESULT OF OUR LOWER VOTE TOTALS IN THE LAST ELECTION AND THE IMMINENT REDUCTION AND LOSS OF THE PER VOTER SUBSIDY ON ACCOUNT OF THE PENDING BUDGET;

3. THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH LIBERALS THROUGHOUT CANADA CAN BE ENGAGED IN A FUNDAMENTAL RE-IMAGINING OF THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE LIBERAL PARTY, INCLUDING ITS CORE VALUES AND BELIEFS, THEIR APPLICABILITY IN OUR EVOLVING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, MODERN METHODS THROUGH WHICH ORDINARY CITIZENS CAN BE BROUGHT TO A DEEPER LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AND COMMITMENT TO ITS MISSION;

4. A PROGRAMME FOR BUILDING UP OUR MEMBERSHIP AND FUNDRAISING BASE OVER THE BALANCE OF THE COMING YEAR;

5. THE PROCESS PURSUANT TO WHICH RANK AND FILE LIBERALS WILL BE ENGAGED IN DEVELOPING, CONSIDERING AND PRIORITIZING POLICY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM RESOLUTIONS FOR DEBATE AND DETERMINATION AT THE UPCOMING BIENNIAL CONVENTION; AND

6. PLANNING FOR THE NEXT BIENNIAL CONVENTION ITSELF.

WE HAVE TO WORK HARDER AND FASTER THAN EVER TO BUILD UP OUR MEMBERSHIP AND OUR WAR-CHEST, BUT THE SILVER LINING OF OUR RECENT DEFEAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A COMPLETELY FRESH START AND FOR GENUINE CHANGE IN HOW OUR PARTY WORKS, COUPLED WITH SUFFICIENT TIME NOT ONLY TO UNDERTAKE OUR IMPORTANT WORK OF REBUILDING, RENEWAL AND REFORM WITH DUE CONSIDERATION AND CARE, BUT ALSO TO ENGAGE LIBERALS EVERYWHERE IN THAT PROCESS.

OVER THE COMING MONTHS, YOUR NATIONAL BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO RECEIVING YOUR INPUT ON THESE AND OTHER QUESTIONS AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO BUILD A BETTER AND STRONGER LIBERAL PARTY FOR THE YEARS TO COME.

SINCERELY,

ALFRED APPS

Making Change

The much anticipated (well, by me) change report has arrived. This isn't the first renewal/change/rebuilding report ever produced by the Liberal Party and it probably won't be the last - the devil in these things is making sure they don't just gather dust somewhere...especially in the age of minority governments when we're stuck in perpetual election readiness. And now that we've surged to just above our historical lows in the polls, a lot of Liberals will be tempted to assume paying lip service to party renewal is all that's really needed.

But they'd be wrong.

There's a lot of work to do and, on the whole, this report appears to be a big step in the right direction. I'm sure I'll have more to say about it later but, for now, here's a summary of the commission's answers to the "big questions", and some of the more interesting recommendations:


Why don’t Liberals donate to the party as much as other political parties? How can we convince Liberals to donate to their riding and/or the national party?

A more engaged role for members is a prerequisite for successful fundraising. As such, there’s a need for more “populist” fundraising events to go along with the big ticket dinners – things like brunches and spaghetti dinners.


How can we engage party members in the community? How can we attract community leaders to join the party? How can we best reach out to community groups and multicultural organizations?

We need to walk the talk – attend community functions and organize social activities such as toy drives for women’s shelters or organizing dinners for the homeless. By showing the community we care, we can engage our members are recruit new ones.


How can we best rebuild weak riding associations? How can LPC and the provincial and territorial associations better serve riding associations?

Past candidates should be treated with respect and allowed to build up their profile between elections for multiple runs – we should not be so quick as to discard candidates after one or two failed attempts. Candidates should be nominated earlier so that they can work hard to raise their profile in the ridings.


How can we improve our party’s use of technology? How can technology best serve our ridings and members?

Data needs to be shared better within the party – we need to end the information “protectionism” that has interfered with our party’s ability to compete, and put in place more vertical organizations.


How can the LPC improve the party’s internal communications? What do members want to hear from the party?

We need to break down the silos and encourage communications between different sections of the party. The party website should be less top-down, and should tell party members information related to their needs rather than just rehashing press releases. Local riding websites need to be clearer and better maintained.


How can the LPC improve the policy resolution and policy discussion process?

There needs to be more input from the party membership into the policy process – especially from rural and unheld ridings, which don’t have a voice in caucus. A real two-way dialogue needs to be established.


How can we improve the structure of the party nationally, provincially, and locally?

Members don’t fully understand how the party works and would like more transparency and accountability. In short, the party, leader, caucus, PTAs, ridings, and national executive need to do a better job working and communicating together – of breaking down the silos.



SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

Fundraising
2. Timely receipting from events, within 14 days
3. Websites should make it easier for donors to choose where their money goes

Membership and Outreach
4. National Liberal day of community action in all 308 ridings
6. At least four town halls every year in every riding in the country. Caucus critics will help organize these.

Electoral Districts and Party
11. Adopt and embrace the 308 riding strategy
12. Paid fieldworkers
13. Post-election debriefings in unheld ridings
14. Twinning program for unheld ridings
18. An annual plan, balanced scorecard program, and recognition for riding associations
21. Resources for ridings including handbooks, website template, new member welcome package, and an election readiness kit.
23. A comprehensive human resources strategy

Data Management
25. Volunteer database

Communications
27. Interactive internet communications
32. Newsletter templates for riding associations
33. Make greater use of social networking sites

Policy Development
36. Review of the party policy process

Governance
41. National executive responsible for hiring and firing the national director
42. Electronic voting should be considered for future leadership votes
46. Code of conduct and sanctions for inappropriate conduct by members
47. Continue change commission consultations

Policy Watch

Although the focus of the upcoming LPC convention seems to be all about WOMOV (oh, and I guess picking a leader), it is still a policy convention.

As discussed before, policy debate took place online for the first time ever - a welcome change since it gave everyone the opportunity to participate. And it appears to have been a big success, with close to 1,000 Liberals participating, almost 25,000 votes cast, and some resolutions drawing 80 or 90 posts about them. Considering the number of people who skip policy workshops at a convention, that's not bad.

The problem, as also previously discussed, is that rather than using this vote to prioritize policies, the Council of Presidents were the ones entrusted with this most sacred of duties.

So it's probably fair to examine how the policies chosen differ from those voted in by members. Well, as you might expect, the results are mixed:


Policy Comparison

The four most popular online policies were all voted in by the Council of Presidents, although numbers 5 and 6 were not. Of the 13 winners from the online vote, 9 of them will be debated in Vancouver. The four "upsets" are:

In Agriculture - "Natural resources" (18.6% prioritized, third place) over "Supporting agricultural producers and expanding trade" (26.2%).

In Education - "Improving child care and parental leave for Canadians" (12.3%, third place) over "Creating a national system of early learning and childcare" (29.2%).

In Social Policy - "Reducing child poverty" (13.3%, third place) over "Poverty reduction & guaranteed annual income strategies" (32.4%).

In Health and Aging - "Aging with dignity" (9.5%, fourth place) over "Preserving high quality health care" (35.7%).

In Animal Rights - "A Ban on the Duck Hunt" (8th place) over "An End to Shark Hunting" (1st place). [sorry, sorry, but this policy stuff is just so dry otherwise...]


Now, just by looking at the titles, you can see that the general thrust of most of these is similar (big surprise - Liberals like child care and don't like poverty). The only really suspect choice would be "aging with dignity" but en famille users are probably a tad younger than riding presidents, so it's not too shocking.

More surprising are the four "bonus" policies that found their way to Vancouver. By my count, 17 policies that were debated in the 13 online workshops were prioritized...I'll plead ignorance as to the exact mechanism that led to this, but it did allow a few suspect policies to make it through, the most obvious examples being:

1. The "regional development" policy (general support for regional development), which gathered a whooping 0.8% of the prioritized votes in its workshop, and was only approved by 63% of all members who voted on it.

2. The "human rights commission" policy (it's a bit complicated, so read it for yourself if you're interested), which finished dead last in the Justice workshop, and was only approved by 51% of Liberals.


In Conclusion

Either way, it's probably not a huge deal since the policy process doesn't really lead anywhere in the end. But, because it's not a huge deal, you should be giving the grassroots a real say in it - especially when a thousand Liberals took the time to debate the policies and vote on an average of 25 policies each.

And, if you look at the results, fears that the online vote would prioritize a slew of "radical" policies like legalized marijuana or abolishing the monarchy proved to be unfounded.

There are a lot of changes that need to be made to the policy process for future conventions, and I would hope that giving the grassroots a larger say is one of them.

LPC Ammendments and Policies Online

I know this blog has been annoyingly "inside baseball" of late but, really, what else is going on these days...except for Brian Mulroney's joyful dismemberment of the Conservative Party (again!).

But there is some more internal Liberal news out there with the LPC releasing the constitutional amendments and policies that will be voted on the first weekend at May by Liberals in Vancouver. If 40 pages of constitutional amendments to debate and vote upon doesn't boost convention attendance, I don't know what will!

The Globe summarizes some of the policies here (and, surprise, surprise, guess which policy they're drawn to? The carbon tax has become our own abortion issue it seems), while DT gives her preliminary run-down here - I'll have more later.

One Member, One Vote, Several Opinions

Grab a beer, sit back, and get ready for a stimulating post on the nuances of internal party electoral reform!

As you may have heard, the Liberal Party will be voting on changing its leadership selection process from the current system of choosing the leader at delegated conventions (when we feel like it), to a weighted one member one vote system (WOMOV). This is basically the system the Tories use - every riding gets 100 points and if you win half the riding you get 50 points, if you win a quarter of a riding you get 25 points...the math is fairly easy to figure out so I don't think I need to include any other examples.

So what do I think about this and the proposal to set "youth quotas"? What system would I like to see? Glad you asked!


The Leadership Selection Process

First off, I don't think the current system is quite the affront to democracy it's often made out to be. For all intents and purposes, we currently have a WOMOV system since, instead of 100 points, every riding gets X delegates. In both cases, the points and delegates are divided based on the percentage of votes a candidate receives.

So if you "cleaned up" the current system by removing ex-officios and delegates from clubs and commissions, the only difference would be that the delegated convention transfers the second choice vote from everyone to Liberals elected as delegates.

It also has the added benefit of making for one hell of an exciting show - and I don't think that's something that should be discounted completely when it comes to getting Canadians and Liberals excited about the party and the new leader.

That said, WOMOV is a fairer system, so I'd be supportive of making the change.


Youth Quotas

The Young Liberals have proposed amending WOMOV to WOMOVW25QFY - Weighted one member one vote, with 25% quotas for youth. In short, at least 25 points in every riding would be reserved for youth. I know a few of my young Liberal friends will disagree with me on this one, but I'm not a big fan of this amendment.

For starters, it really defeats the entire purpose of "one member, one vote", and if you argue there should be quotas for youth, there's no valid reason to argue there shouldn't be quotas for the other commissions - that means points for women, seniors, and aboriginals. Hell, it also means there's no valid reason to argue there shouldn't also be quotas for immigrants, farmers, or bloggers.

But the main reason I don't like this amendment is that I don't think it's needed. Youth still get their delegate spot quotas for conventions which means they still have their previous influence when it comes to policy, party executive positions, and constitutional amendments (such as this one). The main argument for having youth delegate quotas before was that it got more young people to conventions, getting them excited about the party, and making them members for life. Is there anyone out there who can really say that a youth who knows his or her vote is worth 1.5 points is going to be more excited than a youth who knows their vote is worth 1.3 points?

In the end, if the intent of WOMOV is to democratize the party, then let's go all the way on it.


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.


In Conclusion

My sense is that there's enough support for WOMOV that it will pass at the convention. So the real question becomes what kind of WOMOV system we get.


See Also
A BCer in Toronto
Scott Tribe
Far and Wide

The Policy Policy

The Hill Times delved into the world of Liberal Party policy on Monday, reporting:

1. The Liberals won't be revealing their platform anytime soon

2. "The federal Liberals will hold a major policy convention in early May, but they are refusing to discuss policy ideas "

ABCer has already weighed in on this one, with a pretty good run-down. But I figured I'd toss my two cents in as well.

On the first point, I agree it's probably best to hold off on the platform for the time being, although not necessarily for the reasons being argued. It appears many in the party are feeling burned over the Green Shift and are worried the Tories will rip apart any policy they float now. Well, I would argue that any policy that the Tories decimate pre-writ is probably going to meet with the same fate if it's released during a campaign. If it can't withstand attacks from a talking oil splotch then it's probably not worth including in the platform.

But, yeah, holding off on the platform isn't a bad idea, given we have no idea when the next election will be and what sort of shape the economy will be in. It wouldn't hurt for Iggy to give Canadians a better sense of his values, and maybe floating a few minor policies would be a good way to do that, but he can hold off on the big ticket items for the time being.

On the second point, here's my understanding of how the LPC policy process has been structured:

1. Policy debate has been taking place online for the past month on en famille (AKA Liberal Facebook).

2. Members have been allowed to vote on policies online for the past week or so.

3. The Council of Presidents (riding presidents and other people with cool titles) will then vote on the policies they want to see prioritized.

4. The CoP's top policies will be debated and voted on at the convention.

Now, I'm a big en famille fan. There's some good debate going on there about party renewal, and it's a great way to use technology and engage party members. Having an online policy debate is good. Having party members vote online is good. I'm not sure why the national exec felt the need to cut back on the policy debate at the upcoming convention (how much time does an annointment take anyways?) but, sure, if they wanted to move some of it online, I'd be cool with that.

The troubling part of this is that the online debate and vote is going to mean about as much as if I put a poll up on my site and asked people to vote on Liberal policies here. Sure, the riding presidents will take the online vote under advisement but, in the end, no one's forcing them to take the grassroots' advice.

Now, I know what you're all thinking: "But CG - doesn't the party just ignore the policies that are passed at convention anyways? So why does this matter?"

Well, my friends, that only makes the situation worse - you're not even giving members a symbolic voice in a symbolic process. The problem is basically this:

You're not giving party members a vote in selecting the party's leader.

You're not giving party members a say in the policy process.

You're not giving party members in a lot of ridings a say in nominating candidates.

There are valid reasons for making some of the above decisions but, taken together, you have to ask yourself where the value in membership now lies. If you want Liberals to give their time and money to the party you need to give them something in return and engage them.

With that in mind, I'd make the following three suggestions for the party's policy process:

1. Force the LPC to put a certain number of prioritized policies into the party's platform. Yeah, yeah, a lot of the policies passed are dumb or politial suicide. I would know, I've proposed a lot of dumb and suicidal policies. So force the leader to take one of the top three, or two of five, or seven of nine, or whatever number you want. At least then, you give some meaning to the process.

2. Force the party leader to explain why he's chosen to not include the policies he rejects in the platform. I don't think anyone can really complain about their policy being rejected if they find out why.

3. Give the drafters of the prioritized policies a chance to make their sales pitch in person to the critic or Cabinet Minister responsible for the issue. This helps connect caucus to the membership and, who knows, maybe it will encourage them to listen a bit closer to what the grass roots are saying.

Not everyone is interested in policy. And I'm not even convinced that the grass roots should be writing party policy. But some people do join political parties because of policy and, because of that, it's a way to engage a good portion of the membership. And we're not doing a very good job of that now.