Will Murray:
The Liberal leadership is in full swing, and unsurprisingly, Justin Trudeau seems to be well in front. Is Justin the right choice for the Liberals? Can he have an immediate impact on the Canadian political scene and return the Liberals to glory? Are the Liberals in better shape than some think, or will the turnaround take some time? Today, Canada's Least Watched Political Panel returns from a winter hibernation to discuss (and probably not for the last time) all things Liberal.
Greg Mills:
As I see it, the Liberals face two large obstacles before they’re ready to come back from their walk in the snow. The first is organization and attention. Interestingly enough, the party is still the second largest fundraiser on the federal scene (despite being the third place party), but like all opposition parties it comes far behind the Conservatives. In many ridings there aren’t enough members to build a coherent organization, and without that organization there’s no capacity to attract decent candidates and successfully run them, and there’s little room for a comprehensive, consultative policy process.
The second problem is that with each election they break their record for “worst result ever”, and as a consequence over the past decade the party has gone through (depending on how you count interim leaders) three to five leaders. It’s impossible to stay on message and build a base around a consistent set of principles if every two years the leader of the party and everyone close to them is taken out to a back alley, shot, and dumped in the Ottawa River. We talk about how much the party has needed to ‘reinvent’ or ‘rebuild’ itself, and this is very true, but I would argue that in some ways, it’s been doing that regularly – just not in a good way. Nobody knows what they stand for, because it changes every time.
To some extent solving the second problem and having a set of reliable, repeatable, steadfast policy principles, can help solve the first one and attract members and organizers. But both have to be worked on. No party’s direction should come exclusively from the leader, there needs to be an organization in place locally to help develop policies, and to disseminate the party’s message.
So to that end, the criteria I think the Party needs in a leader right now is not someone who harbors delusions of becoming Prime Minister in 2015 - there isn’t enough good luck in the world to bring that to pass – they need someone who can stick around for a few election cycles, is willing to engage with and grow the grassroots organization, and is able to bring enough attention and money to the party to build a cogent base. I don’t think Trudeau is the only candidate in the race who could conceivably do those things, but he isn’t the worst choice either.
WM:
I largely agree with you, Greg. The lack of organization needs to be a major focus and the party needs to look past the 2011 results and realize that even if the Liberals recoup what are considered traditional Liberal seats in the GTA they’re still maxing out at well below 100 seats. While the party looks back fondly on the Chretien era, it was the era where they were able to get away with these same organizational issues. Who needs an organization west of the Lakehead when you’re winning 100 seats in Ontario. Those wins masked the fact the party was dead in the water west of Ontario, and that they lost Quebec in 1984 (and they haven’t been able to get It back). Quebec was the base for almost every Liberal win prior to 1993, and they’re down to a handful of seats there.
Re-inventing itself will definitely be a key factor going forward, but it’s something they should only do once. Re-invention should be based on the notion of deciding what it believes in, not simply putting new lipstick on a pig. What do Liberals believe in? What will their policy anchors be. Those should be the questions. In 2008 they ran on the Carbon Tax, and before the campaign was even over they were pretending it wasn’t even the centerpiece of their election platform. There was some good stuff in the 2011 campaign, and it will be interesting to see whether they revisit it (things like the learning passport in particular). If it was retail junk, dump it. If the party feels there’s stuff in the 2011 platform they stand by, run on it again. “Canadians rejected it” is not an acceptable response if you’re talking about something that’s a firmly held view in the party. That’s what political parties are for. If you’re willing to throw out beliefs because Canadians didn’t vote for your party last, may as well just turn out the lights, hand over the key, and stop wasting everybody’s time. Now, of course there will be retail politics and platform fluff. All parties have that, but If you’re re-writing your core beliefs ever four years…well they’re not that core.
Certainly the chances of a 2015 win are slim to none, although understandably the party won’t say such a thing publicly. The lack of any sort of support in a majority of the ridings of the country shows that winning an election is a long way off. As I noted, this isn’t a matter of dusting themselves off after 2011. In Alberta, Saskatchewan, most of rural Canada and Quebec the Liberals problems go back decades, in some cases forty years. They need to decide what they want to be, and then go sell that in these areas as well. Even the Liberals ran a perfect campaign, the math simply isn’t there right now to see a path to victory.
Justin’s musings so far on grassroots engagement is a good start, but as I’ve noted before we’ve been down that road with politics in this country before. It’s not just a Justin problem, but when it comes to party’s giving up power from central command to the membership, well I’ll believe it when I see it.
GM:
One advantage he has over most if not all of the other candidates, is that for all his light-headedness and fluff Trudeau has always been remarkably self-aware and has been quite open about acknowledging, for instance, that he’s not nearly the academic his namesake might suggest.
If the Liberal Party is very lucky, if/when Trudeau wins he’ll be grounded enough to know to put talented, capable people where they can do good and not try to run it all as a one-man show, which might appear tempting given the highly disciplined leaderships of the other federal parties. This would mean not just giving caucus members more freedom and space as he’s already promised, but also seeking meaningful input from experts and outsiders who have something to offer on important policy areas. As you say however, whether that actually happens will remain to be seen.
WM:
Justin has some good people working for him which is important. Speaks to the judgment of smart people about his abilities. I’ll also add that for all my criticism of him. Justin doesn’t make me angry, he just makes me roll my eyes sometimes. I certainly don’t view as having a hard edge to him, or being mean spirited.
Marc Garneau is challenging Trudeau to a one-on-one debate, saying if he has "courage" he'll accept. I saw a few people suggesting Garneau isn’t even running 2nd, which is interesting.
GM:
I know MHF out raised him in the Q4 filings ($149K to $122K – A difference of $27K, or as I like to call it, 1 ½ McCrimmons)
WM:
MHF also has Stephen Carter running her campaign, so she could quietly be in 2nd. He’s not the type to tip his hand on stuff like that.
GM:
I think few people who have had – snicker – reentry issues with Garneau: They liked him until he started running. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of them have quietly switched to other candidates, and I suspect the biggest benefactors there would be MHF and Trudeau more than Joyce or the rest of the peanut gallery.
WM:
Yeah, as I noted though, it’s a necessary Hail Mary. He can’t worry about stepping on a few toes.
GM:
Oh I know, and I agree. I’m just saying I’m not sure if it’s working the way it was supposed to. I’m more than happy to believe that there are people who have been drawn towards Garneau as a result of his campaign, but I don’t have the level of first-hand knowledge of them as I do people who have moved away in the opposite direction.
WM:
True. I would imagine it’s a nod to everyone else in the race that if they don’t want Justin to win they need to line up behind Garneau or at least have him 2nd on the ballot. Also – more generally – it’s at the point where people want to be on the front runners bandwagon, so that might be driving people on the fence to Justin’s side.
John Van Weringh:
A one-on-one between Garneau and Trudeau would make for great TV, so I’m 100% behind the idea of it. It’s clearly important for Garneau, because if he can embarrass Trudeau he might stand a chance, and if he can’t, well, nothing really changes. For this reason, I doubt Trudeau will see any advantage to taking him on, but he’s also not necessarily one to back away from a challenge, and he might be able to pull off a surprising performance. If there was any sense that his lack of depth was an impediment to victory, then this would be a great way to show those with doubts that he can hold his own. But it doesn’t seem like those with doubts outweigh those without.
Trudeau is a very interesting candidate. In principle, I don’t really mind a campaign run on a statement of principles and/or values, rather than specific policy proposals. Specific policy proposals are certainly valuable, and certainly helpful in measuring a candidate’s values and principles, but it also means making wanton promises far, far before it’s meaningfully relevant, and consequently, before one has all of the facts at hand. A focus on evidence-based policy goes hand in hand with policy vagueness – because the evidence that will be available when it’s time to actually enact the policy isn’t necessarily in yet. Also, being something of a blank slate will allow the party to imbue him with the policies and values that they collectively agree upon and develop over the coming years. That said, I think Garneau is right to challenge him, especially if he is worried that he’s something of a dummy, and I think the party would do well to take a step back and really think about this decision. If they pick Trudeau, and, as you’ve said, ought want to keep him around for a decade or so, they need to be willing to be the party that is fronted by and entirely of Justin Trudeau. If he’s a goof, you’re all a goof. If he goes off on a third-person rhetorical nightmare tangent, then that’s what the Liberal Party is doing. So, his popularity, campaigning acumen, and seeming electability come with risks. But if he’s willing to stick around (and I have to assume he has nothing better to do), and he’s willing to craft a message, and willing to listen to smarter people than he, then the party has an opportunity to get back in the game in a big way.
WM:
While I don’t think the platform needs to be etched in stone, I do think there can be a balance between that and what Trudeau has offered. I think he really foes need to offer more in the way of policy proposal. His stance on Nexen, while admirable that he took it, isn’t a policy, it’s speaking to a specific issue. The policy itself is foreign investment, and he opined on a particular case. I know he’s offered some insight into the Parliamentary reform stuff, I tend to roll my eyes when any candidate offers that. Once they get job, the realities set in and they don’t want to relinquish power (especially when his fellow leaders wouldn’t even consider doing the same). As I’ve said before the Liberals need to re-establish a base and find policy anchors that can form the basis of their party. I think all the candidates need to give the party an idea on what they envision those anchors being.
GM:
I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say that the policies don’t need to be etched in stone, but should be anchors. Do you mean that the policy nuts and bolts don’t need to be specific yet, but the broad direction of the party needs to be established?
WM:
Essentially, yes. They don’t need to have the entire platform written, but candidates should offer some specific anchors about what they think the party should represent.
JVW:
In essence, a leadership candidate needs to say “my Liberal government would be open to foreign investment, would set specific procedures and rules for foreign investment applications, and we would relegate the net benefit test to the dustbin”, for instance, rather than “way to go Nexen” (or “way to go foreign telecom companies”, for that matter). I mean, the question is whether or not Trudeau – or anybody – actually believes the principle, or just supports the specific instance (for policy or for political reasons).
WM:
On another topic: the debates suck. I know it’s an internal debate and it’s not about trying to beat up on the candidates, but my goodness, do they need a journalist to moderate (or at least just have no moderator at all and the let the candidates debate each other). Asking each candidate whether they prefer throwing people in jail forever or whether they prefer evidence based policy is a waste of everyone’s time. There’s only two debates left, and in the long run no one will remember them, but it wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world to make all the candidates toughen their skin by actually getting challenged on what they say.
GM:
Agreed. I was initially hopeful that having a combination of one-on-one (or one-on-one-on-one) debates and the more casual conversational exchange of the second debate would raise the profile of the B-list candidates. If everyone was on or near the same playing field it would better serve to more rigorously scrutinize Trudeau, and produce a little more excitement. Instead it seems to have made the differences between the A-list and the B-list that much more obvious.
Having so many candidates, especially so many who can’t possibly win (Martin Couchon, Karen McCrimmon, and David Bertschi, I’m looking at you) is also problematic. The debate formats thus far have meant that their presence is taking away valuable time from the actual contenders, and the whole thing suffers.
