The most maddening characteristic of the Liberal Party of Canada, is the never ending nostalgia, the rear view mirror routine that bathes itself in past triumphs. I don't discount a pride in certain accomplishments, but the projection onto the public dialogue is counter-productive. Today, we have a "new" leader- in the sense of no ties to past regimes- and Ignatieff still continually talks of the "institution", what people did prior, this bizarre continuity which actually handicaps the brand with the public. We trot out the old war horses, competent or not, and wonder why people still associate the party with the past. Instead of surrounding Ignatieff with all things new, young, vibrant, different, we favour experience, pedigree, pecking orders, all the things which congeal to inspire absolutely nobody. This Abacus poll should be a wake up call in a sense, because we've basically done very little to re-invent the brand, something I've always felt should be job one.
Long ago, I came to the conclusion that the only people proud of the Liberal legacy are Liberals. Look at those three successive majorities we won against NO credible opposition, a divided right, that's the template, that's the way it's done, that's what we need to recapture? Oh bloody bullocks, in the public's mind that name, that legacy is associated with EXACTLY the words Abacus found, EXACTLY. You can never recapture the past, and in our case, it's frankly better left there, with little reference required. We need the "new Liberals", the forward thinking re-constitution, a departure from the past, something people see as current and above all distant from the BAGGAGE.
Every time I raise this issue, I sense some blow back, because people rightfully remember accomplishments. However, this is a harsh game, and in the interests of the "team", I'd ignore the past and strategically move people around to promote the freshest optics imaginable. In concert, an actually effort to re-invent the brand, instead of these continual, purposeful references to lineage. Nobody cares, here you have a poll which says the past is poison, so let's get over it, let's forget about egos and institutions, accelerate natural turnover, do whatever you must to get the very real stench off the brand. Can't understand why we never fully capitalize on Harper's missteps? Here you have your answer, in stark and sober terms, simple but so instructive. I understand it's a process, but I'm not even sure we've begun to tackle. The Liberal brand doesn't need tinkering, we need an almost revolutionary mindset...
35 comments:
Yeah but why bring Jane's Addiction into it. Great band. Quit smearing.
Not an accident my friend.
Well Steve,
Speaking the past...don't you know we just had a big "Thinkers" Conference.
Not to mention the Change Commission, The Renewal Commission, The Axworthy Report and Gawd knows how many other such ridiculous committees and reports that will NEVER ever be listened to by the leader.
But hey, David Smith won 96 of 97 seats in Ontario back in the day and he still tells everyone that is why he is allowed to be Gawd.
Carry on.
Just to add, somebody on twitter mentioned to me the Liberal record on balancing the budget, as something we are right to highlight. I would say, go look at the polls and you will see the Cons dwarf us on questions of deficit fighting, economic management (this poll speaks to this fact as well). So, the question becomes- has this reference to past fiscal managment helped us? Answer, absolutely not, the Cons destroy us on this question. Obviously, this referral has done nothing to improve our credibility, relative to the Cons. As a matter of fact, the "deficit" debate highlights how the past is just that, you get no credit with the public for ancient achievement. If I'm wrong, then we wouldn't see such abymal numbers on this question for our side, our BRAND.
James
The Thinkers Conference was an awesome exercise. I would never criticize that type of forum, always healthy for any party.
So were the Renewal and Change Commissions. En Famille and Liberal 308 were spawned as a result. Point being we did nothing with any of them. All of them, including En Famille, are dead in the water.
You're on to another beef entirely. I think we have a platform, those exercises were useful in getting out some ideas. I'm talking about the presentation.
Am I? I thought this post was about new blood and renewal and new ideas and moving forward. I thought Liberal 308 (came out of the Renewal Commission) was designed to try and have a coherent, unified message in all ridings across the country. Why just this weekend we had an MP in an eastern province tell the press we have no plans for an election, while the leader just said before the break that this government's time is up.
This leader promised me in 2006 that things would be more democratic within the Liberal Party if he became leader. They aren't. In fact they are worse. (now that's a different fight altogether). :-)
"Why just this weekend we had an MP in an eastern province tell the press we have no plans for an election, while the leader just said before the break that this government's time is up."
Really? Or did he say we have no plans, but we won't accept corporate tax cuts and the F35 deal? I don't think you can get a piece of paper between the two opinions, if your interested in a fair read.
Anyways...
I gave this headline too much credit.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-set-to-trigger-election-call-in-new-year/article1841549/
Yes you did :)
You really shouldn't give Abacus poll any credit. I mean, they're with Sun Media and we know who they shill for, for Gawd's sake. 'Nuff said.
This is the same poll that spent resources studying who women felt was more dangerous to society: Russell Williams or Omar Khadr?
CK
I don't discount this poll, because it merely confirms what we already know, when you think about it.
Hey, we all share your frustration, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, the Party can't just rest on their laurels -- they've got to be clear on what they stand for TODAY. But they shouldn't just cede vast territory to the Cons., either: they've got to dispel those myths & keep pointing out that it's all talk: the Cons. are always notoriously BAD money managers & terrible pork-barrelers once they get in; Dan Veniez has written well on this lately. (link below)
But to say they should just start fresh and give up on the old brand entirely is tantamount to saying they should dissolve and start a new party. Others are doing so; you may want to follow. But "they" wouldn't be the Liberal party if they did so now, then, would they?
www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/centrist/2010/12/29/dont-be-duped-conservatives-are-not-good-economy
"But they shouldn't just cede vast territory to the Cons"
Sorry, I don't see the link. See, I believe Canadians will look at what the Libs stand for today, a platform that gives confidence on the economic front. You don't have to cede anything, what you have to do is offer a CURRENT vision that appeals to today's reality.
Again, if blast from the past is working, then how come the Cons clean our clock on the fiscal front? Only NEW ideas will change that, seems obvious to me.
There is only one person who can change this and it is you and I. Demand more, sure the leader's office is perpetuating this, because "we" allow him/them to get away with it. The anointment of Peter Fonseca is just another example. The number one thing we can do as members is to pass a policy at the national conference that the leader no longer has the power to sign-off nomination papers. Number two the best thing that could happen to this party is to lose another election (but bad for the country). This will hopefully clear out the deadwood, while not clearing out some of the better MPs.
"There is only one person who can change this and it is you and I"
;)
Agree on nomination papers. Coyne spoke on this last week, that all the power resides in the leader with this current system. He also advocated the caucus pick the leader, which I didn't see as very egalitarian. On the surface, if MP's are picked by members it sounds democratic, until you see how ridings are manipulated by a select few.
Until the Liberals clearly articulate an innovative and bold path to the future they will continue to be defined by the past whether they wish to be or not.
If the Liberals can cut through the narrative that we can no longer afford to aspire to great things that has been foisted on us by our political class and the MSM and offer up bold initiatives that excite Canadians then they would stand a better chance at winning.
However this will take courage and fortitude, qualities sorely lacking in the party's current leadership.It will also require a unity of purpose. It was disunity as much as anything that conspired to defeat them in the last election.
Yes, some of the Riding Executives are a bit of closed club, but still the members would still have the power by voting for their candidate. Once again though the power is with us, but it remains to be seen if we have the balls to do anything about it, and I am just as guilty. Or do we just say the hell with it and take our ball(s) home or somewhere else?
Moreover, we need to realize that the Cons are trying to destroy the Liberal legacy and transform the country according to their ideology, so If we do not change we will allow them to get away with it. I would recommend that members read Harperland, which alone should wake the membership up.
However, having said that, Liberal supporters did show their discontent in 2008 by staying home, which still did not change the mindset of the leadership office.
A bit of a closed club? Here. Try this. Go down to 10 St. Marys and tell them you'd like to purchase 25membership forms for the riding you belong to. Then, try and sit patiently as the alarm bells go off.
The ridings are like fiefdoms in some respects, and this partially explains why we still have all these long past relevant MP's in our caucus. The leader doesn't dare not sign, because they effectively control the riding, and we are left with stale, old optics.
My point is that we can keep being cynical and just accept what is going on or try and do something about it. That may seem pollyannish or naive, but what is the alternative except moving on or giving up, see Warren K. On a side note, I thought the party had a rule, that if you did not have 400 members then your MP had to go back up for nomination?
In reality, you think money would do the talking, because if you look at the balance books of some the ridings it is quite shocking. In fact, in T.O. where we are supposed to be strong, some of these ridings are barely above water, including some high-profile MPs.
As I said, the two things that might change the culture is taking power away from the leaders office and getting our asses kick in the next election (although im going to do my part to make sure that doesnt happen).
With regards to the various executives, as with anything it depends on the people involved. Like I said you can tell which executives are engaged and which ones are not by simply by look at the balance sheets (I know its tougher in rural ridings). Perhaps, each riding should be put on a points system, to determine whether the MP and the Riding President can seek renomination?
"My point is that we can keep being cynical and just accept what is going on or try and do something about it."
Agreed :)
my remark about not ceding territory to the COns means: don't let the public's foolish notion that "they're good on the economy" go unchallenged; fight back with the facts: they & their predecessors, like the Republicans, run up the largest deficits mostly to benefit their friends in the defense industry; while the Libs. actually run balanced budgets & even surpluses more often than not. But to do that, yes, we have to point to the record.
I know in my riding, I can't even get invited to a board meeting, let alone run for the board; whereas I've been a board member in other ridings and once Vice President - there are major extremes.
The problem with the leader signing nomination papers is, if I recall correctly, that its an Elections Canada requirement. And I see some logic in the party assessing a candidate, as to his ability to actually represent the party; I would propose to transfer this power to the Party President (who could be elected by all members) to ensure that single issue candidates don't get through; but otherwise allow an open nomination process. Right now there is far too much power in the hands of the leader; something which is exarcebated by moves towards OMOV - I'm with Coyne, the caucus should elect the leader. That way, the caucus could fire him; and with their jobs on the line, they'd act.
The deficit fighting Libs in the mid-90's are a fond memory, and were worthy of a fiscal conservative's vote.
Now, neither of the Big 2 apparently believe in it.
Somebody say amen.
My suggestion is to campaign on 100 days democratic reform, everything Haprer promised but didn't deliver and more, the parties are how corporatism keeps its stranglehold on our democracy.It's time for liberal democrats to open the envelope, be the change we need.
Steve, I also thought the Thinker's Conference was fabulous.
One major finding of this poll is that the Conservatives are considered the best, most responsible fiscal managers.
The Conservatives and their large echo chamber will always say "tax and spend Liberals" and the Liberals have only 2 ways of refuting this.
One way is to say "no we're not" and/or promise tax cuts and spending restraint that no one will believe in because all Liberals do is "tax and spend".
The other way is to refer to the dreaded past and say "we were the only fiscally responsible govt in 50 years and we will be if elected again. We have proven our fiscal skills, the Conservatives have not."
If you can't refer to reality to refute the constant Conservative smears no amount of new promises to be sound fiscal managers will mean anything because the phrase "tax and spend Liberals" will be repeated over and over and over in the media and by the conservatives just as it is now.
It doesn't matter what the Liberals do to leave their past behind if the dominant message eagerly relayed through the conservative media is and will be that Adscam was never fully investigated, Liberals only "tax and spend", Liberals hate the military, Liberals never balanced the budget they only "stole" money from EI, Liberals only balanced the budget because they downloaded all their debt to the provinces. All these things are constantly repeated by conservatives who live on the Liberals supposed past.
Conservatives have defined the Liberal's past and by doing so have defined them in the present. If you simply concede this to the Conservatives then you have nothing to built the future on.
For the record Steve, I'm not a Liberal, but there are a lot of things the Liberals have done over the years that make me proud to be Canadian, and next to nothing the Cons have done('cepting the CBC)
I think Warren has it pegged.
http://warrenkinsella.com/2011/01/beware-the-word-clouds/
As a first step for any sort of reinvention, might I suggest getting over this deficit- and debt-fighter thing?
Not just because it's a losing game, since "conservative" and "tight with money" are forever associated in the public's mind. No, getting over it is a good idea because nobody gives a damn about the deficit.
Really. They don't. They might say that they do, but it's never, ever going to override other policy issues in voters' minds. There are ALWAYS other and better things to induce you to either vote for, or vote against, a particular party or candidate. If it's a choice between jobs and the deficit—and it generally is, these days—then jobs win absolutely every time.
No, the only people who actually care about such things are conservative political columnists. And let's be honest: they aren't your friends, and never will be. Taking cues from that lot is electoral seppuku.
As for that "thinker's conference"...I saw it online, and wasn't impressed. It might have been more convincing if there were an actual plurality of views, or any sort of fresh views to be had. There wasn't. Same-old, same-old voices on economics, foreign policy, and everything else.
And, worse than that, precious few of them were actually, well, liberal. One would think that would be important. "Non-partisanship" is one thing, but you have to anchor your policy prescriptions on some sort of values, or the voters will dismiss you as pandering twits, soulless technocrats, or both.
Post a Comment