As a person looking to support NDP in provincial election, I will definitely support the liberal party if you decide to run for leadership. You have great ideas when it comes to housing and your outspoken critique of Bill C5 shows great potential as a leader we need in Ontario. Hopefully you will decide to run!
I was a last minute campaign manager for a last minute, but a very capable young candidate. This fella organized one of the largest university OLP clubs for the present leader. One would have thought as a result of this shambolic campaign if the leader is looking to keep her job she would have contacted the loosing candidates. If not the following day but shortly afterwards however; all these months later, no contact. Kinda speaks to who & what kind of OLP leader we’re stuck with. Did I say shambolic?
I am a keen supporter of the Liberal party and you Nate! You have the intelligence, insight, energy and abilities of a great leader! Wishing you all the best!
When the leader of a provincial or federal party can’t win their own riding, it means that’s those who know them best don’t want them. It’s pretty simple.
It is also important to note that leadership demands principled action. A true leader can’t look to polls or monied supporters for policy and vision. There are times when a leader must advocate for, and implement, policies that might in fact gore somebody’s ox. Climate change is a perfect example. Ontario must electrify as quickly as possible. It will certainly be disruptive. It will be inconvenient for some, and there will be businesses for which such a development will impair their economic futures. But we are at the point at which further delay will undoubtedly impair the future lives of our children and grandchildren. Doing nothing but expressing platitudes will not help address our looming disaster.
I’d not trust Bonnie Crombie to deliver such leadership. And to be fair, I’m a bit uncertain about Mark Carney. The Israeli genocide in Gaza is a perfect example of what happens when political expediency overcomes principle; Carney has not condemned it, and is quite clearly reluctant to do so.
I do trust Nate Erskine-Smith. He’s not reluctant to take positions that put him at odds with those worshiping at the alter of political expediency. And he is highly principled to the extent that I know he would do something that was principled even if it might lead to short-term political cost.
And Ontario is in crisis. Our current Premier is a thug. He lies. He seems to be blatantly corrupt. And he is in thrall to those with money. We can’t get rid of him fast enough.
So in my view Nate is the best possible choice for the OLP and our province.
Im delighted that you've shown the 'nerve ' to reach out so clearly ... and agree with your take on how Bonnie C. doesn't have the right stuff. Im a Green ... and think Mike Shriener has the stuff but if you run I would support you ... AND Mike, ie. both, in some way. Ted Hsu is another strong one we need in the shift towards a different direction in governing Ontario
Brian, respectfully, as one who lives in Mr S’s riding he’s not anywhere near an acceptable MPP little own a “leader”. His election campaign was “I get along with everyone”. Fine if one wants to be speaker. We need a Ratpack 2.0 in the legislature hammering Mr Ford, not his pal with yet another private member’s bill that goes nowhere.
Hmmm, okay let’s cut Bonnie loose, I agree, she should be showing a sense of urgency to get a seat. Perhaps she would prefer being voted out, rather than resigning. Strange.
But take the simple path for a replacement - Ted Hsu deserves a shot at it and he has a seat. If he doesn’t create a positive view of himself, have a leadership race closer to next election.
- The next election is almost 4 years away, this is not the time to recruit excellent candidates.
- Bonnie will come to realize she is out of her realm and resign.
- Once Bonnie packs it in, ask Ted Hsu to take on interim leadership status - he's like a dog with a bone and he has a seat as a MPP.
- None of the four candidates inspired party members in the election for a party leader- only 22% bothered to vote.
- In the final round of voting at the leadership 'race', Nate garnered the vote of 6% of party members and 88% chose no one.
- Nate will come to realize that when it comes to making more of a difference he first needs to learn to play in the sandbox and get along with the other politicians, especially the leader.
Really a bad look a party leader without a seat in the house (whether short or long term 'till next election) puts the party in a disadvantaged position! The face of the party is your leader the sooner Bonnie (or any other possible challenger in whatever circumstances) gets into the house the better! If no member offers up a possibile seat that in itself is telling as party politics is a team sport! Nate's exceptionally bright and would need the almost four years to establish himself as leader (if circumstances present or any other Liberal candidate)! The best and brightest don't always prevail *see current premier* he'd need the time and could even be beneficial! Part of Liberal standard policy should include that your leader must have or be in the process of getting a seat - not doing so becomes a vote of default non-confidence! Bonnie lost and staying on without a seat is not team friendly!
Let’s be clear: Bonnie Crombie was elected Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party through a democratic, transparent, and highly engaged leadership race—a process that reportedly cost over $3 million and involved thousands of grassroots volunteers, delegates, and party members from across the province. That is not a small investment. It was a deliberate and legitimate choice by the membership to entrust Bonnie with the vision, leadership, and responsibility to rebuild and re-energize the party.
In contrast, your call of renewal looks more like a political mutiny—an attempt to redraw the map after the team has already chosen its captain. This is not how winning teams operate. In sports, business, and politics alike, rivalry within a team weakens the whole, distracts from the shared mission, and gives strength to our real opponents.
As a retired business and life coach, I’ve learned that great teams succeed not by infighting, but by aligning behind a common goal—even when they don’t agree on every tactic or decision. There is a time for internal debate, and there is a time for unified action. Right now, our focus should be on preparing for the next election, not deepening internal divides that confuse voters and fracture our momentum. Besides, in spite of the talent pool there are no guarantees for a win, unless there is unity and a shared vision that is supported by the sum of all parts.
I agree that Bonnie won fair and square, but my interpretation of a voting day turnout of 22% is that the membership wasn't 'engaged'.
If the leadership candidates were as successful at inspiring members to vote as they were (congratulating themselves) about the number of new members they recruited, it would have meant something.
I scratch my bald head when I hear this term 'grassroots' to describe a bottom-up engagement of the electorate. It sounds so warm and authentic, but a pathetic voter turnout makes me think most of the new recruits were people simply looking for something to do.
At the top of the Ontario Liberal Party you have a train wreck. They should have cut off the recruit Mike Schriener hail mary before it started. And the optics of 3 men facing off against Bonnie made it a fait accompli.
Listening to Bonnie repetitively shout that she had 'more cranes in the skies of Mississauga (while her city was the only one in Canada with negative population growth)'; overlooking the fact that she was handed the mayor's job by Hazel and municipal election voter turnout dropped and taxes increased every election after that or (my 'favourite') the nonsense about her telling us she was an expert at going toe-to-toe with Doug Ford. It was all a red flag to say, we shouldn't have this person as our leader.
In my opinion, those who would like to run for leadership would submit to an interview process (like it was an important job they were applying for) and only two (maybe three) candidates would move to the final round, where the party members would benefit from watching the candidates grilled in a debate with questions that required thoughtful answers. I would not attend another 'debate' the way they are run today. I'm looking for transparency, clarity and relevant feedback to questions, not what we got. [Note: This is a criticism of most political debates, not just the Liberal party leadership debates].
You raise valid concerns about the 22% turnout—it’s a signal that the Ontario Liberal Party has work to do in re-engaging its base. But I’d caution against dismissing the grassroots efforts outright. Many of the new members were mobilized by volunteers hoping to rebuild a party that had suffered major setbacks. Engagement takes time, and this leadership race was a first step.
On Bonnie Crombie: while criticism of her leadership style is fair, she brings real executive experience and a record of public service. She wasn’t handed Mississauga—she ran competitive campaigns and governed a complex city. Her stance against Doug Ford isn’t just rhetoric; it reflects the kind of political contrast many Ontarians are asking for.
I agree that debates need reform—more substance, less stagecraft. Your suggestion of a more rigorous, job-interview-style selection process is worth exploring. If we want better politics, we need better processes—not just sharper critiques.
Let’s focus on solutions that restore trust and relevance, not just reactions to optics.
I agree, bottom-up participation is an essential component to win an election.
My assessment of Bonnie is entirely objective and it's based on my research:
- in the first election after Hazel retired, it was a close race, but it's widely known that when Hazel declared that Bonnie had her endorsement, the race was over.
- in federal politics, Bonnie won once and did not get re-elected; she then left the federal scene. Nate, to his credit, gets re-elected.
- I've heard that she has business experience but I could never find details; I think she lived in the USA at the time - do you know more about her success in business?
- her stance against Doug Ford fell on deaf ears come election time and the flowery prose of her going toe-to-toe with him was just that - empty words that the voters ignored.
- the machinery set in place by Hazel made Mississauga success - it was not a case of fixing something that was broken.
- a review of Canada census data for the period when Bonnie was mayor is shocking - Mississauga was the only city in Canada that had negative population growth. When we need to build and house more people than ever before, didn't lead by example... the number cranes in the sky is not a metric for growth.
Nothing is guaranteed but by not being able to win one's own riding guarantees disaster for any party leader! A team sport as no one offered one up in a possibile by-election return. The teams captain should be stripped of that honor - a captain on the long-term injury list cannot function in that role! A humble resignation from Bonnie seems rather unlikely!
I’m curious. And I’d agree that she was chosen at the conclusion of a lengthy and expensive process. But it strikes me that she has in many respects failed as party leader. And her own constituents didn’t want her. How long, and based upon what evidence, do you think the party should hang on to her ??
Hi Chip, I appreciate your curiosity and the critical lens you're applying—it's important in any democratic process. However, I’d offer a few counterpoints for consideration.
First, while leadership comes with high expectations, it's essential to recognize that Bonnie Crombie inherited a party still recovering from a significant defeat and identity crisis. Rebuilding takes time, especially in a province as diverse and politically complex as Ontario. To suggest she has “failed” may be premature, particularly without acknowledging the structural and historical challenges she stepped into.
Second, the leadership race was indeed lengthy and costly—precisely because it was democratic and competitive. Bonnie Crombie won through a transparent process, engaging thousands of grassroots Liberals. That gives her a mandate, and undermining it so quickly sends a dangerous message about internal unity and respect for our own democratic institutions.
Regarding her race—yes, Bonnie Crombie lost her seat in the February 2025 Ontario general election in Mississauga East–Cooksville. Her challenge was not a lack of constituent support, but the significant funding the opposition poured into her riding, while the executive rank in file was slow to move or advice her to change strategically. Afterall, winning is still a team effort. However, it’s important not to conflate the outcome of a single riding in a snap . election, held under volatile political conditions, with a definitive judgment on her overall leadership. General election results, especially under surprise calls and low voter engagement, can be influenced by many factors beyond the leader alone—such as local dynamics, turnout, and strategic voting.
The real question isn’t how long we “hang on” to a leader—but whether we, as a party and a province, are willing to invest in long-term renewal, even when it’s uncomfortable. If we keep cutting down leaders before they can lead, we risk perpetuating the instability that has already cost us public trust.
Additionally, there are measurable gains the party made in the same short period, namely: Official Party Status Restored – 8 to 14 seat – 75% growth rate; Vote Share Bounce-Back- nearly 30% of the popular vote—the strongest result since before the 2018 collapse; Fundraising Momentum - under Crombie, the party raised an unprecedented $5.4 million from over 80,000 individual donations, the most since fundraising rules changed in 2016.
Ms. Crombie brings (business and political) experience, centrist appeal, and pragmatism—qualities the party needs if it wants to compete with both the Ford government and the NDP. Critique is fair—but let’s also give space for vision, strategy, and growth to take root.
Much like in sports or politics, wisdom lies in giving a leader the full season before rushing to judgment. A few early setbacks don't define the final outcome, nor do they reflect the true potential of a renewed and unified team.
Leadership is tested not merely in moments of triumph, but in resilience, strategic thinking, and commitment to the long game. We shouldn't abandon our best hope for renewal before the comeback has had a chance to unfold.
I will certainly be more keenly supportive of the Ontario Liberal Party with you as its leader.
bot
Takes one to know one!
As a person looking to support NDP in provincial election, I will definitely support the liberal party if you decide to run for leadership. You have great ideas when it comes to housing and your outspoken critique of Bill C5 shows great potential as a leader we need in Ontario. Hopefully you will decide to run!
I was a last minute campaign manager for a last minute, but a very capable young candidate. This fella organized one of the largest university OLP clubs for the present leader. One would have thought as a result of this shambolic campaign if the leader is looking to keep her job she would have contacted the loosing candidates. If not the following day but shortly afterwards however; all these months later, no contact. Kinda speaks to who & what kind of OLP leader we’re stuck with. Did I say shambolic?
I am a keen supporter of the Liberal party and you Nate! You have the intelligence, insight, energy and abilities of a great leader! Wishing you all the best!
man, the bots are out in force
When the leader of a provincial or federal party can’t win their own riding, it means that’s those who know them best don’t want them. It’s pretty simple.
It is also important to note that leadership demands principled action. A true leader can’t look to polls or monied supporters for policy and vision. There are times when a leader must advocate for, and implement, policies that might in fact gore somebody’s ox. Climate change is a perfect example. Ontario must electrify as quickly as possible. It will certainly be disruptive. It will be inconvenient for some, and there will be businesses for which such a development will impair their economic futures. But we are at the point at which further delay will undoubtedly impair the future lives of our children and grandchildren. Doing nothing but expressing platitudes will not help address our looming disaster.
I’d not trust Bonnie Crombie to deliver such leadership. And to be fair, I’m a bit uncertain about Mark Carney. The Israeli genocide in Gaza is a perfect example of what happens when political expediency overcomes principle; Carney has not condemned it, and is quite clearly reluctant to do so.
I do trust Nate Erskine-Smith. He’s not reluctant to take positions that put him at odds with those worshiping at the alter of political expediency. And he is highly principled to the extent that I know he would do something that was principled even if it might lead to short-term political cost.
And Ontario is in crisis. Our current Premier is a thug. He lies. He seems to be blatantly corrupt. And he is in thrall to those with money. We can’t get rid of him fast enough.
So in my view Nate is the best possible choice for the OLP and our province.
Im delighted that you've shown the 'nerve ' to reach out so clearly ... and agree with your take on how Bonnie C. doesn't have the right stuff. Im a Green ... and think Mike Shriener has the stuff but if you run I would support you ... AND Mike, ie. both, in some way. Ted Hsu is another strong one we need in the shift towards a different direction in governing Ontario
There's no way you live in the riding. If you did, you wouldn't be blowing smoke about Nathan
Brian, respectfully, as one who lives in Mr S’s riding he’s not anywhere near an acceptable MPP little own a “leader”. His election campaign was “I get along with everyone”. Fine if one wants to be speaker. We need a Ratpack 2.0 in the legislature hammering Mr Ford, not his pal with yet another private member’s bill that goes nowhere.
Conventions are too expensive for most members. Even as an EDA member, I never went!
Hmmm, okay let’s cut Bonnie loose, I agree, she should be showing a sense of urgency to get a seat. Perhaps she would prefer being voted out, rather than resigning. Strange.
But take the simple path for a replacement - Ted Hsu deserves a shot at it and he has a seat. If he doesn’t create a positive view of himself, have a leadership race closer to next election.
My thoughts:
- The next election is almost 4 years away, this is not the time to recruit excellent candidates.
- Bonnie will come to realize she is out of her realm and resign.
- Once Bonnie packs it in, ask Ted Hsu to take on interim leadership status - he's like a dog with a bone and he has a seat as a MPP.
- None of the four candidates inspired party members in the election for a party leader- only 22% bothered to vote.
- In the final round of voting at the leadership 'race', Nate garnered the vote of 6% of party members and 88% chose no one.
- Nate will come to realize that when it comes to making more of a difference he first needs to learn to play in the sandbox and get along with the other politicians, especially the leader.
Really a bad look a party leader without a seat in the house (whether short or long term 'till next election) puts the party in a disadvantaged position! The face of the party is your leader the sooner Bonnie (or any other possible challenger in whatever circumstances) gets into the house the better! If no member offers up a possibile seat that in itself is telling as party politics is a team sport! Nate's exceptionally bright and would need the almost four years to establish himself as leader (if circumstances present or any other Liberal candidate)! The best and brightest don't always prevail *see current premier* he'd need the time and could even be beneficial! Part of Liberal standard policy should include that your leader must have or be in the process of getting a seat - not doing so becomes a vote of default non-confidence! Bonnie lost and staying on without a seat is not team friendly!
Let’s be clear: Bonnie Crombie was elected Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party through a democratic, transparent, and highly engaged leadership race—a process that reportedly cost over $3 million and involved thousands of grassroots volunteers, delegates, and party members from across the province. That is not a small investment. It was a deliberate and legitimate choice by the membership to entrust Bonnie with the vision, leadership, and responsibility to rebuild and re-energize the party.
In contrast, your call of renewal looks more like a political mutiny—an attempt to redraw the map after the team has already chosen its captain. This is not how winning teams operate. In sports, business, and politics alike, rivalry within a team weakens the whole, distracts from the shared mission, and gives strength to our real opponents.
As a retired business and life coach, I’ve learned that great teams succeed not by infighting, but by aligning behind a common goal—even when they don’t agree on every tactic or decision. There is a time for internal debate, and there is a time for unified action. Right now, our focus should be on preparing for the next election, not deepening internal divides that confuse voters and fracture our momentum. Besides, in spite of the talent pool there are no guarantees for a win, unless there is unity and a shared vision that is supported by the sum of all parts.
I agree that Bonnie won fair and square, but my interpretation of a voting day turnout of 22% is that the membership wasn't 'engaged'.
If the leadership candidates were as successful at inspiring members to vote as they were (congratulating themselves) about the number of new members they recruited, it would have meant something.
I scratch my bald head when I hear this term 'grassroots' to describe a bottom-up engagement of the electorate. It sounds so warm and authentic, but a pathetic voter turnout makes me think most of the new recruits were people simply looking for something to do.
At the top of the Ontario Liberal Party you have a train wreck. They should have cut off the recruit Mike Schriener hail mary before it started. And the optics of 3 men facing off against Bonnie made it a fait accompli.
Listening to Bonnie repetitively shout that she had 'more cranes in the skies of Mississauga (while her city was the only one in Canada with negative population growth)'; overlooking the fact that she was handed the mayor's job by Hazel and municipal election voter turnout dropped and taxes increased every election after that or (my 'favourite') the nonsense about her telling us she was an expert at going toe-to-toe with Doug Ford. It was all a red flag to say, we shouldn't have this person as our leader.
In my opinion, those who would like to run for leadership would submit to an interview process (like it was an important job they were applying for) and only two (maybe three) candidates would move to the final round, where the party members would benefit from watching the candidates grilled in a debate with questions that required thoughtful answers. I would not attend another 'debate' the way they are run today. I'm looking for transparency, clarity and relevant feedback to questions, not what we got. [Note: This is a criticism of most political debates, not just the Liberal party leadership debates].
You raise valid concerns about the 22% turnout—it’s a signal that the Ontario Liberal Party has work to do in re-engaging its base. But I’d caution against dismissing the grassroots efforts outright. Many of the new members were mobilized by volunteers hoping to rebuild a party that had suffered major setbacks. Engagement takes time, and this leadership race was a first step.
On Bonnie Crombie: while criticism of her leadership style is fair, she brings real executive experience and a record of public service. She wasn’t handed Mississauga—she ran competitive campaigns and governed a complex city. Her stance against Doug Ford isn’t just rhetoric; it reflects the kind of political contrast many Ontarians are asking for.
I agree that debates need reform—more substance, less stagecraft. Your suggestion of a more rigorous, job-interview-style selection process is worth exploring. If we want better politics, we need better processes—not just sharper critiques.
Let’s focus on solutions that restore trust and relevance, not just reactions to optics.
Thank you, Roy for your constructive feedback.
I agree, bottom-up participation is an essential component to win an election.
My assessment of Bonnie is entirely objective and it's based on my research:
- in the first election after Hazel retired, it was a close race, but it's widely known that when Hazel declared that Bonnie had her endorsement, the race was over.
- in federal politics, Bonnie won once and did not get re-elected; she then left the federal scene. Nate, to his credit, gets re-elected.
- I've heard that she has business experience but I could never find details; I think she lived in the USA at the time - do you know more about her success in business?
- her stance against Doug Ford fell on deaf ears come election time and the flowery prose of her going toe-to-toe with him was just that - empty words that the voters ignored.
- the machinery set in place by Hazel made Mississauga success - it was not a case of fixing something that was broken.
- a review of Canada census data for the period when Bonnie was mayor is shocking - Mississauga was the only city in Canada that had negative population growth. When we need to build and house more people than ever before, didn't lead by example... the number cranes in the sky is not a metric for growth.
I do appreciate your reply.
Nothing is guaranteed but by not being able to win one's own riding guarantees disaster for any party leader! A team sport as no one offered one up in a possibile by-election return. The teams captain should be stripped of that honor - a captain on the long-term injury list cannot function in that role! A humble resignation from Bonnie seems rather unlikely!
That’s a thoughtful and reasonable assessment. Thanks for making such an effort.
I’m curious. And I’d agree that she was chosen at the conclusion of a lengthy and expensive process. But it strikes me that she has in many respects failed as party leader. And her own constituents didn’t want her. How long, and based upon what evidence, do you think the party should hang on to her ??
Hi Chip, I appreciate your curiosity and the critical lens you're applying—it's important in any democratic process. However, I’d offer a few counterpoints for consideration.
First, while leadership comes with high expectations, it's essential to recognize that Bonnie Crombie inherited a party still recovering from a significant defeat and identity crisis. Rebuilding takes time, especially in a province as diverse and politically complex as Ontario. To suggest she has “failed” may be premature, particularly without acknowledging the structural and historical challenges she stepped into.
Second, the leadership race was indeed lengthy and costly—precisely because it was democratic and competitive. Bonnie Crombie won through a transparent process, engaging thousands of grassroots Liberals. That gives her a mandate, and undermining it so quickly sends a dangerous message about internal unity and respect for our own democratic institutions.
Regarding her race—yes, Bonnie Crombie lost her seat in the February 2025 Ontario general election in Mississauga East–Cooksville. Her challenge was not a lack of constituent support, but the significant funding the opposition poured into her riding, while the executive rank in file was slow to move or advice her to change strategically. Afterall, winning is still a team effort. However, it’s important not to conflate the outcome of a single riding in a snap . election, held under volatile political conditions, with a definitive judgment on her overall leadership. General election results, especially under surprise calls and low voter engagement, can be influenced by many factors beyond the leader alone—such as local dynamics, turnout, and strategic voting.
The real question isn’t how long we “hang on” to a leader—but whether we, as a party and a province, are willing to invest in long-term renewal, even when it’s uncomfortable. If we keep cutting down leaders before they can lead, we risk perpetuating the instability that has already cost us public trust.
Additionally, there are measurable gains the party made in the same short period, namely: Official Party Status Restored – 8 to 14 seat – 75% growth rate; Vote Share Bounce-Back- nearly 30% of the popular vote—the strongest result since before the 2018 collapse; Fundraising Momentum - under Crombie, the party raised an unprecedented $5.4 million from over 80,000 individual donations, the most since fundraising rules changed in 2016.
Ms. Crombie brings (business and political) experience, centrist appeal, and pragmatism—qualities the party needs if it wants to compete with both the Ford government and the NDP. Critique is fair—but let’s also give space for vision, strategy, and growth to take root.
Much like in sports or politics, wisdom lies in giving a leader the full season before rushing to judgment. A few early setbacks don't define the final outcome, nor do they reflect the true potential of a renewed and unified team.
Leadership is tested not merely in moments of triumph, but in resilience, strategic thinking, and commitment to the long game. We shouldn't abandon our best hope for renewal before the comeback has had a chance to unfold.
Takes one to know one.
You are literally money for nothing.