A history of ineffectual decision-making.
Interesting to learn that he’s not going to be running for leadership this time around.
Let me just tack onto this humorous little video a more serious note, provided in the form of a letter to the Toronto Star recently by a Mr. Anthony Lafratta of Mississauga who wrote:
I fully agree with the pragmatic thrust of Thomas Axworthy’s argument: the Liberal party is in desperate need of renewal. The party needs to re-energize its base; it needs to raise more money from its membership; and it needs to give its members a real voice in policy direction. Altogether, this should yield more votes and more seats in the next election.
However, I don’t understand why Mr. Axworthy stops there. Why must the membership be consulted on policy but remain virtually impotent when it comes to making the most important decision that a party can make: the selection of its leader?
Party members will continue to feel like powerless observers in the leadership selection process unless the Liberals move away from a delegate-based process and toward to a one-person, one-vote system (similar to the process used by the Conservative party, which, as Mr. Axworthy notes, has managed to raise more than two times more funds from supporters than the Liberals since 2004).
Without real, meaningful inclusion in this process, why would party members feel compelled to contribute to the Liberal cause by opening their wallets or pounding on doors come election time? The continued existence of such middlemen delegates in a purportedly democratic process is absurd.
At a time when confidence in the Liberal brand sits an all-time low, the party’s coffers are drained and the activity of its membership is waning, the party should pounce on the opportunity to re-energize its base by making membership in the party more meaningful?
Allowing members to select the new leader directly seems like an obvious first move.
I could not agree more with this sentiment.