- Niki Ashton appealed to NDP members to consider the need to build among younger voters.
- Co-campaign manager Jamey Heath took to the opinion pages in defence of Nathan Cullen's joint nomination proposal. But I seem to recall much of the same argument being applied to a rather different conclusion (emphasis added):
The NDP needs to grow and add a part, in small-l liberals who have concluded the big-L Liberal charade is too hollow to support. It is like Lego, and if we want a bigger progressive party we are going to have to build it, to mirror the clout social democrats and environmentalists use in Europe to great effect. But the meaningless middle needs to go first. Taking lefty Liberals as welcome refugees, of course.- Paul Wells profiled Paul Dewar:
What counts is organization, acceptability to many of the party’s assorted factions, and a general sense that a candidate incarnates New Democrats’ sense of themselves.- Thomas Mulcair unveiled about the most significant endorsement possible at this stage of the campaign, as Romeo Saganash (who once seemed to have a path to the leadership based largely on his being an alternative to Mulcair as a high-profile Quebec MP) offered his support to the front-runner.
And by those less tangible criteria, Dewar is having a pretty good winter. His record of strong performance in the House of Commons on foreign policy issues—in English—is an asset. “I’ve watched Stephen Harper,” he said in an interview. “I know how to handle him. This isn’t someone who loses his cool. But he makes others lose their cool and their focus. And I’m not going to do that.”
He also speaks a lot about wanting to run “issue-based campaigns” in the same way Harper’s Conservatives do, rallying party members around specific hot-button issues that motivate them to donate, organize and vote. “I don’t like the issues they run on, but they’ve done the organization well,” he said. “We’ve got to do the same.”
- Peggy Nash took Rabble's questions, including this answer on her plans to build the NDP:
Nothing wins the air war like bold ideas and clear direction. This past week I put forward the type of plan that can draw a lot of attention and sway a lot of voters. I think one of the main things we have to champion in the next 4 years is that of bringing in a proportional representation voting system.- And Brian Topp was interviewed by the Huffington Post's Althia Raj.
People have felt so disconnected for so long from the electoral process because the outcome doesn't reflect their vote. I know the NDP has proposed this in the past, but we can shake things up and get people excited about implementing real change and getting a system where the parties actually cooperate with each other. Imagine if we could convince Canadians that their vote could actually bring the change they've wanted for so long.
For this we have to move beyond the platform. We need active campaigns across the country that includes civil society, NGOs, our riding associations and our MPs. We can't just talk about our ideas anymore. We need to use new social media and new outreach methods to connect with people and get them excited about CHANGE -- not just ideas.
If we remain bold and exciting and don't shy away from risks, I think we'll sway the 40% that didn't even bother to vote this last election.
- Alice noted that recent fund-raising data actually has Cullen in front of the rest of the field, while Thomas Walkom saw Cullen's success as a plus for Mulcair. Quinn evaluated the entire field of candidates, while Ryan considered a choice between Mulcair and Dewar. Don Newman figured the Cons' fear of Mulcair is reason enough to choose him, and Le Devoir offered Mulcair its endorsement. Peter O'Neil reported that the Nash and Topp camps aren't planning on joining forces as the race reaches its conclusion. The Hill Times compiled a thorough list of endorsements. Fair Vote Canada evaluated the candidates' position on electoral reform. And CBC's At Issue panel discussed the leadership campaign:
Ecch! Should probably put a big disclaimer on that last video.
ReplyDeleteCBC's 'At Issue' only reflects the range of debate within the Liberal party. The panelists are two conservative Liberals (Anderson & Coyne) & one centrist Liberal (Hebert).
Not alone in this, CTV launched something called 'National Affairs'. The show teams up one Conservative (Keridan) with two centrist Liberals (Griffiths & Reid).
More confirmation that the Liberal party is indeed the media party".
And even more confirmation that Lawrence Martin was correct when, last year, he pointed out that the NDP has a constituency of ZERO in the media (print & broadcast).
Something for the new leader to consider when the Conservative character assassination campaign begins. Outsourcing his/her defense, as the Liberals (Dion & Ignatieff) did, is not an option.
<span>Ecch! Should probably put a big disclaimer on that last video.
ReplyDeleteCBC's 'At Issue' only reflects the range of debate within the Liberal party. The panelists are two conservative Liberals (Anderson & Coyne) & one centrist Liberal (Hebert).
Not alone in this, CTV launched something called 'National Affairs'. The show teams up one Conservative (Keridan) with two centrist Liberals (Griffiths & Reid).
More confirmation that the Liberal party is indeed the "media party".
And even more confirmation that Lawrence Martin was correct when, last year, he pointed out that the NDP has a constituency of ZERO in the media (print & broadcast). An unheard of situation for any official-opposition party in a western democracy (according to Lawrence Martin).
Something for the new leader to consider when the Conservative character assassination campaign begins. Outsourcing his/her defense, as the Liberals (Dion & Ignatieff) did, is not an option.</span>
Good to see this comment from Paul Dewar:
ReplyDeleteHe also speaks a lot about wanting to run “issue-based campaigns” in the same way Harper’s Conservatives do, rallying party members around specific hot-button issues that motivate them to donate, organize and vote. “I don’t like the issues they run on, but they’ve done the organization well,” he said. “We’ve got to do the same.”
Unlike Nathan Cullen who believes he's above "rolling in the mud"...Dewar, Topp & Mulcair realize that "the mud" is precisely where the large mass of simple/innocent voters work & live.
These folks are not academics, they don't follow politics religiously. They're open to bold emotional messaging (otherwise known as "fear-mongering" among politicos) because they inherently trust that the messenger is on their side.
We disagree with the neo-Conservatives. But Dewar cleverly implies that we should respect their achievements. Remember that when they arrived on the scene, they were much like the NDP...unpalatable to the media establishment & even voters. They refused to accept their place and proactively courted the larger mass of voters with simple messaging. In the end, they went from being untrustworthy outsiders to forming majority government.
Specifics can always be debated (like does that mean we "lie", which I don't believe the Conservatives have done much in their comms strategy)...but remaining idle & oblivious (as Cullen suggests) is not an option.
I'd distinguish between "rolling in the mud" and issue-based campaigns - while the Cons have won power with mud-slinging for the consumption of less-informed voters, they've largely funded that with issue-based fund-raising aimed at a reliable set of targets (the gun registry, the CBC, etc.). The fund-raising prowess is something we'll need to match - even if we also need to be able to find more positive uses for the money.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that the panel discussion was pretty painful, but was curious to see if any readers would make the point. :)
ReplyDeleteNot that I'd describe the panelists that way, but it's painful to watch commentators who can be as smart as those three (at least on the right issues) offer such a ludicrous description of NDP member thought processes.