There needs to be a different face, different voice and plan for the Liberals. It is still so hard for me to understand why Bonnie won over Nate. I just shake my head at this. How far Ontario could have gone by now to improving the lives of people in the province. Love to see Nate there but he’s been bounced around by every liberal party he’s been attached to, and honestly, not sure if I was him, if I’d attached myself to them future. (Maybe orange is his new best friend). But Liberals need strong, transparent, progressive leadership. Not centrist … we’ve got a Federal Government that is almost tiger striped red and blue. They enjoy a great popularity now, but that’s typical of war time govt and Canadians feel we are at war or on the cusp of it. Bonnie is too blue. Not new. Tested and failed. Next…
I don't completely disagree with this piece. It does speak to me in some ways. But, the stated singular ambition of winning and beating Doug Ford is problematically hollow - and speaks to a large problem that needs to be solved before winning can happen. Of course, the goal of a party should be to win, but a party also needs policy goals to stand for in order to attract votes. It needs a raison d'être other than just winning or keeping the other leader/party out of the seat of power.
I know leaders take over a party and help to drive the policy platform, so it's premature to create a policy agenda here and now. But, it's also not convincing to non-Liberals to just talk about winning, replacing, a leader that can win, etc. It just stinks of self-interested partisan competitiveness without concern for the public or interest in actually accomplishing important things for the public's benefit. It would have been more persuasive and compelling to see this piece discuss general principles and goals that you would like to see the party pursue under Crombie or a different leader - rather than just winning. Especially when we can't know definitively at this point what will comprise a winning leader and party in the next election.
The critique of Crombie is also rather superficial. Yes, we can critique a losing campaign. Sure. There are always mistakes to learn from. But, maybe Crombie and her team have learned from any mistakes. Maybe not - and I need to see more from them before I'll believe they've learned and improved. But, criticizing the lack of ad spend in 2024 either willfully or ignorantly overlooks the fact that the party did not have enough money for an impactful pre-election ad campaign in 2024. Criticizing Crombie for rhetoric about her ability to win the election ignores the fact that this is how all leaders and parties need to talk because they have to project an image of a leader/party that can win, so that voters don't write them off as a wasted vote. It's just silly to hold her accountable for that rhetoric.
And, also, lets acknowledge the elephant in the room: It was likely impossible to beat Doug Ford in that election, given how Trump altered the political terrain and the masterclass Captain Canada performance Ford delivered in response to that shift. It is always difficult for new leaders who are not highly familiar to voters to attract their vote, but it was much more difficult in a scary environment of uncertainty where voters wanted stability and protection from (the devil) leaders they knew and trusted.
For me, this New Leaf movement needs to speak more substantively about policy and mission rather than just about winning and hypothetical alternative leader figures that supposedly can win bigger than Crombie. What are the principles and policies you disagree with her on? What would you like to see different in the policy agenda for the party? What will be the party's mission for the next election and if they win government. For me, that's substantive and important. And it is for the public too. Otherwise, it just looks like parties seeking power for themselves.
I say all this as someone that would probably like Crombie to leave and a new leader to take her place. But, I am also under no illusions that it will be easy to find a good, compelling, election-winning leader. The grass is always greener, folks. Who knows if Crombie will be replaced by someone better. Who knows if she might be better in a second campaign - I'm doubtful, but I was doubtful about McGuinty after his first losing campaign too.
I'd probably like to see her vacate the position, but the New Leaf movement isn't exactly knocking my socks off with their weak criticisms, the lack of substantive policy and mission talk, and naive assumptions that you'll definitely replace her with a winner.
Also, the New Leaf movement totally appears to just be Nate's leadership campaign pretending to be a movement - all the while just looking to install him as leader by riding a faux "movement". So, there's that.
And, I'm not opposed to Nate as leader either. He might be good. He might not. I see pluses and I see cautions. I love his policy depth and ideas. I don't love his aggressive response to not being put into cabinet or his frequent impulsiveness. I'm not ready to knock him down or oppose him, but I'm also not putting him on pedestal.
I don’t think it is a matter of competence. I am afraid it is a matter of effort. I hate to say it, because I don’t like to be unkind, but I don’t see the effort.
Has Crombie developed a team that is going to put an attractive platform together with sensible ideas that the voters can understand? I have not seen it.
Has she raised an enormous amount of money that put the party is a comfortable position going forward?
Has she sought publicity when Ford gives an opening to criticize him (and there have been plenty). For example today, the housing numbers show that Ontario is clearly the province that is underperforming. Where is Crombie to pound on this and offer one or two options to improve?
Has she increased the party membership?
Has she started recruiting high potential candidates for the next election? Or has at least a plan for this?
I don’t see it. What we need is a Bruce Fanjoy type effort. An effort that attracts high quality people who are willing to run through brick walls for their party and leader to make the province better.
I believe it is performative rather than progressive to want to change the individual at the top, but not the underlying systems imposing individualism and allowing so much power to exist "at the top".
I was a young Progressive Conservative and Green, but left the conservative movement as I moved away from Western Anthropocentric, Androcentric, Individualistic values.
The LPC/LPO and NDP seem to only offer increasingly performative and milder versions of the same ideologies and policies - more "polite" ways of essentially doing the same thing.
When will movements come forward that are actually progressive?
There needs to be a different face, different voice and plan for the Liberals. It is still so hard for me to understand why Bonnie won over Nate. I just shake my head at this. How far Ontario could have gone by now to improving the lives of people in the province. Love to see Nate there but he’s been bounced around by every liberal party he’s been attached to, and honestly, not sure if I was him, if I’d attached myself to them future. (Maybe orange is his new best friend). But Liberals need strong, transparent, progressive leadership. Not centrist … we’ve got a Federal Government that is almost tiger striped red and blue. They enjoy a great popularity now, but that’s typical of war time govt and Canadians feel we are at war or on the cusp of it. Bonnie is too blue. Not new. Tested and failed. Next…
I don't completely disagree with this piece. It does speak to me in some ways. But, the stated singular ambition of winning and beating Doug Ford is problematically hollow - and speaks to a large problem that needs to be solved before winning can happen. Of course, the goal of a party should be to win, but a party also needs policy goals to stand for in order to attract votes. It needs a raison d'être other than just winning or keeping the other leader/party out of the seat of power.
I know leaders take over a party and help to drive the policy platform, so it's premature to create a policy agenda here and now. But, it's also not convincing to non-Liberals to just talk about winning, replacing, a leader that can win, etc. It just stinks of self-interested partisan competitiveness without concern for the public or interest in actually accomplishing important things for the public's benefit. It would have been more persuasive and compelling to see this piece discuss general principles and goals that you would like to see the party pursue under Crombie or a different leader - rather than just winning. Especially when we can't know definitively at this point what will comprise a winning leader and party in the next election.
The critique of Crombie is also rather superficial. Yes, we can critique a losing campaign. Sure. There are always mistakes to learn from. But, maybe Crombie and her team have learned from any mistakes. Maybe not - and I need to see more from them before I'll believe they've learned and improved. But, criticizing the lack of ad spend in 2024 either willfully or ignorantly overlooks the fact that the party did not have enough money for an impactful pre-election ad campaign in 2024. Criticizing Crombie for rhetoric about her ability to win the election ignores the fact that this is how all leaders and parties need to talk because they have to project an image of a leader/party that can win, so that voters don't write them off as a wasted vote. It's just silly to hold her accountable for that rhetoric.
And, also, lets acknowledge the elephant in the room: It was likely impossible to beat Doug Ford in that election, given how Trump altered the political terrain and the masterclass Captain Canada performance Ford delivered in response to that shift. It is always difficult for new leaders who are not highly familiar to voters to attract their vote, but it was much more difficult in a scary environment of uncertainty where voters wanted stability and protection from (the devil) leaders they knew and trusted.
For me, this New Leaf movement needs to speak more substantively about policy and mission rather than just about winning and hypothetical alternative leader figures that supposedly can win bigger than Crombie. What are the principles and policies you disagree with her on? What would you like to see different in the policy agenda for the party? What will be the party's mission for the next election and if they win government. For me, that's substantive and important. And it is for the public too. Otherwise, it just looks like parties seeking power for themselves.
I say all this as someone that would probably like Crombie to leave and a new leader to take her place. But, I am also under no illusions that it will be easy to find a good, compelling, election-winning leader. The grass is always greener, folks. Who knows if Crombie will be replaced by someone better. Who knows if she might be better in a second campaign - I'm doubtful, but I was doubtful about McGuinty after his first losing campaign too.
I'd probably like to see her vacate the position, but the New Leaf movement isn't exactly knocking my socks off with their weak criticisms, the lack of substantive policy and mission talk, and naive assumptions that you'll definitely replace her with a winner.
Also, the New Leaf movement totally appears to just be Nate's leadership campaign pretending to be a movement - all the while just looking to install him as leader by riding a faux "movement". So, there's that.
And, I'm not opposed to Nate as leader either. He might be good. He might not. I see pluses and I see cautions. I love his policy depth and ideas. I don't love his aggressive response to not being put into cabinet or his frequent impulsiveness. I'm not ready to knock him down or oppose him, but I'm also not putting him on pedestal.
well articulated and what you shared resonates with me personally 100%.
I don’t think it is a matter of competence. I am afraid it is a matter of effort. I hate to say it, because I don’t like to be unkind, but I don’t see the effort.
Has Crombie developed a team that is going to put an attractive platform together with sensible ideas that the voters can understand? I have not seen it.
Has she raised an enormous amount of money that put the party is a comfortable position going forward?
Has she sought publicity when Ford gives an opening to criticize him (and there have been plenty). For example today, the housing numbers show that Ontario is clearly the province that is underperforming. Where is Crombie to pound on this and offer one or two options to improve?
Has she increased the party membership?
Has she started recruiting high potential candidates for the next election? Or has at least a plan for this?
I don’t see it. What we need is a Bruce Fanjoy type effort. An effort that attracts high quality people who are willing to run through brick walls for their party and leader to make the province better.
Why is the goal to "beat Doug Ford"?
I believe it is performative rather than progressive to want to change the individual at the top, but not the underlying systems imposing individualism and allowing so much power to exist "at the top".
I was a young Progressive Conservative and Green, but left the conservative movement as I moved away from Western Anthropocentric, Androcentric, Individualistic values.
The LPC/LPO and NDP seem to only offer increasingly performative and milder versions of the same ideologies and policies - more "polite" ways of essentially doing the same thing.
When will movements come forward that are actually progressive?
Thoughtful essay. Thanks.