liberal party Archives - Page 2 of 19

Warren Kinsella misfires

Our friend Warren Kinsella of the red team, calls me out as a hypocrite for blogging about Michael Ignatieff’s $0 record of donation to the Liberal Party of Canada in 2008, whereas Warren points out Elections Canada lists me as giving $0 to the CPC in 2008.

There are a couple of quick points I should make about this:
– I actually didn’t do this. I didn’t call out Ignatieff for his lack of donations to the Liberal Party. So I am being called a hypocrite for something I didn’t do!
– I did in fact donate to the Conservative Party in 2008. Warren, you don’t appreciate that cheques for less than $200 are not publicly disclosed by Elections Canada. I suppose that Warren thinks that folks that write cheques for less than $200 aren’t “putting their money where their mouth is”. I suppose Warren might say that only those that cut big cheques are allowed to have a voice!
– Warren also doesn’t appreciate the difference between movement and party. I work full time for the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, a integral organization in the conservative movement.
– I’ve never been paid $1 by the Conservative Party, whereas you are and have been paid by the Liberal Party for communications! Putting my money where my mouth is? The Liberal Party pays for your mouth!
– If we’re going to compare apples to apples here, you ask “What did they donate to the Conservative Party last year?”, I ask “What did you donate to the Liberal Party last year?” Elections Canada has you listed as $0 to the Liberal Party of Canada in 2008. (You gave to the Ignatieff leadership campaign)

You write,

Michael Ignatieff has donated through the Laurier Club in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Both Michael and his wife, Zsuzsanna Zsohar, have donated the maximum amount to the Michael Ignatieff campaign in 2009. And, in 2007, Zsuzsanna donated $1,000 to Michael’s riding and $1,000 to the Liberal Party.

First of all, the Laurier Club doesn’t mean anything in a legal sense to Elections Canada. To Liberals, it’s the max donor club. To Elections Canada, it could be called the “First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence… Club” and it would have the same legal standing. Anyway, donations to the “Laurier Club” are in fact donations to the Liberal Party. And, according to Elections Canada, Michael Ignatieff has donated $0 in 2008. So, either Michael Ignatieff has given $0, or he’s made his donations off-book (you say he’s given the max amount), or you’re mistaken and he’s given as many normal political donors do, with a $50 cheque here and a $75 cheque there. You really shouldn’t be hard on us regular folk, you with your top hat, monocle and deeds to all four railroads, both utilities and Pennsylvania avenue!

Obama sets example for Canada

The election of Barack Obama is historic in many ways, most significantly in the progression along the troubled history of race in the United States. On Tuesday, Americans turned out in record numbers to give Obama a decisive win and vault the first African-American into the highest office in that country. The Obama team also set new records along the fundraising front and may indeed set a precedent for the financing of elections in the future.

According to opensecrets.org, a website on money in politics run by the Centre for Responsive Politics, Senator Obama raised $639 million during the 2008 Presidential election cycle with 91% of that sum coming from individual donations. Comparatively, Senator McCain raised $360 million, 54% coming from the same type; the majority of the dollars from each candidate’s campaign came from people making personal donations to their favourite candidate. A striking difference between campaigns was Obama’s refusal of public funding. The Illinois senator took $0 of public financing while his Republican counterpart from Arizona took over $84 million to make up 23% of his campaign’s spending power.

We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington – it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory. — President-elect Barack Obama, Chicago November 4th, 2008

In Canada, the Reform Party under Preston Manning started a tradition of passing the hat in church basements and legion halls during rallies, speeches or simple administrative meetings. A donation of $5, $20 or $100 was passed on to bring change to Ottawa. The tradition continues today under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, though in a much more sophisticated way and one that is buoyed by databases and telemarketing. Conservatives have historically raised an average individual donation of about $100 while Liberals used to depend on fewer but larger sums. Jean Chretien –perhaps to kneecap his long-coveting Prime Ministerial successor — changed the way election financing was done in Canada by banning corporate and union donations. Chretien replaced the private financing of political parties by special interests with public financing by government. For each vote that a party earns during an election, that party receives $1.75 per year from the federal treasury.

On the surface, this reconfiguration of campaign financing seems to rebalance the funding equation from powerful institutions to those that ought to have the first and last word in any democracy. Indeed, voters are empowered not only when they give campaigns their vote but also when they do so with the knowledge that instead of corporate or union backing, there is a small financial sum that comes with each ballot cast that sustains parties instead. However, while Chretien’s system solves one problem, it creates another.

In Quebec where a province defaults to the inert rather than the principled, a problem exists with Chretien’s model of campaign financing. The Bloc Quebecois, doing all it could to supress its core principle of sovereignty for that province, rather stood against — indeed, as a block to — Conservative ideas in the 2008 general election and against Liberal corruption in 2006. In the first half of this year, the Bloc raised just over $70,000 but received $1.5 million in public financing. Donations are a result of direct support whereas that larger windfall comes from standing against something rather than offering something better. The Bloc Quebecois would not exist if it had to rely upon direct non-governmental financing from supporters.

This summer, I met a member of the Obama campaign’s senior staff in New York City. Discussing the presidential campaign and some Canadian politics, I was told that the Liberal Party had approached the Obama campaign to attain some insight into their fundraising capacity and to create a similar system in Canada so that a large number of small donors could fill their campaign war chest. The staffer told me that after initial discussions, the Liberal Party never followed up in any significant way.

A tried-and-true election strategy for the Liberal Party has been to strike fear into the electorate about what a Conservative administration might mean for Canada. In the last election we were warned that a Conservative majority would allow Harper to finally implement his hidden agenda. Yet the Conservatives in power have not been innocent of taking this lower path either. Defining Stephane Dion as a weak leader and scaring the electorate as to what his “tax on everything” would mean to the economy took a negative track and suggested people vote against, rather than for the Conservatives. People are goaded out of fear to vote against and they often hold their nose for the not-as-offensive choice they end up “supporting”. Since money comes from support, we should break the model that rewards false support and strengthen one that challenges parties to offer ideas rather than fear. Government subsidization of political parties hurts Canadian politics.

The motto of Barack Obama’s campaign for President was “Yes We Can”. Under the current Canadian system, we give welfare to parties for being best able to convince Canadians of the other parties, “No They Can’t”. If we made politics about the positive (Yes), responsibility of self (We) and enablement (Can) rather than the negative (No), what one’s opponent would do (They) and a need to stop them (Can’t), perhaps we could reduce voter apathy both at the ballot box and when parties pass the hat. If we gave voters more power to finance those they support rather than sustain those they least detest we could shift Canadian politics for the better.

On Tuesday, American politics changed. It is time to end campaign welfare so that we can replace politics that scares with that which inspires.

Yes we can.

“A few thoughts on how the Liberals must face some inconvenient truths”

This was passed on by a reader who is a member of Sean Godfrey’s election group on Facebook. Godfrey was the Liberal candidate for Oshawa and apparently sent this message to his group after the election. (emphasis is that of my correspondent)

A few thoughts on how the Liberals must face some inconvenient truths
To members of Sean Godfrey for Oshawa
Sean Godfrey

October 26 at 12:12am

A few thoughts on how the Liberals must face some inconvenient truths… if we are to become a relevant political force in 21st century Canada.

1) A Liberal Party Leader:
We need to pick a leader who can work with others, who can listen, will respect their opinions but who also has charisma, intelligence and can communicate ideas well. He or she must be likeable in the public’s eyes, a good salesman and a great communicator – to get the message across to the public.

2) The Machine:
Here, the Liberals have their greatest lessons to learn, from of all people, the Conservatives.
This is the 21st century. So, let’s start to use 21st century techniques and every possible modern media tool to maximal advantage.
We need to include the internet, TV marketing, telephone marketing, focus groups and professional PR firms to create…a successful brand.
We must build a successful brand from both top down… and bottom up.
The message to the public must, of course, be exceptionally good from the central leadership; but the creation and execution of political momentum must be at both riding and national level.

According to the Toronto Star last week, only 36,000 individuals across Canada contributed last year to the Liberals.
The Conservatives had five times that number of contributors, and as a result had a national database of identified Conservatives to approach, not just for money, but for votes, taking signs, recruiting volunteers and grassroots organization.
They also outgunned us by five times in terms of money raised from individual donations. We must learn how to play the ‘new’ game.
We need to create that kind of database and those kinds of numbers of supporters consistently across this country, from year to year, and not just hope we can gain enough national support in an Election period.
The Conservatives also targeted specific groups such as middle class married women very successfully, in terms of policy and propaganda. For the Conservatives, each riding had thousands of identified supporters from the national database who could then be plugged into each local campaign.

3) Each Liberal riding must become a fully functioning cell of political action:
during writ but also between writs, more importantly. The Liberal Party needs to wake up to the simple fact that if each riding association were to become a supported hotbed of local political activity, then the Liberal brand would resonate in every riding across the country with the electorate in every Election.
Right now, Liberal riding associations – especially in un-held ridings – are aimless, impoverished and have no true political activity, except by accident.
The Liberals centrally spent no concerted effort, time or money going after un-held ridings, and ignored their issues in strategy and policy approaches.
No wonder almost no ridings were taken back and several “stronghold” ridings were lost.

The Liberals have believed arrogantly, for too long, that just showing up to an Election should be sufficient to win.
We need to take serious stock: the Liberals have lost the confidence of this nation.
We simply don’t resonate with enough people anymore in this country.

4) Political structure:
Currently, we have an archaic and seemingly inept structure in place, in terms of central, regional and local organizations, when it comes to effective political activity.
LPCO is my local provincial example. It acheives very little effective political activity that I can determine. Since I was a candidate, if it’s not apparent to me that they are doing anything in terms of political action, then it’s even more embarrassing to consider just how ineffective they really must be… as far as stimulating the general public to turn to the Liberals.

There seem to be more people interested in holding titular positions in these organizations than there are people actually orchestrating political action… and engaging the public to become Liberals or to hear the Liberal message.

During the Election period, I must have received hundreds of emails from the central Party and LPCO extolling the virtues of the Liberal campaign …but absolutely nothing was being done to communicate these messages effectively to the electorate. Very little of any real use was forthcoming either to candidates in un-held ridings in terms of help or assistance, except very outdated ideas and techniques, such as forcing candidates to buy a useless riding package which contained, amongst other things, dozens of posters of Mr Dion.
The tools provided, if they could be called that, were old fashioned, ineffective and a waste of valuable resouces and money.

Strategic targeting of specific ridings in a more intelligent ‘hands on’ fashion is what’s required.
What’s also required is an understanding of modern political warfare and the tools that are required. The Liberal Party doesn’t appear to understand, in terms of its own regional and central organizations, how to wage the war, riding by riding.

Fascinatingly, as soon as the Election was over, I received not one email, message or telephone call from LPCO or the central Party apparatus to thank me for the time, effort, money and sacrifices that I, and so many others, had undertaken on their behalf as Liberal candidates. We took the fall for the Liberal Party’s ineptitude, poor organization and a badly communicated, misguided central Party message that simply lost us thousands of Liberal voters in every riding across the country.

When I close my eyes at night, the lasting memory of our canvassing during the campaign is the recurring refrain heard too often to count at the doorsteps, ” I can’t vote Liberal this time, your leader is terrible…and I hate the carbon tax!”

To not even acknowledge the candidates and their loyal volunteers who slogged their guts out for the cause and who were mown down like cannon fodder in the Election debacle, is just insulting to so many who were brave enough to hoist the Liberal banner high and demonstrates a shocking lack of intelligence and empathy when applied to team building.

Many candidates are shell shocked by what happened, many are openly angry and will never run again for the Liberals, because of how let down they feel because of their regional and central Party’s indifference and ineptitude.

5) We cannot afford another divisive and expensive leadership struggle:
This needs to be put very quickly behind us, if any momentum can be created – especially since there is a very good chance we will face another election within the next few years.
Surely we don’t want to return to Parliament, again afraid to challenge the increasingly swaggering Conservatives because we cannot afford to fight another election and know internally we are still divided?
Enough is enough.
It’s time to learn some hard lessons and get back into the game we need to win.

If we really want to win, we must first learn from our mistakes of how we lost.
If we fail to learn from our mistakes, we are certain to repeat them.
Leadership contenders please note this last point.

So, it seems clear that in very short order, we must have a much briefer, affordable and much more sensible leadership convention.

Liberals cannot wait until May, with Mr. Dion hanging painfully on to be further ridiculed by the Conservatives, at will, in Parliament.

All that achieves is further Conservative brainwashing of the Electorate that the Liberals cannot get their act together and shouldn’t be trusted as being credible.
The Liberals should view choosing a new leader as our first and immediately vital PR exercise in regaining public confidence in the Liberal brand.
This can and should really be done before Christmas, if we are to have any real chance of unifying support initially within the Liberals and then, much more importantly, within the general electorate.

The Tories planned their election two years ahead. We are already behind the clock – given that the most likely election time line is just two years away.

6) Cooperation and unity:
Now more than ever, the team of key Liberals must realize that they must work together, if we are to succeed.
We have absolutely brilliant, talented, capable people in place within the Liberals. But, we have not learned to play as a unified team.
Place each person at their strongest positions, cover each other’s areas of weakness, and move as one smooth and coherent force.
The public are desperate for the Liberals to rise from the ashes and deliver something worth believing in, again.

7) The ‘Kingston’ effect:
It is absolutely necessary to take the brightest and the best in this Party and sequester them until they thrash out both a winning team approach and an effective policy strategy that the electorate will get behind in droves.

That policy strategy must be clear, easy to grasp and resonate with this 21st century electorate.
Remember, we have one huge advantage over the Conservatives: we are the good guys!

We actually believe in human rights, social progress, democracy and freedom of speech, equality and fairness.
The public know that…and they want to see those principles front and centre, so they can willingly back the Liberal brand again.

The team approach is critical, but of course, we need a captain – who must lead by example and must have the loyalty of all those who play on the team.
Or we shall simply repeat what we just all painfully witnessed – and lose not only the next Election, but the permanent confidence of the people of this nation.

Sean Godfrey.
Unrepentant Liberal