Lessons learned

As I noted here, it's well worth comparing what's happening in any given election to any recent precedents. While past performance never guarantees future results, we can tell both what lessons a party has drawn from experience, as well as how strategies change when they don't work out as planned. 

With that in mind, let's take a look at a few of the choices which have shaped recent elections where provincial NDP parties were competitive - and how they've been applied at the federal level.

Staying Above The Fray

Let's start with two examples from the leading example of the NDP falling into the traps of a strong opposition party: the 2013 election, where its campaign was seemingly based on the expectation that the best course of action was to avoid doing anything that might stop the Clark Libs from losing the election out of sheer voter fatigue.

On that front, Adrian Dix' party ran a campaign which explicitly branded itself as "positive" at the expense of developing a clear line of criticism of an unpopular incumbent.

Now, any leader wants to be seen as positive to the greatest extent possible, and Tom Mulcair is no exception. But the federal NDP hasn't shied away from directing tough messages at the Harper Cons based on their record - and the result is that the NDP has been doing its part to remind voters why they want change.

Playing It Safe

That said, if the federal NDP has learned a lesson from B.C. about allowing the dangers of failing to present a strong case against the incumbent, it's been quick to shift to other elements of the front-runner strategy which proved fatal for Dix' chances of victory.

For all the mostly-contrived hullabaloo over the NDP's handling of federal leaders' debates, there's one strategic point which should override all others. While there may be rare exceptions (with the possibility of a multi-party ambush in a debate skipped by Stephen Harper looming as a real if minor danger), Mulcair's experience and knowledge should give him a strong likelihood of coming out ahead in debates, particularly those where topics are discussed in detail going beyond Justin Trudeau's first set of talking points. And with the polls showing two other parties remaining competitive, it's hard to see the  case for trying to diminish the impact of debates, rather than pressing what should be a meaningful advantage and taking advantage of the air time and attention.

Likewise, a hair-trigger response to candidate controversy may serve to cut off a story immediately. But the larger risk of alienating supporters should also be taken into account - particularly when star candidates are being rejected for dubious reasons. 

Positioning To The Centre

Another familiar dynamic is playing out in Ontario in particular. There, Kathleen Wynne managed to win a majority in the 2014 provincial election in large part by telling voters that she was the most progressive option, while Andrea Horwath did relatively little to fight that characterization based on a gamble that it would help as much with centrist voters as it would hurt on the left.

At the federal level, Justin Trudeau's claim to the "progressive" title is even more laughable than Wynne's (which has itself proven illusory). But we can see the same line of attack being developed by the Libs. And while the federal NDP has plenty of progressive policy in its platform, I'm not sure we've yet seen as strong a response as will be needed to avoid the same fate.

Sticking With What Works

Finally, while the most recent B.C. and Ontario elections ended in disappointment, Rachel Notley's breakthrough victory in Alberta offers a shining example as to how the NDP can expand its reach beyond what might be seen as possible even at the start of an election campaign. But what's most worth taking away from Alberta's result is that Notley didn't have to substantially change course from the NDP's longstanding beliefs to achieve that result.

Rather than sacrificing ideas like a royalty review, a fairer tax system, action on climate change or an increased minimum wage to political expediency, Notley stuck with a progressive platform consistent with the NDP's values. And whatever backlash there was from the corporate sector served mostly to bolster the message that it was time for change.

Similarly, the federal NDP has made it this far by running on principles, not running from them. (Surely anybody pointing to C-51 as the source of many of the Libs' troubles can't ignore the risk - and reward - involved in Mulcair's fierce opposition to it.) And we should thus expect the NDP's push for its first federal government to feature a strong and distinct statement as to the progressive direction Canada should take.

New column day

Here, on how a narrow focus on pursuing a seemingly safe path to a bare majority government may have contributed to the B.C. NDP's stunning election defeat this week.

Needless to say, there's no lack of other commentary on the election, with Alice Funke, Sixth Estate, Michael Stewart, Paul Ramsey and Thomas Walkom all reaching conclusions relatively similar to my own. And while not a lot of observers can claim to have identified the problem in B.C., Dan Tan and Leftdog look to have earned at least partial credit.

[Update: Let's add David Climenhaga's take to the mix.]

But I will take issue with Chantal Hebert's theory as to the effect of the B.C. election on federal politics. While the NDP surely wants to build its reputation as a governing party, I don't see the provincial election as substantially weakening the case for federal office in 2015 - and indeed voter remorse under another term of Christy Clark may well play to the party's advantage.

New column day

Here, on the importance of substance over spin in politics - and the counterproductive effect of dedicating a party's resources to the opposite effect.

For further reading...
- As I've previously noted, the observations of Allan Gregg and Winslow Wheeler are here and here respectively.
- Joe Klein discussed the impact of Bill Clinton's DNC speech.
- pogge nicely sums up my take on Tom Mulcair's choice to trust in the Cons when it comes to Iran rather than mounting a meaningful defence of diplomacy, while Justine Hunter reports on Adrian Dix' statement that he's cutting down his policy agenda just as he approaches an opportunity to implement it.
- And finally, impolitical notes that Joan Crockett is taking the all-deference approach to its logical conclusion by stating explicitly that her job as a Con candidate and MP is to mindlessly do her leader's bidding.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Tim Harper gets somewhat closer to the mark than most pundits in recognizing that any talk an NDP/Lib merger is neither timely nor particularly well-placed. But the "one more time" message is a little bit off: again, we've still run precisely zero election campaigns in which the NDP was treated as anything but a novelty party at the outset, which means that we should see 2015 as the start of a new opportunity rather than a continuation of previous trends. And both Barbara Yaffe and Lawrence Martin point out some of the reasons for optimism about the NDP's chances.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne and Dan Gardner have both commented on the Libs' dire straits. And it looks like Thomas Mulcair's election as NDP leader has effectively forced the Libs' hand in deciding which path to pursue in 2015 and beyond - as any hope of re-emerging as a default government based solely on habitual support and conventional wisdom looks to be fading by the day.

- There have been plenty of new Robocon developments, with the sworn evidence of one of the Cons' own callers serving as a rather compelling indication of deliberate efforts to mislead voters. Meanwhile, CBC conclusively refuted the Cons' claim that their deceptive calls were somehow related to changes in polling stations; Alison pointed out another series of obfuscations by the Cons and their service providers; and pogge rightly questioned the Cons' spin about their CIMS database.

- I'm pretty sure this just proves that the B.C. NDP made a huge mistake in electing a progressive leader like Adrian Dix - as with a Lib-lite, it would undoubtedly have won both by-election seats several times over.

- Finally, Charles Smith and David McGrane make the case for truly urban ridings in Regina and Saskatoon:

On top of identifying with different communities, residents of Saskatoon and Regina have different interests than fellow constituents in neighbouring towns and rural areas.

The residents of the two large cities are concerned with municipal infrastructure (such as bridges), settling new immigrants, urban sprawl, public transit, homelessness and accommodating a growing off-reserve urban aboriginal population. Rural residents are concerned with agricultural issues, access to information technology, the maintenance of highways, recruiting doctors and building relationships with on-reserve aboriginals.

It is unfair to ask a single MP to represent the interests and identities of such varied constituents. In fact, it is bad for democracy.
...
The commission should create two ridings each exclusively within the city limits of Regina and of Saskatoon. Depending on how the rest of the map is redrawn, the size of remaining ridings neither would be unmanageable nor fall outside the established norm for rural ridings in Canada.

Instead of having MPs whose attention is split between their urban and rural constituents, rural residents would have more MPs exclusively devoted to their concerns than at present. In turn, urban residents would also have MPs who are more focused on their interests and concerns.

In short, a new electoral map will be a win for the city and the country, and improve democratic representation in Saskatchewan.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Lawrence Martin slams the proliferation of gratuitous surveillance on citizens, with a particular focus on the Cons' "lawful access" legislation:

In Canada, the impact, while far less egregious, has been profound enough. Here 9/11 has served as the enabler of a new security and surveillance mindset. What happened a decade ago triggered the Afghanistan war and the reinstituting of a military mentality at a time when, the Cold War having passed, there was hope we could move beyond the war psychology. While not directly tied, the post 9/11 security climate has helped undergird our government’s lock-’em-up, law-and-order preoccupation that the Canadian Bar Association lambasted on the weekend. Another effect of 9/11 was to bring on a rash of new border-security measures that cut into trade flows and made passports mandatory.

On the question of surveillance and reduced civil liberties, the latest Ottawa measure is what is termed “lawful access” legislation. This will compel Internet service providers to disclose customer information to authorities without a court order. In other words – blunter words – law enforcement agencies will have a freer hand in spying on the private lives of Canadians.
...
In many respects, 9/11 has been a boon to Conservative interests. The security agenda, military revitalization, law and order are all priorities of the political right. Economically, the post 9/11 American decline has had obvious trade and other repercussions here. If there is a positive, it is the Conservatives’ realization, as evidenced by the Prime Minister’s trip to Latin America last week, that it must seek market diversification.

It is imperative because, illogically, post-9/11 fear and paranoia have not receded with time and show no signs – even though there has been no terror on U.S. soil since 9/11 – of doing so. As with the Cold War, the continuance of the war on terror will be all fine and well with the vested military/industrial interests.

Proponents of the great American pastime of threat inflation need only roll out the fear that terror can happen again. Since no one can prove that it won’t happen again, they can’t be negated. In the meantime, the security-surveillance networks will continue to grow – on the American side of the border and on ours.

- Jane Taber provides an update on the Broadbent Institute, featuring what should hopefully be the first of many noteworthy hires:

Apparently, the idea was cooking on the 75-year-old former politician’s backburner for a long time and finally he decided the timing was right, given the NDP’s breakthrough to Official Opposition status in the May 2 election. (There has been some suggestion the Liberals try to launch a centrist think tank, too.)

Late last week, Mr. Broadbent took another step in hiring Kathleen Monk, 37, the director of strategic communications in Jack Layton’s office, as his executive director. The former journalist joined the NDP Leader’s team in 2006.

- Vaughn Palmer points out that Adrian Dix looks to have done remarkably well in building both unity within the B.C. NDP, and bridges to new candidates.

- Finally, the Cons don't want Canadians hearing from anybody discussing the economy in terms of anything but preapproved spin. But the good news is that we can count on being informed that the Cons have always warned that it would probably be necessary to reduce economic expectations at some time in August.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Tom Mills challenges the Cons to show any job creation whatsoever as a result of their non-stop corporate tax slashing:

The thing is, if corporate tax cuts really do create jobs, Flaherty should be able to demonstrate it by now with something a little more substantial than theories.

Canada's corporate tax rate has dropped incrementally from 22.1% in 2005-06 to 16.5% today. The government should be able to track what jobs this has created.

Show us the jobs, I'd say. And show us full-time industrial jobs, not part-time service ones. Private sector, not civil service.

Otherwise, maybe we should give trickle-up economics a try.

- After a week of party operatives and media sources outside Quebec begging every NDP supporter they can find for some evidence of internal dissent angle to keep Nycole Turmel in the headlines, the big "gotcha" is...Adrian Dix' continued support for Turmel.

- Meanwhile, Carol Hughes rightly points out that two NDP opposition day motions passed unanimously in the House of Commons - meaning that there's every reason to put pressure on the Cons to translate their support in principle into real policy changes.

- Finally, I'll look at a couple of Alice's observations in more detail later. But for now, her post includes plenty of noteworthy tidbits on where Canada's political parties were in 2010, as well as where they're going in the years to come.

On unifying campaigns

I haven't dealt with the B.C. NDP's leadership race on this blog to any meaningful extent. But it's great to see that Adrian Dix has earned a close win to lead the charge toward a new NDP government in 2013. So congratulations to all of the candidates and campaigns - and I'll look forward to the party's direction as it works on cleaning up the wreckage of the Campbell Libs.