15 responses

  1. Stan
    06/26/2011

    I think another backroom deal with the Power Corp boys is the best way to choose a liberal leader.
    Look how well for Canada it turned out last time!

  2. Umm
    06/19/2011

    I think it’s worth noting that 89 per cent was the vote on the final amendment as amended, when the choice was March-June 2013 or October 2011, which no one wanted. Many people that supported earlier dates are in that 89 per cent, because going in October 2011 would be madness. We don’t know that the results were of voting on the three sub-amendments, just that #3 got more than 50 per cent. Saying this timeline was the first choice of 89 per cent would be plain wrong.

  3. Mike
    06/19/2011

    Scott that quote from a young Liberal or two could be said in a more extreme fashion about every constitutional amendment in the party’s history including OMOV which passed in Vancouver and which I gather you supported and didn’t indicate was an illegimate amendment. Again, a regular member’s amendment passed, not that of the party brass. I don’t even recall amendments from regular members even being allowed at past conventions, only those put forth by commissions. The majority of people that spoke were regular members, I’d like names on who thse supposed ex-ministers, MPs and so on were, because they certainly didn’t identify themselves as such (though I would assume everyone knew who Dion was) and if they didn’t identify themselves as such what was the pressure? Some people are unhappy, but 89% is just overwhelming.
    Anyone who wanted to be on the call could do so and not be denied a spot.

    Under the circumstances, was there any way to do this more democratically and more inclusively and than was done under the party’s current constitution?

  4. PT
    06/19/2011

    Don’t agree with this, though good points are made for delaying it and there are a lot of beenfits. With all this time hopefully come January the party will look at really changing the process of how the next leader is chosen so that they can engage as many people as possible in choosing the next Liberal leader. Time will also give potential candidates from outside the current caucus time to build a profile, hopefully leading to many different options when choosing the leader. I’m also supportive of having a fairly long leadership race, not constant campaigning or anything but when you consider the campaign for the Mayor of Toronto basically took 9 months then we should have more then a couple of months to get to know a potential Prime Minister. Maybe there will be some by-election wins before then as well.

    Personally I hope to see more of Ted Hsu over the next two years, on paper his background would definitely qualify him to be an excellent leader of the Liberal Party.

  5. Scott Ross
    06/18/2011

    Yeah it was a decision made by the party brass. There were 2700 Liberals on the call. Over 50% supported sub-amendment 3, but you, someone not on the call, are right. 1400 people on the call were party brass…. Your comment is insulting.

    • Scott Tribe
      06/19/2011

      Insulting? please.. try not to get so over-dramatic.

      • Scott Ross
        06/19/2011

        A conspiracy theory and exaggeration is insulting to rationality.

  6. Mike
    06/18/2011

    It was 89% in favour from a vote of from what I understand was about 2500 delegates voting largely anonymously. I would say that’s a pretty strong endorsement of delaying leadership to 2013 from the membership rather than the party brass. Bear in mind that what passed was actually NOT what the national exec put forth but a sub-amendment that was put forth by an LPC member (who happened to get Stephane Dion to agree to introduce his proposal). The delegates chose this sub-amendment over 2 other sub-amendments by a wide margin that a run-off between the top two sub-amendments wasn’t even deemed necessary. If this was just the national exec and party brass enforcing their will, wouldn’t the national exec’s orginal motion have passed instead of an amended one? This is a significant delay of the leadership vote beyond what the national exec said they wanted.

    I know some Liberals are unhappy but when something gets 89% support that’s a pretty clear will being expressed.

    • Scott Tribe
      06/18/2011

      I’d like to see the same motion debated and be passed via OMOV rather then this delegated setup.. before I accept it as a clear will being expressed – by these particular delegates? Sure.. but by all the LPC membership? Not so sure.

      • Mike
        06/18/2011

        Scott this was basically OMOV by any measure. Was there a single LPC member who wanted to vote on this but was denied a delegate spot? Some may have had time commitments but surely some of those would have actually supported the amendments that actually passed. There were 2500 people on the call, how many do you think there would have been if it was officially OMOV?

        And remember again the brass get what they wanted which was a sooner leadership race than what delegates voted for. Dion hasn’t been considered part of party brass for some time and he was the only real bigwig that spoke. National exec’s proposal was defeated in favour of a regular member’s proposal that’s something grassroots should be glad of. The membership and ridings will have power for 2 years that they’ve never had before.

        I imagine you would have gotten a very similar result as what we had this time if this was officially OMOV and gotten a similar participation rate. The delegated aspect only had to be followed to follow the letter of the constitution. An amendment can be moved in Ottawa in Jan 2012 to make future amendments done by official OMOV and that’s worth supporting but I don’t think that de-legitimizes today’s vote considering there doesn’t seem to be a significant enough number of people (to have changed the result) who wanted to participate but were denied the chance to do so.

        Anyways I just don’t see reason to be disappointed with the results. You should look forward to the next 2 years of hard rebuilding and having a louder voice now. I could be wrong and the party blows it, but I think there’s a realization that the party just might not exist in a decade if there aren’t significant changes and more membership consultation and involvement now. I think people know the stakes now.

        Cheers.

      • Mike
        06/18/2011

        Sorry “Remember again the brass DIDN’T get what they wanted” it should say.

      • Mike
        06/18/2011

        One final comment, it can’t be denied that the voting on these constitutional amendments was more inclusive both in terms of ability to participate (much easier to take a phone call than to travel to Vancouver or Montreal) and cost ($20 vs $500 or more) than any votes on constitutional amendments in perhaps the entire party’s history. So just bear that in mind since I didn’t recall anyone saying the constitutonal votes from Vancouver or Montreal were illegitimate. I’m on board with more inclusive votes in the future (not just on constitutonal amendments with OMOV of LPC members but also for having leadership races open to the whole public), but hopefully we just move forward together going forward rather than worrying about spilt milk.

      • Scott Tribe
        06/19/2011

        A sample convo from a couple of Young Liberals who were delegates:

        “We have been talking all about engaging the grassroots for the past year, and then we listen to various ex-ministers and ex-party presidents and current exec members of the pta’s tell us to vote for what they want… and people do.”

  7. Ffibs
    06/18/2011

    Other than Dion introducing the third amendment, there were no other arm twisting going on from the brass. At least not anyone I would recognize. So you may be a little misled here. Overall I thought it was a very democratic experience and the technology used worked well once the help line kicked in to get the initial stragglers connected.

    Milken did an excellent job.

    • Scott Tribe
      06/19/2011

      See below convo with Mike and some YLC delegates. They beg to differ.

Back to top
mobile desktop