Winning Back the Hearts and Minds

Here are the results of the last several federal elections (click on the images for better resolution) across the Canadian electorate from two different lenses (wouldn't it be nice if polls always told us how many respondents actually planned to vote):




I'm hopeful that with Peter Donolo, one of the architects of the last Liberal revival, now put in charge of Michael Ignatieff's office, that a cold hard examination will take place of why the party has lost support over the years, where it went, and just how it can be earned it back, region by region, group by group.

I know that we can't over glamourize the "golden years", but Liberals would be foolish not to take lessons from just how under Jean Chretien they went from even trailing the NDP in the polls at one point to winning a landslide victory. With a focused, disciplined communication strategy based both on the failings of the government and their own concrete plans for the future (and yes a Thinkers Conference in Quebec) Liberals overcame the negative press and slowly built back up their support. By the time the election came Canadians knew what Liberals stood for and Liberals had a clear narrative for the campaign that appealed to a wide section of voters. They started out the campaign behind the governing party, but trounced everyone in the end.

That said, Liberals should recognize that the political climate differs in many fundamental ways now than then. There was no divided right, the PM will be in his 4th campaign vs. Ignatieff's 1st, the global economic crisis has led some voters cut the government slack over the deficit, the unprecedented government self-promotion ad buy, Chretien had 3 years to plan while Ignatieff may only have 5 more months, amongst other factors. Even so, the basic communications strategy from then can be applied to now to reverse the trends in the Liberals' favour.

But the message is just one part of the puzzle, who it is primarily directed to is another. Liberals would be wise to make a concerted effort to rebuild the winning voting coalition of 1993 (with some additions and subtractions here and there).

Many pundits have talked about the need for Liberals to win back women, minorities, and so called "mainstream Canadians" who have drifted off to other parties. This is definitely true, but I do hope it's not lost that it hasn't just been voters leaving to other parties that has cost Liberals support, but also the fact that many of the old supporters have stayed home in droves. A 12% drop in voter turnout since 1993 is nothing to scoff at - there were actually fewer total # of votes cast in 2008 than in 1993 despite the Canadian population growing by over 5.5 million since then. This represents a huge swath of voters that should not be given up on.

The Liberals' 1993 win was not only the best popular vote score the Liberals have received since 1980, but also the last time the winning party in a Canadian election received a larger share of the vote than there were non-voters. Stephen Harper wants to depress voter turnout further. He wants to turn off as many people as possible with relentless negatively and attempts to portray himself as being no different than were the Liberals. If he wins an election with only 20% of registered voters, that's fine by him.

But if Canadians who didn't vote in the last election think the Liberals are not all that different from the government then they'll be staying home again. They need to be convinced their vote would actually make a difference and that Liberals would truly represent their ideals. They need to hear concrete ideas on how the culture in Ottawa that Conservatives poisoned will be really changed for the good.

If Liberals can present themselves as a party unafraid of bold leadership on the issues of the day, and that will provide good honest government, this will provide an excellent contrast with Harper's way of governing.

It's clear that work has already begun to rebuild the winning coalition, but there is much more to do. Many Liberals have put forward ideas/advice in the past (including myself), some of which has already begun to be implemented, and some more practical than others, but no one should be under no illusions just how much work needs to be done both within the party and to broaden its appeal with the general public.

There are many months now to lay the groundwork for a narrative both about the party and for the next election and there will be an excellent chance to showcase the Liberal message and ideas at the Thinker's Conference in Montreal in March. It's going to take some major heavy lifting from the highest to the lowest levels of the party, but Liberals been in worse straights before and came out the other side victorious. I know they can do it again.

Recommend this Post

Standing Out from the Crowd

The Conservatives' politicization of the distribution of infrastructure funds and government websites is a story that is hitting them hard on one of their biggest weaknesses. But it is not yet a story that is highlighting why the public should trust Liberals to be better. While Canadians across the board will cringe at images like these, many will unfortunately think "a pox on all their houses, I can't trust any of them." Liberals need to reach these people and convince them that they are the only party that will truly put a stop to the nonsense in Ottawa and restore faith in government again. And in fact the Liberals have put the ideas out there to do just that.

Liberals proposed expanding the Gas Tax Transfer program to distribute infrastructure funds. This would have allowed the stimulus funds to be distributed faster and under an already established system of audit, administration and evaluation. Instead, the infrastructure program was completely politicized and the money is distributed with virtually no oversight by comparison.

Conservatives have spent tens of millions on partisan government advertising, while the Liberals have proposed to end the practice by having an independent advisory committee vet all ads.

Conservatives want to spend money recklessly with no one to watch over them, while the Liberals would strengthen the Parliamentary Budget Office's watchdog ability by making it independent.

But the media stories about the Conservative cheque fiasco don't mention any of the Liberal proposals. In fact some lazy reporting has claimed Liberals did the exact same thing (not true) or haven't proposed how they'd do different (also not true). That needs to be changed.

Every time Liberals are hammering the Conservatives for inaction, mismanagement or excessive partisanship they need to also get the message out of what they'd do different.

When they are talking Conservative stonewalling investigations and appalling secrecy, they can highlight the pledge to improve access to information laws.

When they are talking about Conservatives abandoning Canadians abroad they can mention how Liberals have promised to pass legislation ensuring that what happened to Suaad Mohamud would never happen to another Canadian and that, unlike the Conservatives, Liberals don't support having a Canadian child solider in Guantanamo Bay.

When Liberals are criticizing the Conservatives on the environment they should point to the party's plans on clean energy and a cap and trade system with hard caps. How real leadership would benefit Canadians economically and Conservative inaction costs us.

You get the point. But it would great to see in the future any article talking about the latest Conservative scandal having at least a couple lines saying "The Liberals have said if they are elected to government they would....". The Liberals put the ideas out there in many cases, but the bulkk of the media aren't biting. That isn't necessarily the Liberals' fault, but they need to do what they can to address this perhaps by talking up their own proposals more forcefully in press conferences, speeches, or press releases, alongside the sharp critiques of the Conservatives.

Now there are many parts of the next platform that the party doesn't want to reveal before a campaign and that's perfectly understandable (and I agree with that), but in those cases where Liberals slam Conservatives for something and want their counter-proposal(s) kept under wraps, even just a quick sound bite from Michael Ignatieff saying something along the lines of "rest assured, this would never be allowed to happen under our watch!" is worth a lot and would find its way into the media coverage.

When Liberals are just critical it might help to shake votes loose from the Conservatives, but not necessarily driving them back to the Liberals. Pure negativity also risks feeding the narratives spread about the Liberals being a party that opposes, but that has no ideas or identity of its own to distinguish itself from the government.

I know it's tough to get the media and public to pay attention to your ideas when you are in opposition, but Liberals succeeded with this before in the early 90s and I know the party can again.

Recommend this Post

Putting Policy Centre Stage and the Thinkers Conference

Plans are apparently in the works apparently for the Liberals to hold a "thinkers conference" in January modeled on the famous "Kingston conference" that Pearson organized in 1960 and that set the direction of Liberal party policy for many years to come. Obviously this conference will operate much differently than the one almost 50 years ago, but the Liberals stand at a crossroads today similar to then.

Even as a big policy person myself, I don't believe that policies or platforms actually win elections, but narratives do. Whoever has the best story to tell about why they deserve the reins of government and why the other parties don't stands the best chance of coming out on top as long as long as the public buys the narrative.

And bad narratives that you can't shake can certainly lose you elections. Today there seem to be 3 related narratives that are a big drag on our support levels even though to varying degrees they aren't actually true:

1) The Liberals aren't proposing any policy and yet want to be seen as a government in waiting
2) The Liberals don't sound like they'd govern significantly differently from the Conservatives
3) The Liberals don't stand for anything and don't really know what they are about.

Now Michael Ignatieff has been out there proposing policy in broad strokes, and in ads, speeches and Question Period has been saying where the Conservatives have gone wrong and how the Liberals would be different. I understand he's going to give a speech this Tuesday that will give more details on his plans for the environment. These are all good steps. But they haven't been enough to reach the people we need to win over. I've met many non-partisans who believe these three negative narratives in spite of the reality. We need to reach them better.

A "Kingston for our age" as Michael Ignatieff once described it represents an excellent opportunity to reverse the narratives bringing us down and show to the country that unlike Stephen Harper we want to bring the best minds and ideas together to address the big issues of our time. That you can't trust Stephen Harper with our county's future, but you can trust us.

It's not a guaranteed homerun by any means. There needs to still be sufficient Liberal party grassroots input into the conference as there does expert opinions or it could end up being portrayed as an elitist affair. And it can't just be a bunch of "position papers" or "think tank sessions" being presented and everyone goes home with no ideas actually being decided upon or it could be seen as just talking around in circles. Those sessions were worthwhile at the convention, but people will be expecting a lot more from something modeled on the Kingston conference.

When it's over the media and the public should know our overall narrative of what we are about and be able to say it in 10 words or less. And they should know some very specific things we'd do in government. They don't need to know where we stand on every issue, we don't have to give away the whole platform, but put enough on the table that no one can credibly say anymore that we don't have a plan for government or that we wouldn't govern very different from Harper. A similar conference helped Chretien and the Liberals come back from opposition in the early 90's, it can help us now.

If we are worried about ideas being torn to shreds by Conservatives outside a campaign, something that doesn't withstand scrutiny outside the writ could just as easily be slammed during the campaign. There are many directions we can take that the Conservatives won't be able to criticize (and wouldn't adopt either) and that the public (particularly those that have lost faith in all Ottawa politicians) would favour. We shouldn't be afraid to put them forward sooner rather than later.

Waiting till the campaign for any real policy specifics risks the negative narratives feeding a downward cycle that with each drop becomes harder to get out of. We can easily gain back any support we've lost now and it starts with being a party that doesn't just oppose, but also proposes. And getting in that pattern needn't wait till January either, it can start in the weeks ahead right in the House.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe we can win back government in the next campaign, but Canadians aren't going to be willing to give it to us until they know and understand why we want it and what we'd do with it. Between now and March our main goal should be to ensure they do.

Recommend this Post

Facts to Brighten Your Day and the Road Ahead

So it seems that with the election speculation out of the way, many in the media have moved on to the next favourite past time which is obsessing about the latest polls. Since these stories are already getting a bit repetitive, here are some facts it would be nice to see some reporters bear in mind that might just add a little more context to those Liberal "doom and gloom" /"Harper can't be stopped" themes that are being peddled:

1) Liberals fall 2009 meet Conservatives circa fall 2005: The Conservatives started the 2005/06 election campaign farther behind the Liberals in the polls than the Liberals are behind the Conservatives now. NANOS/SES had them down by 15 points (41%-26%) 11 days into the campaign and the Conservatives were still down 10 points even 25 days into the campaign. Remember Harper and Co. did force a Christmas election "no one wanted". Well we know how that campaign turned out and NANOS was by far the most accurate in predicting the final result.

2) Voters are up for grabs right up till E-day: In the last election campaign the Liberals bounced between 21% support to 31% support and Conservatives bounced between 31% to 42%. The Conservatives even led 40% to 21% at one point, only to have the gap narrow to 34%-31% within just one week of E-day (only to see the Conservative lead widen after that infamous CTV interview). So it's safe to say what happens in a campaign influences public support a lot more than anything in between.

3) Massive leads have collapsed in past campaigns: Just ask Paul Martin or David Peterson (who didn't even come away with his own seat in the 1990 Ontario election that was supposed to give him another majority). Even Kim Campbell's PCs started out the 1993 campaign slightly in front of the Liberals (ending with 14% and 2 seats) and John Turner's Liberals led Mulroney's Tories when the 1984 campaign began (and the PCs ended up with 50% of the national vote). Which is why I don't put much value in non-writ polls (or ones any more than a couple weeks before E-day) to begin with.

4) Polling trends still have Liberals gaining seats and everyone else losing them: If you must listen to current polls, then even as the media tell us the Liberals are in deep trouble (and admittedly the Liberals have had a rough couple weeks) if you look at seat projection sites (that don't just rely on one poll), the trend still indicates that the Liberals are likely to win around 100 seats. Every other party is on pace to lose seats.

5) Ontario traditionally doesn't look too fondly upon a party that's dead in Quebec: That isn't registering now, but if E-day is nearing and the Conservatives are looking to lose all (or almost all) their Quebec seats, we will very likely see a shift away from them in Ontario.

6) Stephen Harper's career is still on pace to end with the next campaign: Harper's career depends on winning a majority in the next election and not a single poll since January has shown the Conservatives with the numbers that would actually translate into one (again see 308's projections). Remember Harper has to make up for the collapse of the NDP vote (which always helped the Cons more than anyone) and his horrible numbers in Quebec. If Stephen Harper thought he could win a majority, he'd have forced an election by now. He hasn't and it looks like he won't be. As the media talk about how "Conservative fortunes are on the rise" the Cons are still overall on pace to lose seats. Then we'll see who has the "leadership woes".

7) The NDP are down in the dumps and are truly horrified of facing the voters: As their finances, support levels, and party morale keep sinking, their leader has to explain to his supporters why he has "formed a coalition with Stephen Harper" and given Harper a "de facto majority" (Jack's words, not mine), while endorsing him as our representative at the most important climate change conference ever in Copenhagen in December. Increased NDP support in elections has helped elect a fair number of Conservative MPs as they came up the middle. As the NDP are down to their lowest support levels in many years, it seems we won’t have to worry as much about that next time.

8) Harper can't run from his record forever: Stephen Harper promised us no recession and no deficit and we have had the worst of both. He'll have to finally explain himself about that and so much more come campaign time. I'll give him full credit for his Beatles performance, but that will be ancient history once the writ drops and we will be back to the real issues he'll have to answer for. He won't have a piano to save him at the debates.

9) The Liberals will be looking more and more like an alternative government: Now that we no longer vote with the government, we can oppose their policies in House while simultaneously proposing alternatives or even formal amendments to confidence measures. The NDP would have to oppose popular Liberal alternative proposals and have to explain themselves later. The extremely lazy and false argument that "there's no meaningful differences between Liberals and Conservatives" will fade away with each passing example.

10) Liberals remain in excellent organizational shape for the campaign: The Liberals will go into the next campaign with considerably more money in the bank than last time (to spend $24 million instead of approx. $14.5 million), three times as many members (and likely more), more centralized/streamlined organization, better on the ground operation, excellent voter tracker software we never had before, many new star candidates, and as a party more united (right across the country despite some reporters' spin) than we have been in recent memory.

So some can keep up with their doom and gloom all they want, but it doesn't change these facts that leave Liberals with lots of reasons to hold our heads high. If Stephen Harper wants to believe the Liberals are finished like some (though far from all, to be fair) reporters are spinning, let him, Steve will be in for a surprise when the campaign gets underway.

So where does this leave us?
Are the Liberals experiencing a bit of a downturn lately? Do they still have some problems to deal with? Yes and yes. But as I've said before EVERYTHING must be kept in perspective.

Doesn't mean we should completely ignore the media, put our heads in the sand, and pretend that getting back into power will be easy or that the government will simply defeat itself. But stories and polls like those of the past week can be a blessing in that it reminds us that we must always have our A-game on and that we must act as if we are behind and needing to play catch up (even if we get ahead). We must always have in mind how we are best suited to win the next campaign and keep our eyes focused on gaining back supporters from the Conservatives..

We can't afford to let lazy spin win. We need to do a better job of conveying the strength of our party and our ideas and how we would govern much differently than Stephen Harper. We need to do a better job of reaching out to those middle of the road Canadians who have lost faith in our federal politicians and who opt to stay home at election time. We need to make sure all our messages resonate well outside the Ottawa beltway. We need to do a better job of winning over Western and rural Canadians who abandoned our party long ago.

That work is now well under way and I know it will continue in the months ahead, but it can't for a second be let up.

We now have lots of time it would seem to organize for the next campaign and promote our ideas, party and leader. And when the campaign comes, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal team will present a strong positive vision for Canada that will put Stephen Harper's pettiness and lack of vision and ideas to shame.

It will be the campaign who will decide who wins.

We may start out from behind but I know we have what it takes to win the hearts and minds of Canadians and give them the government and leadership they deserve.

Recommend this Post

A Study in Contrasts

Liberals: Positive hopeful ads portraying a vision for Canada's future
Vs.
Conservatives: Negative deceptive ads ranting about a coalition that has been ruled out (as they ally with those same parties themselves) and accusations of Liberals wanting to raise taxes as they raise them themselves.
NDP: Prefers to keep the later in government in return for what their own supporters and MPs call "paltry" and "crumbs". They certainly have a lot of explaining to do.

UPDATE: Speaking of ads and contrasts, Steve calls attention to another:

The Conservative government is spending more than five times as many taxpayer dollars on promoting its economic plan as it is on raising public awareness about the flu pandemic.

The TV spots are just the latest $4-million salvo in a $34-million media blitz trumpeting the Conservative's recession-fighting budget.

Meanwhile, with public health officials fretting over an onrushing fall flu season, the spread of the H1N1 virus and widespread public apathy about the need for vaccination, no television ads are in the works to combat swine flu.

Health Canada's home web page, however, does include a prominent link to the Conservative economic action plan website (www.actionplan.gc.ca).

Recommend this Post

Are Reforms You Call "Paltry" Really Worth the Price?

So apparently the NDP have decided to prop up Stephen Harper till March (as the EI reforms go through committee, 2nd, and 3rd readings) SOLELY in return to what NDP MP Pat Martin flatly calls “paltry improvements to EI.” Well the NDP seem to have quite a sense of priorities because by propping up Harper till March (when he pulls the plug himself and perhaps before these EI reforms even receive royal assent) that means:
- There will be NO MORE significant enhancements to benefits or fixing regional disparities for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers NOT covered by the Conservative reforms (the reforms are said to affect at best 60,000 people a year) (so much for helping the little guy)
- Canada will be sending Harper the obstructionist to the most important climate change negotiations in history this December who will go with the goal of torpedoing the whole thing (so much for the environment)
- Canadian citizens will continue to languish in foreign prisons with no help from their government (so much for human rights)
- Government stimulus funds will continue to go predominantly to Conservative held ridings that actually have lower relative unemployment rates (so much for fairness)
- Harper will bring in ever more right-wing legislation knowing you will pass whatever he wants until the EI reforms are passed into law as you are promising (so much for principles)
- Harper gets an election at his preferred time and you will be giving him what you in your own words called a "de facto majority" (so much for electoral strategy)
- Harper will give you no credit for these EI reforms he was already going to do, he will throw in some mockery and more humiliations here and there and you will have no real accomplishments to go to the electorate with in March (so much for pride)

And that's just a short list and it's all so Tom Mulcair can hold his seat a little longer and Jack Layton can hold the NDP leadership a little longer.

When the two of them lose them both as a result of the election Harper triggers post-Olympics, I somehow doubt their supporters will look back on it and think it was all worthwhile. Even though I think the Liberals still stand a good chance of winning then too, it will be after more damage was done to our reputation and finances that will have to be repaired thanks to NDP short-sightedness.

Now these EI reforms that Pat Martin calls paltry are worthwhile, but I'm sure they could have been applied retroactively after an election and are far from all the reforms that should be made or even that the NDP said must be made. And it should have been obvious to the NDP that leaves Harper in office for the next 6 months means NO MORE "results for people" beyond what their own MP said was paltry while having all the negative consequences above and more.

But I guess protecting Jack and Tom matters more. That's really some leadership the NDP have isn't it?

The irony is that by extending the government till March and giving us an election on Harper's terms, IF Harper actually won I wonder if the NDP would even survive to fight the election after that? First chance Harper would get post-election he will cut public financing of political parties, which no doubt will be a big thank you to Jack from Steve for the 6 months or so Jack helped HIM survive.

In the meantime, should the NDP grassroots just fall in line with Layton and Mulcair's wishes and not force them to back down, then we must just resign ourselves to six more months of spiraling deficits, more debt, more unemployment (without any new significant assistance), more division, and no leadership or vision at home or abroad. And then we can get an election exactly when Harper wants.

I think we can do better.

Recommend this Post

The Case for Change

As Parliament returned today, so does this blog. And as the Harper government returned to Question Period for another round of evasive non-answers, ask yourself do we really need more of this? What does Stephen Harper have to show for his almost four years in office? Deficits, Debt, Division, Deception and Disarray.

Stephen Harper was so obsessed with banishing "surprise Liberal surpluses" and yet now he wants us to cut him slack for ever rising surprise new Conservative deficits.

Stephen Harper boasted about how much debt he was going to pay down, only to pile up more than had been paid in the last decade.

Stephen Harper said when he was first elected that his he would "govern for all Canadians" only to be the worst wedge politician Canada's ever seen as he writes off 60% of the population completely.

Stephen Harper said he would bring open, honest and accountable government, only to give us the opposite.
He promised us no recession and no deficit and we got the worst of both.
He tried to take credit for the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years, only to blame everyone else but him when he faces the highest.
He railed against Liberal patronage and cronyism and felt compelled to top it.
He promised sincere cooperation on EI this past summer and turned the whole thing into a charade.
He accused the opposition of wanting to raise payroll taxes on EI (which we were told would be a "job killer"), only to do so himself.
That kind of deception is tough to top.

And he's left our country in complete disarray with no vision or long-term domestic or foreign policy goals. Can someone point to anything Stephen Harper has planned for even next year? As every other major industrialized country makes targeted investments and restructures to compete in the global economy, Stephen Harper just puts his head in the sand. Does anyone still listen to Canada with Stephen Harper in power? When Stephen Harper says Canada is "back" under his leadership he must mean back of the pack.

It's really quite the legacy to leave behind and that's just the short list!
Well we needn't let him add to it any longer.

Canadians deserve better.

We face the toughest times in a generation with a Parliament Stephen Harper refuses to make work (Overdue EI Reforms still don't make the grade).

If you give Stephen Harper your hand, rest assured he will do everything he can to tie it behind your back (Jack Layton take note...).

Every day more Harper is in office our potential as a country is further squandered as he obsesses over crushing his opponents instead of governing the nation.

There is little positive to be gained by keeping this government in office any longer. We can do better.

We need a government willing to actually govern and make Parliament work rather than one focused entirely on electioneering and trying to come up with the best "plausible" lies about their opposition.

We need a government willing to lead on the world stage, rather than one that's happy to be a bit player.

We need a government with a team of strong capable ministers, rather than a one-man show who forces the rest into hiding.

We need a government that listens to research and science instead of one driven only be ideology.

We need a government willing to stand up for women's and minority rights and the disabled, instead of one that sees them as "left-wing fringe groups".

We need a government that protects Canadians abroad instead of abandons them.

We need a government that believes in our institutions, from public broadcasting, to the courts, to Elections Canada, rather than a government trying to tear them down.

We need a government that knows we must invest more in post-secondary education, instead of one who mocks those with a university education.

We need a government willing to show real environmental leadership at the largest ever Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December, instead of one that would go with the goal of being the biggest holdout.

We need a government that knows that good child care policy is good economic policy, instead of one that is seemingly proud not to have created a single child care space.

We need a government willing to level with Canadians and give straight answers instead of one that stonewalls and deceives at every turn.

We need a government that's fiscally responsible and has a social conscience to replace one that's neither.

We need a government that's focused on building the Canada of the future to take over from one that can't see beyond the next election.

We need a Prime Minister that unites Canadians rather than divides them.

Only Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party can provide this kind of government to Canadians. A Prime Minister and government that provides real vision and leadership we can all be proud of.

A majority of Canadians may say they don't want an election now, but that's because they are not yet convinced an election would change much or that there's no single defining issue. But an election can give us the real debate about our future we didn't get in the last and that we really need as economies restructure across the globe.

Liberals will present a truly alternative compelling vision for this country and Canadians will see we can be so much more than we are.

Stephen Harper was given another chance by Canadians almost a year ago and in every way, he's blown it. The stakes are too high to grant him another reprieve. These tough times demand better.

When Canadians are faced with a choice of positive change and more of the same, the choice will be clear.

Canada needs a new direction and it can't come soon enough.

------------------------------------------------
For more on why we need an election, see here

Recommend this Post

Compromise, Patience and Timing Will Get Canadians the Government We Deserve in the End

In the larger picture of things today was a victory for both the Liberal Party and for Canadians. Stephen Harper has badly mismanaged the economy and failed to adequately look after unemployed workers. Once again when his back is against wall, he is forced to bend and at least move in the direction of doing the right thing - he's admitted the EI program needs to fixed to help the self-employed and deal with regional disaparities. By fall there is now a reasonable expectation serious changes will be made. It's not perfect, but an election would not have brought EI changes all that much sooner either and was really not the desired result from our party or Canadians perspectives. The media always says they want to see Parliament work, well in the context of a minority Parliament isn't this how it's supposed to work?

Now was just not the right time for Liberals to go to the polls. We go into an election to win, not because we'd look bad if we didn't. Our cards were played just right, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals made the Conservatives cave in (Harper knew an election would have ended his career even if he barely eeked out the most seats) and we will get better policy and accounting of the nation's finances as a result. Just as important we will a chance to bring them down in the fall, something I was originally quite skeptical they would give us.

But just think of what the dynamic would have been if we had gotten a summer election. The Conservatives have 143 MPs and dozens more nominated who have been campaigning heavily since the last election in their ridings. I don't know how many candidates we have nominated right now, but my sense is with the exception of our 77 MPs, many candidates were only nominated in the past month or two. In the case of my riding our candidate (former, and soon to be again, MP) Lloyd St. Amand was nominated last night. If there was a summer election that would give these recently nominated candidates very little time to formally campaign in their riding against incumbents. You can't ignore the advantages incumbency affords the Conservatives, having the summer to recruit high profile candidates, and for our already nominated candidates, to become more well known and get some positive press in their ridings, can make a world of difference. In Brant, Lloyd would have won with an election this week I'm sure, but other candidates will certainly benefit from the extra time.

You can say we should have had more of our candidates in place sooner to be ready for summer, but you can't do that while at the same time saying you want a more grassroots based nomination process, and rushing nominations can sometimes lead to a potentially better candidate being excluded. Having a more drawn out nomination process also leads to more Liberal members being recruited in ridings across the country and more money being fundraised at the riding and party level.

I'm hearing some EXTREMELY positive things about our fundraising and membership numbers, more nomination meetings and the summer BBQ circuit are only going to help. Waiting longer to go will probably also lead to more ridings being familiar with Liberalist, our vote-tracking software which will prove key to winning close races.

I think in hindsight we might have been better served to have gone into the last election in May or June 2008, but that still would have been after over 2 years of election preparation - had we gone much sooner than last June we might well have seen a worse result than we actually got. Timing and election readiness are essential to have right. Stephen Harper knows that well, had he waited even a few weeks longer to call an election, I'm certain he would have lost (he received even more luck in timing by the fact that the TSX had two massive rallies the last two days of the campaign, very positive job numbers came out the Friday before voting day and the Dion hatchet job CTV piece came out the day before that). Just a couple weeks after voting day a Nanos Poll had it at 32% (-6%) Conservatives to 30% (+4%) Liberal support. We have to get our timing just right.

The record may show we waited a bit too long to go last time, but if we had gone now, while I do believe we would have won, the risk of the Conservatives still winning more seats than us would have been much higher . We will win more seats in the end by waiting and ensuring our election machine crushes the Conservatives when the time comes.

The only major downside is that while our ideal time may be this fall, it will tough to get the Bloc and NDP onboard with that. But it's hard for either of them to justify voting down the government now and making some side deal with them later just to save themselves from massive seat losses. At the least I don't see either of them supporting the next Conservative budget.

In the end, Conservatives are past the point of no return in Quebec, getting there in
Ontario, and hardly winning over any new supporters with their latest spin and theatrics to try to cover up their terrible record of mismanagement. Even if the economy is recovered by early next year I doubt Canadians will really give Conservatives all that much credit for it and that might actually take the economy off the table as a major issue and move to the wider question of which party represents your values and who can you trust (to improve our international reputation, to improve education and health care, to slay the deficit, etc..) which we will easily outpoll the Conservatives on (and right now we outpoll them on the economy as it is). This government also seems to have new scandals by the day which won't help them much either.

It doesn't change that Harper and the Conservatives have no vision and no plan to move this country forward. Their only progress comes when they are forced into acting. When the election comes our plan will put theirs to shame.

So while I'd like this government gone tomorrow, I'm confident they will be whenever we finally do go to the polls. So with compromise, patience and the right timing we will ensure Canadians get the government they need and deserve.

Recommend this Post

Instant Run-Off Voting Must the Choice of Electoral Reform Advocates

STV and MMP have been dealt essentially lethal blows in BC and Ontario - I think when it boils down to it people felt they were either too complicated, weren't sure how their vote would translate into who got elected, and/or that the system lacked riding level accountability. Canadians for the most part favour incremental change, and moving from First-the-Post to a PR based system may have been too much for electoral reform advocates to ask. It's unfortunate that electoral reform advocates pegged their hopes to provincial referendums when the case for changing the electoral system in any province is not nearly as persuasive as at the national level. In no province where a referendum took place does their provincial electoral system badly inflate regional divides, is leading to perpetual minorities (and elections every two years), and benefits a separatist party more than any other party. Voters like stability and elections every 4 years and the provincial systems have provided that, while the national system no longer does. But optics being what they are, with STV and MMP systems being dealt such overwhelming defeats at the provincial level they are clearly off the table for any national referendum on this issue. The sooner the electoral reform advocates (including Fair Vote) come to this conclusion the better and I say that as someone who would have voted for STV if I lived in BC.

So I would hope that anyone who wants to change our first-past-the-post system nationally (where the need is greatest) can now come behind the idea of holding a referendum on instant run-off voting. This system is extremely simple to explain and would dramatically empower the value of every vote cast in an election. We would still have 308 MPs, everything would be the same, except you would rank your choices for your riding. If someone doesn't have 50% of the vote, then the bottom candidate drops off and the 2nd, 3rd choices are re-distributed and so on until a candidate can legitimately be said to have 50% support in the riding. No more would someone who is the first choice of 35% of voters and the LAST choice of the other 65% be elected (like a good number of Conservative MPs).

PR advocates should realize that would be a major improvement and that were IRV adopted and Canadians liked it, it would at least open the door to national STV one day, but trying to move directly to a PR system would be doomed to failure.

This should also be easy for supporters of all the major parties to get behind. Liberals just overwhelming approved Instant-Run Off voting for our leadership races and the NDP and Conservatives have the same system in place for electing theirs. This is because it would be deemed unacceptable for a leader (and in the Liberal/Conservative case, potential PM) to win with only 35% of the support in a multi-candidate race. So why would we accept less for the election of each of our MPs?

It's also easily applied to the Westminister model of Parliament. Australia has the political system most similar to us and use Instant-Run Off voting to elect their lower house MPs, so why can't we?

The arguments against MMP and STV simply don't apply - it's not complicated whatsoever, it wouldn't lead to Parliamentary instability (Liberal majorities would actually be FAR MORE likely under IRV), and doesn't affect the riding level accountability we have now.

It will also carry many of the same benefits of STV such as enhancing the power of each person's vote (if you really dislike your MP but really like their party, you could register that view through your rankings), giving a voice to those who support smaller parties or independent candidates (no longer would your vote be irrelevant - a Green MP would have likely been elected in Guelph if we had IRV in place), enhancing accountability to constituent's in close ridings (35% will no longer suffice to win), and forcing candidate's to campaign beyond "getting out their base" and avoid negative campaigning so as to ensure they maximize their second choice votes. Just as importantly, no longer would parties come to power with little representation from some regions of the country. It should also increase voter turnout which become more and more abysmal with each national election.

Everyone knows our national electoral system is the source of major national unity problems (regional divides and being the lifeblood of the Bloc Quebecois) and is giving us unstable minorities as far as the eye can see, so the solution isn't to pretend these problems don't exist, it's to do something about it.

Just because provinces where the need for electoral reform wasn't that pressing rejected the idea, is no reason to ignore the problems our national system creates. What exactly are the counter-arguments against IRV other than using the provincial votes as an excuse not to act?

Want to increase the number of western Liberal MPs in future Liberal governments while simultaneously wiping the Bloc Québecois off the political map? Instant-run-off voting would be guaranteed to make it happen.

As the party of national unity here's hoping Michael Ignatieff the Liberals take the lead on this issue. We have to trust the intelligence of Canadians that they can see for themselves that the need for eletoral reform at the national level was always greater than it was at the provincial level.

The next election is very likely to give us a Liberal minority and so might the election after that. That would be 5(!) minorities in a row, something that has never even remotely happened provincially. I of course will be hoping and working for two Liberal majorities, but the math to get there is incredibly difficult so we have to consider what our response be to two more minorities.

We can lead in calling for a national referendum ourselves or have Canadians call for it because they have grown tired of the instability created by the current system. I prefer to see us lead.

Pushing for a national referendum on Intant-Run-Off voting is one clear case where the national interest and Liberal partisan interests are one and the same.

UPDATE: Scott Tribe has similar thoughts, Steve V takes an opposing view to mine

Recommend this Post

LPC Biennial Convention in Videos

I knew I wouldn't get to blog all that much at a convention where I was a busy delegate so to make up for that, I had a less busy delegate video tape much of the proceedings to post here when it was all over. So I've compiled about 30 videos from across the 3 days of the convention for your enjoyment. Some of these (like Stéphane's 7.5 minute speech at the reception to retire his leadership debt) were not broadcast by the media. Though only about half of these are original and the other half are poached from other blogs to make for a more complete collection (source indicated in brackets - to give credit where credit is due those videos look much more professional). I haven't been able to upload all the videos I have yet, so please come back to this post later as there are still some really good speeches and debates that will go up. And within the next few days I will be sure to find the time to give my own thoughts on all the major happenings of the weekend of the Vancouver and maybe some other stuff going on on the Hill.

CONVENTION VIDEOS
DAY 1: Thursday April 30th

Council of Presidents

John Turner Speech (BC'er in Toronto)


Michael Ignatieff Speech (WAM0)



DAY 2: Friday, May 1st

Young Liberals of Canada (YLC) Biennial

YLC Presidential Candidate (and now President) Sam Lavoie Speech


YLC Presidential Candidate John Lennard Speech


YLC Representative to the National Women's Liberal Commission (NWLC) Monika Drobnicki Speech


Incoming YLC National Director Keith Torrie speaks to YLC delegates


Outgoing YLC President Cory Pike speaks to YLC delegates


Michael Ignatieff's Speech to YLC Delegates (Jennifer Smith)



Paul Martin Speech to YLC and Aboriginal People's Commission (APC) members

TO BE UPLOADED (This was an excellent speech! Come back later to see it)


Canada and the World Thinktank (WAM0)



Reception for Stéphane Dion to Retire His Leadership Debt

Paddy Torsney (former Burlington MP) and Don Boudria (former Glengarry-Prescott-Russell MP) Introduce Stéphane Dion
(Not sure why but this video is the only one uploaded that ended up being mostly blurry/choppy, but the audio is fine)


Stéphane Dion Gives Speech to Reception Attendees



Party Officer Elections

VP English Candidate (and eventual winner) Steve Kakucha Speech (Liberal Minute)


Convention Opening Ceremonies

Jean Chretien Speech Pt. 1 (WAM0)


Jean Chretien Speech Pt. 2 (WAM0)


Stephane Dion Tribute Video, Part 1


Paul Martin Tribute to Dion (WAM0)


Stephane Dion's Speech at His Tribute Night
TO BE UPLOADED

DAY 3: Saturday, May 2nd

Voting for Executive Positions Ended at 11 AM


Policy Plenary

Debate on "Removing the Ban on MSM Organ Donation" (Very pleased to see this pass so overwhelmingly, but was surprised and saddened by some of the things said by those opposed to this policy)


Debate on "Climate change" Policy


Introduction and Vote on "National Water Policy"



Vote on "Human Rights Commission" Policy (Closest vote of them all)


Constitutional Plenary

Debate on OMOV
TO BE UPLOADED (Will include entire debate from start to finish)

Debate on YLC amendment to ensure all policies put forth by commissions and PTAs are voted on by delegates before going to the floor (watch for a cameo by a famous former blogger)
TO BE UPLOADED

Debate on YLC amendment to establish an Outreach Secretary on the National Executive
TO BE UPLOADED

Leader's Speech

Bob Rae Nominates Michael Ignatieff Speech (Jennifer Smith)



Announcement of Results for Leadership Vote


Michael Ignatieff Makes His Entrance


Ignatieff Intro Video (LPC)


Ignatieff Acceptance Speech Pt. 1 (LPC)


Ignatieff Acceptance Speech Pt. 2 (LPC)


Ignatieff Acceptance Speech Pt. 3 (LPC)


Ignatieff Acceptance Speech Pt. 4 (LPC)


New Liberal Party of Canada Logo

Recommend this Post

Electoral Reform Is a National Unity Issue

The last post was written back in October - now for a post that better reflects my current thinking: Here's some unfortunate stats on Liberal results out West and in Quebec from the last 3 elections. Notice how not once in any of these regions has our proportion of seats been as high as our percentage of the popular vote, in many cases not even close. Meanwhile the Bloc and Conservatives get the opposite results.

2004 Election

Party	BC			Alberta			Saskatchewan			Manitoba			Quebec
	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff
LIB	28.6	22.2	-6.4	22	7	-15.0	27.2	7.1	-20.1	33.2	21.4	-11.8	33.9	28.0	-5.9
CON	36.3	61.1	+24.8	61.7	92.9	+31.2	41.8	92.9	+51.1	39.1	50.0	+10.9	8.8	0	-8.8
NDP	26.6	13.9	-12.7	9.5	0	-9.5	23.4	0	-23.4	28.6	23.5	-5.1	4.6	0	-4.6
BQ	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	48.9	72.0	+23.1

2006 Election

Party	BC			Alberta			Saskatchewan			Manitoba			Quebec
	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff
LIB	27.6	25.0	-2.6	15.3	0	-15.3	22.4	14.3	-8.1	26.0	21.4	-4.6	20.8	17.3	-3.5
CON	37.3	47.2	+9.9	65.0	100	+35.0	49.0	85.7	+36.7	42.8	57.1	+14.3	24.6	13.3	-11.3
NDP	28.5	27.8	-0.7	11.7	0	-11.7	24.1	0	-24.1	25.4	21.4	-4.0	7.5	0	-7.5
BQ	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	42.1	68.0	+25.9

2008 Election

Party	BC			Alberta			Saskatchewan			Manitoba			Quebec
	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff	% vote	% seats	% Diff
LIB	19.3	13.9	-5.4	11.4	0	-11.4	14.9	7.1	-7.8	19.1	7.1	-12.0	23.7	18.7	-5.0
CON	44.4	61.1	+16.7	64.6	96.4	+31.8	53.7	92.9	+39.2	64.3	48.8	+15.5	21.7	13.3	-8.4
NDP	26.1	25.0	-1.1	12.7	3.6	-9.1	25.6	0	-25.6	24.0	21.4	-2.6	12.1	1.3	-10.8
BQ	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	38.1	65.3	+27.2

The argument that electoral reform would promote national unity is even stronger now than it was before the last election: If we had a system that more closely resembled the popular vote, the last election would have seen the Liberals, Greens and NDP have the majority of seats in House with solid representation from each province, the Liberals would have had more seats than they do now and the Bloc and Conservatives considerably less. The response to a coalition in a House of Commons that actually reflected more closely the popular vote would have been markedly different: no Bloc and much stronger Western representation. I think it’s pretty clear that it was the regional divides and presence of the Bloc that made the largest contributions to the Liberal-NDP coalition’s unpopularity. That’s why Paul Wells, once a major skeptic now has now recently come on board with the idea of electoral reform at the national level and I’m sure he’s not alone (The Globe and Mail , who opposed MMP in Ontario, is another such example). But we won’t see a referendum on electoral reform unless the Liberals support the idea and I think it’s now past time they do.

Michael Ignatieff makes many decisions with respect to how it will affect national unity and is particularly sensitive to the issue of Western alienation, so I hope he does no less when thinking about electoral reform. It should be clear to everyone that our current electoral system greatly exacerbates regional and urban/rural divides in this country.

I fully realize that our MPs are elected to represent their riding, not their province, and that obviously Liberals need to do much more (regardless of what system we have) to truly earn higher popular vote numbers out West and in Francophone Quebec, but our electoral system makes the regional representation issue much worse (particularly when so many Conservatives are elected solely because of a divided left that allows them to run up the middle) and it's a vicious circle - the system encourages us to write off more than 100 seats as unwinnable before each election - that in my view hurts national unity.

Whether Liberals like it or not, if we win the next election the West and rural areas will have far less representation in government than they do now and will likely be unhappy about that and even if we beat the Bloc in the popular vote in Quebec (which is a daunting task in itself) they could still easily have more seats than us there (we beat them by almost 5% in Quebec in 2000 and yet they still won 2 more seats than us and that was when all the other federalist parties scored a paltry 13% combined in Quebec).

But it doesn’t have stay that way at all.

If we are willing to hold a referendum on changing our system and it’s successful we would better ensure that EVERY government, no matter the stripe has significant representation from all regions and communities.

For those who dismiss the possibility of a successful referendum based on the results of MMP in Ontario you should realize that the justifications for electoral reform are FAR different than those in favour of it provincially - see the last post where 3 of the 4 reasons given only apply to the national context - and MMP is surely the least likely option to be put on a national ballot as it is.

As an added benefit, the promise of holding a referendum on electoral reform (following public consultations on the system to be put on the ballot) provides an excellent path to persuading NDP and Green leaning voters to support electing a Liberal government in the next election (remember where the bulk of our votes came from the last time we went from opposition to government) as we know a united right Conservative Party likes the current system fine the way it is and would oppose a referendum every step of the way. Interestingly, before Stephen Harper helped "unite the right" he supported proportional representation (see that last line of the article), now he's got no problems with our current system, I wonder why? Could it be that our current electoral system is the only reason his party holds together?

A Liberal government is the ONLY way we would ever change the system, and I hope that as Prime Minister Michael Ignatieff would allow people to have a say on this issue so we may choose between a system that would bring Canadians closer together and the current one that drives us further apart.

Recommend this Post