#ndpldr - Post-Campaign Roundup

A collection of writings on the leadership campaign that elected Avi Lewis (including a few predating his election).

- Isaac Phan Nay reports on Lewis' win and the signature promises that helped him achieve it. Michael Harris examines the prospect that Lewis can held guide the NDP out of the political wilderness. And Jeet Heer takes a look at the state of the wider left, while Eleanor Wand and Marlo Glass talk to party loyalists about the opportunities open to the NDP under its new leadership.. 

- Meanwhile, Markham Hislop rightly notes that Canada as a whole needs the NDP to succeed due to the grim state of our other political choices.

- David Climenhaga calls out the provincial NDP leaders who chose a moment of celebration and solidarity to try to fragment the progressive movement. And Tammy Robert is duly scathing about Carla Beck's response to Lewis' win in particular - and particularly the combination of her making no effort to convince members about her concerns, then complaining about their choice. 

- Finally, Nora Loreto offers multiple takeaways from the convention and its aftermath - including as to the significance of a new group of executives to facilitate change within the NDP.

On unconventional circumstances

Like 2,000+ other members across the country, I've been participating in the NDP's convention over the course of the weekend. And with one day in the books, I'll take note of a few of the differences between this and traditional in-person conventions - as well as the effects they've had on the party's effort to connect people in advance of an election anticipated in the near future.

On the plus side, it's always a plus to hear direct perspectives on what's happening at different levels of government. That said, it's been striking how narrow the list of invited speakers in two respects. 

First, it's consisted entirely of people with formal party affiliations rather than anybody with similar goals without a direct role within the party - which has the unfortunate effect of building affinity relationships at the expense of outreach. And second, among those speakers, nearly all of the time allocated to individuals has been allocated to party leaders. 

That's consistent with the choice to focus federally on running a centralized, leader-focused campaign. But in addition to limiting the diversity of the speakers in terms of equity factors, it also sets up a perception of a top-down view of the party which should be anathema a party committed to diversity and egalitarianism.

Meanwhile, there's been plenty of familiar criticism of the lack of time to debate and vote on resolutions. Predictably, that issue has been exacerbated by the virtual format and associated decisions about process. (And if the precedent set yesterday of allowing for amendments from the floor continues, that could get all the worse.)

But while that represents a perennial complaint, I've been more surprised to see training and networking largely taken out of the picture. To be fair, the party is doing plenty on those fronts outside of the convention - but the opportunity to gather this large a group of participants seems like it's wasted in the absence of to learn from or talk to any new people.

For more, see commentary from Christo Aivalis.

Leadership 2017 Platform Analysis - Charlie Angus

While most discussion around the NDP's leadership campaign has revolved around the ebb and flow of news cycles, it's always worth a closer look as to what the candidates see as worth highlighting. So I'll be taking a look at the policies on offer from the candidates, starting with Charlie Angus.

While Angus has been vague on some points in the leadership debates, he's offered interesting and distinctive proposals in a few others, including:
- the devolution of Indigenous program delivery to the community level, accompanied by a plan to dismantle the INAC structure which currently oversees it;
- a housing plan which would use existing CMHC surpluses to provide for a right to housing, both through social housing and through credits toward the cost of other forms of construction; and
- a push toward cooperative economic development, including giving workers the legal right of first refusal over a closing business.

Aside from those points, there isn't much in Angus' platform which isn't broadly reflected in the plans of his challengers. And more problematically, Angus' platform leaves more questions than answers both in some of what it promises, and particularly what it omits.

On climate change, Angus' lack of clarity on pipelines is matched by the absence of any specific targets (or plans to meet them). And in a policy area where the supply of ideas and promises has long exceeded the political will to act, the proposal of a national advisory council leaves a worrisome amount of room for further delay. 

Meanwhile, Angus' urban agenda seems to utterly miss the jurisdictional basis of municipal operations, proposing the creation of "neighbourhood corporations" and altered municipal governance models which make no mention of the provincial role in establishing and governing municipalities.

And Angus lacks specific plans in areas ranging from justice and ethics to health care and child care (though pharmacare does show up as a subpoint in his "working class" policy).

At best, those omissions might be explained by Angus' plan for membership-driven policy development. But that too represents a lot more deflection than detail.

As a result, Angus more than any other candidate has left NDP members with little more than a "trust me" when it comes to policy. And while a series of high-profile endorsements coupled with a career's worth of activism and advocacy offers some basis to do so, I'd be much more comfortable if Angus had provided a more clear indication was to which policies he'd pursue if given the chance.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- Alex Ballingall reports on Guy Caron's infrastructure and jobs plan which features both a large investment in public works, and substantial improvements in both wages and working conditions under federal jurisdiction.

- Thomas Walkom criticizes Singh's plan to roll Old Age Security into a means-tested benefit. And Stephen Tweedale responds to Walkom directly, then takes a more general look at the politics and economics of universal vs. targeted programs (while recognizing that a fully functional social safety net requires a mix of both).

- Niki Ashton has released her proposals to pursue racial justice - which are noteworthy both in their details, and in being presented to explicitly connect multiple forms of current discrimination as a single issue demanding a response. 

- Charlie Angus writes about the importance of having a party which is both built on a foundation of internal democracy, and oriented toward organizing the unorganized. And Nora Loreto examines the connection between social movements and political parties, while noting (with a particular focus on Singh and Ashton) that movement activists may need to focus on different types of roles depending on the outcome of the leadership campaign.

- Erin Weir takes note of the Libs' plan to close a few tax loopholes for incorporated professionals, and encourages the leadership candidates to keep the NDP in a leadership role in pushing for tax fairness.

- Finally, Kristy Kirkup writes about the candidates' push to sign up supporters as the August 17 membership deadline approaches.

A place for discussion

Following up on yesterday's column, I'll expand somewhat on some of the decisions the NDP may want to consider as (or before) it elects new leaders. And since the recent federal convention has been treated by other commentators as everything from a shining example of party democracy in action to an absolute calamity, let's start at that level - with a particular focus on what should be seen as having worked and not in Edmonton.

I'll start by taking the view that whatever one's views on the merits, the convention's handling of resolutions related to the Leap Manifesto should be seen as an excellent example as to how policy debate can happen within a party.

Plenty of work went into developing a main resolution and informing members (and the public) about it. The convention's resolution panel examined its options, and put forward a primary resolution which addressed concerns about the original wording. The underlying issue was one which left room for thoughtful debate even among the convention's featured speakers. And the debate on the floor featured meaningful contributions from a combination of high-profile and rank-and-file members.

About all that was lacking was any sense of willingness to work with the outcome - which is unfortunate given that the resolution which passed leaves ample room for debate as to which portions of Leap should be accepted or not.

Unfortunately, time and capacity limitations make it impossible to engage in that level of discussion when it comes to all but a few resolutions at any given convention. And that seems to me to be a particularly important problem if conventions are seen as the sole direct opportunity for membership-level input into policies and choices.

But that's a problem which should be fairly readily fixed. The NDP's federal council has authority to make final decisions on policy between conventions - and the sheer volume of resolutions brought forward at every policy convention seems to me to signal some significant demand to ensure that more policy issues are dealt with.

With the council serving as a check on any mischief, there's no reason why the resolutions (PDF) which haven't yet been addressed by convention (and additional ideas put forward afterward) couldn't be made subject to systematic review and discussion through party channels. And the result of facilitating ongoing policy discussion could be to make the NDP and its policy conventions more productive in two ways.

First, it should help to narrow and clarify the issues up for discussion.

At the moment, there's a large amount of redundancy in the resolutions submitted since electoral district associations and commissions submit their own resolutions with little (if any) coordination. But the development of an ongoing policy forum should make it easier for EDAs and commissions to discuss and agree on the wording intended to address any given issue - which should reduce the number of resolutions submitted while better focusing their intent.

And second, the convention itself should run more efficiently and accomplish more if members' concerns have been addressed in advance, or can be addressed afterward.

In particular, there should be less room for argument about how much time is devoted to any specific policy - or policy in general - at a convention if there's a readily-available alternative forum in which to carry on the discussion.

Of course, it will inevitably take time for a new process to be developed and implemented. And I'd fully expect some of the past issues to remain until members' expectations adapt to a new policy review process. But in the long run, I'd think it's possible to put both convention time and members' policy interest to better use by making sure needed conversations about the NDP's direction take place on a continuous basis.

On oversimplification

One could hardly design a more stark contrast between the complex realities of politics and the media's tendency to portray them in appallingly simplified terms than Althia Raj's report on the NDP's conference calls with party members last week. But for those willing to look past a misleading headline and lede, there's plenty in the points raised by members worth considering in advance of the Edmonton convention.

Meanwhile, it's also worth noting the significance of the call itself. As has often been the case, we should see it as a potential first step toward greater engagement with the public - but one whose value likes mostly in the prospect that it could be followed up with far more effort in the future.

On the bright side, the calls reflect a noteworthy willingness to talk to people about (and indeed allow the media to report on) their actual views on the campaign. And I'd consider that important opening lines of communication between members and the party structure at least for the moment.

That said, the greater potential for significance lies in what comes next. Here's the follow-up anticipated on the call:

Blaikie told the more than 1,000 callers on the first phone-in that their feedback would be sent to regional party representatives who would compile the information for a mid-March draft report. The final product would be released publicly at the NDP convention a few weeks later.

Ideally, I'd hope to see members' concerns today paired with some involvement in the further development of the election report - particularly given the limited number of people able to participate in a particular call.

More importantly, though, we shouldn't see this type of member engagement as merely a one-off opportunity for people to let off steam following last year's election.

Instead, it should represent a first step toward normalizing what Raj wrongly treats as a "gotcha" moment: the honest expression of views by members which may include constructive criticism of a party's choices (without necessarily leading to anybody being thrown under a bus). And the more the NDP can do to foster and meet the expectation that it will be unique among Canada's major parties in its responsiveness to members, the more likely it will be to avoid the type of disconnect that contributed to its disappointment at the polls.

New column day

Here, with my take on the factors NDP members should take into account in evaluating Tom Mulcair's leadership.

For further reading...
- I've written numerous previous posts on the future of Mulcair and the NDP which expand on the points made in the column.
- Michael den Tandt offers his view of Mulcair. Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper serve as examples of the knee-jerk "dump the leader!" reaction which I see as calling for pushback. And while Justin Ling is somewhat alarmist about the NDP's past actions, his analysis deserves a serious look for the future. 
- Finally, I'll reiterate my view that the NDP's long-term focus needs to be grassroots-driven and inclusive rather than relying on yet more central control - meaning that limiting a review to the party's executive (or putting MPs alone in charge of assessing Mulcair's future) doesn't look to be a useful response.

On rebuilding steps

I've posted before about the NDP's strong progressive stance since the October election - which looks to be a positive move in terms of principles and politics alike. 

But there's also a great deal of work to be done on the party side. And I'll suggest a couple of points which strike me as important in advance of the spring convention where Tom Mulcair's leadership is up for review.

First, there's the seemingly simple matter of the party's policy book (which I believe is found in an updated PDF here) and other member-generated documents.

As a reminder, the policy book was originally developed as part of Jack Layton's effort to professionalize the party - providing a statement of core values which could then form the foundation for platform development (while being general enough to allow plenty of room for maneuvering).

Nothing has been done to make the policy book any less authoritative than it ever was in reflecting the policy set by NDP members. And it would thus seem important both as a standing expression of values, and a starting point for resolutions which riding associations may want to develop.

But the policy book was removed from the NDP's website in advance of the election based on what still strikes me as a dubious rationale. And it doesn't seem to have been replaced since; in fact, the party's website no longer seems to point to any of the party documentation which was once available.

At best, that might be explained based on the party's priorities falling elsewhere in the immediate aftermath of the election. But if the issue was once one of a perceived lack of urgency, an impending resolution deadline for the convention surely makes it worth letting people know where party policy stands now. (And I'd also argue it's worth making sure that far more of the party's history in action, including convention resolutions past and present, is preserved and made available.)

Second, there's the concern about the central campaign's treatment of important parts of the progressive social movement - which arose both in candidate vetting, and in the message sent to some candidates during the campaign.

There's little way for the party to know what it can (or can't) accomplish by reaching out to the people who were refused a place within the election campaign. But at the very least, it should make the effort to do so on the basis that winning back past supporters and strengthening ties with the activist left need to be top priorities following a disappointing election.

If some of the key individuals who were turned away directly or who spoke out at the time can be brought back into the fold, that would go a long way toward confirming that Mulcair can win over some of the people who tuned out the NDP in 2015 and lead a movement-based party toward power. But even if Mulcair didn't find a receptive ear, he and the party would be better off for recognizing the need to try.

On full responses

I'll weigh in quickly on the controversy surrounding Jean-Francois Delisle - and start by noting that his comments yesterday reflected a desire to alter law to discriminate against a particular group that we shouldn't accept from any political candidate or party.

That said, today's follow-up statement also signals that responsibility will fall where it should for a comment which has nothing to do with party policy. Delisle will answer personally for the content of his opinion, with voters in Megantic-L'Erable getting to judge his comments in the context of their other choices on the ballot.

Meanwhile, voters elsewhere can rest assured that Delisle's personal views are completely apart from the position of the NDP as a party. And it will be particularly interesting to watch whether the NDP's opponents who claim to value candidate and MP independence (and concurrent responsibility) over command-and-control politics will recognize that's exactly the principle being applied here - or whether they'll try to push the NDP into the same type of top-down termination we've seen so frequently from other parties.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- David Climenhaga sees Jeremy Corbyn's resounding victory in the Labour leadership race as compelling evidence that progressive hope can win over centre-right fearmongering, while Michael Laxer takes some lessons away for Canadian politics. And Paul Krugman notes that there's a reason why voting members didn't take the Blairites seriously when it came to the economy in particular.

- Meanwhile, PressProgress points out that the Cons have been reduced to trying to create panic about their own economic failures in the hope that it'll somehow keep voters wanting to continue with what's failing miserably.

- Tim Harper points out that the Cons are still struggling to try to push refugees out of the political spotlight, while Andrew Mitrovica documents some of the more appalling lies they've told in the process. And Martin Regg Cohn highlights what needs to come next for us to make meaningful progress in helping refugees - both in Syria, and in a growing set of climate and political crises.

- Dan Leger raises the most important question of the election campaign at the moment - being that of where the Cons can possibly pick up support within an electorate set on change. And Mark Burgess and Abbas Rana report on some of the discord we'd expect within a party which doesn't seem to have a plausible path to hold power.

- Finally, Sean Holman takes a look at what our political parties are offering when it comes to access to information and government accountability - and points out that while it hasn't yet been included in the election platform, the NDP's plans in the last Parliament have gone far beyond anything proposed by the Libs. And the CP reports on just the latest example of the Cons' appalling secrecy, as the Information Commissioner is taking the government to court to try to bring records to light.

New column day

Here, pointing out that if the Harper Cons have little idea what they're doing in Canada's federal election, it isn't for lack of advantages over their opponents in planning out a campaign.

For further reading...
- Alice Funke offers a thorough look at the new strategic challenges facing all of Canada's major political parties. 
- Michael Den Tandt, David Krayden, and Andrew Coyne are among the many commentators noting that something is off with Harper and company. And Jennifer Ditchburn reports that it isn't only outside observers detecting serious problems with the Cons' campaign operations.
- Dan Leger and John Doyle each discuss how the refugee crisis in particular has exposed the Cons' utter lack of compassion - though it's worth noting that the party's position was deteriorating long before the subject was brought to the forefront of public discussion. Daphne Bramham notes that the bluster in response to a humanitarian tragedy is utterly out of touch with the Canadian public. And Murray Mandryk points out that the Cons' callousness extends to a wide range of issues.
- Finally, Lorne wonders whether there's a method to the Cons' madness, while Warren Kinsella is the rare pundit minimizing the significance of their difficulties. And Paul Wells theorizes that Stephen Harper might simply be trying to cut the Cons' losses for a new leader.

On party positioning

Leaving aside whether Stephen Harper's previously-undisclosed media monitoring is actually right in substance, Brian Jean isn't entirely wrong as to why he and other Con MPs are facing it:

Conservative MP Brian Jean, who is on the list, said he’s not sure why he was flagged, but also said he isn’t troubled by it.

“They must be interested in what their colleagues are doing, right? I mean the government must be. It seems to make sense from a party position that you would be interested in what your members are saying,” he said.

The only problem is that so far, it's the public rather than the party picking up the tab for an effort aimed strictly at the Cons' partisan interests:

The Harper government has spent more than $23 million over the last two years on media monitoring — including more than $2.4 million tracking some of its own backbench MPs in television interviews, radio and print, according to documents tabled in the House of Commons earlier this week.

The names of 65 Conservative backbench MPs — or just about 64 per cent of all Tory MPs who have no ministerial or any parliamentary secretary duties — are included in a list of search terms the federal government paid third-party contractors to monitor in news media from April, 2011 to December, 2012, although some of the terms were also monitored in early 2013.

MPs and staff in every office The Huffington Post Canada contacted Wednesday were bewildered to learn who was named on a list of politicians the Privy Council Office (PCO) tracks. (The PCO is the prime minister’s department).
...
All Conservative MPs were meant to be included, Rivet added. “Things may have been missed. It was our intention to include everyone,” he said. (Most opposition MPs are not being tracked according to the documents tabled Monday).

So the real question for the Harper regime is this: why is he forcing the public to pay for media monitoring which is obviously aimed at party management rather than any legitimate function of government? And when will the Cons reimburse Canada's public purse for the money they've taken already?

Leadership 2012 Lessons Learned - Party Edition

I'll close off my discussion of the NDP's leadership campaign with another lessons learned post - this one from the standpoint of the party in administering the campaign.

For the most part, the campaign seems to have thoroughly served its purpose in allowing candidates ample opportunity to showcase themselves without going into the debt that's dogged the Libs' recent leadership candidates for years. In particular, I doubt anybody would argue that the $500,000 spending cap substantially affected the candidates' ability to present themselves to actual and potential members.

There might be some room to quibble with the timing of the debates - both in not varying the debates between days of the week to reach different audiences, and in the fact that the membership cutoff hit before most of the debates took place. But the format otherwise looks to have been a success in fostering interesting discussion without becoming too combative.

And with one major exception, the convention couldn't have gone much better. The timing of the candidate showcases was called into question somewhat, but I'm not sure it was a bad idea to hold those in the afternoon to allow extra time if needed (while also leaving more time for interested viewers to record and view the showcases at their convenience). And within the showcases, the candidates found plenty of different ways to present themselves - with the immediate shift from Nathan Cullen's monologue and the entertainment-heavy presentation by Paul Dewar making for a particularly striking contrast in effective means of reaching the audience.

Of course, the one substantial concern was the delay caused by denial-of-service attacks during the leadership convention. And by all means any future votes will have to take the probability of outside interference into account - whether by providing for better triage of the type eventually carried out to separate convention voting from home voting, or by simply allowing for enough capacity to deal with attacks greater than those experienced anywhere else. But I don't see that concern as justifying a change from a model which allowed voters to participate either in advance or on the day of the convention, as the mix of votes helped to ensure members could participate however they saw fit rather than being stuck casting a preferential ballot while still wanting to be able to compare the candidates.

In sum, then, the main lesson the NDP will need to take away from its leadership campaign administration was to be more aware of outside parties seeking to throw a wrench in the works. But it speaks well to the organization behind the campaign that it took malicious outside intervention to cause a problem that will require fixing the next time the NDP elects a leader.

Guest Post: On governing authorities

Dan Tan offers another guest post - this one responding to a bit of misplaced advice from Embassy with a helpful reminder as to how policy is formulated within the NDP:

The foreign-affairs publication 'Embassy' recently published the following article: Advocates hope new Opposition leader shifts NDP position on Israel

The election of Thomas Mulcair as leader of the New Democratic Party could signal a coming shift in the party's policy on Israel, some advocates predict...

I am sure many NDP members will treat its content as a sort of "prophecy". But in reality, the article is actually engaging in advocacy, not analysis. The article has no intention of examining NDP policy on Israel/Palestine. Rather, its intention is to send Thomas Mulcair himself a rather crude message.

In an article ostensibly about Mulcair & the NDP's Israel/Palestine policy...it's telling that none of those topics are actually explored. Though Mulcair's name comes up, his Israel/Palestine policy statement (released during the leadership campaign) is completely ignored. The NDP's existing policy is reduced to one sentence from the foreign affairs critic. The grass-roots collaborative NDP policy-making process is totally disregarded.

Instead, the article chooses to highlight various winks & nudges from Canadian advocates of the Israeli government. And in case those advocates were too coy, the author (Ingrid Walter) concludes by presenting Mulcair with an absolutely bizarre claim. Walter cites an Ipsos exit poll of Jewish-Canadian voters. In it, the Conservatives scored a majority of 52%. Without wincing, Walter attempts to convince Mulcair that a "pro-Israel" NDP would also score 52%.

It never crosses Walter's mind that many Jewish-Canadian voters were simply responding to economic policies or a fatigue of minority parliament. [Ed. note: Nor that it's possible to test whether "pro-Israel" policies actually tend to move votes and other support.] Instead, the mere sight of Thomas Mulcair echoing the Cons' foreign policy is somehow supposed to move Jewish-Canadian voters en masse toward the NDP.

Many NDP members (like myself) trust that Thomas Mulcair is intelligent enough to recognize the desperation & comedy behind such an inducement. But for those members who still have doubts, the NDP constitution provides clarity as to where the party's policy is developed:

Conventions are the supreme governing body of the Party and shall have final authority in all matters of federal policy, program and constitution.
...
The NDP Federal Council shall have full authority to issue policy statements and election statements in the name of the Party, consonant with the decisions of the Convention, and to initiate policy statements consonant with the philosophy of the Party in matters not yet considered by Convention.

The new baseline

In this year's federal election, the NDP took 32% of the vote in Saskatchewan - but didn't win a single seat as other parties dropped off the map and the Cons consolidated public support in all but one riding.

And in last night's provincial election, the NDP again took 32% of the vote - only to lose more than half its seats as other parties dropped off the map and the Sask Party consolidated public support across the province.

Needless to say, that leaves plenty to be done over the next four years to get the NDP back on track to win seats federally and government provincially. But building from 32% is far from the worst challenge a political party can face - as long as that base is willing to do the tough work involved in winning over the next 20-30% of voters needed to succeed in what can only be seen as a de facto two-party system.

Leadership 2012: Rulebook Review

As promised, let's take a quick look through the NDP's official leadership rules. On the whole, the regulations don't look to particularly favour any one candidate - but they do include a few noteworthy twists which may help to shape the outcome.

The Soft Cap

The $500,000 spending cap has received plenty of attention as one of the race's ground rules. But there's one important exception: under section 7(d), the list of expenditures not counted under the cap includes "(a)ny expenses for fund-raising".

So what impact might that have on the race?

For one thing, it means that candidates who expect to spend to the cap will have a relative incentive to invest in fund-raising as compared to any other aspect of their campaign. So while membership recruitment and persuasion figure to take place more as volunteer operations, I'd expect to see the fund-raising side mostly handled professionally.

What's perhaps most interesting, though, is the prospect that a candidate could use extensive fund-raising as a means of carrying out more advertising and paid outreach than might otherwise be allowed.

I've pointed out before that a fund-raising campaign at the party level can have plenty of effects beyond raising money alone. And the incentives set up within the NDP's rules may go even further - encouraging not only fund-raising to the last incremental dollar, but fund-raising campaigns which merely break even. (Indeed, a candidate who already figures to have extra money in the bank might rationally choose to "fund-raise" at a loss in order to be able to spread his or her message through more paid channels.)

As to who stands to benefit from the rule, it's tough to say in advance which candidate will find the best strategy to take advantage of the fund-raising exception. But the big winner figures to be the party itself: not only will it recoup 15% of the funds raised as well as the surplus from any candidate who fund-raises more than he or she can spend during the leadership race, but it surely figures to build whatever creative strategies the candidates can develop into its long-term fund-raising plan.

Forum Selection

The NDP's ground rules specify that at least one leadership forum will be held in each of the five designated regions as part of a cross-Canada tour (section 11(d)), and that official leadership debate will start roughly 90 days before the convention (section 4(e)). But by specifying only that the tour will happen before "voting day", the rules leave open the question of whether the plan is to hold forums in each region before the February 18 membership cutoff - and I'd hope part of the planning will involve ensuring that each region gets to hear from the registered candidates before it's too late to sign up new members.

Mind the Gap

One of the effects of a leadership vote held relatively early in the year is that it raises questions as to how to handle what may be a large number of yearly memberships which expire in the middle of the race. And the regulations issued so far only point out the issue rather than answering it.

Instead, under section 15(a) it falls to the Chief Electoral Officer to determine whether or not members who lapse at the 2011 year-end will be entitled to vote. And while there's some obvious potential for debate among the candidates as to which path to follow depending on their relative reliance on existing and new memberships, I'd think it's especially important to see a final decision on that point in time to allow candidates to plan their member recruitment strategies.

[Edit: fixed link.]

On comparative advantages

At least a few Canadian commentators have looked to Australia's process for selecting party leaders - with the party caucus rather than its membership making the choice - as a model which we should emulate. Which makes it noteworthy that it's Bruce Hawker of Australia's Labor Party making a compelling case as to why we already have the better of the possibilities:

(I)n a system where the rank and file selects the parliamentary leader the power of factions is dramatically reduced. Talent is rewarded over blind loyalty and ability cannot be supplanted by decisions of entrenched interests. Most importantly, any move to replace the leader requires rank-and-file approval. That certainly could have made recent Australian political history quite different.

In 2003, when (Jack) Layton won the NDP leadership, he did so in the face of opposition from his parliamentary caucus and the affiliated unions. He won it through rank-and-file support after a protracted engagement with and involvement by the party's rank-and-file membership. In the following years he transformed his party, united his parliamentary team and won the respect of a nation.

All this is real food for thought. The Labor Party has to grow if it is to attract the best talents. However, it will only do so if its membership feels a real sense of ownership and involvement.

Labor's membership has been in decline for years and compares poorly with the NDP, whose members may soon number about 100,000.

Reducing the influence of faction leaders and union secretaries would mean turning the ALP's present modus operandi on its head. However, Labor's popular vote sits at below 30 per cent for the first time in living memory.

Opening Labor's leadership ballots to all its members is surely an idea whose time has come.

On learning experiences

Let's close this blog's discussion of #vancon2011 with one last post, this time dealing with the NDP's constitutional preamble - which figured to be the convention's main topic of interest until it was deferred for further consultation.

There's no doubt that at least some delegates were prepared to fight hard against the proposed changes. But I'm far from sure that the amendment would have been defeated if it had come to a vote at the plenary: while the new preamble won only a narrow majority in the resolutions panel, that same panel was almost unanimous in beefing up and passing the non-merger resolution which was later defeated in plenary, signaling that the influence of the delegates most averse to change was likely to be much smaller in a full vote than it was at the panel level.

So we shouldn't see the deferral as being based on a conclusion that a vote on the preamble would have faced a foregone conclusion. Instead, it looks to reflect a genuine sense that there's room to improve the revised draft now that the NDP has a bit of breathing room.

Now that the consultation process has been set in motion, though, it may be even more important than one might think at first glance.

After all, one of the major criticisms leveled at the NDP in this spring's election campaign was its willingness to consider constitutional change at the national level. And even with the public much less averse to reopening constitutional talks than Canada's chattering classes, there isn't much room for doubt that some controversy would result.

With that in mind, the NDP will probably be well served to consider the revision of its own constitution - complete with a need to broker compromises among multiple types of supporters in the face of changing party demographics - as a smaller-scale test of the challenges involved in engaging in the same type of project on the national level. And if it can satisfy its internal constituencies and come to agreement with time to spare before the 2015 election, then the experience and end result should provide a ready counter if the same line of attack surfaces again.

On maturing processes

Let's take a look at a couple of final issues from #vancon2011, starting with the series of machinations around resolutions ruling out merger or non-compete agreements with the Liberals.

As I noted at the time, the convention planners gave a prominent place to a resolution ruling out a merger with the Liberals while giving a lower priority to one also ruling out a non-compete agreement - perhaps signalling that at least some within the party saw substantially different issues between the two, and an anti-merger resolution as a more reasonable outcome. But the panel combined the two into a single resolution.

Meanwhile, both resolutions referred specifically to the Libs alone, rather than to a set of general principles to be applied to dealings with other parties. (I'd hoped to amend the resolution in panel to remove the Lib reference so that it would apply to the NDP's dealings with any other party, but the question got called first.)

That left the plenary session to deal with a strongly-worded and restrictive resolution aimed solely at the Libs. And a combination of poorly-received speeches in favour and a strong appeal from Peter Stoffer in opposition resulted in the resolution being defeated.

Of course, that isn't to say that there seemed to be any particular appetite on the part of anybody speaking on either side to approve of merger or non-compete talks. But the plenary vote reflected the willingness of delegates to live up to the party's message of leaving the door open for co-operation where it's possible to do some good in the process.

Which figures to be a plus in the long run. But I'd think the progress of the resolution shows there's still work for the party to do in recognizing and defining its place on the Canadian political scene.

In effect, it seems that at least some delegates were eager to single out the Libs for denigration based on last month's election results. And the focus might have been understandable to a point given the longstanding rivalry between the two parties, as well as the fact that as recently as a couple of months ago the NDP perceived itself as facing an uphill climb to overtake the Libs.

But from my standpoint, the focus of the resolutions only made exactly the same mistake the NDP has criticized in others for so long - ascribing undue importance to the Libs instead of zeroing in on what the NDP has done and can do as a party. And hopefully by the next convention, the respective positioning of the NDP and the Libs (which still seems new now) will have become familiar enough that delegates won't see the need to trumpet it.

On timelines

August 2009: The NDP's federal convention in Halifax votes to have the party's executive draft a new preamble to the NDP's constitution.

May 2011: The NDP achieves unprecedented success in Canada's federal election, forming Canada's Official Opposition for the first time.

June 2011: The revised preamble is made public.

June 2011: Concerned citizens everywhere commence kvetching as to how the new preamble serves as evidence that the NDP's rise in popular support has radically changed its focus.

Truly, concern trolling defies the laws of physics.