Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Leadership 2012 Roundup

Apparently there have been a few developments in the NDP's leadership race - and indeed enough that I'll likely need to apply a bit more a filter on what I catalogue in my roundup posts. (In particular, I'll generally stop pointing out survey or event-based coverage which doesn't add much by way of new content, as well as setting a higher standard for endorsements and policy announcements to count as newsworthy.)

With that in mind, let's run through some of what's new over the past few days other than the polls already discussed here.

- Paul Dewar's campaign largely set the tone for the start of the week - both by releasing its internal polling results, and by implicitly slamming other candidates (if not by name) as likely to abandon the party's principles.

- Thomas Mulcair lowered his expectations for his own Quebec membership drive, but . Meanwhile, Bruce Anderson commented on Mulcair's effective challenge to NDP voters to accept different positions than the party has proposed in the past.

- Peggy Nash issued a clarification on the role the federal government should play in eliminating the need for health care user fees, though not before Colby Cosh noted her position with interest and Thomas Walkom lamented her answer in Sunday's debate. Nash then found stronger ground in defending the ability of workers to retire at 65. Tim Harper wrote about Nash's strategy of presenting herself as a consensus-builder, including her response to the question of whether she should be discounted based on the NDP's limited success under Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough:
In fact, the McLaughlin-McDonough era gives pause in some elements in this party about choosing another female consensus-builder, even in the party that has worked harder to achieve gender parity than either of the other two main federal parties.

“Does that mean the Liberals won’t be electing another man?" Nash asks.
- Brian Topp unveiled the endorsement of Doris Layton - which may hold plenty of sentimental sway as the race draws to a close.

- Finally, on the commentary side, John Ibbitson theorized following Sunday's debate that the leadership campaign will involve a decision whether or not to abandon social democracy to move to the centre - though I'm not entirely sure how he placed Topp on the centrist part of any divide. Andrew Coyne mused about a similar question while noting that the effect of going toward the centre might be to lose an identity that has served the NDP well. Lawrence Martin scratched the surface of the possibility of end-of-campaign alliances which might determine the campaign's outcome. Vincent Marissal criticized the length of the campaign, but without offering any obvious explanation as to how a shorter leadership race would have made a different for the decision faced by NDP members. Stephen's list of factors to consider in deciding how to vote is well worth a look. And the last word goes to Alice's latest analysis.

2 comments:

  1. Purple Library Guy1:58 p.m.

    Coyne actually makes a lot of sense.  I don't agree with what he says about Quebec, but his points about party identity, ideology and their relationship with popularity are to my thinking bang on.
    Coyne is in general something that's really quite rare these days--a commentator who is ideologically right wing, and yet neither an idiot nor a frothing zealot.
    I do disagree about Quebec, though.  Unlike Coyne, I think the NDP actually has a very good chance of holding onto at least most of its Quebec seats next election, due both to the generally good fit between the Quebecois ideological centre of gravity and the NDP's politics, and to the fact that pretty much all the other federal parties including the Bloc are deeply damaged right now vis-a-vis Quebec.  Sure, lots could go wrong, but if the Bloc doesn't salvage itself, and Quebec doesn't hate the new NDP leader, and the Cons don't do a miraculous transformation into people the average Quebecker can stand, and the Liberals don't do that impressive a turnaround, we'd be in a position where if we blew the election in Quebec it would be our own fault.
    Funny, I respect Coyne's intelligence and disagree with him ideologically, and yet here is this column where I agree with his points about ideology and disagree with his tactical assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. jurist7:19 a.m.

    Agreed on most counts. But I do think Quebec is going to be a bit more complicated: as best I can tell both the Cons and Libs mostly wrote off any prospect of gains in 2011 on the assumption that the Bloc would remain the dominant force, and even a relatively modest push for seats now held by the NDP will change that dynamic in 2015. (Which isn't to say that the NDP doesn't have a chance of holding or gaining on its current total - only that it'll face a tougher multi-party fight to get there.)

    ReplyDelete