As someone who endorsed and voted for Nate, I need to respectfully disagree, Jake. The OLP's core problem right now is not the current Leader, so much as the grifter autocracy with which the OLP is being run more generally.
For more than a decade now, the OLP has been cycling between Leaders who leave the scene the moment that they lose an election. At the same time, there's been continuous turnover in the Executive Council, happening slowly enough that when one autocratic grifter leaves, the others recruit a neophyte grifter to fill the vacancy. And no one sticks around to build institutional memory, nor for the institution to learn its lessons. Tossing out the first leader who is willing to stay on after a loss would cement this institutional problem.
The autocratic grifters who dominate the Executive Council and the Constitution Committee made the rules of the last leadership contest, and they will also be the ones who indirectly choose the next Leader if Crombie is shunned in the leadership review. I would not count on a fresh new Leader understanding the problems of the party better than the current incumbent. If she stays on, she might realize who the autocratic grifters are and make change accordingly.
I am not saying that as any kind of blind supporter of the status-quo. I have 11 draft pro-grassroots constitutional amendments that I would like to submit to the convention, including an amendment to split the Leader's Office into an Electoral Leader and a Legislative Leader: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YNHz52WL7vZ1Z96N3FZOfCZ9DAB4hNAJXdxA-RKsfCw/edit?tab=t.0 If I can get 20 OLP member endorsements and 2 tentative standby supporting speakers by the August 1st deadline, I will be prepared to be the leading champion of a reform to devolve powers from the Leader's Office. (Observers who want to help out can email me at electstefan@gmail.com.)
Been there, done that, and I completely agree with you. $500 I spent to be not able to vote!
All she did was help Doug Ford by splitting votes with the ondp instead of taking voted from Doug Ford
As someone who endorsed and voted for Nate, I need to respectfully disagree, Jake. The OLP's core problem right now is not the current Leader, so much as the grifter autocracy with which the OLP is being run more generally.
For more than a decade now, the OLP has been cycling between Leaders who leave the scene the moment that they lose an election. At the same time, there's been continuous turnover in the Executive Council, happening slowly enough that when one autocratic grifter leaves, the others recruit a neophyte grifter to fill the vacancy. And no one sticks around to build institutional memory, nor for the institution to learn its lessons. Tossing out the first leader who is willing to stay on after a loss would cement this institutional problem.
The autocratic grifters who dominate the Executive Council and the Constitution Committee made the rules of the last leadership contest, and they will also be the ones who indirectly choose the next Leader if Crombie is shunned in the leadership review. I would not count on a fresh new Leader understanding the problems of the party better than the current incumbent. If she stays on, she might realize who the autocratic grifters are and make change accordingly.
I am not saying that as any kind of blind supporter of the status-quo. I have 11 draft pro-grassroots constitutional amendments that I would like to submit to the convention, including an amendment to split the Leader's Office into an Electoral Leader and a Legislative Leader: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YNHz52WL7vZ1Z96N3FZOfCZ9DAB4hNAJXdxA-RKsfCw/edit?tab=t.0 If I can get 20 OLP member endorsements and 2 tentative standby supporting speakers by the August 1st deadline, I will be prepared to be the leading champion of a reform to devolve powers from the Leader's Office. (Observers who want to help out can email me at electstefan@gmail.com.)