On June 18, 2011, at 3:00pm EDT, delegates representing members from ridings across Canada will come together for an Extraordinary Convention to chart the Liberal Party’s course in the months ahead.
While the convention is taking place by teleconference, an audio stream is available on this page for Liberal members and the public to listen in. We also welcome comments in the livechat. Sign up for a reminder below!
Delegates: You will be called prior to 3:00 pm EDT at the phone number you provided on your Notice of Intent to Participate as a Delegate. Need help? Please call 1-866-574-5131.
AGENDA & AMENDMENTS
1. Introduction and welcome from the Convention Chair, Hon. Peter Milliken
2. Report from the Leader, Hon. Bob Rae
3. Report from the Convention Returning Officer, Beatrice Raffoul
4. Introduction of Constitutional Proposals and Sub Amendments 1,2,3
Main Constitutional Proposal 1 - Background from Hon. Lucienne Robillard
1. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(1) the following:
Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 54):
(a) the meeting of the National Board of Directors required by subsection 54(3) as a consequence of the resignation of the Leader in May 2011 shall be held at any time on or before October 1, 2012; and
(b) at the meeting referred to in Paragraph (a), the National Board of Directors, in consultation with the Caucus and the Council of Presidents and on five (5) months’ notice to the Party, shall set a date for a Leadership Vote between November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013.
This subsection (1) shall no longer be of force or effect on the later of the conclusion of the Leadership Vote contemplated by Paragraph (a) and February 28, 2013.
Contradictory Sub-amendment 1
Moved by: Jeff Jedras, Scarborough-Centre
Proposed constitutional amendment 1 to be amended as follows:
1. in (a), strike “October 1, 2012” and replace with July 1, 2012
2. in (b), strike “November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013” and replace with “September 1, 2012 and November 30, 2012”
3. in (b), strike “February 28, 2013” and replace with “November 30, 2012”
Contradictory Sub-amendment 2
Moved by: Gregg Guptill, Summerside, PE (Egmont)
That Amendment 1, proposed by the National Board and presented on the Party’s web site, to amend the Constitution by adding section 82(1), be amended as follows:
1. Paragraph (b) Substitute “June 30” for “February 28”
2. Last paragraph Substitute “June 30” for “February 28”
Contradictory Sub-amendment 3
Moved by: Taleeb Noormohamed, North Vancouver
Proposed constitutional amendment 1 be amended as follows:
1. in (a), strike “October 1, 2012” and replace with “February 1, 2013”
2. in (b), strike “November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013” and replace with “March 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013”
3. in (b), strike “February 28, 2013” and replace with “June 30, 2013”
Proponents’ supporting detail: Rebuild First sub-amendment resolution and rationale
5. Debate
6. Voting
7. Introduction of Constitutional Proposals and Sub Amendments 4,5
Main Constitutional Proposal 2 - Background from Craig Munroe
2. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(2) the following:
Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 65), the next biennial convention of the Party (which is the rescheduled biennial convention of the Party originally called for June 17, 2011) including the related in-person meeting of the Council of Presidents shall be held on January 13 to 15, 2012 at Ottawa, Ontario. This subsection (2) shall no longer be of force or effect on January 15, 2012.
Sub-amendment 4
Moved by: Gregg Guptill, Summerside, PE (Egmont)
That Amendment 2, proposed by the National Board and presented on the Party’s web site, to amend the Constitution by adding section 82(2), be amended as follows:
1. Second last line: Substitute “between May 15 and June 30” for “on January 13 to 15”
2. Last line: Substitute “June 30” for “January 15”
Sub-amendment 5
Moved by: Gregg Guptill, Summerside, PE (Egmont)
That Amendment 2, proposed by the National Board and presented on the Party’s web site, to amend the Constitution by adding section 82(2), be amended as follows:
1. Second last line: Delete “at Ottawa, Ontario”
8. Debate
9. Voting
10. Conclusion
Sorry, missed your comment Simon Beaudoin, thanks for what you had to say on mine: totally agree with your “I want a party that defend all of Canada, and that can be an arbiter even if it is not in its interest.” And I truly loved your idea of the Senate becoming the protector of provincial interests. Rob Collette’s right about the excitement fizzing out of a rebuild. Let’s make sure we rebuild without needing to buy out all the Tums in the land, and still with some new architecture, eh? (so Canadian…)
Interesting and thoughtful views from Terry Souci and Rob Desjardins. We need to think outside the box. By the way, I didn’t just pick the number 25 out of the air. The Stafford Beer technique turns 25 issues into 25 points on a geometrical figure. It is the geometry of that 25-point figure that creates a clear understanding of the issues that matter more than any others to a troubled organization, and also helps to indicate how people can work on those issues together.
Hi again,
I was grateful to get feedback from two people at least on my ideas which I posted on June 20, 5:59 pm and 6:41 pm. Could the webmaster please show us how to link to sites (the link-mark is there but I’m not technologically advanced enough to figure out how to use it), and please let us know by email if anyone comments on what we have to say?
It is absolutely fundamental to communication that people know how to speak with others in this forum, rather than merely speaking their own thoughts.
Thanks.
@Gregg
Thanks for your feedback – noted and much appreciated.
We’re currently reviewing and sharing the successes and deficiencies of the extraordinary convention call with our service provider Prime Contact who we contracted to conduct the call. Please send us your constructive feedback at convention@liberal.ca.
Technology directed how the call was setup but with this event under our belt, we now know how we would like to run it next time and make more efficient use of this technology.
@Philip
Terrific news!
A funny thing happened today…
I got a call from my local MP, Joyce Murray, in the Vancouver Quadra riding.
She thanked me for my comments/input and asked me to participate in the local riding’s executive monthly meeting.
I said yes – and I look forwards to participating in the meeting – and in this exciting RENEWAL phase of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I guess they were listening.
Cheers.
Phil C
Generally, Saturday’s convention was highly successful.
We had 2,100+ delegates plus 3,000 people following … a total of 5,100+ is excellent!
All @ LPC headquarters worked darn hard on this … hats off to the team.
There were some tech glitches – unfortunate, but not a show stopper. I’m confident that our tech team and the tech providers all learned how to avoid some (maybe even most) of the problems for future events.
I’m sure our tech people are tracking comments here, including making a record of the problems we encountered. I suggest we all take a few minutes to mention the problems we encountered, if any – and make suggestions for improvement.
He is my list:
1. I had to use two telephone connections – one to ‘present’ and one to vote. This is workable but tricky to handle – particularly when BOTH connections kept being dropped. Each connection was dropped several times. If there is any way, a single connection would be far better.
2. I could easily be wrong, but I suspect my first presentation was cut off prior to the four minute limit. Then again, I may have reached the limit. As it happens, I was approximately twenty seconds from finishing. For future I suggest a warning ‘tone’ being emitted when one minute remains. Also, I feel just four minutes is a bit short.
3. In my experience, it is customary for the chair to grant ‘closing debate’ to the mover, if requested. I had planned to make the request but was cut off early, so didn’t get the chance to make the request. A warning tone would have allowed me to at least make the request.
4. I know several people who wished to speak on one or more of the resolutions who couldn’t get recognized. (I was one of them – tried several times.) I have no problem with not getting in the queue quickly enough – but –
a) When was the queue opened? I suggest the queue should remain closed until the mover has completed the presentation – then – the chair should open the queue and advise the meeting.
b) There should four queues: For, Against, Information, Point of Order. They should be fully automated – i.e. not require operator intervention.
c) If anyone comes into the Point of Order queue the other queues should be immediately blocked until the Point of Order queue is cleared.
d) The Point of Order queue should never be closed.
e) All queues, except the Point of Order queue, should be cleared when each vote is called. That way, everyone will have equal opportunity to speak on each resolution.
5. It probably would not have made any difference to the eventual outcome, but I did make several attempts to raise a Point of Order – to no avail. The system did acknowledge me – but it seems the chair was not notified.
That’s it for me, respectfully,
Gregg Guptill
Hello Philip,
Re: info on the upcoming comment site, I would encourage you to subscribe to our email updates as we will be providing more information on this shortly. All that I know for now is that our I.T. team is still working on this…
Hello Marjaleena,
We regret that you had such an unfortunate experience this past Saturday. The extraordinary convention was a technological first in North America. Over 2,000 delegates were connected to the call, debated and voted, and some 3,000 people followed the live chat on our website. Everyone involved in the organization learned valuable lessons, as stated by Rob Jamieson on Sunday, June 19, 4:34pm.
We acknowledge that there is room for improvement and hope this experience provides us with a new set of tools at our disposal to increase member engagement and participation.
As for the debating and voting procedure, our Chair and Convention Returning Officer provided information to the delegates pertaining to the technical process and the Party posted the Convention rules on our website. The Chair and the Returning Officer were on site to ensure an open and democratic process. Throughout the convention they were aware when the votes were being cast and reviewed the totals before providing the results (percentages).
Rest assured that feedback from all members is being taken into account as part of our final review. A Party representative will be in contact with you to discuss the technical difficulties you encountered so that we may inform the provider.
We hope you will continue to be involved in the rebuilding and renewal process of our great Party.
André
Good points Terry Soucy… and the updates to the web site is a critical step to renewal….
Rob Jamieson said on Jun 19, 2011 at 4:34 pm ‘I hope you will be pleased when the new site launches in the weeks ahead.’
Can we get a better target date for the updated web site? And what changes/enhancements can we expect?
Thanks.
Phil
Sorry to be a downer to this discussion. I sent an earlier comment about my (negative) experience with the virtual convention, of not being able to participate, no way, no how, and finding out that it happened to others, too. The technology DID NOT WORK to guarantee reliable results (I, too, wonder, why many of the votes resulted in the same 89% approval!), and so far I have not gotten ANY KIND OF RESPONSE from those accountable for the convention who I alerted to my experience, so I feel very much like road kill. It does NOT cheer me up that so many others are deliriously happy with their participation, and am left wanting to know exactly how many were NOT able to participate fully and how the votes were handled. I expect that information from the “authorities” in the party, not from the discussants on this list.
mrepo@sasktel.net
It is certainly nice to see people speaking out although from my perspective it is a bit difficult to get a sense of what depth this is all coming from. It always seems to be like that when you read through blogs.
I agree with the points put forward by Welwyn Wilton Katz. I believe that the liberal party should leverage off of the tools that the internet has provided. i.e. blogs and social networking. I was encouraged by seeing the party being innovative by using conference calling and telephone voting for the special convention and I hope that we continue down the path of maximizing the potentials of all new technologies as they evolve in order to reach out and touch all Canadians.
That being said, I strongly believe that if we rely wholly on the blog exchange to generate ideas then we are missing a monumental opportunity to reach out to Canadians who are non-party members but who would easily join given the opportunity. I have heard people calling on a “grass-roots” rebirth. Interesting concept if we as party member are able to engage our neighbours and friends. Not so if we cannot light up the passions of non-members around the country. The reality is that citizens who are not paying party dues and making donations are not reading our blog and not getting messages from the party on what real changes are being made.
This is the way I see things really progressing.
1) As Welwyn Wilton Katz suggested we can use the blog to generate ideas and suggestions. This blog and other forms of idea exchange and feed-back can be used for positive, constructive brainstorming.
2) Have someone from the party offices appointed to gather the ideas, moderate the exchange, defer discussing points to Bob Rae or others members of the party.
3) The appointed person would then build a final version of the ideas, points of interest, changes suggested. I agree that this consolidated list should be limited to a certain number of points and tend to agree that 25 would be a maximum.
4) Then open the discussions on a local level to the ridings through “town-hall” sessions which are organised across the country. These meetings can be a critical turning point to the image of the Liberal Party of Canada. I strongly believe that in order for the LPC to come out fighting for the net election that we must re-brand the party image. We must replace the blazé attitude of all closet liberals across the country and engage them into participating in rebuilding, re-branding and re-birth of a more vibrant progressive party that will appeal to the strong majority of Canadians. The key word in here is RE-BRAND. This process of rebuilding an image should involve as many people in our communities as possible. The town-hall meetings can be used as a method of recruiting and if properly promoted, advertized and mediatised can serve as a major image building tool. Three birds – one stone:
a. Use a controlled forum to find answers to the points extracted from the online exchange.
b. Build donation and member base of the party by inviting our closet Liberal neighbours and friends to join the town-hall sessions, and by extension, the LPC.
c. Leverage off of the energy of a town-hall meeting to show all Canadians that the PLC is taking the message that we were deliver on May2nd very seriously. Show the country that complacency was not an option and that an organised movement in rebuilding the image of the Liberal Party of Canada has begun.
5) Results of the “town-hall” sessions are then brought back a centralised on-line forum where the final points can be discussed, debated etc.
6) The party executive or a committee can then take the information and make/recommend the appropriate changes.
7) A targeted marketing deployment of a renewed and engaging platform to show all Canadians that we are here, we are back, and we mean business!
Please write back your opinions. If you hate them let me know. If you like them and think they are actionable then let’s form some type of action plan. There has to be a point where all of these exchanges on this blog are acted upon. Time to roll up our sleeves and get to work everyone!
Terry Soucy (Brossard – La Prairie, QC)
This is what the sun thinks we should do to rebuild…
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/20/roadmap-to-liberal–revival
It is always good to see others’ points of view – relevant or not…
I’m happy with the decisions we made on Saturday June 18, particularly in delaying the Leadership Convention. We’ve been too focussed on the leader, the ‘figure-head’, in the past decade, and I think Canadians sense that. If we are indeed ‘out of touch with Canadian values’ – (and I’m not quite willing to concede that yet) – then I think what will get us back on track again is not a fixation on the ‘person’ to lead the party, but more importantly, the platform that will attract people back to the centrist party that we are. Great comments to date!
Finally last Saturday I felt like my vote actually counted for
something.It has been a long time since the grassroots members participated in a “democratic process” within the Liberal Party. I nlook forward to the rebuilding process at the riding level. I hope that the presidents invite the membership to participate. In my riding we have both a lame-duck president and a losing candidate who should not count on running again after her terrible performance on May 2.
Frank Mansi
Laval
Simon Beaudoin …at first thought, -kind of brilliant.
I have never thought of that angle ( maybe it’s been suggested…I just never heard it before) To have province representation in the Senate seems like a sound way to balance the needs of the many (Federal) with the specific needs and desires of each region, the provinces. A new idea for today -not 150 years ago. Thanks for that one. I’m thinking on it a lot now.
Maybe this is the kind of living breathing creation (and it’s only one idea) that will ring with the balanced thinking of fellow Canadians from St.Johns to Long Beach, Vancouver Island and to Nunavet.
I feel refreshed and excited. This just may be the most exciting period in Liberal history.
Warmest regards to all, Rob Collett
There are some really thoughtful and appealing suggestions on here! And even more encouraging is the passion for the job, the willingness–no, desire–to work together to solve our problems, and then Canada’s problems. In short, a sincere wish to ‘Stand on Guard’ for our country and the party we believe will help us do that. I’m inspired!
I’m absolutely in agreement with Welwyn Wilton Katz ideas, which seems to me the way to go. And although I’m a Quebecker, I don’t think we should prioritize the regain of Quebec. You know what they said, in Quebec? Liberal Party was an Ontarian party. I don’t want it. I want a party that defend all of Canada, and that can be an arbiter even if it is not in its interest. Our interests have to be the canadian’s interests.
This said, I must however add that, sadly, strategy cannot be absolutely avoid. We have to be pragmatics for certain issues, to not be painted like an close-minded ideological party (what I think we are far of today).
There is another thing. Although more advices of the members is something that we have to want, I don’t think we should eliminate all our representants. They are here to be professionnals, to represent us. We, the people, couldn’t study all the input and output of a bill project, so we have to respect them. And we have to take them as they are. Like I said earlier, the MPs are here to represent all Canada, and to share the point of view of their districts in the House of Commons.
But we are a federation. Who shall defend the province’s rights? Of course, it is the senators. I already expressed that I want a Senate that represent the provinces. I do not want its abolition, nor the election of the senators, since that would give them too much power against the House of Commons and could lead to catastrophics disagreement. But I think the legislature of each province should be the ones that appoint the senator. Someone earlier (sorry, I lost your name) said that this would give the provinces too much power. I don’t think so.
What are the tool, currently, for a province, if it disagree with a federal law? Asking the Supreme Court. Assuming that the Supreme Court is really independant in mind from the prime minister, that always draw the media attention and contribute to politicize the Supreme Court, while it should be the “Supreme” arbiter. By letting the province appointing their senators, they could add a dialogue that is lacking in our federation since the beginning and that lead to so much disagreements and crisis. A bomb could by this way be disarmed before it grows into a large crisis. About the number of senator per province, I’m currently juggling between a corrected percentage basis (that means no province can have more than x% senators) or an all equal system. For the senate to be effective, its reform has to drop one or two of the “E”.
Simon Beaudoin
I want someone to define “ordinary Liberals” for me (without using the word, ‘elites’ or the phrase, ‘grass roots.’. One elite is almost always replaced by another and grass roots is a chiche. The Liberal Party is composed of individuals with individual talents. We have the tools now and we must get to work as individuals within our Associations. We have to make our voices heard, not just in Parliament but all over this country. I was pleased to receive “Talking Points” today from Liberal Media. The subject was Senate Reform. Right now, folks – read the talking points carefully and then get out your pens and bombard your local media with letters. Harper wanted a majority government to “end the bickering” in Parliament. Well, re-opening the Constitution to reform the senate, will create much turmoil and more bickering than most of us can imagine. I suggest he wants to get into this to distract us from the economy. He said he would create jobs and make our economy strong. Let’s hold him to that – start by realizing this was a ruse as he cannot control the economy. Since the election our economy – specifically our stock market – had done badly. This is not Mr. Harper’s fault. He didn’t cause it and he can’t fix it. But He can make certain our social net is retained for the hard times that are coming. I live in a hard core Tory riding but I know we can change minds and keep Liberalism alive. Yes, we have to turn inward to improve the Party but at the same time let us not naval gaze. Write letters, have town halls, form discussion groups -not on what we are doing but on what the Conservatives are doing. Our motto,”Party building from within and the preservation of Canadian values without.”
Hear hear! I think all three of Welwyn’s proposals are great.
I fully enjoyed the teleconference. This is the first time during my nearly 30 years in the Liberal party, the technology was successfully deployed. Congratuletions to every one for making the event a success.
Now the future, here is my suggestion:
During my tenure as Multicultural chair( Jean Cretien period), a strong network of ethnocultural communities was established in each and every province. Canadian political parties can not afford to ignore this strong and growing electorate. For rebuilding the party, please think of cultivating and winning the trust of our diverse communities again. Organizational frame work strategy and approach is required to bring back this important part of our population.
Bhagat Taggar
As a number of people have posted, what next? I see three things that need doing now, besides fund-raising, which is going to be the hardest:
(a) decide how to fine-tune this blog and publicize it so that all Liberals everywhere can and will read up on what others are saying and respond to it; with responses linked to comments, etc; i.e. make sure there are emails to let people know if there have been responses!
(b) Use something akin to the Stafford Beer method (“Beyond Dispute: the Invention of Team Syntegrity”)to decide what major concerns have arisen from this blog after a week or two; divide the blog into those concerns; make sure that people who have addressed those concerns know where to go online; in other words, to Bob Rae and his staff,read us, please; respond to us! Then an online approach to every member of the Liberal Party to ask us to rank the issues.
(c) for the top 25 issues, form teams to work together online (forget ridings, we’re all working together on this, based on our original intentions in (a) and (b), with the goal of kindly, single-hearted, non-egotistical offerings of a certain number of reasonable solutions to the issues; aware always of words/issues/thoughts/concerns that might overlap with other issues. In other words, teams wouldn’t work blindly on our own issue; we would search for overlap, because it is in overlap that the Party will find what really matters in its rebuilding. Then there would be another large communication (live or online) where each team would present its solutions and their noted overlaps.
I’ve seen the wrong kind of blog too often. Butting heads. If it is true that the reason we lost the election (as someone in this blog has said) was that Liberals didn’t vote Liberal, then it’s head-butting that made that happen. One Liberal pits his ideas against another Liberal. Pouting when his/her way of doing things doesn’t get accepted. What we have to do is to forget the ego and work as teams. Teams/communication/positivity: that’s where we have to go. Have to.
Mr. Rae’s invitation to ‘rebuild’ utilizes so many sports and military metaphors I got lost as to what ‘our’ intention is today. To me the key ingredient that everyone is acknowledging over the last few days is ‘energy’. Energy is a human experience of me simply being attracted to something, indeed anything, such what I move towards it (emotionally, intellectually or physically), or similarly away from competing alternatives.
If you look at the pictures of our great team who facilitated the extraordinary convention, as I did, I found myself attracted to their sparkle, their satisfaction and their pride of accomplishment. I also loved being able to put faces on Noémie Julien and André Brisebois, who have made this effort so contagious. Contagious self interest, getting caught up in something that attracts me or you, is what we are talking about – NOT 24/7 CAMPAIGNING. The difference is critical to our success.
While it seems compelling to use the USA as an example of how politics ‘is done’, I reject that notion. I much prefer Ice Land’s recent example when they developed a totally new constitution by which to govern themselves, using social media and every person’s thoughts or ideas to complete the job. That is the kind of politics we can demonstrate, model and benefit from for all of Canada, not simply the ‘fighting machine’ that we think is ‘right’ or we have to become. That is very old think in my view, while it does rev up the red meat eaters for sure.
Our first task, as the convention just emphasized a day ago, is to ‘be’, and in being or becoming what we believe would best serve Canada and our fellow citizens, regardless of ideologies, etc., we extend the energy that we’ve started to create via our new found connection for each other further to the nation. Simply beating our chests, hitting our drums or dramatising the weaknesses of others, while our weaknesses have been so well recognized by the very people we deem to serve, seems outrageous to me. It also seems to best serve those who fight for a living or are professional games people (another way to say politician – what so people turn away from instead of move toward). I am neither fighting nor playing a game!
I wish to serve: Canada, its people and its highest possibilities as seen by its citizens. I have come to believe that our democratic system depends upon me doing that via a political party. I chose Liberal as my best bet whereby I can contribute, create, become and then offer the outcome to my fellow citizens.
As Stephen Webster invited, let’s be bold. As Alpha Woodward suggests, let’s not be afraid to find out who we are and what we want, before turning the task over to others to decide. I believe in Peter Senge’s notion of spontaneous leadership (‘Presence’), i.e. the truly great emerging from all those seeking the best, together, without manipulation or enticements.
Mr. Rae, I believe you are potentially the leader of a lifetime for the party, perhaps Canada. You lead a movement that requires protection, nurturing, respect, wisdom and patience, not aggressive ‘ready, fire, aim’ tactics that will hurt the fledgling ideas that are taking root under your leadership. And I think we have begun very nicely.
Very interesting to hear ordinary Liberals’ points of view. I was disappointed in those (few) who felt the sooner the present executive resigned, the better. I believe the extraordinary convention was at least some kind of proof that the executive was genuinely trying to make things different and better for the party: to start fresh. The “blame thing” that has caused so much trouble in our party does no good whatsoever. People can’t begin afresh by dwelling on who did what in the past. Yes, obviously, mistakes were made, or the election would not have had its outcome. But you have to rise above personalities, if you want to know what the mistakes were. Perhaps the mistakes go all the way back to the party’s concentration on Ontario and Quebec. I have lived in both provinces, and am very concerned about the statement by Mr. Apps online before the extraordinary convention that we must give special attention to winning back Quebec. Previous governments have somehow changed Canada from ten provinces and territories to basically five/six areas: BC, Alberta and the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic Provinces, and possibly (esp in the future) the North. Quebec is only one of those areas. If the goal of the Liberal party is primarily to win an election, it can’t be done by winning only Quebec. I do not want to see any area given special preference, or any specific group of voters either; mostly because it really annoys those who aren’t in the area or the group. The Conservatives won a majority in the election without Quebec. Quebec will not likely vote NDP again, but that’s not the point. The point is that Quebec cannot be seen to be an area the Liberals are determined to take back if it means extra attention to Quebec and less to other areas. Everyone is talking about starting afresh. Well, we can’t do that if we even think of the “glory days” and the “grand old party”, let alone by going back to the past where the Liberals were the federal party of Quebec and immigrants. To make our future any different than it seemed the day after the election, all liberals everywhere must be charged with the task of making their own areas fit within an overal plan for the country which benefits all. The greatest good for the greatest many. Remember? Some groups belong together: aboriginals, the environment, the North, jobs, eventually international politics. So work on the group, not on the part. Sooner or later within each group there will be a link to another group that we need to help. Find the links, and you have the platform.
I loved the teleconference and felt very involved with the party. Thank you for your efforts and looking forward to more. Sincerely, Judith
Two years down the road to elect a leader seems too long, we will lose momentum. I really cannot understand why over 80 per cent of the delegates were in favour of that.
Also, do we really want to worry about losing the “right wing” of the party? If we haven’t lost them by now, blue liberals really have no other place to go. John Manley is about as right wing a liberal as I can conceive of, and he’s still here.
Just idle thoughts.