If they were serious about avoiding another few years of leadership-related infighting, the Liberals would revise their process - either with one of the more drastic steps I suggested last week, or by switching to a one-member, one-vote system. But in their frantic rush to replace Dion, it seems there's not enough time to ensure they don't elect another version of him.
Pretty common sense thus far. One reason I've never actually joined the Liberal party is because signing up is really just the first step in acquiring a say in the direction of the party--in, for example, getting an opportunity to help choose a leader. The second step is brown-nosing your way into the favor of some local riding poo-bah and getting selected as a delegate. And, even once you get to the convention, bizarre and archaic rules "bind" you to a candidate you may not personally support for a long stretch of voting.
And, oh yes, at every step the party wants to suck money out of you.
With the Tories, it was a 10$ charge and I was in (back in the 1990s). I am given to understand that the NDP process is also quite a bit less baroque. If the Libs want more money out of their Members then, paradoxically, they are going to have to treat them as something more than cash cows.
But what Radwanski doesn't seem to understand is that, at the 2006 Montreal convention the Party rejected one-member one-vote and decided to keep instead that three ring monkey show, that combination of bacchanal and smoke filled rooms, known as a delegated convention. So, as far as I can determine, another one more of these at least is unavoidable.
What should happen now, then, is that they should get the damn thing out of the way. And both a new leader and a series of party reforms--recommitting the Liberals to their grass roots and ditching the convention format--should emerge from the May meeting in Vancouver.
I would like something to be done sooner, but I don't see how that is possible.
3 comments:
The Liberal Party should take a good hard look at itself and start thinking about the long game. In the rush to regain power, the party has failed to do a serious self-examination and identify flaws ranging from inability to conduct solid fundraising to the way in which it elects a leader - it should be one member, one vote - not the incestuous system it currently uses. It needs to move back to the mushy middle because, God knows, Canadians don't like to take a stand on anything and when you're in the mushy middle you can give a little to the left, a little to the right and everyone's happy (except those on the left and right). Being in the middle placates Canadian's sense of fair play - while it's bad for defining things like public policy, it's politically safe. (This is why the middle is now owned by the Conservative Party of Canada)
Surely the National Executive could make an executive decision on behalf of the membership to implement one-member, one-vote now. The decision could easily be defended since it gives more power to individual members at a time when the party needs to reconnect in a meaningful way. This idea may have been rejected at the last leadership convention in Montréal, but how many of the delegates actually voted on the motion? My recollection is that it was voted upon by a small minority of the registered delegates. The entire delegation from my riding, including me, skipped it because we were focused on selecting the leader. That why most of us were in Montréal. We weren't there to debate the party constitution.
This is why the middle is now owned by the Conservative Party of Canada
22% of the electorate is not "the middle." It's more like the lunatic fringe.
Post a Comment