As National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada, allow me to say this: you are a game changer.
When Elections Canada released fundraising results for federal political parties for 2012, it was the generous donations of Liberals like you that helped us not just out-fundraise the NDP, but start to close the gap with the governing Conservative Party. Not just in the final quarter of 2012, but last year overall.
So this is about you. It’s about the difference you’ve made. And while it’s also about money, and what we do with it, I promise I won’t ask you for any here.
Let’s start with this snapshot of the results for the three main parties.
During September’s Keep it Going Campaign, and again in the final days of December 2012, we let Liberals know the NDP were dangerously close to out fundraising us. And guess what? You delivered! The Q4 results clearly show our fundraising out-pacing theirs. And you made that happen.
Here’s another snapshot: funds raised by the three main parties since last election in terms of market share.
We may be the third place party in the House of Commons, but against all the odds and with your support, since our very humbling electoral defeat in 2011, we have been able to raise 26 percent of all dollars donated to the three major political parties. And you made that happen.
But you and I both know this isn’t just about beating expectations or how we measure up against the NDP or Conservatives. Tens of thousands of Liberals like you invest your dollars and trust in us each year because you want us to elect the MPs who speak up for your values in Parliament and work to build a Canada we can all be proud of.
Now it’s up to us to continue to earn your trust, and build on this momentum, which is why I want to highlight what your dollars are helping us achieve, including:
• Investing in the campaign technologies and outreach initiatives that helped us reach out to over a million Canadians in 2012;
• Growing our supporter and membership roll to 100,000 people;
• Launching the 2013 LPC Leadership Race that will give Canadians-at-large the chance to choose our new Leader;
• Empowering our organisers in every riding in the country with the most modern campaign tools and techniques;
• Preparing for likely 2013 by-elections;
• Building our webcast capability so you can engage with Liberal MPs and participate in Liberal events online from your computer or mobile device; and
• Modernising financial reporting to better serve our donors and meet regulatory reporting requirements.
Really, what I want to do here is take a moment and thank you – it is your support that has propelled the Liberal Party of Canada through a year of tremendous achievements. All of it would have been impossible without you.
At LPC we are proud to do the work that moves our Party forward – and to do it on your behalf. I know that a streamlined, efficient, modern and open political party is what you have asked for. Our commitment every day is to deliver that, and more.
Thank you.
Ian McKay
National Director, Liberal Party of Canada
PS. I know I said I wouldn’t ask you for money, but I will ask you for this: will you sign up as a supporter for the chance to vote in the 2013 LPC Leadership race? Just click here – it takes 30 seconds to sign up.
While we are on the subject of fundraising, it may be a good time to broach the subject of election financing for political parties.
It deeply disturbs me to see an anti-party sentiment being introduced by the leadership candidates:
“I do not support proportional representation because I believe deeply that every Member of Parliament should represent actual Canadians and Canadian communities, not just political parties.”
(Justin Trudeau)
https://justin.ca/democratic-reform-trusting-canadians/
We need to be careful with this anti-party sentiment because Canada needs a healthy, properly funded political party system to encourage honest politics and discourage corruption:
“One common observation is that corruption in parties is more prevalent when parties lack strong ideological commitments,” wrote Peter M. Manikas and Laura Thornton in a recent book entitled Political Parties in Asia. They argue that when parties offer their constituents little in terms of concrete policies and programs, “money can substitute as driving factor for winning votes.” Thus, the promotion of platform-based party politics becomes one strategy in fighting political corruption.”
“On a more technical level, governments that have successfully tackled the issue of political finances have implemented two policies: First, they have set clearly defined limits to the amount candidates and parties may receive and spend from third parties; and, second, they have introduced direct public subsidies.”
(The Battle Against Political Corruption Can Be Won – Ronald Meinardus)
http://www.fnf.org.ph/liberalopinion/battle-against-political-corruption.htm
Ray Lorenz writes: ” We need to be careful with this anti-party sentiment because Canada needs a healthy, properly funded political party system to encourage honest politics and discourage corruption:”
Interesting and wishful notion.
The reality is that the public perceives all politicians to be lacking in honesty.
The reality is that no political party is innocent of corruption.
I like your notion but can’t see much changing UNLESS you can tell me what you believe and understand is the singular PURPOSE of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Wolfgang, it is understood that because of human nature, we will never have corruption-free politics. But, we can try to minimize the incentives for corruption by the way we design our democratic systems. There are enough examples of good research from around the world to give us the best information on how to improve the system we have.
Accountability is a major component. I would suggest that “artificially produced” majority governments that are “sincerely” supported by only a minority of voters are problematic. When these artificially produced single-party governments are also responsible for “improving” the rules of our democracy (ie. democratic reform), and are often not held accountable to Parliament or to the voter until elections every four years, we a creating a recipe for disaster.
We can only suggest what the singular purpose of the Liberal Party might be. Here is a go at it:
“To aim to continuously improve the lives and public institutions of Canadians based on the best available research and best practices from around the world, as well as helping to improve the human condition and public institutions around the world in our role as global citizens.”
“To aim to continuously improve the lives and public institutions of Canadians based on the best available research and best practices from around the world, as well as helping to improve the human condition and public institutions around the world in our role as global citizens.”
———————————————————————
Thank you Ray for taking the time to reply and give us what you believe might be the purpose of the LPC. I have some questions.:-)
What about ‘protecting’ Canadians?
What constitutes a public institution?
What defines ‘best’ available research? What kind of research? Public research? Or party research?
Whose ‘best’ practices? What defines ‘best’? At any cost?
How will the LPC decide what other countries will receive our help “as a Party”? Or did you mean when “in government”?
Wolf
Wolfgang, my comments are mostly on the idealistic side (ie. about what “should be” the purpose of the Liberal Party).
When it comes to creating a statement of purpose, more brains are better than one, so feel free to edit. The statement is already quite long, so it may need subcategories to explain everything.
“improving the lives of Canadians” might include public safety & security, etc. as a subcategory.
“improving the public institutions” might include police, armed forces, etc.
“best available research” and “best practices” requires a non-partisan, “public” approach that appeals to both experts and public common sense, with the understanding that deciding on the “trade-offs” are also part of our reality. Foreign aid, should also be subject to similar non-partisan expert & public scrutiny.
As regards to process … Royal Commissions, Citizens’ Juries & Assemblies, a cooperative approach with other Parliamentarians such as committees, etc.
Once again Ray thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Your statements are rather long. Long statements makes it difficult for people to remember them. So is the statement from the Party itself that you shared in your last post. I doubt if anyone could remember all. I know I couldn’t. :-)
Let me give you my definition of purpose.
Purpose is a definitive statement about the difference an organization is trying to make in the world. It’s not about policies, it’s what you stand for.
Having clarity about the ultimate purpose of the time and energy an organization spends doing what it is doing is the cornerstone of a culture of purpose.
It should be what drives everything an organization does. It’s their reason for being that goes beyond winning elections and implementing policies. Having a clear, concise and easily articulated purpose always results in making life better for everyone. In the case of the LPC, it’s about making life better for ‘all’ Canadians.
If the LPC had a purpose and could articulate it with clarity and passion, then everything would make more sense and everything would flow. Certainly, it would give the LPC a big leg up on the opposition parties since neither the CPC, NDP and even Greens have a clear, concise and easily understood purpose.
To that end I have in the past, on other blogs here, started off the discussion of what I think might become a potential statement of purpose for the Party. I’m not locked into this statement given that it has to be debated by all. It also has to be agreed upon by a majority.
Additionally, participants must also discuss a set of principles that would guide elected representative and bureaucrats when making difficult decisions thus keeping with the purpose of the LPC. I believe the LPC slipped into 3rd place in the last elections because they did not have a singular purpose, nor did they follow principles as far back as when Mr.Chretian was leader. Gomery pointed that out clearly.
Here’s a suggested statement of purpose for the LPC – ” The Purpose of the Liberal Party of Canada is to protect and enhance the lives of all Canadians. ”
Thoughts Ray ? Anyone else ?
Maybe its too concise. Taken to an extreme … “to manifest our love for Canada”.
Liberal Party Statement of Purpose (for Comparison):
The Liberal Party of Canada is dedicated to the principles that have historically sustained the Party: individual freedom, responsibility and human dignity in the framework of a just society, and political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all persons. The Liberal Party is bound by the constitution of Canada and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is committed to the pursuit of equality of opportunity for all persons, to the enhancement of our unique and diverse cultural community, to the recognition that English and French are the official languages of Canada, and to the preservation of the Canadian identity in a global society.
In accordance with this philosophy, the Liberal Party of Canada subscribes to the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons under the rule of law and commits itself to the protection of these essential values and their constant adaptation to the changing needs of modern Canadian society.
The Liberal Party of Canada recognizes that human dignity in a democratic system requires that all citizens have access to full information concerning the policies and leadership of the Party\; the opportunity to participate in open and public assessment of such means, and such modifications of policies and leadership as they deem desirable to promote the political, economic, social, cultural and general well-being of Canadians.
To realize this objective, the Liberal Party of Canada strives to provide a flexible and democratic structure whereby all Canadians can obtain such information, participate in such assessment and militate for such reform through open communications, free dialogue and participatory action both electoral and non-electoral. This Constitution sets forth the institutions, systems and procedures by which the Liberal Party of Canada, in co-operation with its provincial and territorial associations and electoral district associations, works to implement these ideas on behalf of all its members.
” Maybe its too concise. Taken to an extreme … “to manifest our love for Canada”. ”
LOL…. sounds like an old movie Ray… ” Manifest Destiny – We Love Our Country » It’s The Government We Can’t Stand ”
Either one is easier to remember than what exists now for the Liberal Party of Canada. :-))))
Ray Lorenz wrote:
It deeply disturbs me to see an anti-party sentiment being introduced by the leadership candidates:
“I do not support proportional representation because I believe deeply that every Member of Parliament should represent actual Canadians and Canadian communities, not just political parties.”(Justin Trudeau)
Language is not Mathematics but metaphorical interpretation. So it always has a possibility to be interpreted differently. I think Justin Trudeau’s comment falls within the category of disadvantages of Proportional representation, isn’t derived from the anti-party sentiment.
http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd02/esd02b
The above site explains the disadvantages of Proportional Representation as follows:
Most of the criticisms of PR in general are based around the tendency of PR systems to give rise to coalition governments and a fragmented party system. The arguments most often cited against PR are that it leads to:…And it shows concrete seven disadvantages.
Of course, i really enjoyed reading the conversation between Ray Lorenz and Wolfgang Braun. Thanks.
JR, thanks for the reference to the aceproject website. It contains lots of valuable information on the pros & cons of different voting systems.
With regards to Justin Trudeau’s comments, I would suggest the vast majority of Canadians vote for party platforms and party leaders. There is a big disconnect with Canadians if we only acknowledge the votes cast for the candidates of the winning party in our single-member districts as representing “actual Canadians and Canadian communities”, and dismiss the votes cast for the remaining party candidates as not being worthy of representation because they do not belong to “actual Canadians” or their communities . I would describe this as an “anti-cooperation” sentiment to put it mildly. “Not just political parties” suggests a lack of respect for voters of other political points of view who often also vote for their preferred party & its leader.
I think you’ll find enormous agreement that the current power of the Prime Minister is pathological to our democracy and needs to be curtailed: http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/blog/power-prime-minister/
I would argue that the artificially-concentrated political power produced by any winner-take-all voting system (FPTP or AV) reduces both party leadership and party accountability to both Parliament and Canadians. This is the biggest challenge to our democracy, even more so than holding an individual MP accountable for personal mistakes or neglect of duty.
Some of the best-run countries in the world use proportional systems. I’m thinking of the Nordic countries, Germany and New Zealand as examples. After all of the dysfunctional power relationships we have experienced in Parliament over the many years, wouldn’t it be better to have a system that also specifically holds parties & their leadership accountable both at election time and in Parliament? Isn’t PR worth a try?
Ray, As you know, each voting system has its own merits and demerits. Most advanced democratic countries such as Europe (except UK) adopted Proportional Representation System.
I agree with you to some extent. However, I think it is difficult to assert that PR fit in Canada because each country has its own characteristic. Canada’s low voting rate tells Canada is not advanced in terms of political participation. People’s political participation is the most important factor in democracy. So Someone says that PR can play the role to promote the voting rate. However, I doubt the causal relationship between the two as well.
In Proportional Representation, the opportunity of interaction between the candidate and the electorate could be reduced because the electorate votes for the party, not for the candidate directly. As a result, the candidates don’t have to make efforts to win the electorates’ favors such as canvassing tour an so on. I think this interacting process between candidates and electorates is significant in Canada. People can be actual canadians through this process. I guess that’s what Justin Trudeau’s comments meant.
Ps: Two times posting with same contents. sorry for my mistake.
JR, I would agree that PR is common in most advanced democracies for good reason … it is more “civilized” in terms of power relationships within Parliament and among its citizens.
The only major country using AV for the legislature is Australia, and they have compulsory voting, so it is difficult to associate voter participation to the Alternative Vote either. When I look at voter participation, I think of Pavlov’s law. If the outcome in my riding has a predestined outcome, there is no practical purpose for voting other than doing your duty. (I’m thinking of many regions in the country where you can run a monkey under leading party’s banner and still win)
The door to door campaigning and personal contact is great, but I wouldn’t necessarily attribute this to single member ridings. Other more important factors include party financing and the ability to make a difference.
Voters often make the decision about which candidate to support based on the candidate’s values, which is linked to their ideology, which is linked to their party’s platform, etc., which again goes back to the practicality of PR.
Canvassing tour simply doesn’t mean the personal contact or door to door canvassing. I meant all campaign efforts. I am telling you again each voting system has its own advantages and disadvantages. I don’t disagree to advantages of PR, either. But sometimes, the theory might not correspond to the actuality. Simple comparison can draw an error because we don’t know exactly all factors to generate the outcome which seems to be a success. What I want to say clearly is that Justin Trudeau has no anti-party sentiment. I enjoyed the conversation with you. Thank you, Ray.
JR, good conversation.