Jason, Scott and Joe Couture have all discussed the first month's financial reports from Saskatchewan's NDP leadership campaign. But I'll add a couple of other points that jump out at me.
First, the fund-raising numbers show just how different this leadership campaign will be compared to the 2009 version.
While the official reports don't seem to be available anymore, I wrote about the numbers just a month away from the last leadership vote. At that time Dwain Lingenfelter held a massive lead, while the other three candidates had raised a little over $42,000 combined - or an average of $14,000 apiece.
So what's different this time around? Only a month into the current campaign,the three trailing candidates have already exceeded the total accumulated by their counterparts at the end of the last one - with six more reporting periods left in the new race.
Meanwhile, the relative parity in the fund-raising numbers is also a brand-new development. Instead of a single front-runner being able to easily outspend the rest of the competition combined, we're now seeing four campaigns with relatively equal resources. And that figures to reduce the role money ultimately plays compared to other factors.
If there is any hint as to what's to come based on the first fund-raising totals, I'd note that Trent Wotherspoon's early show of force (glitzy launch, tour and all) didn't translate into a similar lead in the fund-raising totals. And while Wotherspoon may well have made some connections that will allow him to catch up as the race progresses, it looks tougher to classify him as the favourite if his establishment support isn't leading to any financial advantage.
But the more important story for now looks to be that all of the leadership candidates have enough money flowing in to largely take finances off the table as a distinguishing factor. Which means that we'll have to look for other ways to determine who's pulling ahead as the campaign develops.
Showing posts with label leadership 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership 2012. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Leadership 2012 - Candidate What-Ifs
Following up on this post, let's look at a few what-ifs from the NDP's leadership campaign in retrospect - this time wondering how the outcome might have changed from the perspective of the candidates based on choices made during the course of the race. And it's fairly easy to narrow down the list based on those whose campaigns ran about as smoothly as could be expected (Niki Ashton, plus Peggy Nash minus her convention presentation), those who figure to have achieved all they could realistically have hoped for (Martin Singh) and the actual winner (Thomas Mulcair).
Having pared down the list to that extent, here are a few open questions as to how the campaign might have turned out differently...
What if Brian Topp had released full polling data of his own in response to Paul Dewar's poll release?
Again, one of the hazards for those of us trying to interpret the race from the outside was a lack of reliable information about the candidates' actual support levels. And as a result, Dewar's choice to go public with his full polling results had a disproportionate impact in shaping the balance of the campaign.
But Topp could have met transparency with transparency. If indeed he had data showing himself all alone in second place, then he might have avoided the perception of a tightly-bunched pack of challengers to Mulcair by releasing the underlying data in full - which would figure to have set public impressions at worst near the midpoint between the publicly-released polls (including Mulcair's released in the wake of Dewar's). And that in turn would have allowed him to run as a stronger challenger to Mulcair, rather than one of a bunch of candidates whose positioning was uncertain.
Mind you, Topp may instead have decided that he didn't want to be wasting time comparing himself to Dewar in any event, and worried that responding to Dewar's numbers would only give them more attention. And I'm not sure Topp would have done better in the end if the race had polarized more between himself and Mulcair as the two main options - as he came remarkably close even without much perception of momentum near the end of the campaign. But if he had a chance to boost his fortunes just a bit, that could have made all the difference.
What if Robert Chisholm had stayed in the race?
The great question for Paul Dewar doesn't involve anything he could have influenced directly. But with Chisholm's exit, Dewar was left as the weakest French speaker among the candidates left in the race. And that made it all too easy to define Dewar in those terms - where a flailing Chisholm might have made language seem like much less of an issue for Dewar (or anybody else) in comparison.
As it turned out, though, it's also questionable whether Dewar had much of a path to victory in any event. So let's turn to the biggest what-if of all...
What if Nathan Cullen hadn't put joint nominations at the centre of his campaign?
It's fairly clear how Cullen may have seen a need to stand out in the race. And his joint nomination proposal worked wonders in some respects for his campaign - contributing thousands of members signing up solely for the purpose of supporting Cullen, providing a focal point for Cullen's campaign and ensuring that he'd be mentioned often throughout the race.
But of course, the flip side is that Cullen turned off a large number of NDP members from the beginning of the campaign. And while he likely succeeded in winning some of them over by the end, it's a wide open question whether Cullen's personality could have positioned him to emerge from the pack if not for a highly controversial central plank.
As with Topp's conundrum, there's a real possibility that the candidate involved reached the right answer for the purposes of the leadership campaign. And as party allegiances evolve in the years to come, Cullen's choice - winning him a higher profile across not only the NDP membership but the public at large - may have as profound an impact on some future NDP leadership campaign as it did on this year's.
Having pared down the list to that extent, here are a few open questions as to how the campaign might have turned out differently...
What if Brian Topp had released full polling data of his own in response to Paul Dewar's poll release?
Again, one of the hazards for those of us trying to interpret the race from the outside was a lack of reliable information about the candidates' actual support levels. And as a result, Dewar's choice to go public with his full polling results had a disproportionate impact in shaping the balance of the campaign.
But Topp could have met transparency with transparency. If indeed he had data showing himself all alone in second place, then he might have avoided the perception of a tightly-bunched pack of challengers to Mulcair by releasing the underlying data in full - which would figure to have set public impressions at worst near the midpoint between the publicly-released polls (including Mulcair's released in the wake of Dewar's). And that in turn would have allowed him to run as a stronger challenger to Mulcair, rather than one of a bunch of candidates whose positioning was uncertain.
Mind you, Topp may instead have decided that he didn't want to be wasting time comparing himself to Dewar in any event, and worried that responding to Dewar's numbers would only give them more attention. And I'm not sure Topp would have done better in the end if the race had polarized more between himself and Mulcair as the two main options - as he came remarkably close even without much perception of momentum near the end of the campaign. But if he had a chance to boost his fortunes just a bit, that could have made all the difference.
What if Robert Chisholm had stayed in the race?
The great question for Paul Dewar doesn't involve anything he could have influenced directly. But with Chisholm's exit, Dewar was left as the weakest French speaker among the candidates left in the race. And that made it all too easy to define Dewar in those terms - where a flailing Chisholm might have made language seem like much less of an issue for Dewar (or anybody else) in comparison.
As it turned out, though, it's also questionable whether Dewar had much of a path to victory in any event. So let's turn to the biggest what-if of all...
What if Nathan Cullen hadn't put joint nominations at the centre of his campaign?
It's fairly clear how Cullen may have seen a need to stand out in the race. And his joint nomination proposal worked wonders in some respects for his campaign - contributing thousands of members signing up solely for the purpose of supporting Cullen, providing a focal point for Cullen's campaign and ensuring that he'd be mentioned often throughout the race.
But of course, the flip side is that Cullen turned off a large number of NDP members from the beginning of the campaign. And while he likely succeeded in winning some of them over by the end, it's a wide open question whether Cullen's personality could have positioned him to emerge from the pack if not for a highly controversial central plank.
As with Topp's conundrum, there's a real possibility that the candidate involved reached the right answer for the purposes of the leadership campaign. And as party allegiances evolve in the years to come, Cullen's choice - winning him a higher profile across not only the NDP membership but the public at large - may have as profound an impact on some future NDP leadership campaign as it did on this year's.
Monday, April 02, 2012
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Susan Delacourt notes that while the NDP's leadership convention points out some of the risks of online voting, the real problem lies in the people working to block democracy through any available means:
- Julie MacArthur aptly sums up the Cons' idea of a message on the environment as being that of a "scorched earth hour".
- fern hill (X2, deBeauxOs, JJ and Alison are rightly asking for some progressive unity against Stephen Woodworth's attempts to reopen the abortion debate.
- Finally, John Geddes and Aaron Wherry look behind the scenes of the NDP leadership campaign, while Alice thoroughly dissects the final voting numbers.
- Susan Delacourt notes that while the NDP's leadership convention points out some of the risks of online voting, the real problem lies in the people working to block democracy through any available means:
While those who use computers have become accustomed to the system-fail message about files being corrupted, we’re talking here about a different type of corruption.And Dave reaches a similar conclusion while noting that the Cons' vote suppression looks to have been the result of an organizational push:
The cyberattack on the NDP was apparently deliberate and orchestrated. As well, it’s looking like the ever-widening robo-calls investigation will reveal something a little larger than mere, one-off mischief.
The worry is that it isn’t the machinery that’s getting corrupted, but some of the people plying the political trade right now. If that’s the case, more than the system needs a reset — and smashing the machines won’t fix it.
Perhaps it's decades of military training and my experience as a front-line "death technician" that routes my thinking, but I cannot think of any way to pull off a geographically massive, narrowly timed operation without at least four things in place: planning, coordination, deception and delegation1. In a criminal enterprise it is described with one word: conspiracy.Meanwhile, the Hill Times reports on Marc Mayrand's recommendations to improve the Canada Elections Act, while Sixth Estate suggests fully enforcing the one we have already.
...
All the signs point to a planned, coordinated and specifically-timed national effort to suppress the opposition vote using illegal means. And to add to the elements required to pull off something as large as this appears to be, the direction of such an effort has to come from well up in the hierarchy of a group. In a disciplined, authoritarian-led organization, independent action over a wide scale usually fails.
- Julie MacArthur aptly sums up the Cons' idea of a message on the environment as being that of a "scorched earth hour".
- fern hill (X2, deBeauxOs, JJ and Alison are rightly asking for some progressive unity against Stephen Woodworth's attempts to reopen the abortion debate.
- Finally, John Geddes and Aaron Wherry look behind the scenes of the NDP leadership campaign, while Alice thoroughly dissects the final voting numbers.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Leadership 2012 Lessons Learned - Pundit Edition
With a week's perspective on the NDP's leadership campaign, I'll take a quick look back to see - particularly in comparing my own impressions as to how the vote might play out to what actually happened.
To start off with, let's note that of all the publicly-available metrics available to evaluate the race, none served as a particularly useful means of evaluating first-ballot support. The only ones which correctly pegged the two top of Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp were fund-raising and endorsements. But the former suggested a much tighter five-way race than proved to be the case, while the latter would have placed Nathan Cullen a distant fifth rather than a strong third.
Indeed, the closest overall single metric looks to have been...media mentions. Which may give rise to some chicken-or-egg philosophizing, but also offers a data point to suggest that those who took the time to cover the campaign did fairly well in collectively assessing its outcome.
That said, there are a couple of points I'll take away from the campaign for future punditry.
First, while it was fairly obvious that different dynamics were at play in different parts of the country, my biggest mistake lay in presuming that one Saskatchewan-specific dynamic would play out similarly elsewhere.
My impression is still that Brian Topp's Saskatchewan endorsements (which he trumpeted at several points in the campaign) were well out of proportion to his share of support among at least the members at the events I attended. And I extrapolated from that view to figure that Topp's support elsewhere was similarly top-heavy. But instead, he had enough grassroots support to come closer than I'd thought possible on the first ballot.
(Of course, it's possible that Topp could have dispelled any false impressions by releasing some of his own campaign's data, rather than treating a perceived lack of momentum merely as a PR issue to be swatted away with a mere "nah, that's wrong". And I'll expand on that possibility in a future post about lessons learned and what-ifs for the candidates.)
The other obvious mistaken impression was as to Paul Dewar's first-ballot support. But that one simply looks to be a matter of reality defying all evidence available at the time of the vote - which if anything should serve as a warning about pretending to know more than we do before a vote takes place.
So the take-aways from the NDP's leadership campaign are to listen more to...spin-meisters and the mainstream media. Which may make for the most surprising outcome of all.
To start off with, let's note that of all the publicly-available metrics available to evaluate the race, none served as a particularly useful means of evaluating first-ballot support. The only ones which correctly pegged the two top of Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp were fund-raising and endorsements. But the former suggested a much tighter five-way race than proved to be the case, while the latter would have placed Nathan Cullen a distant fifth rather than a strong third.
Indeed, the closest overall single metric looks to have been...media mentions. Which may give rise to some chicken-or-egg philosophizing, but also offers a data point to suggest that those who took the time to cover the campaign did fairly well in collectively assessing its outcome.
That said, there are a couple of points I'll take away from the campaign for future punditry.
First, while it was fairly obvious that different dynamics were at play in different parts of the country, my biggest mistake lay in presuming that one Saskatchewan-specific dynamic would play out similarly elsewhere.
My impression is still that Brian Topp's Saskatchewan endorsements (which he trumpeted at several points in the campaign) were well out of proportion to his share of support among at least the members at the events I attended. And I extrapolated from that view to figure that Topp's support elsewhere was similarly top-heavy. But instead, he had enough grassroots support to come closer than I'd thought possible on the first ballot.
(Of course, it's possible that Topp could have dispelled any false impressions by releasing some of his own campaign's data, rather than treating a perceived lack of momentum merely as a PR issue to be swatted away with a mere "nah, that's wrong". And I'll expand on that possibility in a future post about lessons learned and what-ifs for the candidates.)
The other obvious mistaken impression was as to Paul Dewar's first-ballot support. But that one simply looks to be a matter of reality defying all evidence available at the time of the vote - which if anything should serve as a warning about pretending to know more than we do before a vote takes place.
So the take-aways from the NDP's leadership campaign are to listen more to...spin-meisters and the mainstream media. Which may make for the most surprising outcome of all.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Fred Wilson weighs in on Thomas Mulcair's mandate as the NDP's new leader:
- Curry, Janet McFarland and Tara Perkins also point out that the same federal government which has used a tiny amount of provincial disagreement as its excuse for not strengthening the Canada Pension Plan is now trying to strong-arm Ontario into going along with its private-sector-first alternative.
- Finally, Danny Dorling comments on why any actual austerity should be aimed squarely at those who have made the most for themselves while most people have just barely scraped by.
- Fred Wilson weighs in on Thomas Mulcair's mandate as the NDP's new leader:
(M)any progressives with no interest whatsoever in a "Blairist" agenda had found their way to the Mulcair camp. They supported Mulcair for two reasons -- to maintain the party's base in Quebec, and to immediately step up to the role of Opposition Leader in Parliament and Prime Minister-in-Waiting.- And Kathleen O'Hara mentions one intriguing possibility if Harper overplays his hand:
Of course, there are also some in the party and labour who see the Mulcair win as an opportunity to realize a long-held goal of a "big tent" centrist party. But this leadership campaign and decision most definitely did not deliver any such mandate.
...
Tom Mulcair won a mandate instead to do what he obviously was the best prepared to deliver -- an immediate, polished, professional competence as an Opposition Leader and potential Prime Minister. And it's on this basis that Tom Mulcair begins his leadership with the support and goodwill of a much larger majority than his votes at convention.
I did detect one area of disagreement between the declarations of the NDP and my employer: the timing of the demise of Stephen Harper. Booting him out in the 2015 election seemed to be the general plan among social democrats. May points out that unpopular leaders, most recently B.C.'s Gordon Campbell, have been pushed out of office well before the end of their mandate. In the name of anti-Conservative unity, I'm sure a compromise can be reached.- Meanwhile, Bruce Cheadle and Tim Naumetz both report on the unprecedented outside voter suppression aimed at the NDP's members. And Steven Chase and Tamara Baluja report that Elections Canada isn't far from tracking down "Pierre Poutine" - and that higher-ranking Con insiders are on the verge of getting named as well:
Mr. Meier also told Elections Canada that “Pierre” initially telephoned him directly on his unlisted office extension and asked for him by name when setting up his robo-calling account.- Bill Curry reports that one of the unions most affected by the Cons' anticipated federal budget has been barred from the budget lock-up - with its vocal opposition to austerity looking like one of the main reasons.
“Pierre referred to knowing someone in the Conservative Party,” Mr. Mathews said of the call Mr. Meier received at RackNine. “In Meier's view, these facts mean someone must have given Pierre his contact information.”
- Curry, Janet McFarland and Tara Perkins also point out that the same federal government which has used a tiny amount of provincial disagreement as its excuse for not strengthening the Canada Pension Plan is now trying to strong-arm Ontario into going along with its private-sector-first alternative.
- Finally, Danny Dorling comments on why any actual austerity should be aimed squarely at those who have made the most for themselves while most people have just barely scraped by.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday Afternoon Links
Assorted content to end your weekend.
- pogge rounds up last week's news on the Robocon front - while the outside attack on the NDP's leadership vote suggests that the block-the-vote crowd isn't limiting its work to general elections.
- Meanwhile, Dave connects some dots between the Harper Cons, the B.C. Libs and two IT service providers.
- Gerald Caplan points out that it's the most amoral gamblers earning the largest returns from our current version of casino capitalism.
- Finally, in other NDP convention followup notes, Cathie is optimistic that Thomas Mulcair can fight back against the Harper Cons, while David Climenhaga sees him passing the beer test. Tim Harper portrays Mulcair as the safe choice for the NDP, while the Star's editorial board reaffirmed its endorsement after the fact. Mark Kennedy speculates as to a few of the challenges Mulcair will face. And PLG rightly suggests that commentators not overreact to Mulcair's election.
- pogge rounds up last week's news on the Robocon front - while the outside attack on the NDP's leadership vote suggests that the block-the-vote crowd isn't limiting its work to general elections.
- Meanwhile, Dave connects some dots between the Harper Cons, the B.C. Libs and two IT service providers.
- Gerald Caplan points out that it's the most amoral gamblers earning the largest returns from our current version of casino capitalism.
- Finally, in other NDP convention followup notes, Cathie is optimistic that Thomas Mulcair can fight back against the Harper Cons, while David Climenhaga sees him passing the beer test. Tim Harper portrays Mulcair as the safe choice for the NDP, while the Star's editorial board reaffirmed its endorsement after the fact. Mark Kennedy speculates as to a few of the challenges Mulcair will face. And PLG rightly suggests that commentators not overreact to Mulcair's election.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Leadership 2012 - Third Ballot Endorsement
The second-ballot results leave little room for doubt as to the ultimate conclusion of the NDP's leadership campaign - with the main question now being whether there will be a fourth ballot to determine the party's leader. And after two ballots of working on shaping the issues drawn from the leadership voting results, I'll now endorse giving the MP who did so much to build the party in Quebec the leadership role in doing the same across Canada.
And so, my third-ballot vote goes to...Thomas Mulcair.
And so, my third-ballot vote goes to...Thomas Mulcair.
Leadership 2012 - Second Ballot Endorsement
First-ballot results are here. My quick read is that three candidates have a remaining path to victory (no, I can't see any chance for Peggy Nash when even her vote combined with Dewar's wouldn't vault her ahead of Brian Topp), and one of those fits with the themes I most want to see emerging from the convention.
Which makes my second-ballot choice a fairly easy one: Nathan Cullen.
Which makes my second-ballot choice a fairly easy one: Nathan Cullen.
Leadership 2012 Roundup
A few of the more interesting pieces of news from the NDP leadership campaign as it culminates in today's voting...
- For those looking for a rundown of the contenders in the smallest possible number of words, John Ibbitson's tip sheet has what you're after.
- A couple of late-campaign interviews worth noting include Brian Topp's talk with Aaron Wherry, as well as Planet S' discussion with Peggy Nash and Niki Ashton.
- Steve theorizes about the magic number for Thomas Mulcair to have a virtually inevitable path to victory - which is certainly a topic ripe for discussion, though I've heard other logical cases based on the actual second-choice polling released by Paul Dewar's camp as to how the actual number may be closer to 30% than 35%. And Dan releases a final set of power rankings.
- TC Norris points out the final number of advance voters at 55,659. But I draw roughly the exact opposite conclusion from the same number: with nearly half the votes left to be cast by last night (even allowing for the number of members who wouldn't ultimately vote), there's every chance that the remaining members could not only determine the order of the 2-through-5 cluster that's been so important all along, but also radically reshape the race. Meanwhile, Stephanie Levitz notes the uncertain dynamic resulting from the two types of voter pools.
- John Geddes, Jeff Jedras, Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne all offer their take on yesterday's showcases.
- Frank Graves makes the case for inter-party cooperation, while Greg Lyle offers reason to think that a strong social-democratic message within the NDP can be an electoral winner on its own and Nik Nanos similarly notes that there's no lack of voters willing to look to the NDP as Canada's next government.
- And finally, Paul Wells recommends that voters choose based on who actually inspires passion among NDP members, rather than worrying too much about strategic calculations:
- For those looking for a rundown of the contenders in the smallest possible number of words, John Ibbitson's tip sheet has what you're after.
- A couple of late-campaign interviews worth noting include Brian Topp's talk with Aaron Wherry, as well as Planet S' discussion with Peggy Nash and Niki Ashton.
- Steve theorizes about the magic number for Thomas Mulcair to have a virtually inevitable path to victory - which is certainly a topic ripe for discussion, though I've heard other logical cases based on the actual second-choice polling released by Paul Dewar's camp as to how the actual number may be closer to 30% than 35%. And Dan releases a final set of power rankings.
- TC Norris points out the final number of advance voters at 55,659. But I draw roughly the exact opposite conclusion from the same number: with nearly half the votes left to be cast by last night (even allowing for the number of members who wouldn't ultimately vote), there's every chance that the remaining members could not only determine the order of the 2-through-5 cluster that's been so important all along, but also radically reshape the race. Meanwhile, Stephanie Levitz notes the uncertain dynamic resulting from the two types of voter pools.
- John Geddes, Jeff Jedras, Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne all offer their take on yesterday's showcases.
- Frank Graves makes the case for inter-party cooperation, while Greg Lyle offers reason to think that a strong social-democratic message within the NDP can be an electoral winner on its own and Nik Nanos similarly notes that there's no lack of voters willing to look to the NDP as Canada's next government.
- And finally, Paul Wells recommends that voters choose based on who actually inspires passion among NDP members, rather than worrying too much about strategic calculations:
If there’s anyone left out there who’s undecided, just pick the person who makes you happiest to be a New Democrat. It’ll never guarantee victory. But it’ll make both victory and defeat worth the work.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Musical interlude
In keeping with the convention theme...KTA - Longer than a Lifetime
(And if anybody has audio of the song from Jack Layton's tribute, feel free to pass along the link.)
(And if anybody has audio of the song from Jack Layton's tribute, feel free to pass along the link.)
Leadership 2012 - First Ballot Endorsement
The NDP's leadership campaign has presented such a wide variety of opportunities and questions for party members that it's been difficult to decide who to endorse - and I've reached my own first-ballot decision only after taking time to see how those have been balanced out in this afternoon's leadership showcase. But for what it's worth, here's my endorsement for the many members who have chosen to wait to decide for themselves.
To start with, I'll be shifting my first choice from my preliminary endorsement - not because Brian Topp's positive message is any less important than it's always been, but because his late-campaign strategy has been so closely identified with personality politics directed toward Thomas Mulcair.
My goal on the first ballot is both to shape the choices for subsequent ballots, and to make sure that some of the key themes of the campaign are reflected in the voting results. And given the presumptive lead held by Mulcair so far (meaning that there's no need to vote for him immediately to keep him on the ballot), the choice has come down to two candidates.
Throughout the leadership campaign, Nathan Cullen's joint nomination proposal has been more a source of controversy than strength. But with Mulcair now taking the position that he doesn't want to cooperate with other parties even in a post-election coalition, Cullen's position now takes on some additional importance: undoubtedly it'll be tougher for Mulcair to orient the NDP away from its longstanding and highly successful cooperative approach if the candidate who's encouraging a move in the other direction receives a vote of confidence from the party's membership.
Meanwhile, Paul Dewar's interest in party organization and movement-building stands in contrast to Mulcair's still-unclear position. And a strong first-ballot showing for Dewar could work wonders in ensuring that an eventual leader pays due attention to that part of the NDP's mission, rather than focusing excessively on the conventional-wisdom bubble which so often excludes many of the voters the NDP needs to win over.
As I've mentioned before, I consider Cullen to be the better retail politician of the two, and arguably the one I'd most want to see elected leader as the convention plays out (so long as he himself focuses more on building the NDP rather than what still seems like a futile mission toward multi-party electoral strategies). For now, though, my first-ballot support will go to...
Paul Dewar.
But of course, whether you agree or not, now's the time to vote. And we'll find out soon how all we've seen over the past few months will translate into members' support.
To start with, I'll be shifting my first choice from my preliminary endorsement - not because Brian Topp's positive message is any less important than it's always been, but because his late-campaign strategy has been so closely identified with personality politics directed toward Thomas Mulcair.
My goal on the first ballot is both to shape the choices for subsequent ballots, and to make sure that some of the key themes of the campaign are reflected in the voting results. And given the presumptive lead held by Mulcair so far (meaning that there's no need to vote for him immediately to keep him on the ballot), the choice has come down to two candidates.
Throughout the leadership campaign, Nathan Cullen's joint nomination proposal has been more a source of controversy than strength. But with Mulcair now taking the position that he doesn't want to cooperate with other parties even in a post-election coalition, Cullen's position now takes on some additional importance: undoubtedly it'll be tougher for Mulcair to orient the NDP away from its longstanding and highly successful cooperative approach if the candidate who's encouraging a move in the other direction receives a vote of confidence from the party's membership.
Meanwhile, Paul Dewar's interest in party organization and movement-building stands in contrast to Mulcair's still-unclear position. And a strong first-ballot showing for Dewar could work wonders in ensuring that an eventual leader pays due attention to that part of the NDP's mission, rather than focusing excessively on the conventional-wisdom bubble which so often excludes many of the voters the NDP needs to win over.
As I've mentioned before, I consider Cullen to be the better retail politician of the two, and arguably the one I'd most want to see elected leader as the convention plays out (so long as he himself focuses more on building the NDP rather than what still seems like a futile mission toward multi-party electoral strategies). For now, though, my first-ballot support will go to...
Paul Dewar.
But of course, whether you agree or not, now's the time to vote. And we'll find out soon how all we've seen over the past few months will translate into members' support.
The rainbow coalition
I noted a couple of days ago that Stephane Dion's Lib leadership campaign offered some cautionary tales for the NDP's contenders. But one of his more effective strategic choices has been embraced wholeheartedly.
At the Libs' convention, Dion's green theme set his camp apart in a sea of red. But the NDP's candidates have chosen a wide array of colours to similarly show momentum: Ashton blue, Topp yellow, Cullen green, Nash purple and Mulcair black are all distinct presences throughout the hall.
Of course, no single candidate will stand out as much for that diversity. But the symbolism of bringing all the groups together at the end looks to be a major plus.
At the Libs' convention, Dion's green theme set his camp apart in a sea of red. But the NDP's candidates have chosen a wide array of colours to similarly show momentum: Ashton blue, Topp yellow, Cullen green, Nash purple and Mulcair black are all distinct presences throughout the hall.
Of course, no single candidate will stand out as much for that diversity. But the symbolism of bringing all the groups together at the end looks to be a major plus.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Leadership 2012 - Policy Highlights
With the NDP's leadership convention set to start tomorrow (and assorted hospitality suites already starting up tonight), I won't be able to finish off my initial plan to put together full policy reviews for each of the candidates. But instead, I'll take some time to highlight a few innovative ideas which haven't received a lot of media attention, but stand out as deserving more discussion within the NDP regardless of who wins the leadership.
Judicare, proposed by Niki Ashton:
Arctic University, proposed by Nathan Cullen:
International Women's Equality, proposed by Paul Dewar:
One-Stop Consumer Protection, proposed by Thomas Mulcair:
Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, proposed by Peggy Nash:
Judicare, proposed by Niki Ashton:
Ensuring that all Canadians are genuinely equal before the law starting by creating a dedicated federal transfer for “judicare”, modelled on the Canada Health Transfer, that would allow legal aid programs to expand the range of services they provide to Canadians who can’t otherwise afford a lawyer;No less an authority than the Governor General has pointed out that more needs to be done to facilitate Canadians' access to justice. But rather than limiting that effort solely to the voluntary capacity of bar associations, Ashton's proposal would ensure that part of the task is carried out through public funding.
Arctic University, proposed by Nathan Cullen:
• Work with the Northern colleges to foster an Arctic University to help develop future leaders, and allow Northerners to pursue higher education without leaving their families and communities.In addition to being a worthwhile idea on its own, the proposal would also serve as an important starting point in considering what the federal government can do to ensure that Canadians falling under its jurisdiction (including on-reserve First Nations as well as territorial residents) receive both meaningful self-determination and a reasonable standard of services, rather than being alternately vilified and forgotten by a federal government determined to do as little as possible.
International Women's Equality, proposed by Paul Dewar:
- Make economic, educational and democratic empowerment for women and girls a core focus of Canada's development policy;For all the efforts that the leadership candidates have rightly made to point out the continued gender gap within Canada, the need for action is even more glaring abroad. And a concerted effort to include women in international development and diplomacy could go a long way toward breaking down barriers to both gender equality and general development.
- Promote women's meaningful participation in peace building as a central plank of our international diplomacy, and implement Canada’s National Action Plan on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security;
One-Stop Consumer Protection, proposed by Thomas Mulcair:
The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (Finance)With the Service Canada model adopted for so many interactions between the federal government and all kinds of actors, it's stunning that consumer protection - one of the areas of public jurisdiction where there's an especially obvious need for user-friendliness - has instead been both broken into multiple agencies and chronically under-resourced.
This proliferation of separate agencies has inevitably made the dissemination of information scattered and difficult for consumers to access. Nowhere is this clearer than in the government’s digital presence. The website for Industry Canada`s Office of Consumer Affairs, for instance, provides extensive content addressing a wide variety of ongoing consumer concerns, but safety recalls on toys must be sought out at Health Canada's website and those seeking information on financial products must do so at the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada's website.
...
Canadians deserve a single point of contact for vital consumer protection information and a single point of responsibility to ensure the interests of consumers will be a priority—not just the interests of well-connected corporations.
Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, proposed by Peggy Nash:
Pursue the implementation of a system of proportional representation by:While PR is of course a staple of NDP party policy, Nash's proposal moves well down the road in suggesting how it can actually be implemented: not by following the referendum model that's failed at the provincial level, but instead by engaging in a careful but efficient process to review and adapt our electoral system.
• establishing a Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, in collaboration with other parties, within the first six months of forming government to make specific recommendations on which system (or combination of systems) is best suited for Canada as well as the most effective legislative process to implement the changes;
Leadership 2012 Roundup
I didn't think much could come along at this point in the NDP's leadership campaign to significantly change my voting considerations [edit: other than the type of organizational problem discussed here]. But the CROP poll published in Le Soleil may well do just that.
No, it isn't a surprise to see Thomas Mulcair well ahead of the field in Quebec. But for all the best efforts of the rest of the campaigns as well as two debates centred on the province, not a single other candidate ranks ahead of "none of the above". And while I've emphasized the importance of allowing for three and a half years worth of growth rather than simply assuming candidate profiles will stay where they are, it's rather difficult to ignore the lack of progress so far for the rest of the field - particularly as others point out the potential for Mulcair to extend the NDP's Quebec reach.
Meanwhile...
- Paul Dewar's endorsement from two Sikh student groups may be a highly significant development if it allows him to win over enough down-ballot support from Martin Singh's camp - though of course Singh's own stated second choice would seem to render that possibility moot.
- Alice discusses Peggy Nash's candidacy:
- Brian Topp releases his closing argument:
- Environics places the NDP in a dead heat with the Cons nationally. Chantal Hebert and Antonia Maioni discuss how the leadership campaign will affect the broader political scene in Quebec, while Carlito Pablo considers it a matter of defining the NDP. Marcus McCann worries about the effect of a large number of new members on down-ballot support - though accounting for about 10,000 new Quebec members, a few thousand apiece attracted by Nathan Cullen and Martin Singh and the normal sign-up work we'd expect from the rest of the candidates, I'm not sure I see much reason for concern. But Joan Bryden's report on the complexities and uncertainties involved in a preferential voting process will certainly make the weekend interesting. Geoffrey Rowan analyzed the candidates' messages. And finally, CBC broke the race down into four main themes.
No, it isn't a surprise to see Thomas Mulcair well ahead of the field in Quebec. But for all the best efforts of the rest of the campaigns as well as two debates centred on the province, not a single other candidate ranks ahead of "none of the above". And while I've emphasized the importance of allowing for three and a half years worth of growth rather than simply assuming candidate profiles will stay where they are, it's rather difficult to ignore the lack of progress so far for the rest of the field - particularly as others point out the potential for Mulcair to extend the NDP's Quebec reach.
Meanwhile...
- Paul Dewar's endorsement from two Sikh student groups may be a highly significant development if it allows him to win over enough down-ballot support from Martin Singh's camp - though of course Singh's own stated second choice would seem to render that possibility moot.
- Alice discusses Peggy Nash's candidacy:
- Brian Topp releases his closing argument:
- Environics places the NDP in a dead heat with the Cons nationally. Chantal Hebert and Antonia Maioni discuss how the leadership campaign will affect the broader political scene in Quebec, while Carlito Pablo considers it a matter of defining the NDP. Marcus McCann worries about the effect of a large number of new members on down-ballot support - though accounting for about 10,000 new Quebec members, a few thousand apiece attracted by Nathan Cullen and Martin Singh and the normal sign-up work we'd expect from the rest of the candidates, I'm not sure I see much reason for concern. But Joan Bryden's report on the complexities and uncertainties involved in a preferential voting process will certainly make the weekend interesting. Geoffrey Rowan analyzed the candidates' messages. And finally, CBC broke the race down into four main themes.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
On warning signs
It may be that upwards of 70% of the NDP's leadership votes are already in before the convention this weekend. But here's another suggestion as to why it's worth being in the minority who wait for all the available information before casting a ballot - as well as a cautionary tale in what to look for from the convention presentations.
Much of Stephane Dion's tenure as leader of the Libs was defined by a basic inability to handle even relatively basic planning and message coordination when it counted - ranging from his campaign interview false-start, to the late-delivered and poor-quality video that did so much to undermine the 2008 coalition. But less noted is that Libs had an obvious hint as to his difficulties in the area: at the leadership convention where he was elected, Dion had the plug pulled on a convention speech which seemed to bear little relationship to the time allotted. (Of course, that seemed to be forgotten by the next day as Dion made his way up the middle of the Ignatieff/Rae divide.)
So while it'll be worth watching how much the candidates can inspire the crowd on Friday, we should also pay close attention to whether anybody's campaign shows signs of disorganization on the biggest stage the leadership candidates will face. And while I suspect there shouldn't be much problem with the NDP's field of contenders, I'll be especially wary of any candidate who fails that test.
Much of Stephane Dion's tenure as leader of the Libs was defined by a basic inability to handle even relatively basic planning and message coordination when it counted - ranging from his campaign interview false-start, to the late-delivered and poor-quality video that did so much to undermine the 2008 coalition. But less noted is that Libs had an obvious hint as to his difficulties in the area: at the leadership convention where he was elected, Dion had the plug pulled on a convention speech which seemed to bear little relationship to the time allotted. (Of course, that seemed to be forgotten by the next day as Dion made his way up the middle of the Ignatieff/Rae divide.)
So while it'll be worth watching how much the candidates can inspire the crowd on Friday, we should also pay close attention to whether anybody's campaign shows signs of disorganization on the biggest stage the leadership candidates will face. And while I suspect there shouldn't be much problem with the NDP's field of contenders, I'll be especially wary of any candidate who fails that test.
Leadership 2012 Roundup
Another day, another set of NDP leadership campaign stories.
- Niki Ashton won the support of the NDP's Socialist Caucus.
- Nathan Cullen expanded on his joint nomination proposal with a far more appealing discussion of co-operation in general:
- Alice offered her assessment of Paul Dewar:
- Thomas Mulcair offered up an election strategy including a 338 Fund for riding-level campaigns and a commitment to have at least some campaign ready in every riding across Canada. That offers some useful indication as to how he's thinking about organizational issues - but still doesn't answer the question of what his plans would be between now and 2015.
- Tim Naumetz reports that other campaigns are "shocked" about Brian Topp's lack of organization. But let's give Topp this much: he's still apparently convinced Jeffrey Simpson and L. Ian MacDonald that he's one competitor in a two-person race - while Carol Goar slightly more thorough summary of the choices.
- Duncan Cameron reiterated his support for Peggy Nash, pointing out her positive reviews in the media during the leadership campaign as a new reason for the endorsement. The Ottawa Citizen recognized how much Ed Broadbent's comments last week were blown out of proportion. Tim Harper commented on the race to define the NDP's new leader. And the imminent election of the NDP's permanent successor to Jack Layton is also leading to plenty of discussion about what Jack accomplished - ranging from winning 3.5 million new votes for the left to building a bridge between social democracy and the wider public (with some associated costs) to "sinister mind control experiment!". Which offers an always-appreciated excuse to link to IP.
- Niki Ashton won the support of the NDP's Socialist Caucus.
- Nathan Cullen expanded on his joint nomination proposal with a far more appealing discussion of co-operation in general:
Cullen isn't shy about what he has in mind.Meanwhile, both Frank Graves and Barbara Yaffe talk about some of the possibilities for cooperation.
"If the explicit question is put to me: Am I willing to work with the Liberal party in a coalition government, then yes. I was last time."
Moreover, he said the parties should make it clear while they are seeking votes from Canadians that a coalition is a "possible scenario."
"Here is the challenge that we cannot avoid. It is that you can't say the Liberal party are evil incarnate or the worst things ever before an election but we're willing to work with those same people after. It's discordant. It doesn't sit right, particularly with progressive voters."
In the last election, Harper centred his strategy around repeatedly warning voters that he needed a majority government to prevent the opposition parties from forming a coalition.
The next time, said Cullen, that argument won't wash with many voters because they have seen how Harper's Tories have governed so pompously with the current majority...
- Alice offered her assessment of Paul Dewar:
- Thomas Mulcair offered up an election strategy including a 338 Fund for riding-level campaigns and a commitment to have at least some campaign ready in every riding across Canada. That offers some useful indication as to how he's thinking about organizational issues - but still doesn't answer the question of what his plans would be between now and 2015.
- Tim Naumetz reports that other campaigns are "shocked" about Brian Topp's lack of organization. But let's give Topp this much: he's still apparently convinced Jeffrey Simpson and L. Ian MacDonald that he's one competitor in a two-person race - while Carol Goar slightly more thorough summary of the choices.
- Duncan Cameron reiterated his support for Peggy Nash, pointing out her positive reviews in the media during the leadership campaign as a new reason for the endorsement. The Ottawa Citizen recognized how much Ed Broadbent's comments last week were blown out of proportion. Tim Harper commented on the race to define the NDP's new leader. And the imminent election of the NDP's permanent successor to Jack Layton is also leading to plenty of discussion about what Jack accomplished - ranging from winning 3.5 million new votes for the left to building a bridge between social democracy and the wider public (with some associated costs) to "sinister mind control experiment!". Which offers an always-appreciated excuse to link to IP.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Leadership 2012 Roundup
A quick look at the latest news as the NDP's leadership convention approaches.
- Alice's latest Power Play appearance saw her discuss Nathan Cullen's campaign:
Meanwhile, Cullen received an endorsement from Murray Dobbin - which is particularly noteworthy since Dobbin had previously lined up behind Peggy Nash.
- Paul Dewar's interview with Jessica Bruno included this on his top three priorities:
- Jamey Heath theorizes that the most important split in the campaign is between candidates who see last year's federal election as having drastically changed the NDP's position, and those who don't. Peter O'Neil wants the NDP to favour unfettered tar sands growth as a matter of national unity - because it worked so well for the last opposition leader to do exactly that. Steve V takes a look at the possible outcomes. And Joan Bryden reports that the NDP will be ready to start defining its new leader from day one - rather than waiting for the Cons to get there first.
- Alice's latest Power Play appearance saw her discuss Nathan Cullen's campaign:
Meanwhile, Cullen received an endorsement from Murray Dobbin - which is particularly noteworthy since Dobbin had previously lined up behind Peggy Nash.
- Paul Dewar's interview with Jessica Bruno included this on his top three priorities:
What are the top three policy issues you think the NDP should focus on? Why?- Brian Topp succinctly summed up the lesson worth taking from the 2011 election:
“Retooling our economy and fixing up the mess being brought in by the Conservatives. Over the past six years, the Harper government has been slowly turning the clock back on our economy, turning away from solid manufacturing and value added jobs to being completely focused on energy exports. We need to stop looking back to the 19th century and start creating the innovative 21st century jobs that will drive our economy for the future.
“Strengthening our social safety net. The Harper government’s attack on OAS, Health Care, and other fundamental parts of our social safety net is also an attack on the caring society we as Canadians celebrate.
“Correcting centuries of injustice by respecting Canada’s First Nations. That means more than speeches and meetings. It means addressing the inequalities that exists in health care and education for many First Nations. And moving forward it is dealing with First Nations on a nation to nation level—one of mutual respect and understanding. There is no reason that in Canada, in this day and age, that we can stand back and allow these conditions to continue."
Topp said it's important to remember that Layton left "an extraordinary legacy" before his death last August.- Alice unveiled a detailed post on fund-raising and momentum - with Brian Topp's late-campaign returns looking like a rather striking development. But while she focuses on the relative positioning of the candidates, I'll again note how important the total fund-raising looks to be as compared to the spending limit: with three candidates already over $300,000 in revenue and two more in the $200,000 range, the entire NDP leadership field figures to have less campaign debt than the Libs' new leader alone did in 2006.
"He showed that the NDP, as the NDP, could be very successful."
- Jamey Heath theorizes that the most important split in the campaign is between candidates who see last year's federal election as having drastically changed the NDP's position, and those who don't. Peter O'Neil wants the NDP to favour unfettered tar sands growth as a matter of national unity - because it worked so well for the last opposition leader to do exactly that. Steve V takes a look at the possible outcomes. And Joan Bryden reports that the NDP will be ready to start defining its new leader from day one - rather than waiting for the Cons to get there first.
Monday, March 19, 2012
The decisive question
Following up on my candidate questionnaire and previous posts about party organization, I'll offer my own observations on the final two questions I posed to the leadership candidates.
I start from the premise that the primary goals of a leader are to serve as the party's public face and chief strategist. And while all of the candidates have shown at least some obvious ability in either or both of those areas, the biggest issue facing members this week will be to sort through the fact that there's such a wide range of strengths which may not all be applied under some scenarios.
It's fairly easy to see the strengths of the lower-tier candidates worked into the structure of whoever wins: surely nobody will want to undermine the enthusiasm Niki Ashton has built on the Prairies and among young members, or Martin Singh's inroads into the Sikh community.
As for the perceived upper tier, Brian Topp may not have caught fire as a candidate, but I don't see that affecting the general view that he's one of the country's top strategic minds (and someone who should remain part of the NDP's inner circle for a long time to come). Nathan Cullen stands out as the candidate with the highest upside as the face of the NDP outside of Quebec (and arguably within it as well). Paul Dewar's organizational plan would serve as a valuable blueprint for any of the candidates, but speaks particularly well to his own thought process as a leader. Peggy Nash has lots to offer on the party- and movement-building side as well, while also having plenty of ability to strengthen the party's economic credentials (as all candidates seem to agree we need to do). And Thomas Mulcair has displayed his massive strengths as both a spokesperson and strategist within Quebec, with potential to expand that appeal nationally.
Ideally, we'd see all of those talents put to good use. But there are still some reasons for concern as to whether or not they will be.
The obvious rivalry between Mulcair and Topp over the course of the leadership campaign leads to some worry that a Mulcair-led inner circle would have doubts about the NDP's long-time strategic team - and Mulcair's limited answers about his plans for the party don't help matters. Mulcair has also criticized Dewar's party-building plan, leading me to wonder whether he'll use what may be the best available organizational blueprint. And Cullen's rapport with voters may not achieve the greatest possible effect if it's being used to pursue an interparty strategy that doesn't find a willing partner or serve the purposes it's intended to achieve.
Of course, the members' means of trying to achieve that end is through a vote for a single leadership candidate. But that leads to what may be the key question in evaluating the candidates: who, if elected, would best recognize and apply the collective strengths of the leadership candidates, caucus and party at large? And my suspicion is that the answer to that question - viewing the candidates in terms of organizational leadership, rather than either personal profile alone or compromises among camps - should be our guiding principle in deciding which candidate to support.
I start from the premise that the primary goals of a leader are to serve as the party's public face and chief strategist. And while all of the candidates have shown at least some obvious ability in either or both of those areas, the biggest issue facing members this week will be to sort through the fact that there's such a wide range of strengths which may not all be applied under some scenarios.
It's fairly easy to see the strengths of the lower-tier candidates worked into the structure of whoever wins: surely nobody will want to undermine the enthusiasm Niki Ashton has built on the Prairies and among young members, or Martin Singh's inroads into the Sikh community.
As for the perceived upper tier, Brian Topp may not have caught fire as a candidate, but I don't see that affecting the general view that he's one of the country's top strategic minds (and someone who should remain part of the NDP's inner circle for a long time to come). Nathan Cullen stands out as the candidate with the highest upside as the face of the NDP outside of Quebec (and arguably within it as well). Paul Dewar's organizational plan would serve as a valuable blueprint for any of the candidates, but speaks particularly well to his own thought process as a leader. Peggy Nash has lots to offer on the party- and movement-building side as well, while also having plenty of ability to strengthen the party's economic credentials (as all candidates seem to agree we need to do). And Thomas Mulcair has displayed his massive strengths as both a spokesperson and strategist within Quebec, with potential to expand that appeal nationally.
Ideally, we'd see all of those talents put to good use. But there are still some reasons for concern as to whether or not they will be.
The obvious rivalry between Mulcair and Topp over the course of the leadership campaign leads to some worry that a Mulcair-led inner circle would have doubts about the NDP's long-time strategic team - and Mulcair's limited answers about his plans for the party don't help matters. Mulcair has also criticized Dewar's party-building plan, leading me to wonder whether he'll use what may be the best available organizational blueprint. And Cullen's rapport with voters may not achieve the greatest possible effect if it's being used to pursue an interparty strategy that doesn't find a willing partner or serve the purposes it's intended to achieve.
Of course, the members' means of trying to achieve that end is through a vote for a single leadership candidate. But that leads to what may be the key question in evaluating the candidates: who, if elected, would best recognize and apply the collective strengths of the leadership candidates, caucus and party at large? And my suspicion is that the answer to that question - viewing the candidates in terms of organizational leadership, rather than either personal profile alone or compromises among camps - should be our guiding principle in deciding which candidate to support.
Leadership 2012 Roundup
With the NDP's leadership campaign entering its final week, it's no great surprise to see plenty more punditry than usual surrounding the race. But what might influence the ballots cast this week (which may end up making all the difference)?
- The most attention over the last day or so has gone to Doris Layton's letter in support of Brian Topp - which certainly offers a stronger and more sentimental appeal than a lot of the other late-campaign messages. But given that her endorsement had already been announced, I'm far from convinced the latest appeal will make all that much difference - no matter how well-worded.
- Bill Tieleman offers his theory as to how Peggy Nash can win the leadership. And T.C. Norris provides similar analysis of the relative positioning of the candidates, albeit leading to a conclusion that Thomas Mulcair is likely to emerge victorious.
- Tim Harper wonders whether Mulcair's opponents have helped pave his path to victory by not coordinating with each other's camps. And in particular, I'll note that the work the campaigns have done to encourage advance ballots aimed at a single candidate (or limited number of them) may make it easier for an early leader to hold on in a multiple-ballot vote.
- John Ibbitson declares Mulcair a shoo-in before offering a warning about undue certainty in prediction:
- Finally, Mulcair offered a stronger rebuttal than usual to the suggestion he'd want to move the NDP to the right:
- The most attention over the last day or so has gone to Doris Layton's letter in support of Brian Topp - which certainly offers a stronger and more sentimental appeal than a lot of the other late-campaign messages. But given that her endorsement had already been announced, I'm far from convinced the latest appeal will make all that much difference - no matter how well-worded.
- Bill Tieleman offers his theory as to how Peggy Nash can win the leadership. And T.C. Norris provides similar analysis of the relative positioning of the candidates, albeit leading to a conclusion that Thomas Mulcair is likely to emerge victorious.
- Tim Harper wonders whether Mulcair's opponents have helped pave his path to victory by not coordinating with each other's camps. And in particular, I'll note that the work the campaigns have done to encourage advance ballots aimed at a single candidate (or limited number of them) may make it easier for an early leader to hold on in a multiple-ballot vote.
- John Ibbitson declares Mulcair a shoo-in before offering a warning about undue certainty in prediction:
(A Cullen win) remains the least-unlikely alternative to the much-more likely victory by Mr. Mulcair. Your correspondent is as certain of this as he was in October, 2007, that Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic presidential nomination.- Ish Theilheimer looks to sum up the differences between the leadership candidates. And John Baglow sorts out a four-candidate top tier.
- Finally, Mulcair offered a stronger rebuttal than usual to the suggestion he'd want to move the NDP to the right:
(Topp) has repeatedly said that Mulcair's vision for modernizing the party would move the party over to the centre.- Which is for the best, since Frank Graves points out why the NDP looks to be in a strong position in building toward 2015:
But in a french-language interview with Radio-Canada's Sunday political flagship program Les Coulisses du Pouvoir, Mulcair said he has never used that expression.
"Others have used it for me, and attributed it to me," he said.
"What I have said from the start, however, is we have to bring the centre towards the NDP," specified Mulcair, who sees a distinction between the two positions.
Mr. Graves said he believes, based on his polling trends and contrary to the view held in red Liberal territory, that the NDP has shown, leaderless as it has been and with most of its star frontbenchers out of House action since October, that its success last year was not “an ephemeral blip propelled by the charismatic authority of Jack Layton.”
Mr. Graves posed that it is because, underneath the effect Mr. Layton’s leadership and strategic success in Quebec had, there have been dramatic subterranean shifts in Canada’s voting population in the past five years, which in the broader international sense, have also been reflected by the post-recession upheaval over the mushrooming gap between the poor and the rich.
“It is the increasing ideological fragmentation of the Canadian electorate, but also new sort of splits on, I’m not sure another term captures it as well, basically class conflicts. The new dominant issue that we see, but which nobody else is talking about, what the Americans are noting as the new number one issue, is income inequality,” said Mr. Graves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)