On demands

The Star reports on a rough outline of the NDP's position in dealing with the Cons this fall, with improvements to EI, pension protections and credit card fees as the three main issues being presented. But while there are some reasons why focusing on those issues alone might make sense, I wonder whether the NDP should be expanding its range of demands to better position itself for the campaign which is likely to follow anyway.

Let's start off with the argument in favour of limiting the NDP's message. Of the three demands which have already been made public, two of them are already fairly well established as NDP issues: while the other opposition parties may have occasionally discussed pensions and credit card fees, it's the NDP that's generally recognized as leading the charge in trying to get anything done. And while all three opposition parties have seized on EI at various times, it's both a familiar theme for the NDP and a potential feather in the party's cap if it can somehow wring some concessions out of the Cons on an issue where the Libs tried and failed miserably.

So all three issues raised so far are identified with the NDP from its actions to date, and consistent with a platform based around the interests of working Canadians. And one can make the case that a party which doesn't tend to receive as many opportunities to make its case through the media needs to stick to its existing message to reinforce its position.

But I'd think there are far stronger considerations that might point toward raising some relatively new issues now to position the NDP for a fall campaign.

First off, the wave of outrage over the Cons' Senate patronage would seem to set up an opportunity for the NDP to paint an end to that type of action as part of its required change in course.

The most obvious opportunity on that front would be to publicly demand that the Cons work toward a mutually agreeable appointment to chair the Public Appointments Commission - a commission which was of course created through the Accountability Act, then thrown out the window once one of the Cons' party bagmen was rejected as chairman. My first thought was that somebody along the lines of Duff Conacher would be ideal as a compromise - though Conacher himself has probably been speaking a bit too much truth to power to win the Cons' approval now. But by coupling a demand to fill the position with an obviously non-partisan name, the NDP could put plenty of pressure on the Cons to live up to their past principles, and be able to position itself as the defender of those principles if the Cons reject the offer.

Likewise, at least a few promised provisions of the Accountability Act fell by the wayside as the Cons decided that improved access to information and other reforms didn't serve their purposes once they were in power. And by highlighting those issues now, the NDP can rightfully break them off from the Cons' brand and take up the cause of transparent, accountable government for itself.

As for other possibilities, I'd wonder whether the NDP's focus on areas covered by its private members' bills so far might unduly limit its ability to make the case as to what it would in fact do if given the chance to govern. There's no reason why the NDP's demands should be limited to areas which don't require government expenditures (as private members' bills are required to be) - and there would seem to be plenty of opportunity to request that money budgeted but not spent by the Cons be directed both toward more sustainable development and in a less partisan manner. In other words, the NDP should be taking a close look at its past platforms, not just its bills in Parliament, and looking for some relatively inexpensive but progressive items to fit into the current fiscal framework.

Finally, with the NDP also recognizing that its initiatives would require at least a few months to pass, some type of "no poison pills" term would also seem to be desperately needed, particularly on the off chance that Harper were to decide that he's better off snapping up the NDP's offer.

Again, the odds are that the Cons will summarily reject whatever the NDP brings to the table now anyway - particularly since their goal seems to be to place the onus back on the Libs to bear the brunt of responsibility for forcing an election. But even if that's the case, I'd think it's better for the NDP to ask for more now - such as to position itself as representing a broader range of interests, and to enable it to criticize the Cons as having rejected more good ideas later - rather than leaving open any room for argument that it aimed too low.