On strategic interests

Let's follow up on my earlier posts with a final question as to the NDP's handling of per-vote funding: namely, should it be sufficiently concerned about Con populist messaging to be willing to give ground on the issue if it wouldn't otherwise plan to do so?

Of course, there isn't much doubt that the Cons will continue to trumpet the issue as long as the funding exists. But that doesn't mean the NDP can avoid the effect of the Cons' messaging simply by giving in on one issue: just look how much the opposition parties' many concessions to the Cons' crime agenda have done to stop their posturing on that point.

Instead, if public funding of campaigns is taken off the table, then the Cons will move on to the Senate or other issues as supposed evidence of their populist bona fides - and now with a greater relative advantage in what they can afford to spend to drown out competing messages.

In other words, the question for the NDP is whether to draw the line at party funding or at some other issue in trying to counter the Cons' more general populist positioning. And there's ample reason to see per-vote funding as fitting nicely with plenty of the NDP's other messages.

After all, doesn't the NDP want to promote the general principle that political involvement is a socially valuable activity rather than a purely private interest? Or that public funding is appropriate for such activities to ensure that private wealth doesn't dictate the terms of debate? Or how about that all votes have value and should serve some broader purpose, even if they're directed toward a party who doesn't happen to win the FPTP lottery in a particular riding?

As best I can tell, those are exactly the types of questions where the NDP will need to take on the Cons head-on in order to seriously challenge for populist votes. And they match perfectly with the debate over per-vote funding.

Moreover, the NDP may have some significant strategic interests in taking up the cause based on the arguments the Cons are using against it. Sure, Bloc-bashing plays well among the Reform base - but if the NDP's road to further gains involves winning over a substantial number of current Bloc supporters, might it not help matters to push back against that argument and speak up for the principle that Quebeckers' votes count just as much as those elsewhere? And for all her faults, isn't Elizabeth May relatively open about praising other parties who support her positions - meaning that she may help to validate the NDP as a populist option if it takes the lead on an issue which is obviously vital to her party?

In effect, the debate over per-vote funding looks to be a golden opportunity to start assembling the pieces of the coalition which the NDP will need to put together in order to win power federally. Whereas agreeing with the Cons will serve to win exactly nobody over to the NDP's side, since any move to validate the Harper government's spin will only help to solidify Con support.

As a result, the NDP is best served positioning itself as the defender of the principle that parties ought to be motivated to win broad support through public funding. And while that course of action may not actually serve to save the current per-vote funding (after all, there have been plenty of musings among the Libs' supporters about playing along with the Cons), the strategy should pay off in the long term both in the values emphasized and in the friends won through the effort.

(Edit: fixed typo.)