Democratic Progress

Supporters

2012-01-23T11:49:00.001-05:00

At the Liberal Convention last weekend, the party passed a motion adding "supporters" as a class of Liberals, and allowing those Supporters to vote in their ridings for the next Liberal leader as part of our new weighted One Member One Vote system. Although there was a campaign pushing this idea (their website's gone now), I was hearing some things about the new reality that I didn't like this week at a meeting, so I thought I'd take on the topic.

What does it all mean? We now have two groups of people who are part of the party; Members, and Supporters (capitalization to be explained in my next post. Sorry). Supporters are supporters. They go into our database as such from now on, and what we know about them is they're going to vote for leadership. Members are members. They pay $10 a year. They vote for leadership, on who should be the candidate in their riding, on who their riding executive should be, and on who should represent them at conventions. They also can run for a nomination, stand to be on a riding executive, and go to conventions. Both groups can, and should, donate and volunteer, as can non-Liberals.

Q: Should we be signing up supporters, or just waiting for the leadership campaigns to do it?

A: We should be signing up supporters. Introducing the Supporter class offers us a fantastic opportunity to bring people into the party in a way that more accurately reflects their commitment level. Every riding should have big lists of people that have volunteered, donated, or displayed signs for us in the past. Everyone on this lists should be contacted and pressed to take a membership. If they're unwilling to take a membership, they should be pressed to take on Supporter status. The carrot decided on at convention was that they'll be able to vote for leadership; so tell them that. But also tell them we just want to be able to know who our supporters are. We're reaching out because we know some people just don't feel like a membership is for them, either because they think it connotes a certain level of commitment (or kool-aid) that they're just not up for, or for professional or other reasons. That's totally fine. We're the liberal party – if that's what people want, that's fine and dandy.

Q: Does this devalue membership?

A: Only in the most childish way possible. Yes, if you were only holding a membership to vote for leader, your vote is now potentially the teensiest bit less significant in determining who that leader was than it was two weeks ago. But, remember that every leadership campaign in history has signed up loads of members who throw in $10, show up to vote, and then run away. Although I know that some of you were opposed to that, you never managed to do anything about it. So, your membership is devalued insofar as we presume that under the old system, X number of people would have voted for leader (X = the number of people who would have taken out memberships) and your vote was worth 1/X, and under the new system , whereas now X + Y people will vote for leader (Y = the number of people who will become Supporters who would not have taken out a membership before) and your vote is now worth 1/(X+Y). If this really bothers you, then you'll find yourself discussed in the next Q&A.

Q: Will we lose members? Will we lose money?

A: Possibly, but only in the shortest of short term. I'm going to be real with you, in a way I'm not sure all of the supporters of the Supporter class were: some people are going to drop their memberships and become Supporters instead. But, who are they? They're not going to be your riding association president, or super-volunteers. Rather, they're going to be some subset of those who are members, but whom you've never, ever seen or heard from. What's important to understand about this group, is that they will now, in my opinion, be far better understood by every level of the Party. We will now know what we have; someone who is supportive of the party, but is actually unwilling to become a member. What we have the opportunity to then do is to try to figure out why that is, what we need to do to engage them to become members again, and get that done.

But, yes, the numbers may trickle down over time, and, yes, that means we don't get $10 a year from those people. It also means, returning to the algebra I know everyone loved in the previous answer, that in the upcoming leadership race we will lose (X-Z)*10 dollars one time (Z being the number of people who would have taken out a temporary (one year only) membership, but will now not do so and become a Supporter instead. It's also only fair to point out that in previous leadership contests leadership campaigns worked really hard (and probably spent some money they shouldn't've) on getting people to take out memberships, which may cost us some money that we really need in category Z. If I'm running a leadership campaign, I now have no incentive to worry about getting people to pay the $10 (at least until I win, or unless I care about the party).

But, let's think not-even-long-but medium term. We get to take all of those Zs and find out who they are, that they're Supportive of the Liberal Party of Canada, and, hopefully, their phone numbers, email addresses, and, if some have their way, their top issue areas. This is really, really valuable information. We're going to be able to reach out to more (Y more) people, and get them involved. Just because they aren't members doesn't mean they won't come to our events, doesn't mean they won't donate, doesn't mean they won't volunteer, and definitely doesn't mean they won't become members. But we have to convince them to do it.

I think this lets us bring our outreach up a level of sophistication. We need to reach out to Supporters differently than we reach out to members. Members are already part of our team; Supporters just like us. Every contact we make with them should be filtered through this lens, and it will help a lot. Both groups need to be asked to become members at the end of each year, but why would we make the same call, write the same letter, or send the same email to people who aren't sure about membership as to those who already are members? As of now, anyone whose membership lapses needs to be asked why. What happened? Why didn't you feel like you were valued? Why weren't you asked to do more? But the ask for Supporters is different. Do you want to step up and become a member? Here are the benefits of membership - here's why we think you should join us. It's different, and that's important. The same filter can be applied for volunteer asks and fundraising asks.

Which brings me to my next point. I think this is a valuable "reboot" for how we deal with all Canadians. I heard that arguments that based on donor, sign, and volunteer lists we already had, we don't need this category. Well... I really don't think we were doing a great job of reaching out to these people before. Now, we can start again. First, by asking them to become Supporters. Then, by actually reaching out, on a consistent and broad basis. By broad, I mean we cannot just ask them to do what they did before. My understanding is I'm ripping this off from the Obama campaign, but we should start enforcing a ten finger approach to fundraising. You don't ask for money until you've contacted someone 10 times. What might this look like?

1) Hey, we just wanted to thank you for being part of our last (campaign/event/fundraising drive).
2) The Liberal party just introduced a new Supporter class. Can we put you down so you can vote in the next leadership race?
3) Hey, we're having an (event) next month. Can you come?
4) Here's an important policy issue. What do you think?
5) Thanks for getting back to us about that last policy issue / sorry we didn't hear from you about that last policy issue. Here's something else we wanted to talk about with you, please let us know!
6) Event.
7) You know, we're really upset about this one thing the Harper government is doing. Do you feel like that really affects you?
8) Thanks for getting back to us about that last thing! Here's what everyone in our riding who responded thought.
9) Event
10) You know, we could really use a donation for X.

Or whatever (although I think a lot of those are really good). Probably somewhere around the 5th point should be "Would you consider becoming a member? Here's why. Our AGM is coming up, and we'd really like you to be a part of it. Also, for the election in 2014, we'd like you to be part of selecting who should represent us..."

This is smart. This is better. And if there's a riding association that was doing things this way, I really, really want to hear about it so I can talk to them.

The same, by the way, goes for the party. I am going to be super disappointed if our new Membership Secretary Matt Certosimo doesn't dive all the way into this new world, and he'll definitely hear about it from me.

We need to change how we do things. We need to make it clear why membership is worthwhile, and if it's not, we need to make it worthwhile. And we need to reach out early and often to the broader universe of Canadians who are willing to consider themselves Supporters of our party. I think each riding needs a serious plan to do this, and I think the National Exec and PTAs need to come up with samples of how to do this quickly, and then cajole ridings into getting on board with those samples, or better samples that they come up with.

Let's make sure that by 2014 we not only have many more Members (which I know every EDA will do), but many, many more people whom we've already reached out to and asked to join the club as Supporters.

Oldie But a Goodie

2011-12-17T14:29:00.001-05:00

Reading "White House Ghosts", and a great chunk from Eisenhower:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: A modern brick school in more than thirty cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.

Prisons aren't free, either. And we should have stood up harder on the fighter jets.

Kenney's Religious War

2011-12-16T15:51:00.001-05:00

With the news that Jason Kenney is banning veiled women from taking citizenship oaths, I wanted to go on record here. Canadians have the right to religious freedom. Unless there is a demonstrable risk of harm to other people, or to another persons actual rights, that religious freedom should be protected.

I understand those on the left who are opposed to the niqab because they're worried about the freedom of Muslim women who may be forced to wear it. I think they need to factor in the likelihood that some cases a ban would do more harm than good, as the type of reprehensible man who would force a woman to wear a religious garment she didn't want to would be likely to try to lock her up rather than conform, but I understand it.

My answer, however, is that we need something else, something better. If women are being forced to only go out in public in veils, then the answer is to reach out to them, not tear it away. If we don't have a great solution for how to do that yet (and we don't) then we have work to do. But the answer isn't to force unless that can be proven necessary. And in this case, it's clearly not; my understand is that, in fact, for identification purposes for the citizenship ceremonies woman can be required to privately remove their veil.

This is the Cons dog whistling to their reactionary base, and attempting to split other parties, and it's wrong.

That's a totally over-aggressive title, by the way.

Conmunications and Health Care

2011-12-08T11:15:00.001-05:00

On a week when both Preston Manning ("Manning says polarized debate has stalled concrete actions — including a “two-track” approach that would allow private insurance in a universal system. Today’s pressing debate should not be about public or private, he said, but rather about the appropriate relationship between public and private in Canada’s universal system.") and Tim Powers ("I go to private service providers and while I have some insurance coverage, the money for this care is coming out of my pocket and not yours. Our mixed system allows for this and it is a reality we must not shy away from discussing") just so happen, oh so coincidentally, to go after our current healthcare system, I think we should all be very nervous about what it means.

The Cons have a much, much, much tighter and top-down communications structure than we do, and I doubt this is an accident. Why didn't they both come out about this two weeks ago when all our Health Ministers were meeting?

Perhaps the most ominous is this from Manning: “There has to be an issue campaign organized by non-partisan, non-political actors to get the public onto that ground, and then the political people will follow. Then it will be legitimate to discuss it.” When he says something like that, he's not just musing that something like that should happen. He's saying that he and his team are about to make it happen.

Every Canadian has a right to health care. The nub of truth that I suspect the Cons are about to twist into something Canadians neither want nor need is that we have a lot of work to do in making that system better. But driving hard for a two-tier system (sounds like Manning would like us all to now say "two-track" approach is not going to solve those problems for people who can't afford private insurance. We're going to hear "facts" which will really be an attempt to get us to ignore what experts say about the system which will try to lead us to think that letting rich Canadians jump the queue is going to be good for all of us.

I hope we're ready for the fight.

"Conservatives" and Immigration

2011-11-04T17:16:00.004-04:00

Call me old fashioned, but when five months after winning office you impose a two-year moratorium on family reunification, I call that:

A) Lying. Although unlike with their intentions to negotiate health accords one a bilateral, instead of country-wide basis, the Cons at least waited a while to pretend they "just realized" this was necessary (testament to Jason Kenney not being completely gormless), it is entirely unbelievable that he and the rest of his boys hadn't thought about this before. So, if you're someone who believes Canada should be open to the world, and that letting families be together is part of that, you just got hosed.

B) A total slap in the face to the communities Kenney has been courting for a long time. And we had better not let them forget about this.

Cullen's Primaries

2011-10-21T09:43:00.003-04:00

I want to encourage you to read, but not necessarily endorse, this article from Far and Wide arguing that Nathan Cullen's proposal that in non-Conservative-held ridings the Liberal, NDP, and Greens come together to collectively nominate a candidate.

F&W argues that if we decide to go with Cullen's proposal, we may as well just merge, because

"The very process itself acknowledges an overriding commonality that USURPS individual tribal wants, so for the love of god just call it a merger, because the guts of the idea are just that." I think the difference between Steve and I on this are that focuses on the after, in which he sees Libs, Dippers, and Greens coming together to knock on doors, pound in signs, etc, as well as the recognition in that quote; once we decide that what's most important is stopping Harper, well, there we are.

I see this proposal a little differently. First, I think we need to recognize it's a much more incremental step than merger. Cullen isn't proposing it in every riding; I'd go further and say that only ridings in which the associations can agree on the idea, and a procedure:

What's the voting system going to be (I'd strongly urge AV)
Who's going to count the votes?
Who's going to qualify (I'd prefer an open primary)?
How will the once-and-future per-vote subsidy be divided up (I'd do it based on performance in the primary, assuming only one candidate from each party is allowed in, which leads to...)
Will only one candidate from each party be allowed, or will it be a true primary system (so, essentially, the riding associations would, having agreed to the primary, be the enforcers of the "don't run to screw the candidate that wins the primary")

should participate. So this needn't be forced down from on high, nor need it be negotiated by the leadership, necessarily, other than to allow it. I think this point is extremely important, because one of the top reasons I see for not having a merger is I think the negotiations are impossible, so we shouldn't waste our time tainting each other with each others' history. I'd recognize that in practice sitting MPs for right now would probably not be subject to this, I don't believe there's any reason they should remain immune.

The reason I'm attracted to doing this riding-by-riding, and to this idea over a merger, is just that, contrary to Steve at F&W, I don't think this inevitably leads to a merger. I think what it inevitably leads to is itself; a system in which, from time to time, riding associations identify that what they think is best to get themselves the representation they want is to have the competition between two (or three; I would assume there will be times when one of the three declines to participate) parties three years after the last election, rather than four years (let's pretend the Prime Minister follows his own election laws this time around, shall we?). That's it. The commitment of the riding associations to each other in entering into the primary needn't be "all our people will work for the winner" (which would be impossible to do anyway). It would only be "what we think is best is to hash out our differences now, rather than in four years when it might help someone we both think is worse".

Steve asks whether activists on the losing side will simply walk away, or will they work side by side to elect the candidate that wins the primary, as part of his case that this will inevitably lead to merger. I, frankly, don't care. If all people are willing to do is sit home and vote, that's still helpful, because the vote won't be split. If they want to pitch in, even better.

An important note here is that what I think would be even better than this would be alternative vote; this is essentially a way of enforcing that, give or take, case by case, in a first past the post system. All I really see us necessarily doing (not to say that Steve's scenario isn't possibly going to be the case) is doing AV riding-by-riding, in somewhat of a lesser way as the potential "spoilers" are eliminated before the election.

Now, again, there may be ridings that won't want to do this. The association may, for example, feel that the alternative isn't better (this could play out very interestingly depending on whether the candidates are nominated before the primary negotiation takes place; for example, in Parkdale High-Park, I think the two associations could see it both ways; either "one of us is going to win, so let's not bother" or "we both have strong candidates that are broadly acceptable, so why not just hold a primary and then we can focus on other things"); a conservative-minded Liberal association might decide they really wouldn't rather an NDP representative than a Con, or a farther-left NDP association might decide they think it's their gal/guy or bust, because they don't see a difference between the Liberals and the Conservative anyway (both assertions which I personally think are insane, by the way, but if they happened they wouldn't destroy this scheme). The association may feel they must have the extra attention that would come from actually running in the election. The association may believe that their party or candidate has broader appeal than the opposing party, or that said party "cheated" in the last primary, or whatever else, and then refuse to enter. That's OK because that's the current status quo.

I think an advantage this has over merger is that the parties, and their local associations, get to continue for as long as they want. We don't have to force anything down anyone's throat, and the decision to enter into this limited form of cooperation doesn't destroy anyone's beliefs or groups or parties. It's just that, this (and then each going forward) time around each association decides what they think will best serve their riding.

A further advantage would be that this would, in my assessment, tend to produce more honest and accountable MPs. By retaining the NDP, Liberal, and Green associations in each riding the threat of a challenge would always be there. A candidate who went far left or far right, or who ignored the riding, or who voted with his/her party when that wasn't right, or whatever, would always be under threat of either a primary challenge or a refusal to enter into a primary (a spoiler challenge) by one or both of the other riding associations.

Finally, I want to say that this is a new idea for me (which I wish I'd thought of), and one I am unwilling at this time to endorse. However, so far (and I hope I'll keep hearing from some of you in the comments), this seems like it doesn't really have any downside.

---

Update: It occurs to me now that one thing I've missed is that this may (or may not) make it tougher to achieve a majority government, given that the voters, on election day, would no longer be able to swing all the way to one party or another (put it this way; one party would have to win at least 154 primaries to even have a chance of forming a majority). This will presumably be either a feature or a bug, and is very much, IMO, hard to predict.

Liberal Party Renewal Proposal I

2011-10-19T11:44:00.000-04:00

Since in my last post I said I'd try to come up with some ideas for changes to the Liberal Party, let's get started (note that the "I" in the title is optimistic!). Here's my first (and a more contentious, based on people I've run it by) thought. I wouldn't say this rises to the level of a "proposal", because it's something I'd really like feedback on before I commit to it, but, here goes little-to-nothing.

Currently, there are two major year-round figures in the Liberal Party of Canada (and, I suspect, provincial parties): a party leader and a party president. My suggestion is that we go to three; a leader, a chief executive or somesuch, and a (revitalized) party president.

Since this will likely get pointed out by someone in comments anyway, I'll admit that this is probably somewhat inspired by how things work in the States, where the party Chairman has a significant role, and something of a political one (though not supplanting the various elected or nominated leaders). The US Democratic executives I can list off the top of my head would the President or Presidential nominee, party Chairman, Speaker of the House or Minority Leader, Senate Majority or Minority leader, and then the Chairs of the DSCC and DCCC (Democratic Senate & Congressional Campaign Committees, respectively) and Democratic Governors Association (probably the least "executive-y" of the bunch).

The leader's position in my triadic proposal is the easiest to understand; very little would change, except insofar as the leader would now have two more empowered executives to deal with, which I think might tilt things somewhat more towards the leader's responsibilities focusing on being leader in the house and publicly representing the party, and less towards "making absolutely every and all decision in the leader's office", which I'm concerned is what we've seen lately, and hasn't worked out real well.

Next, I'd have us select a chief executive, perhaps a chief executive with a team (in that we'd develop other positions that need to be filled and elected, which would be coordinated and supervised by that executive). The chief executive would be in charge of running the nuts and bolts of the party, much like the party president is today. I'd be very open to improving and expanding the mandate of the party president in this transfer, and would love to hear some suggestions. But, essentially, the chief executive would be behind the scenes, working hard, trying improve how things work. I would like to see a C.E.L.P. empowered to and interested in taking a real hand in helping the electoral associations push forward, and, if you ask me, in pushing them to push forward harder. I think having someone known for that, rather than primarily fundraising (Rossi) or internal reform (the direction we ~~seem to be~~ should be headed this time 'round) would be preferable.

Finally, I'm creating a new position (with an old name); I'd like to see a Party President with an entirely new mandate:

Ombudsing (not a word) for party members
Representing the multiplicity and complexity of views of the party members to the Leader's Office
Representing the party, as opposed to the Parliamentary caucus, to the media

The idea behind this is that we would have someone who's job was to be our leader; not the leader of the "party", not the leader of the caucus, but the leader of all the members. This should, ideally, be someone who's willing to take on the role of real representative; presenting ideas and values that he or she may not necessarily share, but which are nevertheless part of the multiplicity of beliefs of the membership (and, obviously, in some or many cases, presenting several possibilities, which I actually think would be the very essence of liberalism; recognizing that things are complex). I also think It might be desirable to have the PP elected by the opposite of whichever method we're going with for selecting the leader; if the leader is selected by OMOV, then the PP might be selected by a vote of the ridings.

Obviously, moving to triadic leadership could potentially have its problems. The most obvious of these is that the newly conceived President could find her- or his- self contradicting the Leader (or both indicating that there is support and opposition for a position within the party). However, I would kick this back to a theme of mine; we need to valorize dissent. Maybe this would even be a plus; rather than running to whiny "anonymous Liberals", media would have someone charged with explaining that our party is complex and made up of different voices, unlike the kindergarten-ish faux-consensus of the other two parties.

Please let me know what you think!

Liberal Party Governance

2011-10-17T12:17:00.003-04:00

The Liberal Party of Canada has a convention in January. I'm hearing lots of chatter about "who's running for President" and at least a little bit about who's running for other positions. What I hadn't been hearing was about what kind of changes will be attempted of the party itself, as opposed to the (important but) usual policy resolutions. I think it is crucial that we start making changes now to how the party is internally structured and operated.

So I finally (I wasn't getting the emails) managed to figure out where the "resolutions" that will be brought forward for the convention. And here is what we have on governance. So you don't have to click through:

1) Resolution 109, "Maintaining a Current Membership List", which proposes, among other tweaks, three year memberships.
2) Resolution 9, "Policy on Running Candidates", which proposes that the party "require a clear policy" on the leader's power to replace candidates, including financial compensation for the riding associations affected.
3) Resolution 18, "Democratic Renewal", which calls for a renewal commission composed of two representatives, elected by the members, from each province and territory.
4) Resolution 999, "Crickets", which calls for me to be very, very concerned that the above three resolutions are the only ones in this extremely important area.

First, a call for information. Although I'm also looking into this on my own, if anyone knows whether there are more resolutions coming, or the possibility of more resolutions, or even anything about resolutions that didn't make it to convention, I'd love to hear about in the comments or at democraticprogress á gmail.com.

Second, in keeping with resolution 999, I am very, very concerned that those are the only three resolutions. We need to change, grow, and do better. It needs to come from below. So, if these are actually to be it, then we must work to try to get some new ideas on the table for the next opportunity.

I have some ideas which I'm going to try to find time to lay out on things we could be doing, so stay tuned to this space, or another space if I find one.

Hudak Totally Recovers From His "Foreign Workers" Gaffe

2011-09-07T23:42:00.001-04:00

I couldn't not blog this:

Question: Why do you keep calling immigrants foreign workers?

Answer: Oh, I’m not. Dalton McGuinty’s plan, and Greg Sorbrara was on the radio about it yesterday, is to bring more people to Ontario. Now listen, Ontario is a welcoming province. I’m proud to stand before you today to say I’m the Roman Catholic grandson of Slovakian immigrants who came to who came to Ontario not speaking a word of the language who climbed their way up the ladder. What they wanted a fair shake not special treatment. But Dalton McGuinty is playing favourites with his affirmative action program for foreign workers. I know some people agree with it, but I reject it and I think the vast majority of Ontarians reject the affirmative action idea by Dalton McGuinty to pay companies $10000 to hire foreign workers.

When you've got it, you've got it. Go get 'em, Timmy! Show those ferners who's boss! (h/t)

Layton

2011-08-22T09:42:00.001-04:00

Terrible, terrible, terrible. Jack dedicated his life to public service, not for power, but to try to push things in a direction he believed in, and that's a beautiful legacy.

Maybe I'm Not Reading The Right Stuff...

2011-08-19T11:53:00.003-04:00

... But, is anyone making the argument that it's a terrible idea to fire a bunch of public servants right now because those public servants will be out of a job?

The job market here isn't like in the States, but it's rough. People employed by the government (like Environment Canada scientists) not only provide a public service, they pay taxes on their income. Then they use that income and go buy things, on which they pay taxes. And the people they buy the things from pay taxes on the profits they make.

So why, with these terrible waters lapping at our shore, but in which Stephen Harper is standing barefoot no matter how cold it is to hold back the waters and save us all (or whatever the campaign ~~YouTube clip~~ speech he kept ~~replaying~~ giving was), would we think that now is the time to fire people?

Without even commenting on the wisdom of panicking over what ratings agencies say about our loanworthiness, no one's saying Canada's in trouble over it's deficit. I'm very concerned we're in structural problem created by Harper's irresponsibility, but that doesn't mean now is the time to deal with it. It's anti-Keynesian, which, with what's going on in the world economy, is insane.

Ask Your Mom or Ask Your Dad

2011-08-18T14:18:00.002-04:00

A quick hit on Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak on pot, with the news that he's "gotten high", presumably on some pretty "fly doobies" in his distant past (he's only 44, but displays an incoherence well beyond his years).

Hudak goes on to say he's opposed to decriminalization because “I think we still need to set a very clear direction that drug use is wrong and these criminal activities need to be taken very seriously”.

Here's the three aspects that make no sense.

First, Hudak is saying something that he did, and which he feels is part of a "pretty normal life", is wrong. Don't we need something by way of explanation? "I was young and stupid" or something? Doing something wrong is a big deal. You don't get to just brush it away, especially when you're being asked a question regarding sending other people to jail for something you did. For most of us (but not people who support "conservative" parties) imprisoning our fellow citizens is a huge deal, and is at the heart of the decriminalization push from those who, like me, don't do dope (and some who do, obviously).

Second, isn't this a federal matter?

Third, Hudak has some very common, but really serious logical issues. Let's break them down, first with:

1) I feel drug use is wrong
2) ...
3) Therefore, drug use should be criminal

Listen, Timmy; there are lots of things that I think are wrong that should not be criminalized. There are probably even things you think are wrong that should be criminalized. What he's quoted as saying* isn't nearly enough to make his cake. Then, let's look at his logic in the second half of the sentence.

1) Drug use is a crime
2) Crimes need to be taken seriously.

Here's the problem. The question he's being asked about is decriminalization*. Right now, marijuana possession, even in small amounts, is illegal. I agree that things that are illegal need to be taken seriously. So does Hudak, apparently. But in the context of a question about making something not-a-crime, it's ridiculous to argue that "crimes need to be taken seriously", for one simple reason; if we decriminalized marijuana, then marijuana possession would no longer be a crime, and there would be no need to take it seriously.

If you've read this far, I'm personally a big believer in decriminalization of marijuana use because I think the harm has been poorly demonstrated (it really looks like it's safer for you than cigarettes, and much, much safer for everyone around you than alcohol), and I think there's a huge revenue stream there to be snatched up by us, the people, through our government.

*I want to note that both the points I've asterisked could be inaccurate. I say "as quoted as saying" because it's possibly he explained further, but this was how the Star reported it, and the Star article says he was being asked about decriminalization when he may have actually been asked or interpreted the question as being about non-enforcement, which is obviously different.

Tea Time Followup

2011-08-17T13:27:00.002-04:00

Helpfully, Brampton-Springdale PC candidate Pam Hundal (part of the protest in my previous post) has now tweeted that the billion dollars the Ontario Liberals invested into Brampton healthcare services was wasted, not invested. Welcome to Tea Party North, where there's no such thing as "investing" in the future, no such thing as "trying things"; there is only attacking any and every attempt to bring Ontarians together to try to make things better for each other.

Fantastic.

Once again, this is evidence of the bigger fight we need to have (and which the Ontario NDP is not helping with, by the way). It should be unacceptable to try to argue that we shouldn't come together and invest in a better future. It's the only way forward. Step behind the veil of ignorance, then look around the world, and decide whether you'd rather live in a "puny government" state or one in which the public takes a role in protecting itself. If you said "no government" you're rolling the dice with your entire future.

We can make things better, but the current "conservative" movement doesn't believe that, and is willing to do whatever it takes to stop us from doing our damndest to try.