We would like to make the changes we need to do, to have the leadership reflect our members' wishes. Maybe we keep this as a "policy" convention, and vote to have an "electronic" convention a couple of weeks later?
If we can't have an "all members" convention in May, can we adopt a motion to have an electronic convention shortly afterwards?
As far as referees, I think we need some party apparatus to keep leadership hopefuls from making comments that wrongfully harm other candidates, or more importantly, the party's chances of victory. A healthy back and forth is desired, but you can't have the types of attacks that damage the party's chances of winning the next election. Honest debate is one thing, and all candidates need to feel some of the "heat" they'll feel on the election trail (Mr. Dion certainly knows that), but we need to ensure that comments aren't made which hurt the party in the long term. Comments about a convention "hijacked" by special interests (whatever that means) does NOT help us with Canadians.
If someone makes disparaging remarks, or makes comments hurtful of the party, they should be "penalized" some way (maybe banning them from the convention is too strong)... On the other hand, maybe we just let democracy do it's work.
2 comments:
I doubt that will ever be workable WG. We're always going to have Judy LaMarsh "that bastard" comments but we can live with them. What's important can't be enforced by referees - a willingness to put the party first. I think we Libs tend to become too invested in individuals. You've seen the angst and vitriol of some Dion supporters since the election. We have to get over that but I don't think any referee can make a difference.
Good suggestions. I'm still trying to get my head around everything that's happened but it's good to see someone's thinking rationally about the task ahead.
Post a Comment