The New Liberal Initiative http://www.newliberal.ca Creating a New School of Liberalism Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:10:24 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 Alberta Liberals say new open rules paying off http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Alberta+Liberals+open+rules+paying/5201601/story.html http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Alberta+Liberals+open+rules+paying/5201601/story.html#comments Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:08:49 +0000 Corina Ganton http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=703  
At a party convention in late May, facing declining support in the polls, delegates chose to become the first political party in Canada to open such contests to those without membership cards. The party had about 2,200 members at that time, but has now seen that number grow to 3,500 members and more than 15,500 registered “supporters.”
 
Click here to read more…
 
]]> http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Alberta+Liberals+open+rules+paying/5201601/story.html/feed/ 0 What will you do? http://www.newliberal.ca/682/what-will-you-do/ http://www.newliberal.ca/682/what-will-you-do/#comments Wed, 03 Aug 2011 03:09:50 +0000 Corina Ganton http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=682 Vancouver Sun that he felt like he was half leader, half psychotherapist as he traveled the country in July.
 
It’s not enough for us survive the next election; we have to thrive and flourish. Whatever our reasons are, we stand behind this party at its best. It’s time for us to act and take ownership of our party. We are the face of the party – it’s time to re-build it from the ground up.
 
Part of this renewal means taking responsibility for our party’s future. No more complacency or empty words – we all have a real stake in the development of the Liberal Party of Canada. Now is the time for commitment. A teacher once told a group of students, “what are you prepared to do today to deserve a better tomorrow?” and it is equally applicable here.
 
We have asked you why you became a Liberal, and we have asked you what keeps you involved.
 
Our final question in this three part series is:
 
What changes would you like to see in the Liberal Party of Canada and what will you do to make them happen?
 
]]> http://www.newliberal.ca/682/what-will-you-do/feed/ 0 VOTE: Senate Reform? http://www.newliberal.ca/635/vote-senate-reform/ http://www.newliberal.ca/635/vote-senate-reform/#comments Mon, 04 Jul 2011 05:31:45 +0000 New Liberal Initiative http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=635  
 
Let’s look at the numbers. Alberta has 9.1 per cent of the total number of members of Parliament but only 5.7 per cent of the Senators. – Stéphane Dion, Edmonton Journal
 
Why lose time on a reform that no one is demanding, that no one needs and that’s probably doomed to be declared unconstitutional? – Lysiane Gagnon, G&M
 
I’ll give credit where credit’s due: when it comes to Senate reform, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is on the right track.
– Michael Taube, Ottawa Citizen
 
If Harper isn’t prepared to … reopen the Constitution for real reform, he should limit terms, salaries and perks and leave the rest alone. – Brian Macleod, London Free Press
 
 
Let us know your thoughts below, and then take action! Discuss Senate reform with your friends and neighbours. Call your MP. Organize a letter writing campaign to your local newspaper. Propose a policy to your local Liberal riding association. Contact info@newliberal.ca if you’re looking for help on how you can get off the bench, and into the debate.
 
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
 
]]> http://www.newliberal.ca/635/vote-senate-reform/feed/ 0 Get Off The Bench! http://www.newliberal.ca/621/get-off-the-bench/ http://www.newliberal.ca/621/get-off-the-bench/#comments Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:30:36 +0000 Ryan http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=621  
Canadians think we’ve lost our way as a party. It’s right there in the election results, if you don’t believe me. From what I hear, right or wrong, Liberals are disorganized, deaf, and destructive. Our policies don’t match our actions and dissenting voices have either been shushed or moved out of the party all together. We refuse to face up to the outcomes we’ve created and evaluate ourselves with the same keen eye we use to evaluate others.
 
With all the frustrations out there, the same questions seem to be asked over and over. What should we do? How do we rebuild? After a month of the same conversations, I have pretty much one answer, lame or otherwise.
 
Get off the bench!
 
Get out of your own head. Stop asking yourself what’s wrong and get involved in the process. Especially if you are a political operative! Take some time to listen to the ocean.
 
I have some suggestions:
 
  1. Host a meeting of like-minded folks and have a discussion about Liberal shortcomings and things we can do better. Be the record keeper.
  2. Volunteer in your community or to a higher purpose. Do it because you are a good person, not because you want to troll for votes.
  3. Make a list of groups in your riding that you feel are respected and ask yourself what they have done to earn respect. Try to apply that logic to the Liberal Party and tell us what improvements we can make.
  4. Become an activist for a specific cause and put the full force of your talent into it.
We have time before the next election to take a hard look in the mirror. But the work starts today by linking together people that share liberal values or are at least open to them.
 
A lot of what passes for depression these days is nothing more than a body saying that it needs work. -Geoffrey Norman
 
]]> http://www.newliberal.ca/621/get-off-the-bench/feed/ 0 The New Liberal Clip Show http://www.newliberal.ca/603/the-new-liberal-clip-show/ http://www.newliberal.ca/603/the-new-liberal-clip-show/#comments Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:20:50 +0000 New Liberal Initiative http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=603  
 
 

Renewal Series

Corey Hogan takes us through the problems facing Liberalism and lays out his view for building a new liberal movement, culminating in a guide to people new to politics in how to get involved and become relevant in Liberal organizations.
 
Yes, There Is a Problem
A New Liberal Movement
Kickstarting Renewal
A New Liberal’s Guide to Change
 
 
 

“We Have to Be A National Party Again”

Video of Mark Holland as he delivers the keynote speech to the “Politics: Reimagined” convention put on by the Alberta Liberal Party.
 
 
 

The Alberta Liberal Party Convention

On May 29th, the Alberta Liberal Party voted overwhelmingly to open their party up to all Albertans who wish to vote in leadership and nomination contests – regardless of membership status. Members of the New Liberal Initiative were instrumental in the push for these changes.
 
What We Did This Weekend in Alberta – Corey Hogan
Alberta Liberal Convention Recap – Vincent St. Pierre
What I Saw This Weekend – Corina Ganton
 
 
 

What Happened, Where Do We Go?

Additional suggestions on what went wrong, and what we can do to remedy the situation that resulted from the last federal election from Kyle Olsen and Lucas Mitchell. “Direct Democracy” gives a number of ideas on how to restructure our Party, while “On Attention Spans” asks: were we even asking the right questions?
 
Direct Democracy – Kyle Olsen
On Attention Spans – Lucas Mitchell
 
 
 

Live Blogging the Liberal Extraordinary Convention

Extraordinary it was called, and extraordinary it was. Corey Hogan gives a thorough real-time rundown of the Liberal Party of Canada’s Extraordinary General Meeting.
 
 
 

Two Out of Three Questions

Last week, the New Liberals launched a series of three questions posed to the online readers. Among our most commented posts, two of those three questions are online now.
 
Why Are You a Liberal?
What Keeps You Involved?
 
]]> http://www.newliberal.ca/603/the-new-liberal-clip-show/feed/ 0 What Keeps You Involved? http://www.newliberal.ca/587/what-keeps-you-involved/ http://www.newliberal.ca/587/what-keeps-you-involved/#comments Thu, 23 Jun 2011 06:39:09 +0000 New Liberal Initiative http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=587 telephone conference put on by the Liberal Party of Canada. Held in the wake of a shattering defeat, this “Extraordinary General Meeting” was remarkable for its positivity, and the number of people who were devoted enough to the Liberal Party of Canada to give up their Saturday afternoon to be part of the discussions.
 
And yet, these 2000 people are only a fraction of the many people across the country that are working to make the Liberal Party of Canada a vital organization once again.
 
Even though the Liberal Party may be at one of its lowest points, there is something for each of us which makes us want to stay involved and be part of its future. We are all dedicated in some way to being part of the future of liberalism in Canada.
 
For each of us the reason we are continuing the fight is different. Some people want to make sure there continues to be a strong centrist voice in Canada. Many have dedicated so much time to the Party they simply do not want to see the death of something they have fought so long to develop. Certain individuals can’t fathom the disappearance of what has been such an important Canadian institution; for them, the party of Laurier, Pearson and Trudeau must survive!
 
And for others they are simply dedicated to the people around them – the other Liberals who they have worked beside for years, these people who have become their friends, and confidantes. The Liberal Party is their home.
 
Last week we asked you why you were a Liberal. This week, we move from the past to the present. In the comment section below, let us know…
 
What is it that keeps you dedicated to the Liberal Party?
 
]]> http://www.newliberal.ca/587/what-keeps-you-involved/feed/ 0 On Attention Spans http://www.newliberal.ca/582/on-attention-spans/ http://www.newliberal.ca/582/on-attention-spans/#comments Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:48:07 +0000 Lucas Mitchell http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=582  
This is always a dicey moment for a Liberal in Alberta. The hosts were Liberals, or at least sympathetic, but I had never met most of the extended family members around the table, and the odds were pretty good that they weren’t as keen on my political leanings. Dinner parties with strangers and children are rarely the best places to get into heated political debates, so I began explaining that I was working for the Liberal Party in Alberta’s campaign team, while walking the fine line that Alberta Liberals become so adept at straddling – the line between explaining our convictions and trying desperately not to incite anyone to begin hurling profanity in our direction.
 
In this particular case, I didn’t have that much to worry about. Everyone was very polite and interested, and the conversation carried on into a peaceful and generally thoughtful discussion about the federal election. Eventually, as these things are wont to do, it came around to the topic of negative campaign ads. No one likes negative campaign ads. Most people, when asked (and often without being asked), will tell you that they find them condescending and ineffective. We’re all smart enough to know when we’re being manipulated, we say, and these ads aren’t even very good attempts at manipulation. This conversation was no different. And then, perhaps just as predictably, a dinner guest who had been one of the more vociferous denouncers of the ads and who was clearly an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful person, announced that she didn’t think she could support Michael Ignatieff because his eyebrows were too creepy. She didn’t trust his eyebrows.
 
I don’t mean to write yet another post about how “negative ads work”, or about how ridiculously dishonest the Conservative portrayal of Michael Ignatieff was. There is lots of stuff on the internet about that, and it’s hardly new information. What I am interested in is what this encounter said to me about the difference between what political organizers think people are paying attention to, and what they’re really paying attention to.
 
Much has been written about the 24 hour news cycle and how it applies to politics and Canada. News can happen any time, and stories can flare up and then completely disappear in a matter of hours. Twitter, blogs, facebook, cell phones, whatever: politics is about sound bites and being on top of issues as soon as they happen. The result, the story goes, is that attention spans are shorter. People no longer pay attention to the bigger, longer, less “exciting” issues, because there are just so many smaller, punchier issues monopolizing their time and attention. And as organizers or marketers or whatever, we have to be on top of all of those small issues, reacting to them and spinning them in our favour. I don’t even want to tell you the sheer number of hours I spent in meetings and on conference calls during the election talking about our “twitter strategy”.
 
I don’t buy it. Or at least, I think we need some caveats. I think that the 24 hour news cycle and the compression of current events in many cases has the exact opposite effect on the general public that it does on political organizers. For the organizers, it becomes all-consuming. We begin to look at the world around us on an ever more micro level. We spend hours on the internet with CBC Newsworld humming in the background, taking in every detail and interpreting them and spitting them back out, modified to suit our own purposes. Regular people don’t approach the flood of information this way. They’re too busy not being obsessed with the media to an unhealthy degree. They have the exact opposite reaction: rather than looking at the world on a more micro level, their frame of reference expands, it becomes more macro. There is just too much crap going on, the signal to noise ratio on the micro level is no good.
 
More importantly, our attempt to control the micro level can, I think, often make the problem worse. Our attempts to “control” the message and spin every single issue and event just amplifies the noise exponentially. Often when we think we’re being clever or convincing or whatever, we’re really just being loud and confusing. People aren’t changing their minds, they’re changing the channel.
 
Maybe attention spans are getting shorter, maybe they aren’t. What I do think is happening is that people are choosing to devote their conscious attention to issues that have more relevance to their lives. But as political organizers or marketers or whatever, we’re fighting our battles and staking our claims in a territory that is more and more being populated only by our own kind. The people I spoke to at that dinner party weren’t talking about whatever issues the various campaigns had obsessed over that day, they were talking about their impressions. They were basing their political leanings and their vote on much more abstract feelings about the parties or candidates or their ads or their leader’s eyebrows.
 
Now, I’m not saying that the issues aren’t important or that we shouldn’t be reacting or defending ourselves against whatever is going on day-to-day. I use twitter all the time and I’m as big a news junkie as they come. These things are important and they have their place and they definitely have value. What I’m saying is that we can’t be doing that at the expense of the longer-term. If people are giving us less of their short-term, conscious attention, we need to cater to what they are still giving us: their long-term, unconscious attention. Negative ads work because they stick in the backgrounds of our brains without our even realizing it. The strategy for the Liberal Party isn’t to get bogged down in the minutiae of day-to-day politics, but rather to develop an understanding of what people’s unconscious impression of us is. We need to get past the sense that we’re smarter or better informed or more correct on a policy or ideological level, and come up with a long-term strategy for planting a positive impression in the backs of people’s brains. Moreover, that positive impression has to be strong enough to withstand the negative impressions that our opponents are trying just as hard to craft.
 
In the 2011 election the Liberal Party ran a far, far better campaign on a micro level than any of the other political parties. Turns out that wasn’t where the real fight was.
 
]]> http://www.newliberal.ca/582/on-attention-spans/feed/ 0 Live: 2011 Extraordinary General Meeting http://www.newliberal.ca/496/live-the-2011-extraordinary-general-meeting/ http://www.newliberal.ca/496/live-the-2011-extraordinary-general-meeting/#comments Sat, 18 Jun 2011 19:05:40 +0000 Corey Hogan http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=496  
I’m live blogging the 2011 Extraordinary General Meeting of the Liberal Party of Canada (LISTEN LIVE HERE) from my hotel room in downtown Vancouver. On the docket are two amendments to our constitution and five sub-amendments that will determine the timelines for Liberal renewal.
 
Extraordinary it’s called, and extraordinary it is. For the first time, the Liberal Party will be holding an entire convention by teleconference. Delegates from coast-to-coast will be picking up their phones any minute to be inviting Bob Rae, Alfred Apps, and almost 3000 of their peers into their living room for what’s expected to be a 2-3 hour meeting.
 
—–
 
2:59pm EDT
And we’re off to the races. Received my phone call to hear convention moderator Peter Milliken invite me to stay on the line for the imminent start of the EGM. Currently listening to the on-hold music – elevators from the 1980s reported to be furious at the plagiarism.
 
3:04pm EDT
And we’re on for real now. Peter Milliken gives us a rundown on the rules. We use our touchtone phone to enter on debate and vote. We press *0 to raise points of order. That should be interesting.
 
3:08pm EDT
Bob Rae starts off mentioning he’s at a wedding today (me too – ’tis the season) and then begins his remarks with a dig at Harper. Explains we are here for two reasons: when is the next convention? When will the leadership convention be set?
 
3:09pm EDT
Bob Rae: “We can’t play the blame game”. “The Liberal Party is a movement”. “Many commentators have noted that Stephen Harper’s objective is to destroy the Liberal Party”. “We’re going to rebuild, not just for the next election, but the one after that and the decades ahead”. “We will be a vigorous opposition to Mr. Harper.”
 
3:14pm EDT
Bob Rae: “Rebuilding also means looking at how we can improve the relationship between the National Org., PTAs, Commissions, Ridings”. “Rebuilding does not mean refighting the last election. Means building a Party ready to fight the next election.”
 
3:17pm EDT
Bob Rae: “It’s going to take a bit of time, it’s going to take a lot of commitment. I believe we need to take the time needed”. “I want to ask all practical, pragmatic Canadians out there to get involved in this exciting process we call rebuilding.” “We are not a closed club. We are a movement.” - Well, maybe not yet, but I’ll Amen that anyhow.
 
3:20pm EDT
Bob’s done. Peter’s back. Instructions are repeated. *0 to do a point of order. Amendments and sub-amendments posted at Liberal.ca. Simultaneously translated. Modern times, folks.
 
3:22pm EDT
We are dealing with the constitutional proposal for the leadership vote. Makes sense to do it first, if we stick with the fall, the convention question becomes pretty moot. Peter Milliken reads the original amendment. A bunch of sub-amendments coming up on this one, which according to the rules we will be voting between to see which one goes on to a vote for the amendment itself.
 
3:25pm EDT
Lucienne Robillard speaks on behalf of the National Executive. Hard to hear my translator, who is coming through very quiet, but describing the composition of the National Executive and the decisions made by the National Executive to date. “It became clear to all members of the Board that we would have to consult all members to hear what they thought about the leadership.” “We also consulted with the Council of Presidents and defeated candidates and PTA Presidents”. “A clear consensus emerged. The members told us very clearly that we needed time for some reflection”. “Over eight year’s we’ve had four leaders”. – Ouch, that rivals the Alberta Liberal Party.
 
3:27pm EDT
Lucienne Robillard: “There are various view on when we should elect the leader”. “A number of people have told us 18 months would be optimal.” Lucienne explains the benefit of going next year, and that if the amendment is not passed the leadership happens this fall. I expected her to perhaps suggest why the sub-amendments were less than optimal, am glad that she did not.
 
3:30pm EDT
We now have a 2 minute break. Is this going to be a regular occurrence, are there technical difficulties, or did Peter Milliken need to go to the washroom? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
3:35pm EDT
We’re back. It has been technical difficulties that kept us aside. Call 1-888-449-3334 to get the LPC Helpdesk if you get dropped off of the call or are having trouble getting on. Over 2000 people online at the moment.
 
3:37pm EDT
Voting will be in 3 stages. First, vote for your preferred sub amendment to determine which sub-amendment will be put to a vote. Second, we will be asked if that preferred sub-amendment has our support. Third, if the sub-amendment passes, we will then vote on the amendment as sub-amended. Simple majority needed to tack the sub-amendment onto the amendment. We then need 2/3rds to get the full amendment passed.
 
3:39pm EDT
Sub-amendment one is up. This is from Jeff Jedras, and would move the leadership to September to November in 2012. Jeff Jedras: “This splits the difference between the two camps”. “It needs to be a balancing act between the two”. “Renewal is not separate from leadership. Leadership and renewal are intrinsically linked. Part of the renewal process has to involve the election of a leader with moral authority to participate in rebuilding of the Party with us.” DISCLOSURE: I seconded this sub-amendment.
 
My reasons were not touched on. It’s that by having such a broad window for the leadership vote to take place in as proposed by the first amendment would make the National Executive a football for leadership camps, who would naturally want to set the rules to their advantage.
 
3:44pm EDT
Sub-amendment two now, which would move the leadership potentially as late as June 30, 2013. Gregg Guptill: “We don’t want to spend the next twelve months in an unproductive wheelspin”. ”Respect us, the grassroots members by hearing what we have to say”. “We need a team to reengage the grassroots and refine their input”. “Stop the wheelspin and take time to listen to the grassroots”. “Hear, and more importantly, understand what is being said”. “Our proposed sub-amendments provide stability in the first year of our re-engagement process…” … and it seems that Gregg hit his time limit and was cut off. Don’t worry Gregg. It happened to Stephane Dion, it can happen to anyone.
 
3:49pm EDT
Sub-amendment three. Very similar to sub-amendment two in moving to June 30th, 2013 as the latest for the contest, but moves back the earliest possible date to March of 2013. And speaking of Stephane Dion! Stephane speaks in favour of this sub-amendment. Stephane Dion: “We cannot succeed in rebuilding the Party if we don’t go step-by-step”. “We have four and a half years, we have the time to do it”. “If we don’t rebuild the Party as much as possible before we get our leader, this leader won’t be protected by us, this leader will be framed by the Conservative machine”. Fair point, and he’s certainly in a position to know.
 
3:53pm EDT
Stephane Dion: “We are in good hands with our friend Bob Rae”. “Give our next leader a chance. Give rebuilding a chance. For Canada, I suggest strongly to vote for sub-amendment three”.
 
3:55pm EDT
Our first point of order! …and it’s withdrawn. It was about whether or not people were able to get online. Seems the difficulties from previous have been fixed.
 
3:56pm EDT
If you wish to join the queue to speak, please press *3. Give your name, EDA/position, speak for a minute. Peter Milliken will try to keep it even between the three amendments.
 
3:57pm EDT
Dan Fox from Willowdale speaks in favour of the motion from Jeff Jedras. Gives a good plug to the Edward Blake Society, asks we vote for the amendment regardless of how it is sub-amended. “The amendment strikes the right balance”. “The dangers of a long race…” … and time up. That’s going to get annoying.
 
3:58pm EDT
Mike Crawley from Parkdale-High Park speaks for SA3. “We have a choice”. “We need to take the time for the Party and the members to be as ready as possible”. Jean-Guy Richard also speaks in favour of SA3. Doesn’t like the idea of a winter convention – there could be storms. June is too close to the summer. March or April 2013 for Jean-Guy. Jessie Helmer from London-West speaks in favour of SA1. “The new leader needs some time for Canadians to get to know them”. “We can pick a new leader and rebuild the Party at the same time”.
 
4:00pm EDT
Another speaker for SA3. Asks SA2 people to vote strategically for SA3. On its face a very clever idea for those who want to go later, but it’s a run-off vote anyhow until one of the SAs gets a majority. Two more speakers for SA3.
 
4:04pm EDT
One more speaker for SA1, one more against all the SAs – but if my shifting sentiments are indicative of what’s happening on the call, I am thinking that SA3 might have it. I guess we’ll see in just a minute or two.
 
4:07pm EDT
A couple of people now supporting the original amendment and talking against any of the SAs. It’s funny – I’d almost forgotten that was an option after all the speakers for SA1 or SA3. It just reminds one how much the speaker’s list can affect the outcomes, because assuming Peter Milliken is trying to balance speaks from all amendments, sentiment seems to be to shifting towards two years before we fill the leadership role. Quite remarkable, actually!
 
4:11pm EDT
At this point, the SA3 people are just owning the podium.
 
4:14pm EDT
The debate has certainly become a bit reiterative. “We need time to rebuild” vs. “The leader is part of that rebuilding”. A lot more of the “we need time” folk. The writing on the wall seems to be that we will be a Party with no permanent leader for two years. And that’s fascinating. The grassroots is truly taking over.
 
4:19pm EDT
Okay, time to vote on whether or not we need more debate on the SAs. And let’s face it folks, we don’t. Vote 2. Vote to vote.
 
4:20pm EDT
Vote is overwhelming to proceed to the voting. Let’s hear it for Liberal efficiency. SA voting time. We pick our favourite of the three, and then that goes to a proper vote to tack the SA on to the amendment.
 
4:24pm EDT
And the results of Vote #1 are in: We’ll be voting about whether to tack SA3 onto the amendment.
 
4:29pm EDT
And the results of Vote #2 are in. SA3 has been added on to the amendment. Now if the overall amendment passes, we’ll be choosing our next leader between March and June of 2013. It’s a stark choice: June 2013 or October 2011. That’s a huge chasm but I suspect one we won’t have any trouble crossing.
 
4:32pm EDT
Another round of debate, this time on the whole amendment. *3 to get on the list. I can’t imagine we need 10 minutes on this given the sentiment. Not knowing the breakdown of the votes (something I wish they’d announce), the risk I guess now is that June 2013 became a poison pill for some people who will now vote against the whole amendment, which has a higher bar to pass than the SA did to be tacked on – 66% rather than 50%. Should the amendment fail, we’d be in a leadership contest right here, right now, ending in October. But I sense that risk is low.
 
4:37pm EDT
No surprises here. First two speakers in favour of the amendment. Let’s see if anyone speaks in favour of October…
 
4:38pm EDT
A speaker opposed to SA3 in favour of the original, but they’re a bit late on that one. We’re back on track with the June 2013 love-in.
 
4:42pm EDT
A couple of people opposed to the amendment and the end of debate. We’re at 4-2-1, with the 1 being the gentleman opposed to SA3 still. If that’s representative (I suspect it is not), the amendment could actually be in trouble. We’ll know in a minute.
 
4:52pm EDT
Uh oh. We’re having a revote because of “technical problems”. That might be a bad sign for the amendment. Certainly suggests its close enough that technical problems could swing it one way or the other.
 
4:57pm EDT
Okay folks, by an 89% majority, the delegates have decided to move our leadership selection date back to 2013. Sometime between March and June of that year the Liberal Party of Canada will be choosing the new leader. As I mentioned, this is a move nearly unprecedented. Unless you count the mess in the 1910s with the Liberal-Conservative coalition and the Laurier Liberals, I doubt we’ve gone two years without a permanent leader ever. A bold experiment to be sure. As a party we’ve asked for it, so let’s make sure we make good use of this time.
 
4:58pm EDT
Time to move on to moving the Biennial. Seems pretty anti-climactic at this point. Heck, if we wanted, we have time for two biennials between now and leadership.
 
5:00pm EDT
Craig Munroe, President of LPCBC explains the technical nature of this amendment. The election bumped the convention, we couldn’t find space in December, we need an amendment to delay past the constitutional deadline. It also means that our contribution limits reset after we all donated our max for the election. A proposed sub-amendment would delay the convention to June, Craig speaks against it: fees, delay to elections, inability to meet as a party before then, etc. It’s all a very sound argument and I’d be blown away if the sub-amendment passes.
 
5:04pm EDT
Gregg Guptill from PEI is back and speaks to sub-amend the convention proposal to have it take place at a later date. He has another amendment down the road to potentially move the convention from Ottawa. “People take summer and Christmas off”. Hearing some people talk on this call you’d think you can only do politics 4 months of the year.
 
5:05pm EDT
It will cost $100k to cancel the Ottawa convention! I think Gregg might have torpedoed his own sub-amendment with that nugget of information.
 
5:08pm EDT
First few speakers opposed to delaying the Convention. And somebody calls for the resignation of President Alfred Apps which I have to imagine is out of order since we’re talking about the convention.
 
5:16pm EDT
End of debate on SA4. Some in favour – but most against – the idea of delaying the Convention. There has been an interesting cognitive dissonance: you could definitely argue that many of the successful arguments for delaying the leadership can be used just as legitimately to delay the Convention. Notwithstanding the small amount of hypocrisy involved in the act, I know I’ll be voting against the delay.
 
5:22pm EDT
And another sub-amendment vote completed. This time it’s more straightforward, and SA4 – which would have delayed the convention – is defeated (75% against).
 
5:27pm EDT
Final sub-amendment of the day, also from Gregg Guptill, would allow the Convention to be somewhere other than Ottawa. Kind of a moot sub-amendment. Even if it passes, I’m sure we’ll be picking Ottawa because we already did. Gregg doesn’t like the idea of a specific location being named in the Constitution, and he’s right that it is very prescriptive for a constitutional amendment. But the fact is, all of these amendments are very prescriptive, all are very temporary, and none will have any effect beyond 2013.
 
5:35pm EDT
The final sub-amendment – removing reference to Ottawa as the location for the convention, is defeated 30-70. On to the final vote of the day – rescheduling the Convention to January. If this doesn’t pass with 2/3rds, we need to have our convention by the end of the year. Since we’ve already heard there’s no venues available, I guess we just find a field or a well proportioned parking lot. Seeing as it’ll be November/December, I am going to recommend you bring your mittens.
 
5:40pm EDT
A forceful couple of speakers against the one month delay – but in different ways. One wants it earlier, one wants it later. One of them is again, a little too late.
 
5:45pm EDT
Definitely has more people going back and forth on the merits of this amendment than the previous ones. Could this be the surprise of #lpcx?
 
5:51pm EDT
And debate is over and we’re on to the last vote of the day. As long as Peter Milliken doesn’t come on and say we have to redo all the votes because of catastrophic error, I think we can say this convention was a success, and surprisingly workable. We might want to consider something like this for the entire membership every few months.
 
5:53pm EDT
89% vote in favour of the final amendment and business is concluded. See you all in Ottawa in January.
 
5:54pm EDT
Peter Milliken: “This has been an historic afternoon”. – and with those words we’re done. From wheels up to wheels down we wrapped up in just under three hours, and we did it in a way where members were able to be heard. Not bad work for a Saturday afternoon. So what were your thoughts on the LPC Extraordinary Convention? Were the right choices made? What next? Join the discussion below.
 
]]> http://www.newliberal.ca/496/live-the-2011-extraordinary-general-meeting/feed/ 0 Why Are You a Liberal? http://www.newliberal.ca/485/why-are-you-a-liberal/ http://www.newliberal.ca/485/why-are-you-a-liberal/#comments Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:12:30 +0000 New Liberal Initiative http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=485  
There were charts, there were fierce words, there was beer, and there were ideas. There were some people who we knew weren’t going to come back.
 
But overwhelmingly, there was hope. It quickly became apparent that almost everybody in that room was committed to developing a new liberal initiative for this country; a new school of liberalism. We wanted to be more than a Party. We wanted to be a movement.
 
Our first discussion at that pub in downtown Edmonton was very basic. The questions we asked and answered allowed each of us to reflect on our journey as a Liberal. It also gave us the opportunity to reflect on what made each of us self-identify as a Liberal.
 
That was just twenty people in a pub in Edmonton, and that was only a month ago. This movement has gotten bigger, but the fundamentals remain the same.
 
Meetings like the one we had in Edmonton are happening all across this country. And those meetings inevitably start with three basic questions, which we’ll be posting over the next week, the first of which is below:
 
What brought you to the Liberal Party of Canada in the first place?
 
In Edmonton, our answers were varied. For some people it was a single policy issue that sparked their involvement, i.e. health care. For others it was the relationship to a parent, or relative that first drew them in. Some confessed that it was simply that the Liberals had the best free beer on campus, and for others a past leader or local politician is what made them take the leap.
 
Now it’s your turn. What is your origin story?
 
]]> http://www.newliberal.ca/485/why-are-you-a-liberal/feed/ 0 Sure, But What Have We Done To You Lately? http://www.newliberal.ca/473/sure-but-what-have-we-done-to-you-lately/ http://www.newliberal.ca/473/sure-but-what-have-we-done-to-you-lately/#comments Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:09:46 +0000 Corey Hogan http://www.newliberal.ca/?p=473  
And as a Liberal, I know my talking points. How the NEP was agreed to by then Premier Lougheed and how it was world oil prices – not any policy from Ottawa – that caused the collapse of the energy industry in the 1980s. How the GST would have been cut in 1993, but the outgoing Conservatives had badly misrepresented the actual size of the deficit. And how the Liberals themselves were the ones who called the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.
 
But I also know if I need to use those talking points, I’ve already lost whoever I’m talking to.
 
I wasn’t quite three years old when Mulroney took power and ended the NEP. I was too young to even join a political party when the Red Book called for the elimination of the GST. And if you think as a teenager in Calgary I was in any position to benefit from the sponsorship scandal, you’re dreaming.
 
So I think it’s understandable that as a Liberal, I’m tired of being hung for the sins of my forefathers.
 
My sentiment is not unique. Many Liberals I know would rather turn the page on some of our darker chapters. But there’s two sides to that coin. If we are asking people not to hold us responsible for the actions of our predecessors, we can’t then demand credit for their accomplishments.
 
The Party of the Charter is also the Party of the NEP. The Liberals who slayed the deficit in the 1990s are the Liberals who got embroiled in the sponsorship scandal.
 
This Party loves its history, and in dark times such as these it is tempting to dwell on it. But that history is a double edged sword, and Liberal Party of Canada needs to turn it’s gaze from yesterday to today if it wishes to be competitive tomorrow.
 
]]> http://www.newliberal.ca/473/sure-but-what-have-we-done-to-you-lately/feed/ 0