13 October 2011

The way not to change #nlpoli

Kevin Aylward did a yeoman service to his party by stepping in and leading it through a tough time.

He didn’t add anything to the seat tally. 

Anyone who claims otherwise is full of shite. Those seats came from the hard work of the individuals running in each of them plus, in one case, the marvels of the internal combustion engine.

Now Aylward finds himself a leader without a seat in the legislature.

The political gods have a fine sense of humour.

Not to worry. 

There’s not much point in Kevin hanging about. Even if your humble e-scribbler had not already suggested that convention dictates he go,  Kevin is facing the advice of one of his old caucus mates.

Chris Decker told listeners to a CBC radio call-in show that Kevin needs to go:

For one thing, Decker said, the Liberals would lose Opposition status, as they would then be tied with the NDP at five seats each.

As well, Decker said, Tuesday's election showed that the Liberals cannot count on voters in any particular district.

Former cabinet minister John Efford chimed in and suggested the party should hold a leadership convention so that Kevin or John himself or anyone else who wanted it can have a go at the job.

Tuesday night proved to be a “holy f***, that was close” moment for the people running the Liberal Party and for people, like John Efford, who want to run the party. 

Now that the danger has passed they want to get right back to the old ways of doing business that put the party in his current sorry state.

The party needs to change.

A credible political party cannot afford to have a repeat of recent history including the way Jones left the job a few weeks ago and the board picked her replacement.

Change means things have to be different.  More of the same is not an option.  Change also means that so many people within the party will have to give up the traditional Liberal Party delusion that some saviour, some messiah will appear and make all the problems go away.

The party also can’t afford to try and recycle someone – whether Aylward, Efford or Jones – even on a temporary basis.  temporary has a tendency to become permanent, especially when the shock of a near death experience wears off.

That would be the way not to change.

And if people want the Liberal Party to survive, change is the only choice left.

- srbp -

12 comments:

rod said...

I heard Chris Decker's comments on the radio. Pretty cold hearted I must say, but then that's what I've come to expect from Chris Decker.
Go away Chris, you arsehole.

John Effort spent the show vigorously trying to keep his feet out of his mouth, it was amusing.

Brad Evoy said...

And in the end, this is part of the reason why I ended my brief sojourn with the Liberal Party.

Both federally and provincially, this is a party unwilling to change at its highest heights, disenfranchising those of us lower on the totem who dreamed of renewal.

It's funny that the Liberals are really strong on the West Coast, yet could not for the life of them form a youth wing there after very actively attempting to do so.

Mind you, the NDP hasn't really tried to do so at all formally(but has the support of many youth) and the YPC group is actually really strong, throughout the province.

I guess what I'm getting at is that this lack of youth looking to be in the party - accounting that many youth are avoiding political parties writ large - in their new heartland, speaks to the inability of the party to change, to become a wider tent than what it already encompasses.

One hopes the House of Smallwood and Wells will become ready for the kinds of change they'll need.

Peter L. Whittle said...

Just a question Ed. I agree with the general gist of your post but wonder what the rush is in ushering Aylward out the door.

You fail to mention that you supported Bern Coffee in his failed leadership bid, you did not write about his failure to run for the party (despite seeking the leadership), or the impact that decision had on the overall campaign.

Kevin delivered a pretty good policy platform, candidates in all districts, a campaign bus, campaign financing and he managed to get to every district in the province. Kevin accepted a poison chalice willingly. He knew he was up against strong government support and had no time to establish his own brand on the party. He did not have the time to repair the sails, paint the ship, let a lone haul her up on the dry-dock for repairs. He had to make the ship seaworthy and take her out into a hurricane. He lashed himself to the wheel, turned her into the wind and made the most of what had been handed to him. Now the likes of you are telling him to walk the plank.

Just wondering about is the rush, the urgency or the need?

Edward Hollett said...

Did you have any involvement in Kevin's leadership, Peter or are you speculating about what he did or did not do?

Peter L. Whittle said...

Ed:

No, I was not engaged or involved in either the leadership or the campaign.

My opinion is my own as an observer.

For the most part, I sat this one out.

My response is to the post on your blog. Speaking to a couple of the candidates, they say, perhaps you should have run in Humber Valley or St. Barbe, because the outcome with no clear campaign or leader, the way the party was left, would have spelled doom for them.

We can agree on what needs to be done. I disagree with the approach, at least with regards to forcing the leader out. That his decision to make.

Edward Hollett said...

So if you sat this out "for the most part", who did you campaign for in that other part?

Peter L. Whittle said...

I watched the debate. Might have chatted with a few candidates, (offered to layout a documents) that they were looking for advice on different situations. They would have been friends who were running and not for the same parties. No active engagement at all. I had a number of good friends running for all three parties. It was strange that way.

No time or real desire this time around. I am much more interested in community issues these days.

Edward Hollett said...

So you might have done something and offered to do some work for some people or then again, by implication, you might not have.

Seems you have trouble giving a straight answer to a simple question.

Peter L. Whittle said...

O ed, the answer is simple. I provided some advice and help to a number of candidates who ran for a number of parties. They were friends. I did not participate in any one campaign or campaign for a party. As I said, I am simply not playing the partisan game these days. My interest is more in advocating community issues. It is much more rewarding and devoid of sanctimonious apostates like yourself.

Now, dear readers, back to my dialektikoteron, Ed, perhaps you could try an answer a ? Why must Kevin resign now? What is the rush? What will his resignation at this point do to boost the fortunes of the party?

Edward Hollett said...

Oh Peter, such an arduous effort to get a simple and straightforward answer.

Thanks for sharing your views.

Peter L. Whittle said...

Seems you have trouble giving a straight answer to a simple question.

Edward Hollett said...

No, it's just that I have absolutely no interesting in engaging in a discussion with you given your tendency to engage in endless streams of personal abuse.

I've already given you more attention than you've earned or deserve, particularly given your comments a couple of months ago.