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 Sheila Copps

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

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.

Copps' Laws

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.

Exciting Race Brewing for LPC Presidency

Given the challenges facing the Liberal Party, January's national executive elections could very well be the most important in the party's history. And the way it’s going, it looks like there will be more star power in the race for LPC president than in the race for LPC leader.

Party veterans vie for Liberal presidency
By Jeff Davis, Postmedia News

OTTAWA — Former deputy prime minister Sheila Copps and recently defeated Liberal politicians Mark Holland and Siobhan Coady are all gearing up to challenge for the presidency of the Liberal Party of Canada.

While many would be loath to lead such a gravely wounded party, loyalists are rallying around a Liberal banner they believe can rise again.

Copps says the crushing electoral defeat Liberals suffered got her — and many other Liberals — thinking of a return to active politics.

"When we came out of last election and we were reduced to third party status, I think it was a wake up call for a lot of who have been on the sidelines," she told Postmedia News Wednesday.

The duties of a federal party president are onerous, including party organization, fundraising, expanding membership and liasing with local riding associations.

The article mentions a lot of names who I'm very happy to see mentioned. Sheila Copps' exit in 2004 remains one of the saddest chapters in recent Liberal history, so seeing her back in the fold is outstanding news. Liberals need to let old grievances die and work together, or else the party won't be around in 10 years.

I'm a big fan of Siobhan Coady, and her name would likely be floating around in leadership discussions if she hadn't lost her seat on May 2nd. I'm also a fan of Mark Holland, who gave a barn burner speech on party renewal at this spring's Alberta Liberal convention.

The article also mentions Kingston and the Islands riding president Ron Hartling as a possible candidate. While I don't know Ron personally, there's something to be said for looking past the star power and picking a hard worker who will spend his or her time rebuilding the party, rather than doing panel shows. I've also heard of several other candidates kicking the tires.

So for me it will all come down to who has the best ideas and the clearest roadmap for rebuilding the party. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of talk about "renewal", "engaging members", and "the post-subsidy fundraising world" from all the candidates - but we need more than buzzwords at this point. It's going to take concrete ideas and a dogged determination to implement them.