Liberals! Resist purgatory!
The G&M op-ed columnists have been busy spouting what's going to be the conventional wisdom over the next months. John Ibbitson is happy that Frank McKenna staying out of the Liberal leadership race, because:
The Liberal Party of Canada is sick. It is also broke. Most of those mentioned as potential leadership candidates have little chance of ever become prime minister. The party is in real danger of sliding into a long period of decline.
...Renewal will require a restructuring of the party's finances. It will require finding a leader willing and able to plot a two-election strategy for a return to power. And it will require a new manifesto: socially progressive, fiscally prudent and appealing equally to Jonquière and to Jasper, to Calgary as well as Toronto or Montreal.
Except possibly for that last bit (in practice at least), I thought that was the old manifesto. But whatever. Meanwhile, Lawrence Martin seeks "a new breed" to lead the Liberals:
Bring on the new political thinkers. Bring on inspirational ideals, as opposed to the deadened, packaged clichés. Bring down the era of heavy-handed political practitioners who have soured youth and much of the rest of the nation on politics.
And, via Dan Cook, here's ex-Liberal Jonathan Ross, hoping to one day when he can re-join a reformed, remade Party (This sentence is editted as my original version was a bit ruder than I intended):
This past Liberal campaign was criticized both externally and internally by resembling a rudderless iceberg; a reactionary spending machine carelessly banging into issues without the benefit of thought or direction. If prioritizing is an art, then Paul Martin is the Milli Vanilli of politics – a bunch of #1’s, until people caught onto the façade.
The Liberal party is looking for a saviour when it can’t even define what it stands for.
Now is the time to gather the membership, and intensely debate and discuss ideas, changes, grievances, hopes, dreams – all things that really should be hashed out long in advance of choosing a new leader. For a party trying to decide on the future, it makes a lot of sense to guide leadership candidates by the will of the membership.
A surprising number of self-effacing bigwigs (and some strategists) in my self-effacing Party all seem to agree with this analysis:
Manley: First, Liberals must, with humility, acknowledge the breach of trust that occurred with the Canadian people. Like it or not (and I don't), Canadians had their fill of a governing party that was seemingly always under investigation. In addition, the Liberal Party's belief that its values were closer to Canadian values than those of the Conservatives, and that the country would never elect Stephen Harper was not only arrogant, but a strategic error.
...[Harper] was elected to govern and they should deal responsibly with the challenge of being in opposition, a loyal opposition in a parliamentary system which challenges the government but essentially allows the government to do what it was elected to do, which is to make the crucial decisions on behalf of the country."
McKenna: Mr. McKenna blamed the deterioration of relations on Canadian politics over the past year or two. He said he hoped the recent election would give both sides a chance to "reboot the relationship" and to restore "a really civil tone at the top.
Rock: A senior Liberal source said that Mr. Rock was seen in the party as "yesterday's man."
"I don't think it was there for him," the source said of Mr. Rock's prospects of winning a leadership race.
Tobin: "But I think that my time has passed, and it is time now for new blood and for new players."
Good God. The last thing Canada needs is for the Liberals to go through a long period of hairshirt-wearing "rejuvination". The Party debt may be a problem, though so far it's disputed what that debt actually is, and for perspective, the BQ has a debt of about $10 million running a single-province operation. The issue was helpfully brought to light by another current-Liberal-hater, Sheila Copps, during the election, and so far as I can tell, it hasn't yet been resolved whether Elections Canada's numbers are right. Martin-hater Warren Kinsella put the figure at $20 million recently.
The Liberals should clear up what their financial situation is. And, to be fair, the anonymous backbiting reaching the mainstream press hasn't been anywhere as bad as it could have been and usually is for, say the American Democrats. But what the Party really needs is for its spokespeople and would-be stars to show a bit of freaking self-confidence and launch into a spirited leadership race so we can pick a potential PM and get back in the freaking game. Leaderless parties suck, and leaving the voice of progressivism to Jack Layton isn't wise for Liberal or for general progressive prospects.
The press is swooning over Michael Ignatieff of course, which makes me queasy. But at least Ignatieff shows us the basic gist of what we ought to be saying:
Mr. Ignatieff said [election] night was a moment for the country to reflect on the "fantastic" job Mr. Martin had done in government. "A courageous prime minister has passed from the scene . . . a man who tried to clean up a scandal. And it will take a while for us all to focus [on what happens next]."
But not too long. The Liberals did not get clobbered in this election, and for a party that held too much power for too long in Canadian politics (even I can agree with that, however much I wanted them reelected), they have little to be ashamed of and a long list of accomplishments to look back on and with which to make their case in future elections. Enough handwringing already. I completely agree with those who say we need to have a leadership convention within the next year, and am interested in candidates who aren't interested in handing out hairshirts. Let's get on with it.
The Liberal Party of Canada is sick. It is also broke. Most of those mentioned as potential leadership candidates have little chance of ever become prime minister. The party is in real danger of sliding into a long period of decline.
...Renewal will require a restructuring of the party's finances. It will require finding a leader willing and able to plot a two-election strategy for a return to power. And it will require a new manifesto: socially progressive, fiscally prudent and appealing equally to Jonquière and to Jasper, to Calgary as well as Toronto or Montreal.
Except possibly for that last bit (in practice at least), I thought that was the old manifesto. But whatever. Meanwhile, Lawrence Martin seeks "a new breed" to lead the Liberals:
Bring on the new political thinkers. Bring on inspirational ideals, as opposed to the deadened, packaged clichés. Bring down the era of heavy-handed political practitioners who have soured youth and much of the rest of the nation on politics.
And, via Dan Cook, here's ex-Liberal Jonathan Ross, hoping to one day when he can re-join a reformed, remade Party (This sentence is editted as my original version was a bit ruder than I intended):
This past Liberal campaign was criticized both externally and internally by resembling a rudderless iceberg; a reactionary spending machine carelessly banging into issues without the benefit of thought or direction. If prioritizing is an art, then Paul Martin is the Milli Vanilli of politics – a bunch of #1’s, until people caught onto the façade.
The Liberal party is looking for a saviour when it can’t even define what it stands for.
Now is the time to gather the membership, and intensely debate and discuss ideas, changes, grievances, hopes, dreams – all things that really should be hashed out long in advance of choosing a new leader. For a party trying to decide on the future, it makes a lot of sense to guide leadership candidates by the will of the membership.
A surprising number of self-effacing bigwigs (and some strategists) in my self-effacing Party all seem to agree with this analysis:
Manley: First, Liberals must, with humility, acknowledge the breach of trust that occurred with the Canadian people. Like it or not (and I don't), Canadians had their fill of a governing party that was seemingly always under investigation. In addition, the Liberal Party's belief that its values were closer to Canadian values than those of the Conservatives, and that the country would never elect Stephen Harper was not only arrogant, but a strategic error.
...[Harper] was elected to govern and they should deal responsibly with the challenge of being in opposition, a loyal opposition in a parliamentary system which challenges the government but essentially allows the government to do what it was elected to do, which is to make the crucial decisions on behalf of the country."
McKenna: Mr. McKenna blamed the deterioration of relations on Canadian politics over the past year or two. He said he hoped the recent election would give both sides a chance to "reboot the relationship" and to restore "a really civil tone at the top.
Rock: A senior Liberal source said that Mr. Rock was seen in the party as "yesterday's man."
"I don't think it was there for him," the source said of Mr. Rock's prospects of winning a leadership race.
Tobin: "But I think that my time has passed, and it is time now for new blood and for new players."
Good God. The last thing Canada needs is for the Liberals to go through a long period of hairshirt-wearing "rejuvination". The Party debt may be a problem, though so far it's disputed what that debt actually is, and for perspective, the BQ has a debt of about $10 million running a single-province operation. The issue was helpfully brought to light by another current-Liberal-hater, Sheila Copps, during the election, and so far as I can tell, it hasn't yet been resolved whether Elections Canada's numbers are right. Martin-hater Warren Kinsella put the figure at $20 million recently.
The Liberals should clear up what their financial situation is. And, to be fair, the anonymous backbiting reaching the mainstream press hasn't been anywhere as bad as it could have been and usually is for, say the American Democrats. But what the Party really needs is for its spokespeople and would-be stars to show a bit of freaking self-confidence and launch into a spirited leadership race so we can pick a potential PM and get back in the freaking game. Leaderless parties suck, and leaving the voice of progressivism to Jack Layton isn't wise for Liberal or for general progressive prospects.
The press is swooning over Michael Ignatieff of course, which makes me queasy. But at least Ignatieff shows us the basic gist of what we ought to be saying:
Mr. Ignatieff said [election] night was a moment for the country to reflect on the "fantastic" job Mr. Martin had done in government. "A courageous prime minister has passed from the scene . . . a man who tried to clean up a scandal. And it will take a while for us all to focus [on what happens next]."
But not too long. The Liberals did not get clobbered in this election, and for a party that held too much power for too long in Canadian politics (even I can agree with that, however much I wanted them reelected), they have little to be ashamed of and a long list of accomplishments to look back on and with which to make their case in future elections. Enough handwringing already. I completely agree with those who say we need to have a leadership convention within the next year, and am interested in candidates who aren't interested in handing out hairshirts. Let's get on with it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home