A more effective policy process for the Liberal Party of Canada
Deborah Coyne – May 30, 2009

The Liberal Party of Canada should adopt a new approach to policy debate and development involving a national website modeled on www.whitehouse.gov. The national website would reach out beyond the memberships of the associations and commissions to the many Canadians who are currently disengaged from the political process.

The Liberal Party of Canada should adopt a new approach to policy debate and development involving a national website modeled on www.change.gov. Change.gov was set up by the Obama team during the transition period and was based on the website established during the U.S. election with the help of the Centre for American Progress. It is now continued through www.whitehouse.gov. If President Obama can run one dynamic website for 300 million plus people in the U.S., then surely we can do the same with a population of 30 million plus, albeit in two languages.

The Obama website had a Citizens’ Briefing Book open to anyone, and thousands of people would post/submit ideas, comments etc. From those, the Obama team would choose popular/current ideas, take some control, and have either Barack Obama or one of his key advisors (eventually members of the incoming administration in www.change.gov and now www.whitehouse.gov ) respond in writing and/or a YouTube video. Policy discussion did not take place in regional silos, and categories were established to some extent through “The Agenda” in the “Briefing Room”, established and maintained by the Obama team.

This has been an incredible success with so-called internet voters and, because of the link to the leader and his key advisors (in the Canadian context, this would include members of the parliamentary wing), certainly gives the grassroots a sense of connection and influence. It should be noted that the Obama website is open to anyone and is extremely user friendly, unlike the current Liberal Party experiment with En Famille. And there are many mechanisms, including vigorous administrators, which can take care of unhelpful contributions. In short, the www.change.gov and www.whitehouse.gov approach provides a genuine and functional two-way street for the flow of ideas to and from the Democratic leadership. Millions of Americans are able to get a clear sense of in Barack Obama’s world view, basic values, and long term vision for America, as well as specific policy initiatives, and have confidence in his judgment to take them through the tough times ahead.

The Liberal Party of Canada needs a similar instrument for Michael Ignatieff.

The national website would be designed to reach out beyond the memberships of the associations and commissions to the many Canadians who are currently disengaged from the political process, and to convince them that the Liberal Party of Canada, with Michael Ignatieff as its leader, is the national party capable of creative thought and dynamic change in these serious and cynical times. Indeed given the weakness of the existing Party membership base, and the urgent need to expand the base in an efficient and effective way, the establishment of the change.gov model website should be accorded top priority.

The national website would be administered jointly by the Liberal Party of Canada and the office of the leader. Critical issues will then be debated with Canadians from all areas of the country, from the economic crisis, employment insurance, national childcare, clean energy, an east-west smart electricity grid, the environment and climate change, education, copyright, Medicare, to international affairs.

Note that a national change.gov model website would be complementary to the ongoing reforms to the existing Liberal Party of Canada constitutional process. The riding associations and commissions could pursue their mandates and continue their activities unaffected.

A couple of practical examples: Medicare for Autism is a cause that has tremendous support across the country. Its facebook site has over 4000 members including many prominent Liberals. Child care reform has a similar following. If the LPC took up these and other issues on a change.gov website, this would attract a significant number of uncommitted Canadians in intelligent debate over important national public policies. Our leader and the relevant caucus member could weigh in via a YouTube video. This would then circulate in other related forums and generate a ripple effect in groups of people committed to certain policy issues but not to a political party.

A national interactive website, open to everyone, is the model for the LPC to follow. We have a leader in Michael Ignatieff who, like President Obama, is able to absorb new ideas and engage in open debate very easily. And we must as a Party not only attract new members to the Party, whether through riding associations, commissions or otherwise, but also stimulate interest in the Party among uncommitted voters, and find common ground in debating issues that engage us across the country.

One final note: There is an entire community of technology experts here in Canada that has the necessary software and know-how to help establish the change.gov style website. Already in Toronto, there is a group called ChangeCamp experimenting (and twittering) with the change.gov model primarily in respect of municipal and local issues for now. The Liberal Party of Canada must be ahead of the curve in the political uses of the web at the national level, and attract the base of support that will convince Canadians that we are a credible government-in-waiting.