Sean,

This type of politial trivia is interesting...

Please don't take this the wrong way Sean, but your post is "just the facts" with lots of room for imagination left to the reader.... more fun this way :-)

I think your reported facts suggests that those Liberals who sat out the last election are back in and rounding up members for their fav. candiate. There is some serious activity going on in them there Liberals hills.

Personally, I'm respectful of Ignatieff... the idea of a human rights expert as PM would work for me.

But it gets worse for the poor liberals. According to liberal.ca, the Conservatives and NDP are trying to introduce a legislation limitting campaign contributions to $1000 per person. Unfortunately the deligate's fee for the leadership convention counts as a contribution. So there is a fear that Liberals who have already donated money to the party might be ruled ineligable to go because paying the delegate's fee will cause them to exceed their contribution limit. According to the liberal.ca site, the delegate fee is $995 for the leadership convention. If the new contribution limit becomes law, the liberal party will have to either lower or waive the delegates fee or reschedule their convention for early 2007.

Dat:

Wrong. The new contribution limits don't kick in until January 1, 2007. The Convention is late November 2006. No problem with contribution levels.

"Personally, I'm respectful of Ignatieff... the idea of a human rights expert as PM would work for me. "

Well Eugene, that would assume that the federal Liberals would have to win the next election and that's not 100% guaranteed.

Human rights are important, but focusing on one issue isn't going make for good running of the country.

"According to the liberal.ca site, the delegate fee is $995 for the leadership convention. If the new contribution limit becomes law, the liberal party will have to either lower or waive the delegates fee or reschedule their convention for early 2007."

Easily fixed. Have the entire membership be able to vote at locally set up poll stations, run by the local constituencies just as it is with Elections Canada and federal election, but this is just for members only, and run by the EDA's.

Cheap, easy to do. involves the entire membership. One member one vote.

Instead of the insane idea of spending $3000 on
a vacation to Grit World and being there to go
on the rides, hearing the smooth talking sales at the product booth and picking up kitsch such as Liberal red coloured plastic Iggy Banks and souvenier Pierre Trudeau colouring books and Ken Dryen autographed hockeypucks.

Would give practice to the volunteers on how to
handle election day, and get more party members involved.

But the federal Liberals are not that innovative
when it comes to politics.

What's the sense in having all of those members sign up when they have to shell out an additional
$2000 to $3000 to go to the thing.

Airfare costs money as does a stay at the hotel,
plus food.

Better to vote locally and get the whole membership involved.

Some party people will not support the new leader if they don't like him or her.

"My name is legion, for we are many" great Biblical quote of the meeting between Jesus Christ and the Gadarene demoniac in the New Testament(Mark 5:9 KJV), when Jesus asked who he was, said; My name is legion, for we(demons) are many (Legion=5,000)

just never thought of the Federal Liberal Party in that way, maybe you're onto something Sean

Billy, the folks at the liberal.ca site are expressing worries that their convention might be in jeopardy. http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?site=news&id=11686
Maybe you should drop them an email explaining things!

From liberal.ca:

"This is the most anti-democratic piece of legislation I've ever seen,� said Mr. MacKinnon. �It seems strange that the Conservatives, with their Reform tradition, want to be the party which silences the voices of party activists in national political parties."

What a stupid statement to make. Being active in a political party does not mean its mandatory to donate money. Many people including myself are
active in a political party but don't donate five figure amounts to them. Many people donate their time, and not money to political parties.

The Liberals should talk.

They have the ability of the leader to directly appoint candidates, therefore bypassing the
constituency nomination process.

If the Liberals really want to show they are
democratic, they should have gone to a one member
one vote system where every member gets to vote on who becomes leader, not those who, as McDonald pointed out, can spend $2500 or more on
a trip to Montreal's convention.

Darn right, Dunc. Too many people want this to be about 1968 all over again. Heck, the Tories did the 1-member, 1-vote thing and it worked. Gets members involved at the local level, invigorates the riding associations. That'll be next time. Me, I'm looking forward to my Iggy toy bank, my Bennett nesting dolls and Kennedy colouring book.

How about Hedy Fry burnt crosses from Prince George.

Thanks to dar_wascal_wabbit for the biggest laugh of the week. I have said over and over again that the huge Liberal debt, estimated at over $30 million, is the big sleeper in this leadership non-contest. It was enough to discourage all the big name candidates, and it's forcing the second stringers into desperate gambits, like the Volpe child-donor scams.

And yes, the Tory policy of reducing even further the individual contribution limit was intended to further crimp the Liberal's financial picture, but I didn't expect it would bit this soon.

Others are right in saying that the Liberals should to to a postal ballot of their entire paid-up membership. Why they didn't do this all along shows how out of touch these chronic game-players have become.