Saviours Need Not Apply

Today I saw the first reference to the supposed Liberal desire for a "saviour." This is a common theme during Liberal leadership races, in which journalists like to paint the party as "lost in the wilderness" and in search of "the new Trudeau" to rescue them. Give me a break.

In my last two posts I've talked about the pre-eminent need for the Liberal Party to get the right leadership. I strongly believe the party cannot make the changes it needs without a leader that can take the party through that change. But let me make one thing clear, I am not looking for a saviour and neither should the party. I imagine a saviour to be someone who will take the party upon their shoulders and single-handedly bring it back to electoral victory. Yes, it's been done before and in many regards it's what Harper has done with the Conservative Party, but that could be the worse thing to happen to the Liberal Party (ok, not quite the worse) at this time.

As has been widely stated in blogs and mainstream media the Liberal Party needs some significant changes to its infrastructure, fundraising and grassroots engagement. What's needed is a competent manager who can bring people together, generate consensus, and competently implement a system of change. Success will breed support and with that will come voter support and cash - which can be harvested through improved methods that fit with the new election finance laws. And while charisma and inspiration are important, they don't have to be at the "saviour" level. Harper is an unpopular individual who is benefitting by reducing people's expectations and keeping the opposition divided and off-balance. A competent, progressive and successful leader of the Liberal Party will not have to be enormously charismatic in order to replace Harper as the most popular in the land.

So saviours need not apply, the Liberal Party is ready for change and has plenty of talent to make this a team effort.