News

Scott Reid, the former communications director for Paul Martin, argued the day after the federal election that Stephane Dion must be replaced as leader. Robert Silver, a former advisor to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and national policy director for Gerard Kennedy's 2006 leadership campaign, contends that Mr. Dion is the least of the Liberals' problems. In an ongoing e-mail exchange, the two are sharing their views.

From: Rob Silver
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 2:53 PM
To: Scott Reid
Subject: Liberal Party

Hi Scott,

Want to start a totally unforced, impromptu email correspondence about the future of the Liberal party that an unnamed senior Liberal then leaks to the Globe for publication?

Watching Liberals respond to Tuesday's election loss is like watching an old Party of Five episode. Only more depressing and predictable.

I have argued in the Globe that the Liberals face a number of serious challenges. While Dion's performance over the last 20 months is one of them, it doesn't rank in the top-5 as far as I'm concerned. As such, I think as long as Dion commits to understanding what went wrong, fixing it and reforming the party for the long term, he should stay. That option is far preferable to me than another divisive leadership race that we can't afford.

I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.

Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:

1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;

2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;

3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;

4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;

5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;

6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;

7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;

8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;

9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;

10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform

itself during the race);

11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.

Doesn't the scenario above sound way better than what we have right now? Or maybe it was all Dion's fault, the party is in great shape and as soon as we have a new leader, Canadians will beg us to take over again.

What do you think, Scott?

From: Scott Reid
Sent: Fri 10/17/2008 12:12 PM
To: Rob Silver
Subject: RE: Liberal Party

Hi, Rob.

I want to start by taking exception to your Party of Five reference. Charlie did his best by those kids. I found their plucky efforts to make their way in a world without parents the furthest thing from depressing. As for predictable, if you saw Bailey's boozing coming then you're a better man than me.

Speaking of alcohol, on to the Liberal Party. Let me start with the things upon which we can agree.

I agree that the party faces important challenges - and they extend beyond leadership.

I agree that it was boneheaded to permit the Conservatives to spend uncontested millions to define Stephane Dion within weeks of his election as leader.

I agree that fundraising is and will remain a challenge that will bedevil Liberals for some time to come.

And I agree that those who believe selecting a new leader will cure all that ails the Liberal Party are fooling themselves.

But I disagree that a leadership change can or should be avoided. I say that with no glee or satisfaction. I worked with Mr. Dion - in cabinet and in this campaign as well. I respect him and I feel badly about the situation he's struggling with at present.

None of which means that it would be preferable to be led into another campaign with Mr. Dion at the helm. This campaign was of his design. Selecting people for senior roles who now run to the media to leak

confidential memoranda was his call. The Green Shift was entirely a policy of his construction. The worst popular vote total in history and second lowest number of seats ever mean that there will be no mulligan. It's not even rational to debate whether he should leave. He will. It's an irresistible consequence and an undeniable reality.

So let's focus less on the perils of a leadership race since there will be one. Instead, let's examine the priorities the party must set - beyond the selection of a new leader.

Priority number one is to avoid the word "process." Liberals should rise in violence at the first hint of any tedious, self-indulgent exercise to gather the same old crew together to talk about an existentialist crisis. Haven't we whined and whittled long enough?

Our problems must be confronted with action, energy and instinct - all of which we've shown far too little of as a party for some time. Here are four immediate priorities that demand consideration:

* Fundraising - clean out the party office and appoint some people able to establish a sustainable and successful 21st century fundraising mechanism. There is no more important priority for a party that will lose $1M in public financing next year. It is unpardonable that we languish so far behind so many others. Yes, it will take time. But no, we can't afford to wait a moment longer.

* Economic Crisis - immediately release and build upon the five-point program issued during the campaign. The Liberal Party must connect with Canadians and this is the most urgent concern on people's minds. We need to reassert ownership of the centre by elaborating a balanced and sensible approach to the economy. We've been playing cricket on a soccer pitch for too long. Let's get in the centre of the economic discussion ASAP.

* Parliamentary Votes - we must speak early and clearly about our intention to vote against any confidence matter. Make a firm and immediate statement that the government will not enjoy our support. Enough stalling and stewing in our juices. Let's act now to create some room going forward. We're the Official Opposition. We don't necessarily want an election. But as a matter of policy we will not support this government on a confidence matter. Let the pressure of carrying Harper be borne immediately by Jack and Gilles. Otherwise the future of this Parliament will be mismanaged right back into our laps.

* Voter Coalition - we need to scrutinize where we lost votes and, more importantly, how to quickly recoup the most "gettable" of those who have swung away from us. Our multicultural, Jewish and suburban supporters must be a particular focus for outreach and attention. In the past, too much has been taken for granted. From now on, we must fight for those voters. Let's start now.

Bottom line is that the party isn't broken. It just needs some work under the hood. And whatever frustrations a new leadership race might entail, combating another election with Mr. Dion isn't a practical option. So let's focus on what matters.

From: Rob Silver
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:17 PM
To: Scott Reid
Subject: RE: Liberal Party

I agree that the question of whether Dion should stay as leader is largely academic - it's not going to happen so I will drop it. Dispensing with all the things we agree upon, the way I define the main challenge facing the Liberal Party is as follows:

The party is caught in a vicious cycle: We do a terrible job engaging our members and reaching out to new members; this lack of engagement ensures that we cannot raise significant money under the current fundraising rules; this lack of funds makes it impossible for us to build a modern political machine that allows us to be competitive across this country and to effectively communicate our message to Canadians; which makes it even more difficult to reach out to existing and new members and voters. And on it goes.

Without getting into a semantics game, this strikes me as something more than just a tune-up "under the hood." I think you see the party's predicament as something that can be turned around quickly, I think we need to play a much longer game while being ready to take over as government at any time.

Some of our problems have no quick fix to them. Renewing and reforming the party is more than a "tedious, self-indulgent exercise" (whatever that means).

If we don't recruit more people into the party and start engaging both the people we have and the new party members we get in different and better ways then there is little reason for any individual to give us a penny.

In other words, simply firing all the fundraising people at LPC without changing the way the party engages with members is unlikely to work. Moreover, if "renewal" starts at fundraising, it fails.

People aren't dumb and they are more than open cheque books. We need to first open up and change the way the party goes about its business (from policy to organization and everything in between) and only then will the money start flowing. (By the way, this is the exact way Obama does it. He sends out about nine "policy" e-mails to his network for every fundraising message).

In terms of messaging and policy, I agree with you. If you don't know who your market is and you don't know how to reach them even if you did, you have a problem.

That's our short- to medium-term problem.

Our longer-term problem is a geographical one: When you are largely writing off about 100 ridings from the start of any campaign, winning a majority - or any - government is a challenge. When you have a really tough time communicating with rural and in some cases suburban Canadians, you also have a challenge forming any government.

Under the current fundraising rules, these geographic challenges don't only hurt us in terms of seats, they kill us in terms of public financing.

In that sense, the first thing that should be done by the party is to hire 10-15 young field organizers to go into all of the parts of the country where we haven't won a seat in five, 10, 20 years and start organizing those provinces and ridings. It would be the best investment the party could possibly make.

The stated goal should not be "win half of those seats by the next election" - it's not going to happen. Instead the goal should be to increase our vote totals in our 100 worst ridings by, call it 25% in the next election and another 15% the following one.

At that point, we (a) would be reaping hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional public financing annually; and (b) would start being competitive in those ridings within two elections.

Our policies and messaging needs to be reformed as well in order to make these Liberal-unfriendly parts of the country fertile ground. This is a very tough process; we need a short-term "winning coalition" that allows us to regroup and potentially win the next election while we broaden the coalition to reach into demographic and geographic groups that look unattainable right now. That's a really tough challenge - one our main opponent has shown itself very agile at balancing. Maybe looking at how they have done it would be a start.

To be clear, that doesn't mean the next election is a lost cause or that we should write it off; I just think it is short-term thinking that has gotten us into this mess and there is no quick fix to get us out of it.

From: Scott Reid
Sent: Fri 10/17/2008 2:05 PM
To: 'Rob Silver'
Subject: RE: Liberal Party

There are some priorities we share. But it's only sensible to begin with the fundamental difference that distinguishes our view.

At essence, I think we see things quite differently. You say, "the goal should be to increase our vote totals in our 100 worst ridings by, call it 25% in the next election and another 15% the following one."

No. It should be to win more seats than our competitors and ideally, more than the 155 seats required to form a stable majority government. Let's not over-think this thing, for Pete's sake. It's about getting more Liberal MPs in the next election, not increasing popular vote over the next decade.

Our prevailing purpose as an institution is twofold: to win elections, and to govern based on our core values.

Those core values include a resilient belief in equality of opportunity, in a balanced economic approach and in an independent foreign policy.

In practical terms that means we must be the party of the middle class. And if there's any truly fundamental mistake we've made in recent years, it's to lose sight of that fact.

I think we start with the voters we've just lately lost, that are most within reach. Not those we've rarely held or fall farthest away.

Mr. Dion gave us a new life in Quebec. I agree we need to work on that base and expand it. We can also reclaim support in Vancouver. And among New Canadians and the Jewish community. And we have to break out of urban Canada - that comes with a more resonant focus on the middle-class.

However, a Howard Dean-ish "50 States"-like approach to rebuilding a party that hasn't actually been torn down is a mistake in my view. To focus on the 100 seats in which we are weakest - to dedicate any substantial resources to large parts of Alberta for example - is simply poor strategy. It won't work. It will hurt and it will surely diminish our voter coalition rather than strengthen it.

Renewal comes with a clear-eyed selection of which fights to pick, which issues to champion and which ridings to contest. We've done a bad job of all three for the past two years.

It's time to get better and to start looking like winners again.