Polls Provide Cautionary Tales

The latest rash of polling consistently shows support for the Harper Conservatives on the wane, a very strong NDP alternative. Some polls have the NDP in the lead, others like Abacus show a dead heat.  These are heady days for the NDP, no question about it.  But, underneath some of the polling, perhaps a cautionary tale, within that ample intellectual room for the "co-operation" argument.

There exists a disconnect between rising disapproval in all things Harper government and support numbers.  For the purposes of trends, Abacus begins with a baseline of August 2011.  Here we see a 10% erosion in "right direction" numbers for the country.  We also see a very concerning 12% rise in disapproval of the Harper government (last August 43% approval/37% disapproval, now 34% approval, 49% disapproval).  On the economy, we see a 9% drop in the federal government's handling.   Harper's personal numbers see a 1% gap in approval/disapproval last August rise to 14% today, another troubling trend line.

Taken in totality, the numbers are very, very concerning for this government, no doubt about it.  However, when we review the party support numbers, we see a more muted picture, which deserves attention.  Last August, Abacus had it 38% for the Conservatives, 32% for the NDP and 19% for the Liberals.  Today, we see 35% each for the Conservatives and NDP, 20% for the Liberals.  In other words, despite abysmal trends for the government, Harper, the Conservatives have only dropped 3%, not even outside the polls margin of error.  In addition, the NDP up 3%, Liberals static, fairly minor moves when juxtaposed against the government performance/Harper numbers.   I think this an imperative point for those giddy with dreams of conquest, the questions are a bit more complicated moving forward.

The opposition are not fully maximizing the disquiet with this government.  Approvals are now SO bad for the Conservatives that we see competition, outright leads, but this reality still hasn't captured the underlying unease, the full price isn't being paid.  That the government can still remain tied nationally, despite abysmal numbers, further argument for proponents of co-operation, those that want some agreement that makes "opposition" succinct and efficient.   Despite these worrying trends for Harper, we still have a situation where a slight rebound, "less bad" if you will, translates to another mandate, almost absurd on one level.

For those of us who wish the Conservatives no good fortune, these polls are clearly encouraging.  However, beyond the headlines and pom poms, there still exists a structural disconnect within the polling that leaves some room for government optimism.  To my mind, a shrewd alternative looks for ways to SNUFF out any escape routes. 

Who Will Be The "Unite The Left" Candidate?

You can really sense a buzz within certain quarters as people digest the potentialities within the Liberal leadership race. Our media class seems intrigued, as evidenced again yesterday within the context of the Rae announcement. The idea of "supporters", a wider primary concept, allows for many scenarios beyond the traditional narrow partisan process. Of course, any anticipation also comes with the capacity for complete let down, should this race not catch fire, but the nuts and bolts are in place for opportunity.

Within any discussion about the leadership, a conversation of who will be the unity candidate, who will be the person to champion "co-operation", a point made again yesterday by columnist Tim Harper. One only has to look at the last NDP race, wherein Cullen came out of nowhere largely because of his controversial stand on co-operation to realize the issue sits in the wings waiting for an advocate. With a system that allows a wider input in the ultimate choice, the capacity exists for a raucous debate on this score.

A largely ignored story on the CBC The National a couple nights ago highlighted an emerging "unite the left" grassoots sentiment spontaneously manifesting itself, without the guidance of head office.

Minor in scope at this point, but also seeds that people need to pay close attention to because the concepts have resonance. This is the audience for the Liberal candidate who makes co-operation a campaign center piece. Interestingly, Trudeau has mused on this score in very clear terms, although I question whether those sentiments would manifest should he choose to run. Whatever, the larger illumination would be watching blue Liberals gush over Trudeau when policy wise he about as left as they come in the "big tent". Certain absurdities will be revealed, as they already are presently, but that is more a psychology Doctorate thesis at this point.

Again, I sense a unique interest in this Liberal race, quite out of proportion given our current lowly status. This reality provides the Liberals a terrific opportunity to re-engage with the Canadian public, present compelling policy and debates, breakout of the downward spiral.   The great debate within this race may very well turn out to be the co-operation angle.  Cullen was handicapped by a narrow audience- as well as a rally around the flag mentality from opponents- a situation the Liberal race could evolve outside of, with the right advocate.  One thing is clear, there are rumbling out there in the hinterland, an audience waiting for further articulation.

Rae Out

Bob Rae is out for the Liberal leadership, making the announcement at a very fascinating press conference.  I think the rationale for not running is a complicated equation.  But, the top line conclusion will congratulate Rae for a classy exit, which demonstrated all the attributes that made him compelling in the first place.

My no "bullshit" take on Rae's decision is that he came to this place just recently, fully intending to run, but reacting to recent developments.  I believe the prospects of Trudeau jumping into the race- a reality I now think almost certain- gave additional pause.  Spend a few moments digesting the generational divide, the obvious optics, as well as the very real potential of being completely over run and a man of wisdom can foresee the choppy seas.  Although not privy to the internal machinations of operatives, the "pressure" on Trudeau must also include some former Rae fans.  In other words, there does seems some momentum away from Rae of late, a far cry from the love in feel of only a few months ago.  As an aside, I also don't think Rae was ever a "shoo-in" to win, even without Trudeau, there was a very large sense of the need for fresh blood, as well as baggage which will never evaporate.

Rae mentioned "social media" again today, which he has in the past many times.  The reference was made in the context of the glowing reviews he is receiving today, contrasted with the maelstrom we saw last week.  Readers of this blog know I'm not one to overstate the influence of social media, blogs, it is what it is and no one should delude themselves as to "reach" just quite yet.  That said, the negative reaction from rank and file Liberals, as well as some more prominent people, clearly had an influence on Rae.  Social media can play a role in a more narrow discussion amongst partisans in particular.  Rather than that visceral reaction on social media being a bad thing, in fact it allowed average supporters to express their view of decisions being made elsewhere.  The "push back" Rae received was very much grassroots in origin, agree or disagree, I see it as a net plus for egalitarianism that views can be expressed and then incorporated by elites.  The more input the better and if this injection gave Rae pause, I say it allowed for him to see the world outside the Ottawa bubble and glad handers.

I believe Rae very much intended to run, but I think he is politically shrewd enough to see that he had become a divisive figure within the leadership frame.  I do applaud Rae for having the capacity to see beyond simple aspiration, the bonus for him now he leaves the stage appearing the great statesman.   Rae realized his run wasn't "good for the party", and I'm sure this was a painful conclusion.  Bob Rae is very much good for the Liberal Party, and many like myself can separate concerns about pledges, disadvantages and the larger contributions he makes every day.  Liberals will be well served to have Rae minding the store while the leadership race distracts, in many respects he is the greatest of all Parliamentarians.

Rae's decision today is a sober realization that many Liberals have long term memories,  the mood within the party is looking forward and that former desires are perhaps no longer practically available.  I look forward to his performances in Ottawa and his commentary on important issues, as Rae remains a strong advocate for the just society many of us Liberals seek.

Two Thirds Of "Liberals" Support Merger

There is a sleeper issue within the coming Liberal leadership race that has yet to come forth, but will manifest, of that I have little doubt. The idea of a merger, co-operation, arrangement, an extension of the Nathan Cullen thrust, someone will champion. Why? Because the topic is fertile ground:

More interesting is whether any Liberal leadership hopeful campaigns on a ticket of supporting a merger of the left, "because clearly a majority of Liberal party supporters think it's a good idea," Bricker said. Sixty-four per cent of Liberal supporters and 57 per cent of NDP voters said they "strongly" or "somewhat" support their parties merging into a single party.

Here's the kicker, the Liberal race has the capacity to appeal beyond hardcore partisans, those LEAST likely to support an idea which challenges the narrow established tribalism.  Without the "supporter" component, talk of co-operation and mergers is dead on arrival.  But, with the potential of less invested participation, there is a built in capacity to find the spark required.  The conversation goes nowhere without the proper advocate, but the above finding demonstrates the audience is there for the right motivator.

I don't believe I've seen any finding wherein 2/3rds of remaining Liberal voters favour a merger.  Add to that a decent majority from the "riding high" NDP supporters and you have a compelling backdrop.  Again, diehards will resist, but these polls reach beyond party membership and into the realm of average voters, this audience isn't invested enough to share the flag affections.  As well, partisanship tends to cloud certain synergies that those less devoted can easily ascertain.  In other words, a certain detachment actually provides better perspective.

So, who is going to come out of the shadows and be the pro-merger, co-operation, arrangement candidate?  Make no mistake, it will be someone and I predict she/he will be a force.  The general public is well ahead of partisans on this score.

Wither The Tribes?

Interesting article today, detailing developments in a lone riding which could become a template for greater "co-operation" moving forward.  I contend some measure of co-ordination is largely inevitable, as well as a belief the move will come from a grassroots expression, rather than the rigid party apparatus which is largely incapable of seeing beyond narrow self interest.

I'm not committed to a preferred course, but the spirit here is encouraging:

In February of this year, Green Party supporters in the riding, at their annual general meeting, agreed to have its executive reach out to Liberal and NDP representatives in the riding. “The purpose of the discussions has been to explore areas of agreement on visions for a progressive Canadian future, including electoral reform,” wrote Alec Adams, the Green riding association president. The three parties agreed it might be useful to express joint concern over government policy. “Our goal is to galvanize the progressive vote in 2015, so people will cast their votes in a way that will make a difference,” he wrote. The meetings have been “non-competitive and congenial,” Adams says, but he emphasized things are being done one small step at a time. Just to be safe, they are representing themselves to the public as concerned individuals, leaving their party affiliation at the door. Last Saturday, a protest against the omnibus bill was held in Orillia and it was jointly organized by all three opposition parties in the riding.

Partisans routinely defend the distinctive character of each political brand. In one sense this contention is true, except when taken to the practical world. The NDP are now lead by a man who's first political ads INTRODUCING him to Canadians take place in a corporate boardroom- yes a Bay Street setting- that's the new far left ladies and gentleman. The Liberals are lead by an interim leader who is quite possibly to the LEFT of the NDP leader, no need to rehash his orange past. The Liberals are working with the Greens, the Liberals have worked with the Greens going back to Dion, we have seen many, many committed Greens move into the Liberal tent and vice versa, the synergies are simply irrefutable. Provinces have elected many NDP governments, which dippers routinely cite, without mentioning Doer, Dexter, Calvert bear NO relationship to the "real left", in fact Dalton McGuinty may just be the real "progressive". But I digress...

There is a certain narrow mentality that dominates the tribes, one that I have also fell prey to in the name of "team". Actual political orientation takes a backseat to the flag, Ignatieff, Dion, far apart on the spectrum, but the commonality is the brand and that supersedes. Our NDP friends are doing the same right now, many have admitted a discomfort with Mulcair's orientation to me privately, but that evaporates in the name of path to power and the necessary pragmatism that comes with mainstream politics. If we blindfold ourselves and simply read rhetorical lines, in many respects partisans would be at a loss to ascertain true origin, and that is the bottom line.

 People talk about the Liberals being "squeezed", which to me is a simplistic explanation. In reality, Liberals are being squeezed because the NDP are becoming the Liberals, the very nature of the term implies a move into formerly held terrority. Mulcair is moving the NDP to the center, the party of Broadbent is deader than any column could articulate about the Liberals ultimate fate, don't kid yourself. The Greens scream politically redundant on a host of levels, apart from the party apparatus and internal dynamics that nobody outside of the partisan realm particularly cares about.

The Liberal leadership race is shaping up like a dud already, the names being floated resemble those of job applicants to captain the good ship Titantic. The only intrigue for me as of today, does SOMEONE come out of the hinterland and champion "co-operation", is there a revolutionary amongst us? Should we see that expression, THEN this notion of "supporter" can become a important variable because there is a mechanism to allow for non-partisan types to weigh in on the future of the closed tribe.  In other words, the appetite amongst the general audience sees more value in co-operation than do we committed party members, the lack of mental rigidity that scoffs at the mere mention.  As well, "locals" on the ground-as Simcoe North demonstrates- can unilaterally find common ground and these understandings can manifest.

I'm not sure where we go moving forward, but I remain convinced that should anything of political substance develop it will come from the ground, a practical sensibility that sees a greater interest beyond the tribes.

Liberals: One Year Later

We've passed the one year mark since the devastating Liberal election defeat.  The questions moving forward revolve around any apparent progress in "rebuilding" the Liberal party, positioning itself to be a credible alternative next time around.  I would argue a "mixed bag" at best, some positive signs intermingled with objectively concerning trends.

On the encouraging front, despite relegation to third party status, Liberals continue to outpace the Official Opposition in terms of fundraising, a fact that receives little attention.  While the Liberals still trail the Conservatives, the fact fundraising hasn't dried up or waned in the wake of 2011 does suggest an internal resilience.  In fact, the mood within hardcore Liberal ranks remains largely optimistic, despite certain realities, there is a clear fighting spirit which continually manifests itself, within various party initiatives.

Liberals sent a clear signal that a "new" guard was ready to direct the party at their recent convention, decisions that should manifest themselves more moving forward.  In addition, the rules surrounding the upcoming leadership race provide a real framework for Liberals to resonate beyond a narrow base.  Time will tell on multiple fronts, but the nuts and bolts are in place.

Bob Rae has provided steady interim leadership, giving the party a public profile.  In Parliament, the Liberals have managed to stay part of the conversation.  Liberals appear more "scrappy" to my mind, perhaps a natural disposition, given the humbling realities at at play.

However, in recent weeks I believe Liberals are getting a taste of the true new order in Ottawa.  The NDP in flux was temporary comfort, they now have a leader, their team is engaged and the coverage is beginning to recalibrate and reflect seat allocation.  Liberals benefited early from a media used to giving them ample coverage, I sense now we are settling into the "third party" dynamic, which is challenging.  In other words, one year later the job has become tougher, early days a bit of a mirage, staying in the mix will require imagination and compelling performance. 

One year later, the polls are perhaps more daunting, given the regional dynamics.  In my view, this reality pretty much torpedoes any chance Rae becomes permanent leader.  Earlier, polls looked encouraging, Liberals clearly benefiting from a distracted and leaderless NDP, but that illusion has passed, so to all the glowing reviews of life under Rae.  The realities are very sobering, unless Liberals make a decided generational change, armed with fresh ideas and presentations, embrace a revolutionary spirit, I see little reason to believe we can break the "new" order.  Not only do Liberals have to make a case against the Conservatives, they now somehow have to convince Canadians to bypass the NDP and come to our side, "daunting" is kind.  One caveat here, it is important to remember the Liberals sit at levels the NDP would have been touting 18 months ago, so some perspective is in order on the "dead" front.  Our punditry tends to sway WILDLY, despite continually being "shocked", so anything is very possible.  Again, there are opportunities, the question becomes will Liberals have the courage to create the spark, is this a party that can truly reform in a way that turns heads?

There is very much a squeeze occurring, as the NDP move towards the center and the Conservatives continue this publicly crafted propaganda facade that they are anything close to moderates.  The great debate seems to be where Liberals fit into the mix and that is fair commentary.  There is a certain irony in the fact the NDP will essentially become Liberals should they actually appeal to enough Canadians to take power, but that is for non partisans to digest, denial reigns supreme within the tribes.  I'm not sure where Liberals will fit into the conversation.  But, I think Liberals would be best served to forget about spectral considerations and just start standing for things, don't be afraid to be controversial, step on some toes, forward thinking and bold.  In other words make some noise or relegate yourselves to tired afterthought, that's the stark reality that confronts.

All in all, some background pieces in place that provide optimism moving forward.  But, one year in, Liberals are no closer to reversing the trend, that in and of itself is probably a mild net negative.  I believe what happens in the next year will be the decisive historic moment for the party...

Where's Waldo

Bruce Anderson articulates well the challenges we Liberals face moving forward.  The very last line sums up nicely the predicament

The choices the Liberals make over the next few months may alter the course of Canadian politics, for decades to come.

Simple, obvious and stark. There is only one "event" on the horizon that can impact future fortunes in a seismic way. Many Liberals rail at the notion of leadership as premium, "leaderitis", looking for the next "messiah", relevant concerns given the PAST, but truly not grasping certain realities TODAY. Liberals need to rebuild the party from the ground up, nuts and bolts, not waiting for a saviour to come down the mount and make our problems vanish. As well, Liberals need to "find who we are", as though a loosely binding party meandering aimlessly can possibly find that. No, you need a vessel at this stage, you needs someone that can galvanize like minded ideas, spirit, direction and articulate with inputs, with boots on the ground, you need a carrier. This leadership allows Liberals a timely potential invitation to reach beyond our base, have someone resonate with the general public as opposed to narrow glad handing that is particularly apparent within this party. I am looking outside the box for that inspiration, that person or team that has the capacity to truly alter the landscape. Keeping it real, anything less and Liberals really are "walking dead", not only do we have to defeat Harper, we now have to convince Canadians to BYPASS the next logical option, the NDP, a long odds endeavour, no question about it. No offence, Dominic Leblanc is not even a consideration. Ditto a man I respect greatly, Marc Garneau. How Bob Rae becomes the beacon of the new Liberal brand forever escapes me, it's never on in my mind, despite the eloquence and grace that he brings. I've heard other names mentioned, one's Liberals have heard before, none of which truly strike me as having the capacity to bring what is necessary, almost revolutionary to be honest. In other words, the early floatings I've heard, talk of "Bay Street" lawyer types scouring ranks, none of that strikes me as quite digesting the task at hand. I'll be looking at every city council, every community organizer, every distinguished local citizen, anyone armed with ideas that make you turn your head. I'll be looking for that organic outsider, a true populist without the polished political jargon, someone who articulates PRACTICALITIES. someone who has the capacity to obliterate all the stale notions you have about the Liberal Party of Canada. I have no idea who that person is quite yet, a tall order for sure, but finding him/her, I think history will show that Anderson's last sentence musing was spot on.

Whip It Good

Yes, MP's should have more latitude to vote their conscience and/or represent their constituents.  Yes, too much control is isolated in to few hands, individual MP's deserve a more influential role, not the subordinate kneejerk reality we have presently.  BUT, beyond these philosophical desires there are certain core underpinings that supersede the parts and necessity the whole.

The debate about abortion is over.  The question about a woman's rights over her own body are actually not in question, any effort to reopen this issue should be met with solidarity, a united front.  Whatever personal views a MP may have about the nature of an abortion is irrelevant to the wider questions revolving around personal freedoms.  No "Liberal" can consider themselves as such if they can't separate their own personal stance with the wider questions.  I actually have no qualms with people who have a problem with abortions, perhaps one day we can have civil disagreement on this score.  That said, whatever your own view, it doesn't extrapolate to the wider issues at hand, issues that are so fundamental and unequivocal, any wavered presentation is simply offensive:

“If there are individuals in my caucus who feel strongly for moral reasons one way or the other, we’re not going to whip the vote,” Rae said.

Cop out. It is time for the Liberal Party of Canada to stop playing this game on these particular issues. It is time for the Liberals to draw a line in the sand around the "big red tent" and make it clear, you are free to personally hold whatever view you choose, which is actually in accordance with the similar freedom to have ultimate governance over your own body. Hiding behind feeling "strongly", voting your conscience, is contradictory because it applauds the openness with voting that attacks another core right of citizens. Freedom of expression isn't much different than freedom of choice, at least the underlying ideological belief system seems consistent in my mind. Therefore, yes have an opinion, have a feeling, go so far as to express your displeasure, but when it comes down to sanctioning squashing another right, stand down and vote for that freedom. There is no contradiction here, it is entirely consistent, that's the bottom line. Mr. Rae must whip the vote, again the Liberals need to meet this Conservative backdoor nonsense head on and offer a firm rebuke. If an MP can't see that one right supersedes another then perhaps this party isn't an appropriate home, perhaps the days of trying to be everything to everyone need to end and we plant our flags, proudly, unabashed, this is who we are and this is what we stand for, PERIOD. You want a real world example of why the Liberals fail to resonate, why our wishy washy ways have led to erosion, indifference, a worry ambiguity of purpose? Look no further than this "debate", which a strong party wants NO part of and demands a certain responsibility beyond some personal view of a preferred world. I appreciate tough choices, but sometimes they must be made, this is one occasion. Whip it, whip it good!

Liberal Leadership Is The Priority

The latest Hebert column is a sobering read for Liberals, which I personally find quite close to realistic in tone. I've contended for some time that Mulcair represents the worst outcome for Liberals, primarily because he comes with a built in regional base, which just happens to be quite critical to any potential Liberal rebound as well. This type of acknowledgement doesn't equate to no hope, but I also see little value in not properly digesting the steep challenges. Within the emerging new reality, I would argue our own leadership race becomes the primary vehicle in any attempt to recalibrate the political landscape. Many Liberals get quite irate when you mention leadership- partially warranted given past "leaderitis" that failed to create a formidable underpinning- but the fact remains, your leader is your vessel, particularly within our circumstance, picking the right person really a sink or swim proposition.

Liberals are doing terrific work rebuilding organizations, offering ideas, building policies, any talk of leadership isn't an exclusive argument, nor does it distract from the serious work that must be done concurrently. That said, without a compelling person to articulate the Liberal vision, you are forever swimming upstream. Anyone who has knocked on doors recently for the Liberals in the last couple of elections understands the fierce wall of perception one can face if battling leadership impressions. On the flip side, the last election brought a party to a landslide in a province with little organization, little "street" presence, primarily fueled by the power of personality, a resonance that caused a wave. This is a lesson that "anything can happen" if the messenger is compelling, if he/she is capable of conveying an attractive narrative. One party fighting against leadership impressions, another wrapping their entire campaign around one man because of perceived popularity(and you'll recall the Layton emphasis was a national choice by NDP strategists).

Liberals have to leap frog over a formidable Official Opposition and convince Canadians that should they turn on the Conservatives, we are the party to turn to. Canadians must forego the NDP and see the Liberals as a realistic option to form government, a tough task, ironically one the NDP themselves have faced prior. Within this dynamic, the necessity of an almost revolutionary spirit can't be understated, this Liberal leadership race must spark something within Canadians. In fact, I would argue the leadership choice has never been more important for a political party than this Liberal selection. Truth be told, this could be the last Liberal leader if we fail to properly assess the irrefutable urgency.

This "open" leadership process that actively seeks new participation is our chance, it will represent perhaps the only time remaining in this mandate where the spotlight shines brightly, were ordinary Canadians may very well debate the place of the Liberal Party. This leadership race is also the main opportunity to introduce a new, fresh vision and within that a messenger that truly pierces the malaise in some fundamental way, building a real springboard. Should Liberals squander this chance, we will be left to outside forces to determine our own fate, an unlikely proposition. It is for this reason that the leadership can't be a coronation of sorts, it really can't just be the usual suspects, it must be provocative and engaging.

We can scoff all we want at undo leadership focus, given the many challenges the party faces "nuts and bolts" wise. But, this mentality fails to properly understand that, whether we like it or not, the leader is paramount, the leader is your voice, the leader is who makes the connection, the leader is largely how a party is judged, particularly in a soundbite world. I make no apologies giving primary focus to the next leader, it is unquestionably in my view the single most important decision Liberals will make, the determining factor that will decide if the real work is rewarded or we end up in the historical scrape heap, once and for all. The stakes are incredibly high and within this coming leadership, possibilities and opportunities, if properly understood. Messiah might be a tad overstating, but Hebert isn't that far off....

New Polls Impact Rae Negatively

Another poll out today showing a national dead heat between the Conservatives and NDP. The Leger offering mirrors Harris Decima, the NDP have surged back in Quebec, Leger actually pegs them well above their election totals. The polls are also showing the Liberals moving back to their election tallies, whether temporary or not remains to be seen, but reaffirmation of the new Liberal "base" if you will.

I've talked to a few Liberals in recent months, many of whom spoke glowing of Bob Rae's interim leadership. The polls were actually pretty kind, Liberals looked strong under his guidance, in many ways we were outperforming the NDP, creating some optimism about a permanent run. However, Liberals are now recalibrating themselves as the realization of a permanent NDP leader comes into focus, one that is armed with a firmed up support in a region critical to future Liberal fortunes. Let's call it sobering, and within that the "feel good" flavour surrounding Bob Rae is being re-examined.

If the Liberals stay around their 2011 election numbers, any sense of momentum under Rae is obliterated and this reality will force more bold thinking. In my view, the Liberals have ONE chance to beat back the electoral "squeeze" and this will be our open leadership process. The structure is set, which allows for a type of resonance rarely seen in politics, IF, and this is a big IF, Liberals somehow manage to find a vehicle capable of piercing the thick apathy. The Liberal leadership will be our best opportunity to mix up the new Canadian political order, squander it and the challenge is incredibly daunting, capitalize and room for some optimism.

Within that critical leadership frame, I think it works against Bob Rae moving forward. A coronation flavour leadership is political death in my estimation. As well, the pullback polling, the fight to remain relevant, get ink, all contribute to a sense that a dramatic turn of events is required. The Liberals well back in third doesn't work for Bob Rae, it impacts him negatively, people may well embrace a more ambitious generational change. I was your interim leader for a year with no sense of rising fortunes, that doesn't equate to wind in your sails. Let us not forget, the former mild uptick brought a rash of feel good Rae media, stands to reason a withering results in re-examination.

There was perhaps a false sense of the confidence, as a result of Liberals largely having opposition Ottawa to themselves, as the NDP were distracted with their leadership. I contend Mulcair was the least desirable outcome for the Liberals, and the regional breakdowns of polls are now revealing that perceived problem. Liberals will now go through another tough spot- Rae's posture this week evidence of newfound desperation- and these challenges will force a more ambitious course moving forward. Again, I see recent events working decidedly against Bob Rae, not a preference, just an observation.

New Liblogs

The new Liblogs site is up and running. I've been brought on board as an admin, along with Nancy Leblanc. David Graham remains as an admin, and Adam Miron( former president of the Young Liberals and currently involved with iPolitics and the Wellington Street Post) now owns the site.

You'll notice a few changes, particularly a twitter component. I'd encourage more people to start a blog or apply for membership on Liblogs. Although we now have social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook to communicate, blogs still afford unique opportunities to express yourself. Twitter is limited by character discussions, whereas Facebook tends to be the same people talking within a limited audience. The great thing about a blogging aggregator, frequency of posting isn't a concern, you have a built in wider audience and blogs remain the best vehicle to flesh out opinions. I see all of social media as complimentary, blogs a great avenue for grassroots expression. There will be a lot of things happening with this government and party, so if you're considering participation, start a blog and join Liblogs ("Contact" on the site). Also, I don't think the feed is up yet, but give @Liblogs1 a follow on twitter to receive the blog posts as they come up.

The Liberal "Convention"

I'd largely echo what Jeff has to say about the NDP Convention as it relates to the eventual Liberal leadership. The Liberals would be wise to poach a few of the ideas from the NDP, particularly the made for TV flare, as well a centralized location to give an old style convention flavour. While it may seem like early days, the Liberal Party would be wise to start fleshing out the nuts and bolts of our leadership race now, because our format presents unique challenges.

The online voting component of the NDP race was a utter failure, both in terms of abysmal turnout, as well as the process being hijacked. Given the Liberals will be conducting an "open primary" across the country on a single day (I still hold out hope we reconsider and stagger), we are looking at a herculean organizational challenge, particularly when it comes to polling stations. A robust online option will cut costs and organization, meaning we can have fewer concrete polling stations in ridings, a more manageable undertaking. As well, the concept of "open" should embrace as many ways to participate as possible, there is much room to fully realize the potential of online inclusion.

While the Liberals will have an open primary, I maintain it is important that the eventual winner achieve a majority mandate from voters. I would support a preferential ballot, it isn't perfect, but with only "one" voting opportunity, Liberals should see the wisdom of perceived unity coming out of our exercise. It is quite conceivable, if we just have one raw vote, we will end up with someone taking the helm with less than 50% of support, perhaps not a big issue, but why not canvass further to find a more unified choice in the end? I see little downside in having voters give preferential choice, although I would argue this should be the sole option. Liberals could still have live voting at the Convention venue, but it should also be preferential and we merely read each "ballot" result in successive fashion, creating an air of anticipation as the process unfolds. To my mind, a preferential component creates some intrigue as we potentially wait between announcements to see how the results shake out.

I also agree with the notion that candidates should have speeches the night prior to the actual vote and the notion of riding meet ups to watch the proceedings, a no brainer to enhance participation. I'd even push for a vote eve DEBATE, held live in the convention hall, which would garner national coverage and create much high stakes drama, quite a visual spectacle, loud and boisterous. As well, in this way, you give the Convention venue added importance, a centralized place of action, to make up for the lack of traditional elements.

Now, let's just hope we actually have a competitive race...

Harper Will Galvanize Opposition

The "anything can happen" camp in both opposition parties will resist any talk of co-operation, but if you live in the world of probability rather than possibility, sober conclusions must be entertained if we are to truly rid Canada of a government I personally consider a scourge. A divided opposition is Harper's trump card, it is the dynamic that allows an almost justified arrogance, simply take care of the base and Conservative prospects are guaranteed, the "rest" an irrelevant afterthought. A superficial review of issue after issue showing majority opposition to policies- yet little electoral recourse- proof positive that the Conservative equation is forever favourable. Look elsewhere, approval ratings at these levels amount to devastation, in Canada, it represents stable majority government, due to inefficient opposition.

Trudeau is the latest to openly muse about what may be required to defeat these Conservatives in the next election. His sentiment really no different that what we are hearing from certain quarters in the NDP, there are forces in both parties open to some level of co-operation, degree yet to be entirely fleshed out. Watching how the MP's from both parties GENERALLY interact- partisan constructs aside- there is a fairly positive mood, which is cultivated primarily by a sense of common "enemy". Liberals, NDP, Green, doesn't matter, we are all concerned about the government changing the environmental review process for instance, from my perspective the dangerous dimensions of application trump any tribal concern. In other words, this government is so offensive, on so many issues, as well as the toxic climate they cultivate, they will galvanize opposition. I firmly believe a Harper majority, their unbridled power, is beginning to act like a cold shower, it is putting the true damage into undeniable focus, which will allow for decisions beyond narrow self interest and arbitrary lines that pale in comparison.

Differences will always remain, fundamental philosophical departures, but surely a party with a "frontrunner" who sounds like a Liberal, and another with a former NDP leader at the helm, aren't that far apart that no rapprochement can be had. When faced with the reality of what another Harper mandate might mean for the country we desire, big picture epiphany will be reached, it is happening one member at a time, as we continually see the consequences of this particular reign.

I'm not sure what manifestation of co-operation will unfold, but I will remain open to ever proposal, because while there are fundamental disagreements, there is also a common realization of what the alternative means. There is a way to rid ourselves of Harper in 2015, there is reasonable path, but it will require brave thinking that puts common interest above self interest.

Conservative Cracks

Three years until we vote, meaningless, yes I understand! Nanos poll out with a few noteworthy results, not the least of which the walking dead party, the Liberals, touch 30% nationally, pretty remarkable, even if it's a one off result(I bet they can't keep Peter C. Newman's book on the shelves). As well, EKOS out with their poll, which shows the Conservatives barely outside a statistical tie with the NDP, dissatisfaction with this government skyrocketing. The two polls provide contradictory results in one sense, but both show some evidence of Conservative cracks.

Nanos describes his latest as "steady" for the Conservatives, and the top line national results support that notion, no change whatsoever. However, looking at the regionals, we see that two places show measurable change, Atlantic Canada with a large Conservative uptick which offsets a 6% drop in Ontario, creating the national sawoff result. Poll junkies will note, Atlantic Canada has a very small sample size, poll to poll the results vary wildly, whereas Ontario is the more instructive MOE wise, within a singular poll. A very encouraging result for the Liberals, particularly because Nanos has found Ontario resilience for consecutive results:

Libs 37.8% (35.1%)
Cons 35.9% (42.1%)
NDP 21.9% (16.9%)
Greens 3.9% (5.4%)

The third place Liberals are in first place in Canada's most populous province again for a Nanos poll. Noteworthy as well, this occurs with Bob Rae at the helm.

Nanos also puts the NDP back up to 32.6% in Quebec. As well, the Liberals remain pretty firm at 27%, a solid second place result in the province. The Conservatives are an afterthought fourth in the province. We have a circumstance were "steady" shows the opposition leading in Canada's two most populated provinces, and poll to poll, this result represents a seat loss for the Conservatives.

Moving to the EKOS poll, if you look at his trendline since the election, Libs gently moving up, Conservatives consistently falling, NDP off their highs. The Conservatives down to 31.5% nationally represents weak minority terrority, less than a year into their mandate. What is really concerning for the Conservatives, the EKOS right direction/wrong direction shows considerable erosion:


Confidence in this government is on the wane, an underlying result which has to be of some concern.

These two polls don't provide consistent narratives, one has the zombies at 30%, the other the NDP nipping at the Conservatives heels, but both show opposition to this government is manifesting itself, weakness very evident. The question now, what are we going to do about it and make that opposition optimal, in terms of effectiveness?

Weed As A Winning Wedge

From my perspective, there was a lot of misguided "scoffing" when the Liberals emerged from their Convention advocating marijuana be legalized. The passage was extrapolated into an indictment of not having compelling polices on issues that "really matter", instead left to champion some quirky side issue that is clearly not top of mind for Canadians. Quite true, I've yet to see "marijuana legalization" on any issue priority poll, although the larger topic of crime does register. Let's take it as a given that Liberals need a whole host of compelling policy positions on the economic, health care, etc to get back into the good graces with Canadian voters. As well, let's not be cynical about a particular policy that can contribute to the wider dialogue, one that can act as distinct wedge and provide a much needed contrast on the crime issue.

If you're paying attention, the Liberals gambit on marijuana is quickly becoming mainstream opinion, rather than some "far out" proposition, it seems nothing more than part of a more general opinion. Last week four former British Columbia attorney generals came out in favour of reforming our marijuana laws. As well, border states like Washington will be voting on marijuana laws this fall, a potentially huge decision, given the concerns about American reaction to potential Canadian reform. Today, more evidence of a changing climate, U.S officials warn the Conservatives on failed drug policies:

A high-profile group of current and former U.S. law enforcement officials has written to the Conservative government with a surprising message: Take it from us, the war on drugs has been a “costly failure.”

The officials are urging Canada to reconsider mandatory minimum sentences for “minor” marijuana offences under its “tough-on-crime bill” and say a better approach would be to legalize marijuana under a policy of taxation and regulation.

“We are … extremely concerned that Canada is implementing mandatory minimum sentencing legislation for minor marijuana-related offences similar to those that have been such costly failures in the United States,” their letter reads. “These policies have bankrupted state budgets as limited tax dollars pay to imprison non-violent drug offenders at record rates instead of programs that can actually improve community safety.”

The letter was signed by more than two dozen current and former judges, police officers, special agents, drug investigators and other members of the advocacy group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

I would argue there is a very effective vein to be tapped here, the Liberals can pivot off the Conservative embrace of FAILED American style approaches to drugs and offer a convincing alternative, marijuana legalization the linchpin. There is an emerging consensus that current approaches to drugs are a complete "bust", the Conservative view outdated and regressive. There are economic arguments as well, the subject of cost, the underground economy, once you accept inevitability, even the notion of lost revenues for preferred inputs.

It is not trivial that more and more opinion is coming from south of the border questioning the Conservative approach to drugs. I would guess any Canadian polling on the Americans "war on drugs" would agree with the idea of complete failure, which again speaks to the soundness in challenging that viewpoint. The Conservatives may use crime as an effective wedge to curry favour, but on the topic of the "war on drugs" there is a vulnerability, particularly when we speak of "importing" failed policies. The fact American states are rethinking their view on marijuana undercuts the historical fear of retributions, should Canada look at marijuana in a progressive way, the old caveats are subsiding. American opinion is changing, as are many state laws, the climate is much more receptive.

I don't believe advocating marijuana legalization can be the singular issue which captivates Canadians and returns the Liberals to the electoral promised land. That said, a sound house is made up of bricks, each plays a structural role that gives overall identity and form. When you speak of winning "coalitions" of voters, I would submit marijuana legalization can play a contributing role, rather than dismiss, a look at the emerging landscape shows an idea who's time has come and will find increasingly useful allies moving forward.

The Dope On Marijuana

Perhaps more interesting than the Liberals- at least their assembled delegates- advocating legalization of marijuana, has been the reaction to said passage. I sense some hostility, revolving around the notion that Liberals are misguided to highlight this issue, when so many other "top of mind" concerns exist with the electorate. That's your big idea Liberals, legalizing pot, really, that's all you've come up with? Fair in one sense, last time I checked legalizing pot doesn't register on the "top issues" front. However, rather than elevate this proposal to centerpiece status, why not look at it as merely a potential plank within a larger narrative, because the position does have tentacles.

Liberals will never best Conservatives on the "tough on crime" question, that's a bread and butter issue for their side. Liberals never win when put in reactive mode, they simply won't persuade voters trying to mirror Conservative approaches. It is here that marijuana legalization provides a clear stepping off point, rather than reacting to Conservative offensives, misinformations, we offer a decidedly different approach, one that actually has some popular appeal. The entire crime question will be debated on this point, on ground chosen by Liberals, this would be the lightning rod question. This debate puts down a clear Liberal marker, we say the war on drugs has failed and here's an alternative direction that addresses that failure in progressive fashion.

In addition, there is an economic argument to be made, one that attempts to take money out of the hands of criminals, into the hands of government, for the betterment of the citizenry. We are not talking about chump change, tax revenue in the billions, we can pivot off this legalization in a positive way. I would argue that marijuana taxation revenue be redirected into drug education campaigns, expenditures to focus on true scourges like crystal meth, rather than a tax grab, demonstrate how this additional money can still assist in dealing with drug related problems. With this type of proposal, you somewhat blunt "condone" criticism, because you use these additional revenues to attack certain problems. Use the tax revenue to further educate on the dangers of drugs, that avenue addresses society validating drug use through legalization. We accept that marijuana is here to stay, you can either continue with the futility approach or accept reality and use the industry to allow for greater focus on other drugs, rehab programs, education, etc. I see a fleshed out new tax revenue allocation proposal as a compelling pivot to completely reset our overall approach.

Philosophically, there is also a "liberty" argument to be made, this issue transfers responsibility to the individual, a notion which clearly has appeal within certain subsets. I think Liberals will be surprised who gets "turned on" by the legalization argument, rather than a sideline distraction, it is a motivating factor that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I predict a candidate for Liberal leadership(assuming we actually have a race, not a coronation)waves this legalization flag and in so doing shakes up the race on the "supporter" front. Legalization proponents from all corners would have little hesitation becoming supporters, I guarantee a few motivated individuals could sign up impressive numbers under this signature banner.

Rather than some trivial proposal that fails to address the real concerns of Canadians, I see this marijuana legalization idea as ONE starting off point that can bring true differentiation, as well as add fresh perspectives to an already well defined political entity. Yes, Liberals must craft a credible economic argument, ditto for health care, pensions, taxation, the deficit, etc, etc. Acknowledging this obvious fact doesn't mean the legalization question is a distraction or be abandoned, in fact it can be a demographic compliment that weaves within a greater, coherent direction. I see potentially fascinating days ahead...

Red Wave Envelops Canada

Well not quite, but since the name of the game in the short term is perceived viability, Liberals will take the recent spate of polling. Three polls out, all offer similar trends, Liberals will a slight uptick, NDP down, reinforcing recent narratives. Perhaps of biggest concern to the NDP, CROP now pegs support in Quebec at only 29%.

Harris Decima gives the Liberals a 3% rise since their last offering, a now noteworthy 6% rise since the election to 25%. Angus Reid also finds Liberal "gains", up 3% to 22%. Both pollsters also find the NDP support waning since the election. As well HD finds Conservatives support well down, while AR finds their support holding firm. The general trends suggest a Liberal party far from dead, and the NDP failing to solidify their election successes.

We've watched a steady decline in NDP Quebec support for a few months now, but CROP now finds the party below the psychological 30% barrier, which translates into no delusions that the orange wave is in danger of collapse. Much will depend on the next NDP leader, this could be a temporary wane, but these numbers reinforce the notion that Quebec remains a fluid province, the NDP "hold" precarious at best. CROP also finds the Liberals "benefiting most" from the NDP collapse, and while 19% isn't juggernaut status, it's a far cry better than 10% as CROP previously found. People might recall, this Liberal number is more in line with pre-election polling, we hovered within this low 20, high teen range for quite some time. It's all relative so a return to what was considered lowly at the time, is now a positive. Again, a sense of VIABILITY is of chief concern to the Liberals at the moment, just be part of the mix, that's the realistic short term goal in my mind.

Angus Reid also finds Rae doing well, and CROP sees Rae in a deadheat with Harper on the best PM question. Fair to say that Rae's performance is helping the Liberal bottomline and he deserves at least partial credit for the modest recovery. Of note, HD also finds the Liberals in a statistical tie with the Conservatives in Ontario, NDP third, another encouraging number, particularly with "Rae Day" at the helm.

Polls aren't of particular importance right now, as someone will surely point out, "the election is YEARS away", so fixation is meaningless. I agree completely, particularly with two parties yet to pick new leaders, the situation is in flux and no one knows what trends will hold long term. However, perceptions matter, so any indication of momentum is always welcome, as is a sense of eroding support unwelcome. I'm sure the NDP are pleased as punch to answer questions about the need to change strategy in the wake of falling polls. I'm sure the Liberals hate talking about Rae doing well, evidence that news of our death was greatly exaggerated. In other words, poll change, but polls speak to "point in time" discussions and can feed themselves with negative or positive reinforcement.

Liberals are feeling pretty good about themselves coming out of a relatively successful Convention. Numbers that blunt talk of death are welcome indeed, put into the soup and helpful in terms of attitude moving forward. Nothing more, nothing less, with full knowledge there is a LONG, LONG way to go.

Staggered Primaries Revisited?

At the Convention, Liberals voted against the proposal to hold five staggered regional primaries. Liberals also voted to allow "supporters" the right to participate in the leadership process. Given, the initial rationale for the supporter inclusion was woven within this idea of primaries, it's fair to say the Convention provided a confusing result. As it stands now, all Liberal members and supporters will vote on one day, in essence a national election. However, I note that immediately following this vote, some indications coming from the Liberal Party that the issue of staggered primaries might not be dead yet.

It is worth considering, 58% of delegates did vote for the staggered primary option, and although that failed to meet the 2/3rd requirement, it still represents a healthy majority. This fact does provide a certain "legitimacy", the idea did find wide support amongst the assembled delegates, which may be important moving forward, should "revision" arise.

As I understand it, the party will now constitute a Leadership Vote Committee, made up of two co-chairs, the National President, two persons elected from the PTA's, two representatives appointed from Caucus and "another number of other members" appointed by the co-chairs. The mandate of the LVC is as follows:

The Leadership Vote Committee is responsible to plan, organize and carry out the Leadership Vote.

I view the above as fairly ambiguous, but also demonstrating the potential to implement staggered primaries. Given the Convention didn't specifically endorse one primary, there appears certain latitudes, this group will have CONSIDERABLE power as they develop a formal leadership process. Staging one national primary will be a huge logistical endeavour, perhaps that angle will be provide another motive for more "manageable" regional primaries.

I expect to see some form of staggered primaries to be at least considered. The fact there is a naked majority underpinning allows for some democratic justification (although I understand it was defeated based on required support). I do believe there was some "confusion" as to this voting process, and frankly I'm not sure why the two questions of supporter vote and primaries were separate questions, given they were initially considered as parts of a alternative hole. I don't believe this primary question is over and Liberals would be wise to keep an eye on their Leadership Vote Committee as we move forward...

Marijuana: Liberal Canary In Coal Mine

An overwhelming majority, 77% of committed Liberal delegates voted to legalize marijuana. As well, if you do the math on the demographic delegate breakdown, you'll find that even if one assumes every young Liberals voted in favour, you are still left with almost 2/3rds of the remaining delegates in favour. In other words, no matter how your dissect this vote, Liberals of all subsets support this policy, creating a firm resolve. In addition, not only did our interim Leader resist shying away from the vote, Rae embraced it and placed legalization at the center of "war on drugs" debate.

Liberals rejected the idea of removing a leader veto over policy, so the future party structure philosophy remains unclear. However, I now view the marijuana issue as the canary in the coal mine so to speak, how this issue is treated heading into the next election will provide the clearest indication if a formerly top down entity has truly "renewed" and "reformed". The base have made their voices heard, a voice which is not out of step with progressive society as a whole. It is fair for EVERY Liberal to now have an expectation that marijuana legalization will be part of future Liberal policy, should that fail to transpire, people can rightly ask if members are nothing more than robotic bank machines, patted on the head, but nothing of real consequence in the affairs of party direction.

There has been some mention of actively soliciting "supporters", using this issue as a lure of sorts. I agree with an aggressive strategy, as Rob Silver pointed out this is a classic "wedge" issue, one the Liberals can use effectively to contrast crime strategies, as well as certain libertarian issues. The marijuana issue is larger than just pot itself, the tentacles of that approach resonate elsewhere. I think Liberals may well shock themselves at how many "supporters" can be attracted, simply based on this particular perspective. This is a way for non-partisan Canadians to say "hey Liberal Party, I agree with you, I SUPPORT your idea, I'll lend my name to the cause".

Moving forward, it is imperative to hold the Liberal Party to account, to push the envelope, to push our new executive to follow through on their commitments. How the Liberals manage the marijuana issue is now a central indicator that will demonstrate, in concrete form, if this has truly become a member-centric institution or remains a timid, top down affair, wherein the rank and file are dismissed in the ways that truly matter. I'm leaving the banner on the sidebar as symbolic of this potential future tension, the members who have kept this listing tub afloat have spoken, loud and clear.

Green Shoots

It's important to not get carried away, after all you're in a room full of the faithful, one would hope to see some bravado, simply as a by-product of natural self interest. That said, for all the talk of a moribund party, the Liberals managed to bring in an impressive number of delegates, perhaps more encouraging a decidedly younger crowd than what I noted last time around. The mood was healthy and the end product does support the "change" mantra, even if the results were uneven.

I was surprised a few times at this convention. Particularly, when I heard the announcement "Crawley" for party President, I was genuinely stunned. Perhaps it was the buzz just prior to official announcement that Copps had won- my own sense of the room- but I never truly allowed myself to believe a generally status quo party could make this leap, especially against such a deeply rooted opponent. The closeness of the race speaks to how easily a different narrative could have emerged, but it also provides a testament to how much every vote matters, every conversation, every discussion back and forth, those "hallway" interactions were key. As a supporter of Mike, I look forward to his tenure and hope he makes good on his reform minded pledges.

As the convention unfolded, there seemed a very general sense that the "supporter" addition would fail, nobody I spoke with actually believed the new designation could get the 2/3rds support. I was a supporter of opening up the party in this serious way, but even I offered little resistance when confronted with negativism. And yet, the change was adopted, perhaps the most crucial reform to come out of this convention. Worth noting, I don't think this idea would have achieved the required 2/3rds had it not been for an impassioned plea just prior by Mr. Rae, I have little doubt that moved the room in a empirical way. As well, for those who argued membership should matter, Liberals rejected the idea of allowing "supporters" to participate at the local riding election level, so some condolence for that side.

The second half of the "supporter" addition revolved around this idea of Liberal primaries. In adopting this stipulation, Liberals agreed to let "supporters" vote for the party Leader, but there was another shoe to drop as the votes continued the next morning. Liberals rejected the idea of staggered, regional primaries, even though 58% favoured the concept, it didn't achieve the required support. I'm disappointed this idea failed, because I view it as tethered to the "support" vote, much of the rationale for opening up was to create this exciting dynamic, but now we will have one national vote, eliminating much of the potential drama. As an aside, I note Lawrence Martin on Cpac last night mentioned "confusion" over this question coming from party officials, some suggestion the issue wasn't quite dead yet, so stay tuned...

I would have liked to see the Leader's veto over policy dropped, and I felt the conversation around this issue was fairly muted, perhaps it got lost in the maze of resolutions. For example, on the question of marijuana legalization, the room of committed partisans was quite CLEAR, one would hope any future leader appreciate where his/her party sit on this issue and show some respect to grassroot want. I note, Bob Rae not only didn't shy away from the question but embraced it during his closing speech, soliciting massive cheers as he did.

I'm one who believe optics matter, not so much as it relates to press coverage, but moreso the general audience that gets information from the conduit. I sense that the Liberals have done the brand some favours, new faces, the idea of generational change, the word "open" a crucial evolution, it all congeals into something of consequence. I view the Convention as the first move in a long, laboured process. Soon, we will move to the leadership question in a more focused way, and here we hopefully cultivate more ideas, discussion. I'm not afraid of "messiah" talk, because the messenger is of paramount importance, leaders are vehicles for movements. In many respects, our current predicament is "freeing", and within that reality, I hope a true modernizing, reformist viewpoint can emerge and resonate. One thing is clear, Canadian apathy is a testament to a certain political void, I am more optimistic today that the Liberal Party can perhaps fill it. Time will tell.