The Presidential Election

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.

Meet Mike Crawley

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

Preliminary Thoughts on the LPC Presidential Race

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.