DwightDuncan

On Bonnie Crombie’s Leadership Review: Bonnie Crombie is my best friend’s mum. I worked on her mayoral campaigns. We’re close. And I admire Nate Erskine-Smith—frankly, I’d have supported him had Bonnie not run. But like the majority of the party, I ultimately backed Bonnie because she offered a more complete political package: stronger fundraising, retail skills, the ability to build a diverse team and, most importantly, a willingness to grow. She’d often admit she wasn’t the smartest person in the room—but she could lead it. Nate, by contrast, had flashes of brilliance. He’s eloquent, thoughtful and principled. But he struggled to overcome some of his blind spots or adapt strategically as the campaign unfolded. Both have had a tough year. Bonnie led the party into an election called at a moment of maximum advantage for Premier Ford: when the country felt under threat and Ford was acting, in effect, like a national father figure. Any Ontario Liberal leader, barring a miracle, would have lost that race. (For a similar dynamic, see Polievre, Pierre, April 2025.) Still, under Bonnie, the party gained ground: in popular vote, in seats, and—critically—regained official party status. Not quite as many seats as I expected, certainly less than I’d hoped for, but gains nonetheless. Nate, meanwhile, looked ready to step away from federal politics to spend more time with his young family—until offered a cabinet post, only to be demoted by the new Prime Minister. That clearly stung. His recent public comments have been noticeably bitter. Bonnie, for her part, seems to be moving through subtler stages of political grief. Now, Nate has thrown down the gauntlet, turning the party’s AGM vote on whether to trigger a leadership race into a de facto rematch. But if the question is: “who would have done better in February’s election?”, we have to be honest. Bonnie out-fundraised Nate considerably during the leadership. She built relationships with the press gallery. When she won, she hired top talent from all her leadership rivals. She moved decisively on housing and healthcare, in some cases going further than Nate on an abundance agenda. Could Nate have done better than her this winter? Maybe. But could he have done materially better, given the circumstances? I doubt it. It’s doubtful he’d have had the financial resources. Truthfully, he might even have done worse.  The party deserves a real debate about strategy, tone and direction. But it’s also worth noting that the caucus members who won campaigns right now aren’t backing Nate’s push to oust Bonnie. There’s a reason for that. Politics is a team sport. You can dismiss this as “that’s just, like, your opinion, man”—and it is. But it’s an opinion informed by an honest view of the challenges ahead (I’m almost always the most pessimistic voice she hears from). Bonnie’s not perfect, but she’s earned the chance to grow—and I hope the party lets her. The question isn’t, ultimately, who would’ve done better in the last race; it’s who’s willing to grow for the next one.  #onpoli