Bob Rae's Convention Speech, Part 2

Bob Rae's Convention Speech, Part 1

Introduced by Justin Trudeau (just for the ladies).

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!

Why I Would Have Supported Bob *(if anyone had cared to ask)

As disappointed as I am, I was very proud of Bob Rae today. He was incredibly gracious, his explanation for dropping out made sense (even though I disagree), and he refused to allow the media to frame this as an internal war. I truly hope that Rae's supporters take him at his word and continue to support the party, while at the same time help to fight for fundamental change in how the party is run so that this sort of thing never, ever happens again.

So.

Until today, I had actually been on the fence in terms of who I would have endorsed or voted for as Liberal leader. I have never liked Michael Ignatieff, although I do believe he has moderated his stance on a number of issues and is not nearly the monster I once thought he was. A prick perhaps, but not a monster.

And there is one point on which I agree with him: we need to prove to Canadians that the Coalition is serious about wanting what is best for them and for the economy by looking at the Conservative budget in January and judging it on its merits before deciding whether or not to vote it down.

My principle issue with Michael Ignatieff is my impression that he represents the sort of centrist, corporatist, fiscally conservative values espoused by Paul Martin and his ilk. He strikes me as cautious, prudent, willing to say whatever he thinks people want to hear, and unlikely to change much of anything for either the Liberal party or the country.

I can cite no specific evidence for this impression, so please feel free to explain why I am wrong about the man. In fact, I am reminded of something I once read that women tend to use logic to justify their intuition. Guilty.

Bob Rae, on the other hand, is serious about party renewal and grassroots participation, as evidenced by his fight for the rights of rank and file Liberals this week. He has bold, progressive policy ideas, and he speaks his mind without appearing condescending or confrontational. I believe he is the man who could lead the Liberal Party in the direction it most needs to go if it is going to be a viable, vibrant alternative to the Conservatives.

And he wouldn't have had a hope in hell in an election.

Therein lies the dilemma. To support a leadership candidate who can defeat Harper and bring the Liberals back to power in the short term, or the one who can make positive changes for the party in the long term?

I won't have to make that decision now. But if I did, in the end I would have gone with my heart and not my head. I would have voted for Bob Rae.

Don't Go, Bob!!

Bob Rae will be holding a press conference today where he is expected to withdraw from the leadership race.

I am very, very disappointed. I know and understand that we should have ideally put a process in place where individual members could have voted, but I also understand how complex the logistics of that could have been, especially given recent snafus. And I honestly believe that the compromise decided upon last night (which was strikingly similar to what I suggested) would have allowed the grassroots to have somewhat of a voice through their riding presidents - who are, after all, more like volunteers than MPs - and would have given equal voice to all ridings.

Even if the situation was still far from ideal, and even if Ignatieff's installation was inevitable, I really wish Rae had stayed in for at least another couple of days. Long enough to tell my riding president who my preferred candidate was, and for him to tell the Executive.

Now I have no voice at all. At least not until the Convention, when I hope to be part of an energized grassroots finally ready to demand real change in our party, despite who our leader is.

EDIT: This cheered me up immensely.



Yep. That about says it all.

Iggy: Less Horrible Than Last Time?

I am overwhelmed by ambivalence.

I just finished watching Michael Ignatieff announce his not so secret intention to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party, and... I dunno. He seems to be saying all the right things: renewal, a 308 strategy, grassroots participation, laying the groundwork for generational change in the party. He even invoked Mike Pearson and (gasp!) the Kingston Conference.

I'm still trying to decide if I believe him or not.

What was most interesting to me is what he didn't say. He didn't talk about Afghanistan or his intentions for the role of Canada's military - something he wouldn't shut up about last time and put me off of him completely. He also didn't talk much about his overall views on economics and trade policy, except as they specifically pertain to the current crisis and the auto industry. Where is he on NAFTA and other international trade agreements? Where is he on tax policy? Where is he on market regulation? These are things I will want to know.

Still, I am less horrified at the prospect of Michael Ignatieff as Liberal leader than I was. My first choice would probably have been Gerard Kennedy; my current inclination is towards Rae. But if Iggy were to win (and at this point that's looking likely), I think I could live with that.

Maybe. It's early days.

Thoughts on Bob, the NDP, and Big Labour

There was a marvellous op-ed in the Star yesterday that reminded me a) why I like Bob Rae, and b) why I don't vote NDP so much any more.

Go. Read. I'll wait.

One of the earliest votes I ever cast was for Bob Rae (my very first was for John Sewell, I'm proud to say). I did it partly to piss off my very conservative dad, but mostly because I believed, and still believe, in most of the policies and ideals espoused by the New Democratic Party of Canada.

The sticking point for me, and especially after Bob Rae's rather rocky stewardship of Ontario, has been the implementation of those ideals.

As reported in Rae Days, columnist Thomas Walkom's informative book, one of Rae's closest advisers, David Reville, said they had "the passion and the theory. But we didn't have any fu**ing idea how to make things work."

Rae tried to implement the ideas he'd presented during the campaign but the recession was ravaging the economy. He wasn't the only one who misjudged the severity of that recession; hundreds of once healthy companies and skilled entrepreneurs went broke.

That's the first part of Rae's legacy, but he revealed his true political stature once he realized his policies were outdated and decided to do something about it.

That's why I like Bob. He isn't married to ideology, and he learns from his mistakes.

But then there's this:

Union boss Bob White called a meeting with all the NDP premiers to give them their marching orders on how to cope with the economic crisis. As Rae recalls in his book From Protest to Power, White suggested the provinces keep spending; if they couldn't pay their debts, they could declare bankruptcy "like the Reichmanns." Roy Romanow, the then premier of Saskatchewan, led the charge against White along with Rae. "After that exchange," Rae writes, "there was nothing more to be said."

And that's another sticking point for me.

I support the labour movement on general principles. Workers' rights, fair wages, all that. In practice... well, I have heard too many tales from too many friends and family who are union members to have many illusions about the benefits of most modern unions.

One fundamental question for me is this: at what point do the interests of the Big Labour unions coincide with those of the corporations that employ their members?

One example in my own neighbourhood is Loblaws. Some time in the mid-nineties, Loblaws decided that they were facing an imminent threat from Wal-Mart, which had been opening grocery sections in many of their stores in the U.S. Assuming that it was only a matter of time before Canadian Wal-Marts followed suit, they pressured their main labour union - the UFCW - to accept some pretty draconian measures in order to ensure that their employers could remain 'competitive'.

The result was union employees working for barely above minimum wage, and the near total elimination of full time positions in favour of even lower paid part-time jobs with no security and no benefits for three years.

But of course they still have to cough up their union dues. And their boss is still in business.

I look at that and think about the Canadian Auto Workers Union and wonder: at what point do the short term interests of their union members, linked as they are with the fate of the big auto makers, begin to conflict with the interests of... well, the planet? And what about the oil workers' unions? Or coal miners' unions? Or... ?

To me, this is the fundamental problem with the relationship between the NDP and labour. A union's responsibility is to look after the best interests of its members, however they interpret those interests. As it should be. But the responsibility of a political party or, potentially, a government, is to look after the interests of all of its constituents.

So, what happens when there is a conflict? What happens when what is good for the environment isn't so good for Ford and GM's car sales? What happens when what is good for the majority of Canadians is maybe not so good for, say, the workers in the Alberta oil sands, or the forestry industry?

This concerns me, and I think it is question that both the NDP and the Liberals would do well to ask of themselves, their party and their leaders.

Who do you serve?