BCer on the Constitutional Plenary

Policy and procedure wonk Jeff Jedras ('BCer in Toronto') has a far more detailed and informed overview of the Constitutional Plenary proposals, debates and results than I could ever manage, so please - go read.

I aspire to be as well informed as Jeff the next time I am called upon to vote on such things. As it was, I felt that I was quite well informed on OMOV and the YLC amendment and a few other items I felt were important, but somewhat less so on the rest - largely because of my lack of experience with procedural matters and the intricacies of party bureaucracy. Even with the executive elections, no amount of research on my part could equal the insights I got into the various candidates from Jeff.

Thanks, Jeff!

Bob Rae's Convention Speech, Part 2

Bob Rae's Convention Speech, Part 1

Introduced by Justin Trudeau (just for the ladies).

Home Again, Home Again - with Video!

Ugh. Sleep deprived, jet-lagged, ankles swollen from five hours in a WestJet seat just slightly narrower than I am, but home again in the bosom of my family and happy for it.

Not much energy for blogging today. I hope to string a few coherent, reflective thoughts together over the next few days, but for now here's a bit of video of Czar Michael Ignatieff processing into the hall during the closing ceremonies on Saturday.



Next up: Bob Rae's speech. Tomorrow. Sleep now.

Dressed to the Nines and Time to PAAAHTAY!!!

Who has more fun than us?!

Tonight was about celebration, and celebrate we did at the 'Leader's Celebration' - notable for its lack of party leader, BTW. The dress code was specified as "red and white glam", which would have been really good to know BEFORE we packed. Happily, I thought to pack my black and red cocktail dress, which is about the only article of clothing I own that I actually think I look hot in.



First I had a fine dinner with a couple of fellow bloggers who graciously paid my bill in lieu of a donation. Gratefully accepted, with thanks. Then we made a couple of hotel stops and it was off to Stanley Park. When we arrived, in the rain, we were informed that the building was filled to capacity and that we would have to hang out down at the tent - which was unlicensed.

The tent had a stage and a sort of a roll-out dance floor, and when we arrived there was a pretty cool drag queen act just wrapping up, singing selections from Cabaret. But the lack of alcohol soon became boring, so we wandered back up to the hall and managed to sneak in through a side door and find some imbibibles.

But then 'Spirit of the West' hit the stage back down at the tent. So I chugged the rest of my beer and headed down.

By the end of the performance I was drenched in sweat, my feet were killing me, my carefully coiffed hair was a wreck and my voice was hoarse. And I haven't had that much fun in a long, long time.



I had to wait in line for about half an hour before being allowed back into the building, and then only had time for one more beer before closing time. So we hopped onto the shuttle and went looking for a bar - any bar - that was still open after 1:00 am. And so we were introduced to Granville Street. We had heard Justin Trudeau was at the Roxy, but the place actually had big beefy doormen and a velvet rope so we found some other dive.

Funny. In a social setting such as this, apparently Liberals revert to intense discussions of economic and environmental policy. Made more intense by the addition of beer. No consensus was reached, but we came to an agreement on methodology.

Oh, what a night!

Saturday Convention Round-Up

ON JANE TABER:

I know it's mean and personal and totally unprofessional, but it absolutely has to be said:

Jane Taber is a horrible, nasty bitch.

Seriously, is it too much to ask that just this once, on this night of all nights, that you refrain from the sniping and the sarcasm? Do you think that taking one last petty kick at the man by repeating the same old mocking criticisms makes you clever? Or have you simply decided that someone who steps up and serves his country in more ways than you ever have or ever will is somehow worthy of your scorn just because you see him as flawed and vulnerable?

And just for the record: it was actually a rather famous quote from a rather well known German philosopher. But I wouldn't expect someone like you to know that.

Shame.

ON THE EXECUTIVE ELECTIONS:

I knew very little about any of the executive candidates, but I did a bit checking and asked people whose opinions I respect, and I made my choices.

My choice for National Policy Chair was made a little easier by watching the performance of the incumbent, Joan Bourassa, this morning as she co-chaired the Policy Plenary. She started by failing to ask for the Nays after asking for the Yeas, leaving those who wanted to vote against a resolution without the ability to do so. Then she lost track of what where we were in the process a couple of times. There were other instances - I lost track of the number of points of order that were raised on her.

I suppose it's a little thing, but it left me with a very bad impression of her competence, and that plus Jeff telling me a bit more about her led me to vote for Maryanne Kampouris. Bourassa won anyway.

ON THE CORONATION:

My hands hurt. Besides that, it was a surprising lot of fun.

New Party President Alfred Apps gave a very inspiring speech. I went to his party last night (among others), and I have discovered that Alf Apps' plan for the Liberal Party is to use extremely loud rock bands to engage the youth and drive everyone over the age of fifty out of the room.

Rae and LeBlanc also came out and gave remarkable speeches - especially Bob, who will always be my first love. Snif.

And then there was Michael.

I'm still not completely happy with this guy. There are some areas - mostly in foreign policy - where I am distinctly UNhappy with him. I also don't like his habit of making a seemingly nuanced, reasonable explanation of his position, and then capping it off with an eminently more quotable quote that overly simplifies and often completly misrepresents what he just said (i.e. Hamas, Galloway, raising taxes). I swear he does it just because it sounds clever, and it drives me absolutely insane.

But you know what? I'm cool with it. Because for me, this weekend wasn't about a leader. Leaders come and go. This weekend was about the Liberal Party of Canada, and that is on the ascendancy and ready to kick ass.

C'est le printemps!

It's Done.

One Member, One Vote has passed. The YLC amendment failed - by a wider margin than I expected, frankly. Braeden Caley spoke eloquently and rationally in favour, as he has on En Famille, and I can certainly appreciate some of his arguments even though I disagree. But in the end, there simply weren't enough of even the YLC delegates supporting their amendment - especially after Justin Trudeau was trotted out to argue against it.

And then Bob Rae made the case for OMOV.



Earlier this morning, I attended the Policy Plenary, which was way more fun than it sounds. As it turned out, all of the priority policies passed, most by wide margins. The only one that was even close was #124 on expanding and enhancing the role of the Canada Human Rights Commission. There was quite a bit of debate, and the resolution was carried by a vote of 223 to 185. Which I'm sure is going to drive the anti-CHRC people bonkers.

I Just Voted! Squeee!!!

It's silly, I know, but it feels like the first time I ever voted in an election. I'm very excited!

We just slogged through the Policy Plenary, and now it's on to Round 1 and Round 2 of the Constitutional and Renewal Plenary. Vote OMOV!!

I Reserve the Right to Dissent

I will be voting tomorrow. Voting for policy proposals and constitutional changes, including One Member One Vote. Voting for a couple of executive positions. And voting for the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the ballot for which contains one little box next to a single name.

As an undeclared, independent delegate, I am not obligated to vote for any specific candidate - which means I could spoil my ballot, or simply leave it blank. I still haven't decided whether or not I will use that prerogative tomorrow morning.

Let me be clear: the leader of the Liberal Party has my full, unqualified support, both as interim leader and as our constitutionally elected leader. Michael Ignatieff has already done a remarkable job of bringing the party together and supporting essential reforms, and I am confident that he will lead our party to victory in the next election.

I also understand and agree with the reasons why Bob Rae and Domenic LeBlanc chose to withdraw under some extraordinary circumstances. However, I do not agree with the way in which options for an accelerated contested race were closed off, and had I been given a choice, I would most likely have voted for someone other than Michael Ignatieff.

This is not disloyalty. This is not disunity. This is my right - my duty - as a member of the Liberal Party. I have the right to express my concerns freely, and to vote my conscience - even if that vote takes the form of "none of the above". And as a delegate, even an acclaimed one (and yes, I appreciate the irony), I feel that I have a responsibility to make sure that the Liberals in my riding who have serious reservations about Michael Ignatieff, however few, are somehow given a voice.

I suppose this is all a little grandiose for someone who has never attended a convention before and has only been a Liberal Party member for a few years. But I strongly believe that in any democratic system, it is essential for dissenting opinions to be expressed, even if that expression is only symbolic. Unanimity, as appealing as it might appear to be for morale, is frequently a mask that covers underlying disagreements, and once covered those disagreements often grow and fester. Once expressed, everyone can move forward, satisfied that they have been heard.

As I said, I still haven't decided what I'm going to do. I may well just check that one box and be done with it. I don't know - and I'm certainly not going to tell any of you. And when the results are tabulated and Michael Ignatieff is named as our official leader, I'll cheer and celebrate along with everyone else, and then get to work.

But it will be all the more meaningful knowing that I at least could have said 'no'.

Ignatieff and the YLC: Now With Video!

As promised:

Convention Photos, Day 1

Blogger Central


(this one's for you, Steve)


My guy, Scott Brison


Paul Martin on the radio


Maverick YLC Presidential Candidate John Lennard


My other guy, Gerard Kennedy, at blogger James Curran's hugely successful Ontario brewpub party Thursday night


Rock Star Justin Trudeau, with James Curran.

Database Heaven

I just got back from the LiberaList Orientation. This is the new database system that the Liberals have contracted and adapted from the VAN (Voter Activation Network) that has been used so successfully by the Democratic National Party in the States.

Oh. My. God. This is, no shit, the coolest thing EVAH!!!

As the GOTV co-chair-by-default for Halton during the last election, I got a good first hand look at the capabilities and limitations of the party's old system, ManageElect. Those limitations were even more keenly felt by our campaign manager, who had also had first hand experience with the much more detailed Conservative system.

She is going to be over the frickin' MOON with this.

All this might not mean much to those who have never sat in a campaign office doing data entry or tried to generate a walk list, but the difference between this new system and the old one is like the difference between an integrated inventory control system and a cash register. I don't want to give out too many secrets here, but suffice it to say that once this system is loaded up with voter data, it will completely blow away any advantage the Conservatives have had regarding voter identification and targeting.

This will change everything.

Ignatieff Speaks to Young Liberals

You can always find Michael Ignatieff at this Convention just by following the cheers and applause.

That's how I found him this morning as he ascended the escalator, and later when he stepped upon the stage to address the Young Liberals Commission. The room was completely packed with youth and not-so-youth, and I ended up backed into the door, videotaping above the sea of heads as my arm slowly went numb.

I'd show you the footage but I left my !@#$% firewire cable in the hotel room and can't upload it from my camera. Later, I promise.

The speech wasn't much different from what he's been saying all weekend. He did invoke the '68 Convention he attended as a Young Liberal, and spoke of the Liberal Party offering young people the opportunity to make history. He also spoke very passionately about the One Member One Vote proposal, and practically begged the people in the room to vote for it. He made no mention of the contentious YLC amendment, but the message was clear: with or without it, we must pass OMOV. All of us.

One thing I've been noticing recently: Iggy's been reading the same books I have. There have been several occasions when he's spoken quite directly about the ideas presented in John Ralston Saul's 'A Fair Country'. Like this:

"Because we are rooted in our land, and because we represent every ethnicity, every race, every religion, every part and parcel of our country, we are fit to govern - because we are anchored in the national life of our people."

He's talking about the Liberal Party and not the nation as a whole, but I'm still hearing a lot of JR Saul in that.

Anyway, I'll try to get that video uploaded some time tonight. Right now I'm going to try to get into the orientation for the fancy new voter database system (Esther's going to LOVE it!).

Dispatch from a Convention Virgin (be gentle!)

Well, I made it. 5 hours on a plane from Toronto, checked into the hotel, changed, slapped some makeup on, then off to the Convention Centre!

Registration - check
Swag bag - check
Found the Bloggers Room - check
Attended my very first workshop, which was... "Making Politics Meaningful: How To Engage Membership". Got lots of great ideas. Took notes. My riding President will be happy. Note to organizers: next time, more chairs and more water.

And now I'm missing the Closing Plenary! Ak! All this delegate stuff is really putting a crimp in my blogging.

Next step: deciding which party to go to tonight.

BTW, I regret to announce that The Bag did not, in fact, make it to Vancouver. She was only made of cloth, and the constant wear and tear of carrying a mittful of keys, the Costanza Wallet and 1-2 pounds of coin proved too much for the old girl.

Allow me to introduce you to The New Bag. Now 50% larger!

Last Chance to Sponsor Me as a Convention Delegate!

We're down to the wire here - only a week and a day until I'm wandering the Convention hall wondering where I'm supposed to be and what I'm supposed to do. It's going to be quite the adventure!

The support I've received so far has been touching. Not just the financial support (which is much needed and appreciated), but the kind words of appreciation and encouragement that I've had from friends and strangers alike. To all of you, thank you! I will do my best to do you proud.

Please, if you haven't already and if you're able, take a moment to throw a few bucks in the kitty towards my delegate fees (tax deductible!)

MY DELEGATE PAGE
Or, if you don't care to donate through the Liberal Party, you can contribute towards my transportation costs through my PayPal account:

Thank you for your support, and I'll see you in Vancouver!

Terrific News on OMOV - Confirmed!

CalgaryGrit has the scoop of the day:

A few weeks ago, there was a change to the amendment procedure where instead of a 50% vote up front, the YLC amendment would need two-third after....zzzzz....yeah....I know. Thrilling stuff. But it did matter, in the sense that this change would have probably killed the YLC amendment.

Well, I have it on good authority that today that the LPC has reverted back to the original voting procedure. I'll be sure to post further confirmation once I get it since I know you're all on pins and needles on this one.

If it is confirmed, this is extraordinarily good news since I had it on good authority that, although many Young Liberals were thinking they might vote against OMOV if their amendment didn't pass, they were even more determined to vote it down if this manipulation of the rules of order was allowed to stand.

Keep your fingers crossed, and stay tuned to CalgaryGrit for updates.

THAT WAS QUICK: The Alberta Young Liberals President just confirmed on En Famille.

The Great Canadian Railroad Policy

Over the past few months, participants on the Liberal Party's new 'En Famille' forum have been asked to discuss, vote on, and prioritize over a hundred individual policy resolutions. The process was new, participation was relatively low, and so it was only considered to be a 'consultative', non-binding process - to the frustration of many.

Still, there has been a relatively good correlation between the most recommended proposals on En Famille and those the Party has chosen to move forward with at the convention. In fact, of the top twenty prioritized policies, only five didn't make it to the final cut.

There is one resolution that everyone seems to be very excited about. It was number one on the priority list, was one of the most actively discussed, and will almost certainly be approved at the convention:

#135. Development of an Integrated Transportation Policy.

WHEREAS Canada was built on the railway;

WHEREAS transportation is a large and diverse dub section, accounting for 26% of Canada’s GHG emissions in 2005; and,

WHEREAS the health, economic and environmental benefits of improved public transportation service have been extensively studied and are well established:

WHEREAS railways are more economical and environmental than highways;

WHEREAS Via Rail is a Crown Corporation providing inter-urban passenger train services to the people of Canada;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada encourage the federal government to implement a fully integrated transportation policy to allow direct links between airport terminals, inner city bus terminals, light rail and urban transit systems with passenger rail services; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada encourage the federal government to support, promote, and expand the role of passenger rail in every possible way across Canada; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Liberal Party of Canada encourage the federal government to provide funds so that rail companies that lease track to VIA Rail improve their track infrastructure to enable existing passenger rail equipment to operate at higher speeds, thereby reducing travel time and also to double track to encourage the simultaneous movement of passenger and freight trains.

It's such a simple, even old-fashioned idea, and yet the mere mention of the word 'rail' in any of the forums - environment, infrastructure, rural and regional issues - would cause the whole board to light up like a Christmas tree. It's like some deep-rooted cultural memory of our once great national rail system is being re-awakened. And it all ties into what Ignatieff has been talking about in terms of strengthening east-west trade and energy routes.

On top of all the economic, environmental and national unity benefits to a revitalization of our freight and passenger rail system, there is the added political benefit of having a signature issue for the Liberals that the Conservative government seems to have no interest in whatsoever.

OTTAWA – Transport Minister John Baird yesterday appeared to pour cold water on the idea of high-speed rail along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, saying so far it has proved too expensive and would serve too few people.

"I suspect it's about density and cost," said Baird, adding that a high-speed link between Quebec and Ontario that has been talked about for decades could cost up to $30 billion, and serve 16 million people.

Sigh. Meanwhile, the Americans are getting hot on rail. Just yesterday, President Obama laid out his plan for an upgraded, high-speed rail system for the U.S.:

What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. (Laughter.) Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.

Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is now. It is happening right now. It's been happening for decades. The problem is it's been happening elsewhere, not here.

In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth, remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations. In Spain, a high-speed line between Madrid and Seville is so successful that more people travel between those cities by rail than by car and airplane combined. China, where service began just two years ago, may have more miles of high-speed rail service than any other country just five years from now. And Japan, the nation that unveiled the first high-speed rail system, is already at work building the next: a line that will connect Tokyo with Osaka at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. So it's being done; it's just not being done here.

There's no reason why we can't do this. This is America. There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders. Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system –- and everybody stands to benefit.

Perhaps the best thing of all is that not only would such a policy benefit everyone, it could easily be supported by everyone, regardless of region, socio-economic status or political affiliation. Even my father, the classic Upper Canadian True Blue Conservative, thinks that this is exactly the kind of sensible, practical policy we should be pursuing.

I'll be voting Yes on 135.

UPDATE: And here's a story about the kind of bureaucratic bullshit that could 'de-rail' the whole plan (H/T to Bob Broughton's Blog)

OMOV and the Young Liberals: A Plea For Fairness and Compromise

I've had a number of people - including my husband - ask me why I'm spending a lot of money I can't really afford to go all the way to Vancouver to attend a convention that amounts to little more than a coronation.

My response is that I'm going to try to make sure this is the last coronation the Liberal Party ever has.

One of the ways that many of us are trying to make the leadership selection process more democratic is to institute a One Member, One Vote (OMOV) system, similar to what the other national parties use. Unlike the last convention, where OMOV was killed largely by ex-officio delegates, this proposal now has the support of Party brass and has an excellent chance of passing.

Except now it's hit a snag.

The current delegate system includes 'quotas' for the various Commissions, including 1/3 of delegate seats reserved for Young Liberals, who represent those between the ages of 14 and 25. Faced with the loss of this guaranteed position, the Young Liberals (YLC) have proposed an amendment to the OMOV proposal that would give them a minimum of 25% of the 'points' under the new system. Many have threatened to vote against OMOV if it doesn't include this amendment. Others have threatened to do the same if it DOES include the amendment.

Perhaps because of this, the National Management Committee has made a rather bizarre change to the rules of order so that, instead of voting on an amendment first and then voting on the amended proposal, we are now to vote on the main proposal first and then on the amendment only if it passes. This is completely contrary to Robert's Rules of Order, and has infuriated both the YLC (who are threatening to summarily vote against OMOV unless their amendment is dealt with first), and those who oppose the YLC amendment but still want this to be done fairly and democratically.

So. That's the situation.

Scott Tribe, Jeff Jedras, James Curran and others have all explained the reasons why they feel having any sort of quota for anyone defeats the purpose of OMOV, so I won't go over that same ground here. Suffice it to say, yes, I agree with them: the YLC amendment weakens OMOV, and quotas are ultimately counter-productive.

HOWEVER.

I am deeply concerned by the tone the discussion of these issues has taken, both in blog comments and in the Liberal En Famille forums. While most are trying to make reasonable arguments both for and against the YLC amendment, some are getting frustrated and are falling into the trap of issuing ultimatums and being dismissive of the other side's point of view. A few have even accused the Young Liberals of being 'selfish' and 'immature', which, I can tell you as a parent, is exactly the WRONG way to convince a young person of anything.

If the hardline OMOV supporters refuse to make any concessions to the YLC, and if the YLC refuses to support OMOV without their amendment intact, then we can probably kiss democratic reform in the Liberal Party goodbye for another two years. And by then I suspect most party members will be so disgusted that there won't be much of a party left.

We need to work this out. Now.

As I see it, there are at least three major points on which the YLC and those opposed to their amendment are agreed:

1) We all want grassroots Liberal Party members to have a stronger voice.
2) We all want a vibrant, active, and influential Youth wing, and
3) We all object (I think) to the arbitrary changes to the rules of order.

And really, that's a lot to work with.

One place to start might be to pressure the Executive to reverse the changes they made to the rules of order. I have already written to Ferguson and Rossi about this and have encouraged others to do the same. Failing that, it should be possible to make a motion from the floor to vote on the amendment first in this one instance, although it would require a 90% majority. The only way we could get that would be to arrange it ahead of time and work together.

As for the amendment itself, I don't know what can feasibly be done, but I would very much like to see some negotiation before the vote to see if some accommodation can be reached. For example, a large part of the resistance to the proposed 25% quota is due to it being so completely out of whack with both the actual numbers of Young Liberal party members (around 10%) and the percentage of 14-25 year olds in the population (about 15%). However, there is no doubt that youth are under-represented politically for a variety of reasons, and I can see why the YLC would find it unreasonable to be asked to suddenly go from a one-third representation to 10% or less.

Because of this, I have suggested either lowering the quota to 15%, or starting at 25% and gradually reducing it to nothing. A reduction in the quota would still guarantee weighting equivalent to the percentage of youth in the population, while a gradual reduction and eventual elimination of the quota would allow the YLC time to build their numbers through recruitment.

Those are just a few ideas, from someone with absolutely no experience with the YLC or with conventions. Surely others can come up with other areas where compromise is possible, and think of some way we can come together and reach a fair accommodation before this all comes to a vote. As a relatively neutral party and half-decent arbitrator, I would be happy to do whatever I can to help make it happen.

The alternative is for everyone to dig their heels in, hold firm to their principles and their positions - and squander what may be our last, best opportunity to make real, progressive, democratic change to our party.

Let's talk.

Yet Another Lame Blog Post

I know, I've been a bad, bad blogger.

I've been so focused on trying to mediate the food fight that's been going on at En Famille over the Young Liberal amendment to the OMOV proposal - and the further complication of the Liberal Brass suddenly deciding to toss Robert's out the window - that I haven't had the time or focus to actually talk about it all in a coherent blog post.

I promise, I will. Soon. Probably tomorrow. Because what is going on is vital to the future of the Liberal Party, and I strongly believe that a negotiated solution to this dispute can and must be reached before we get into that little room to vote. Otherwise the entire OMOV proposition may well be dead before it even hits the convention floor, and all those lovely words about "change" and "renewal" and "democratic reform" will turn to ash in the mouths of our leaders.

Thing is, I'm less concerned with talking about it than I am with actually DOING something about it right now.

In the meantime, here is your Gratuitous Iggy Shot of the day:

In Search of Big Ideas

I generally begin my day with a perusal of headlines on National Newswatch. Today, like most days, every Canadian political story seemed to be about party strategy.

Can the Liberals regain the Catholic vote, and maybe pick up the evangelicals as well?
Has Harper lost touch with his right-wing base?
Could Conservative attack ads against Layton turn him into a martyr and drive left-leaning Liberals to the NDP in sympathy?
Can Iggy wash off the stink of Dion and revive the party's fortunes though aggressive fundraising and membership drives?

And the big idea from the Ontario NDP's newly minted leader? Topple the Grits.

Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the media, which has always been far more interested in handicapping horse races than any serious discussion of issues. But one can hardly blame them when the parties themselves are becoming increasingly obsessed with election strategy, internal politics, and pandering to strategic demographics, regions and special interest groups - and far less interested in coming up with any bold new policies that might potentially scare voters.

In this way, the marketing campaign takes precedence over the product being sold, and every new policy or pronouncement is judged, not on how it will benefit the country, but by how it will 'play' in Alberta. Or in Quebec. Or among middle-class professional women ages 24-40.

Here's a thought: instead of telling us how you plan to win the next election, tell us how you plan to make this country a better place to live for everyone.

We are at a critical moment in our history. The world economy is not only in crisis, but may in fact be going through a fundamental transformation. The planet is on the brink of an irreversible climate shift. Our cheap, accessible supplies of fossil fuels are about to run dry. Twentieth century models of warfare, trade, international relations and national identity are crumbling around us.

These are big problems, and we need big ideas to solve them. And yet, the biggest ideas we hear coming from our political elite are how they are going to break through in Quebec or Alberta, or how they are going to save us all eleven dollars and sixty cents in tax, or how they are going to completely revamp the way party members choose their leadership.

One symptom of this is the number of people who have asked me why on earth I want to spend all that money to go to the Liberal Party Convention when the leadership (i.e. the important stuff) has already been decided. When I mention things like Party policy workshops, they invariably make pshaw noises, as if the party's plan for the country wasn't nearly as important as which leader looks better on TV.

And they wonder why nobody votes.

Stephane Dion, God help him, had a big idea with his Green Shift. Some disagreed with it, many more simply didn't understand it, and nobody in the party besides Dion seemed willing to back it up or even explain it properly. Instead, it was thrown out there almost apologetically, in naked, shivering isolation instead of as part of a broader, comprehensive platform.

The results were entirely predictable - and, I suspect, intentional. Because big ideas are risky. They require knowledgeable and committed people to put differences aside to make them work. They require commitment to a long term vision of the country that may be at odds with the power brokers and the petty regional fiefdoms.

No, far easier to stick with the small ideas. The ones that appeal to people's baser instincts of greed and self-interest. The ones they can disown if they suddenly become unpopular or unfashionable.

If this small-minded, piecemeal approach continues, we will never have progressive tax reform in this country because it might piss off the wealthy. We will never have national child care because it might piss off the childless. We will never have a national energy policy because it might piss off Alberta. And so we plod along, rearranging deck chairs on the rapidly sinking ship of traditional capitalism and our North American lifestyle, congratulating ourselves whenever someone from our team gets to sit in the captain's chair.

Forgive me if I'm more interested in what's going on in the engine room.