[fvc-wat-disc] The Government Wants To Know!

[Laurel L. Russwurm]

Dear Paul and Jenn:

I know Jenn is good people, and I apologize if it came out sounding 
harsh.  That was not my intent.

My understanding of Fair Vote's openly multipartisan stance is that it 
is an acknowledgement that politics are partisan in Canada, which has a 
very big impact on the goals of Fair Vote WRC.  Meaningful electoral 
reform is not a partisan issue, but as we are all very much aware, there 
are many in both the alternating governing parties who make it so, 
because PR will limit their ability to wield 100% power.

In the past I have been party to more than one conversation with my 
Liberals for Fair Voting friends (including Jenn) about strategies to 
get around partisan resistance to electoral reform.

My intent was to try to get across why I think this is a problem to Jenn 
(and any other LPC folk on this list).  If it is possible for an LPC 
insider like Jenn to pass along how an electoral reform Town Hall with a 
visiting Cabinet Minister in attendance is likely to play out, or at 
least what it will look like to non-Liberals, it might be helpful in 
bringing change.  The biggest advantage we have in the electoral reform 
issue is public opinion.  We know LPC (unlike CPC) cares about the optics.

It doesn't matter that we have an LPC government that can force change 
on Canada, the single most important thing that must happen during this 
consultation is that some Conservative support must be generated.  This 
is why it is so important for the process to be very public, and for 
Conservatives to feel included.   An unceasing unified unflinching CPC 
opposing change or demanding referendum could sink this like a stone.  
It is in none of our interests (including the LPC) to get a reasonable 
form of PR implemented only to have a public backlash that results in 
reinstating an CPC majority after the next election.

Regards,
Laurel


On 08/03/2016 08:16 PM, Paul Nijjar wrote:
> That's a bit harsh, Laurel. Jennifer is good people who has been loyal
> to the FVC cause for years, and I do not think she is being
> partisan in her comments.
>
> There is, of course, one riding that did not go Liberal. Has there
> been outreach to Harold Albrecht to get a town hall organized for
> Kitchener-Conestoga? Other than Bob and Laurel, are there FVC members
> who live in the riding and could make some noise?
>
> Also: with respect to Nunavut, I do not dispute that the committee
> should be gathering input from all parts of Canada, and I do not
> dispute that it is expensive. I am glad that the committee is going to
> Nunavut. I just wish they could have fit a few other stops into that
> trip.
>
> - Paul
>
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:49:05PM -0400, Laurel L. Russwurm wrote:
>> I can see why your party might not want the Committee to come before
>> an informed and engaged community.  But Fair Vote WRC ought to be
>> fighting like mad to get the committee here.
>>
> [...]
>> Because the Committee *is* multipartisan. THAT is the point of them
>> taking the dog & pony show on the road: to reach out to *all*
>> citizens, not just those in the ruling party.  I understand Liberal
>> "natural ruling party" conceit flows into thinking they represent
>> everybody but they don't, no more than the Conservatives did.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>


-- 
Laurel L. Russwurm, Author <http://laurel.russwurm.org/blogs/> § 
about.me <http://about.me/laurelrusswurm> § Libreleft Books 
<http://libreleft.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20160803/b0df9bdd/attachment-0002.htm>