But my goal is to start a wider discussion rather than merely satisfying my own curiosity. And so before I actually send the requests, I'll share a first draft of the questions I'll plan to have dealt with (subject to minor variation based on a candidate's stated position on these issues) - and encourage readers to provide comments and suggestions.
1. As leader, what changes (if any) would you seek to make to the NDP's:Again, I'll highly encourage any suggestions to revise the above to better answer the questions of what we want to do as a party and how best to get there within the leadership campaign. And ideally I'll also hope for some discussion as to what answers we'd see as the best from the perspective of the party as a whole.
(a) caucus management and discipline?
(b) membership engagement and organizational structure?
(c) policy development process?
(d) relationship to other political parties?
(e) relationship to traditional allies in the labour, environmental and social justice movements?
(f) relationship to interests not traditionally allied with the NDP?
2. As leader of the NDP, what roles would you anticipate within the party for:
(a) each of your fellow leadership candidates?
(b) any noteworthy organizers, volunteers or other participants in the leadership campaign on behalf of the other leadership candidates?
(c) the NDP's campaign team members from recent federal elections?
3. If another candidate is elected leader, what other role do you believe would suit you best within the NDP?
You might want to ask about changes to candidate selection, vetting and approval. (I mean candidates for MP, not leader)
ReplyDeleteGreg,
ReplyDeleteI would ask a more fundamental question of all the candidates:
"The NDP is a principled social-democratic institution. With one-member/one-vote, and the party's newfound proximity to power...how will the NDP prevent itself from turning into an unprincipled power-driven institution like the Liberal party?"
As for your question "package"...it's satisfying in an academic sense. But because it's so broadly worded, I imagine the candidates will miss the underlying concerns behind your questions. The responses may be unsatisfying as a result.
As I understand it, you are concerned that our potential leader intends to insulate himself from the influence of the membership...thereby giving himself the power take decisions that run counter to the NDP's principles/policies.
If this interpretation is correct, then consider being more direct:
"How can NDP members ensure you adhere to our desired policies/principles AFTER the leadership contest? Or are we just expected to hand out lawn signs & cheer no matter what decisions you take?"
That sort of approach leaves the candidate with very little wiggle room. He'll realize that anything short of clear support for institutional checks & balances will leave him looking vulnerable. Any obfuscation or deflection will look like a transparent attempt to mask devious intentions.
OFF TOPIC - ON THE RECENT NDP DEBATES,
ReplyDeleteWhile all the press & pundits were bemoaning the tedious nature of the debates...they did so as outsiders craving the sexual innuendo & outlandish ranting of the American Republican party contest. A bit of bias was evident, as these same press/pundit types seemingly forgot about the tedious agreement club that was the American Democratic party contest. Without Kucinich & Gravel, the contest was merely Obama & Clinton arguing over who had the most concerns over NAFTA.
As an NDP member, I did find the NDP debates to be rather dull affairs...but not for the above reasons. While policy is important, there's something that the debates could not tell me: How will a candidate fare against a Conservative line of attack?
IMO, it was the actual Federal election debates which triggered the NDP's rise from 4th to 2nd. Jack Layton's ability to display competence & strength in the face of the hostile scorn of his rivals proved vital to the party's image.
The NDP debates tell me very little about how the candidates would fare against a determined opponent from the Liberal & Conservative ranks. It's one thing to have some disagreement within the polite company that is the NDP. But it's another thing to face a challenger who viscerally despises your principles/policies. Such an adversary would not hold back as the NDP candidates do against each other.
I've previously commented on the valuable service the website "KnowMulcair" provides. It gave me an opportunity to see how Mulcair would react when faced with a determined smear campaign. The results were not to my liking.
Today, I came across this article by Joan Bryden on Martin Singh's attacks on Topp/Nash. In it, MP Boivin laments:
Quebec MP Francoise Boivin, who has endorsed Topp, says she was a "bit surprised and taken aback" by Singh's attack on Topp in Montreal. She felt she'd been transported for a moment to question period in the House of Commons.
"I expect that from the Conservatives, not from someone from my own party," she says.
Indeed. It is precisely the Conservative line of attack that we needed to see in these NDP debates. Though it's too late to suggest it now, what would have made the NDP debates more interesting & fruitful would have been the inclusion of a Conservative & Liberal debater. Their participation could have taken the form of a "segment" with each candidate. Their backgrounds could be as varied as mere party activists or specially invited party stalwarts.
Regardless, we could have seen how NDP leadership contestants fared when faced with their rivals lines of attack.
OFF TOPIC - ON THE RECENT NDP DEBATES,
ReplyDeleteWhile all the press & pundits were bemoaning the tedious nature of the debates...they did so as outsiders craving the sexual innuendo & outlandish ranting of the American Republican party contest. A bit of bias was evident, as these same press/pundit types seemingly forgot about the tedious agreement club that was the American Democratic party contest. Without Kucinich & Gravel, the contest was merely Obama & Clinton arguing over who had the most concerns over NAFTA.
As an NDP member, I did find the NDP debates to be rather dull affairs...but not for the above reasons. While policy is important, there's something that the debates could not tell me: How will a candidate fare against a Conservative line of attack?
IMO, it was the actual Federal election debates which triggered the NDP's rise from 4th to 2nd. Jack Layton's ability to display competence & strength in the face of the hostile scorn of his rivals proved vital to the party's image.
The NDP debates tell me very little about how the candidates would fare against a determined opponent from the Liberal & Conservative ranks. It's one thing to have some disagreement within the polite company that is the NDP. But it's another thing to face a challenger who viscerally despises your principles/policies. Such an adversary would not hold back as the NDP candidates do against each other.
I've previously commented on the valuable service the website "KnowMulcair" provides. It gave me an opportunity to see how Mulcair would react when faced with a determined smear campaign. The results were not to my liking.
Today, I came across this article by Joan Bryden on Martin Singh's attacks on Topp/Nash. In it, MP Boivin laments:
Quebec MP Francoise Boivin, who has endorsed Topp, says she was a "bit surprised and taken aback" by Singh's attack on Topp in Montreal. She felt she'd been transported for a moment to question period in the House of Commons. "I expect that from the Conservatives, not from someone from my own party," she says.
Indeed. It is precisely the Conservative line of attack that we needed to see in these NDP debates. Though it's too late to suggest it now, what would have made the NDP debates more interesting & fruitful would have been the inclusion of a Conservative & Liberal debater. Their participation could have taken the form of a "segment" with each candidate. Their backgrounds could be as varied as mere party activists or specially invited party stalwarts.
Regardless, we could have seen how NDP leadership contestants fared when faced with their rivals lines of attack.
OFF TOPIC - ON THE RECENT NDP DEBATES,
ReplyDeleteWhile all the press & pundits were bemoaning the tedious nature of the debates...they did so as outsiders craving the sexual innuendo & outlandish ranting of the American Republican party contest. A bit of bias was evident, as these same press/pundit types seemingly forgot about the tedious agreement club that was the American Democratic party contest. Without Kucinich & Gravel, the contest was merely Obama & Clinton arguing over who had the most concerns over NAFTA.
As an NDP member, I did find the NDP debates to be rather dull affairs...but not for the above reasons. While policy is important, there's something that the debates could not tell me: How will a candidate fare against a Conservative line of attack?
IMO, it was the actual Federal election debates which triggered the NDP's rise from 4th to 2nd. Jack Layton's ability to display competence & strength in the face of the hostile scorn of his rivals proved vital to the party's image.
The NDP debates tell me very little about how the candidates would fare against a determined opponent from the Liberal & Conservative ranks. It's one thing to have some disagreement within the polite company that is the NDP. But it's another thing to face a challenger who viscerally despises your principles/policies. Such an adversary would not hold back as the NDP candidates do against each other.
I've previously commented on the valuable service the website "KnowMulcair" provides. It gave me an opportunity to see how Mulcair would react when faced with a determined smear campaign. The results were not to my liking.
Today, I came across this article by Joan Bryden on Martin Singh's attacks on Topp/Nash. In it, MP Boivin laments:
Quebec MP Francoise Boivin, who has endorsed Topp, says she was a "bit surprised and taken aback" by Singh's attack on Topp in Montreal. She felt she'd been transported for a moment to question period in the House of Commons. "I expect that from the Conservatives, not from someone from my own party," she says.
Indeed. It is precisely the Conservative line of attack that we needed to see in these NDP debates. Though it's too late to suggest it now...the NDP debates would have been more interesting & fruitful if there had been the the inclusion of a Conservative & Liberal debater. Their participation could have taken the form of a "segment" with each candidate. Their backgrounds could have been as varied as mere party activists or specially invited rival-party stalwarts.
Regardless, we could have seen how NDP leadership contestants fared when faced with their rivals lines of attack.
Again, I'd argue that we've seen the candidates get the chance to reply to reasonable attacks. And I'd rather not start needlessly laying the groundwork for the unreasonable ones that are sure to follow the leadership vote - especially if it means we have NDP members buying in.
ReplyDeleteGood point, I'll be sure to include something there.
ReplyDeleteThe first I can see as a useful underlying theme behind the more specific questions in #1. The second...well, I could put together a question more certain to provoke a defensive non-response, but not by much.
ReplyDelete