Liberal Leadership

[sensorglitch]

OTTAWA - Liberal Party President Doug Ferguson today announced that the National Executive has chosen Vancouver as the site of the next Liberal Leadership Convention. The Convention will be held at the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre from April 30, 2009 to May 3, 2009

Comments

[suitablyemoname]

$90 000?

Seriously?

That's nearly double the $50 000 it was in 2006, and I considered the 50k quite excessive unto itself. It sounds like The Powers That Be really want a Rae-Iggy fight.

I mean, honestly, that kind of money just to enter the race...

In-context, the spending limit for a standard riding in an election campaign is just 70k, and that's quite an undertaking.

[suitablyemoname]

And to be fair: the Conservatives set the bar at 100k for their convention back in 2004.

[sensorglitch]

Yea, but their convention wasn't delegated

[warrioreowyn]

It sounds like The Powers That Be really want a Rae-Iggy fight.

I think you're right. Which means either 1.) They will lose or 2.) I'd rather have Harper.

I will NOT be governed by an American who doesn't consider this country his home, didn't give a damn whether Quebec separated in 1995, and only came back when he saw the opportunity for a power grab as the Liberal party started falling apart.

Add to that the fact that Iggy has zero economic experience, or experience on any sort of domestic policy, and we're headed recession-wards, and Rae has a just plain bad record.... the Liberals have got to be nuts. And they're both from Ontario. Neither would have the foggiest chance of even reasonably competing with Harper in the west.

[penlessej]

I think that this $90,000 entry fee is a way to skirt the request from the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party to have candidates with outstanding debts stand out of the race. There is no way that Findley and Kennedy will be able to get loans with $200,000 still hanging around their necks even if they are allowed into the race.

[mijopo]

Firstly, I don't like delegated conventions because they don't provide enough opportunity for the average voter to become engaged in the process of choosing the leader.

True, but almost every decision that ever gets made in politics and business provides no opportunity for the average voter to become engaged in the process. Why do you think that average voters should have an opportunity to become engaged in this process?

(To my mind, democracy is based on the fundamental principle that people have a right to choose who will govern them. I can endorse that principle wholeheartedly while simultaneously denying that it is always/usually (or even ever) the way to arrive at the best decision.)

[suitablyemoname]

Did you really just ask why one might think voters should be engaged in the democratic process?

[mijopo]

By definition they must be involved in the democratic process. But there are lots and lots of events that make up "the democratic process". Clearly the voters can't and shouldn't be directly involved in every single one of them. (If I decide to start a new party, that's part of the democratic process, should I consult the voters before doing so? If I create a party platform, that's part of the democratic process, need I consult the voters in doing so?) I guess it's not clear to me that they should be involved in this one or at least why parties should feel obligated to involve them. There's a big difference between selecting a leader for the country and selecting a leader for a party that will try to convince the country to let it lead.

[warrioreowyn]

Why do you think that average voters should have an opportunity to become engaged in this process?

The US system allows voters to choose the party nominee for chief executive. Forces the party to be a little more responsive to the concerns of regular people.

[allhatnocattle]

$90k eliminates the hydra/cerebus effect. They don't want some third rate choice like Dion getting inbetween Rae and Ignatieff.

[warrioreowyn]

They'd rather have two fourth-rate choices and no alternative?

[allhatnocattle]

Well, I'm assuming both Rae and Iggy can afford the $90k, and nobody else can. I have no idea if that's true.

Clearly you have identified yourself as no fan of either. I'm not for or against either candidate.

[shuimei]

I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea of "the average voter" being able to be part of the process of choosing the leader. I think the membership, the people invested in the party should decide. If we're talking about one member one vote, I am more receptive to that, but even with that there's the risk of signing up "instant Liberals" to influence the outcome.

As for the entry fee, I guess it's their way of narrowing the field since there were so many candidates last time, but this also ticks me off because at this moment I'm not in favour of either Rae or Ignatieff. I am not looking forward to this race and have no idea who I will end up supporting and voting for...

I'm glad that they decided to keep the convention in Vancouver though, I've never been so I'm looking forward to it.