Over the past month, I have been busting my ass trying to get new memberships signed and sorted for my candidate in the BC Liberal leadership race, one Christy Clark. Whether on the phones, in person, or over the internet, every spare moment I’ve had has gone towards getting people reengaged in the democratic process. This is by way of explaining why I’ve taken so damn long to get a post up, and why I’ll see if Pat will just let me buy him a bottle of whisky and be done with it.
Suffice it to say, its been a marathon, but a rewarding one. The ability to get people engaged in the party, and to speak to them about the different visions that are being presented to us has been exciting, stimulating and rewarding. There have been some high points – I know it sounds corny, but talking with a politically engaged 16 year old after she realized that she could vote if she joined the party was one of the highlights of this month – and some low ones. Many of these live on the quote board in the Christy Clark campaign office. So it’s been one of the toughest slogs imaginable, but wholly worth it. We’ve been able to speak with people about Christy’s plan for the province, and where BC should go.
I don’t think it would come as a galloping shock to anyone to say that the BC Liberal party was in need of renewal. I had not been feeling engaged with the party, which is really saying something, because at least nominally, I should have been one of the more dialled in people – I was the campus club President at UBC from 2008-2010. Still, I never really felt that there was a concrete way for my ideas and the ideas of those around me to be communicated to the decision making structures of the party. I cite specifically the fact that there, during my time at UBC, were only two policy conventions. By contrast, at the federal level, there was a policy convention in the province at least three times, and two national policy conventions. While both were non-binding (as they should be, mind you) it created a discussion amongst the party members which I found incredibly valuable. The BC Liberals, in comparison, made the policy discussions feel perfunctory and made the conventions feel more like pageantry than the highest governing authority of the party.
This is why it’s been fantastic that the party has really been making an effort to reach out to people and engage them in the leadership race. I only wish the same were true of the NDP. After all, even though our membership deadline is tomorrow, the NDP had their cut-off on January 17th. I don’t really think it would be that hard to say that the NDP is also rather out of touch from the voter on the ground. After falling into the Victoria trap (perhaps somewhat easier to do when the leader is from the riding where the Parliament Buildings are), they descended into the backbiting and inter-Nicene conflict that eventually led to members of their caucus being deemed dissident, and putched their leader right out of office.
This may all be fine in and of itself, but if a caucus revolt and palace coup (thanks Jenny!) aren’t emblematic of a need for renewal, I have absolutely no idea what is. The political apparatus could have been invigorated by new blood (or, if Harry Lali got his way, old, white blood), and the citizenry could have cast their vote for the direction they want the NDP to go.
I’ve always been against the three months membership cuttoff, for very personal reasons. I received notice of the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta convention only about a month and a half before the actual event, having just joined the party in late 2003, and would not have been able to have gotten engaged with a democratic institution which has, I don’t hesitate to say, defined my political life. I think it is inappropriate to put such a high barrier to entry against people who genuinely want to be engaged in their party and in their province, especially when it precludes a real campaign of engagement by the leadership contenders. Instead, those vying for the leadership will just have to make the same old tired NDP event circuit, speaking to those members who were fortunate enough to remember to renew their memberships by the deadline. It really is an opportunity missed for the NDP.
Did you meet Olympia Wawryk while you were out on the campaign trail?
As I pointed out over beers the other day, I agree with the unfortunate necessity of preventing insta-members from heavily altering the course of a party.
The reason the membership cutoff was when it was is solely due to the Liberal Leadership timeline. The NDP has a 90 day rule about memberships prior to the leadership vote, and that couldn’t have been obviated for this vote. Because the Liberal vote was so early, the NDP felt the need (rightly so) to push their leadership vote as early as possible to match.
Nothing would have been worse than to have a newly appointed leader of the Liberal party announce the need for a mandate with the NDP in the middle of a leadership fight. Even beyond that, the need is there to give as much time as possible for a new leader to get a handle on the party and prepare for an election.
So with all of that on the table, the NDP moved their leadership vote up as early as possible, resulting in a mid January cutoff for memberships.
The real question I would ask is, do mass, last minute membership sign ups genuinely reinvigorate anything except the party coffers?
Yes, their are key examples of good people brought in because they got involved in a mass sign up. But overall, a ridiculously high percentage of these sign ups will vote and lapse their memberships, if they even vote at all.
Those that stay on will be valued members of the party, and so from that standpoint, yes, you do stand to gain a few solid party members.
Are their harms to mass sign ups? You bet.
Look at Chuck Cadman in the 2004 election. A group trucked in insta-members to knock him off his horse in Surrey North and run a different candidate. Chuck got mad and ran as an independent, winning in a landslide, the tory came in 4th. This severely hurt the party, in a very close legislature, the tories needed every vote, and allowing this kind of insta-member challenge resulted in alienating a key supporter.
And what about Sheila Copps? Run out of the party through infighting and instant members.
The other big concern, after losing valuable people, is a changing face of the party.
Renewal gets bandied about a little too often. Renewing what you have is good, keeping in line with the values of the party while preparing for a new decade or era or however you want to bill it. Allowing for a normally small wing of the party to sweep in and take power is not.
In my own riding of Surrey Green Timbers, prior to the last election, a similar attempt was made against Sue Hammell, long time MLA, former cabinet minister and then deputy speaker. I, and a number of others, would not have campaigned in that election had Sue lost the nomination. That would have represented a loss of a huge swathe of the people that volunteer countless hours of their time to the election. It’s a safe riding, but would it be without the tireless work of so many volunteers, and with a new and unfamiliar name at the helm?
If that kind of thing played out on the provincial level, say Dana Larsen, marijuana activist, managed to get enough legalization supporters to join the party in the lead up to the vote that he managed to swing himself into power. If you don’t have a base of support among party stalwarts, what happens to the party?
If you allow so many members to be signed up that you seize control of a party whose base is reasonably hostile to you, do you have a hope of wrestling control of the party, preparing an election plan and winning, all without the support of the party elders?
I’m really unsure.
This is why you have membership cut-offs well in advance, to prevent a small wing of the party from taking over through a sign up campaign that leaves those that put hours of time and work for the party, and in reality, form the backbone of the party, out in the cold.
That is a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one.