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!

Kady O'Malley: Blog Goddess

Fabulous interview with my blogging hero Kady O'Malley, in which she discusses blurring lines, press gallery credentials, and those amazing flying thumbs.

I totally want this woman's job.



Courtesy of Ian Capstick.

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)

Political Sock Puppets on BC-STV

Cheesy, but very cute.



The polls are looking good for electoral reform actually making it through in BC this time, and although the Single Transferable Vote system is quite different from the Mixed Member Proportional system proposed in Ontario, the objective is the same: to better reflect the true will of the electorate in our legislatures, and to allow for a greater diversity of voices to be heard.

Let the floodgates open.

(H/T to Hell, Upside Down)

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: