Let's finish my series of relatively brief NDP leadership candidate evaluations with a look at Niki Ashton.
1. What direction will she set for the NDP?
There's plenty to like about Ashton's central themes of pursuing equality, engaging younger Canadians and non-voters and mounting a direct challenge to the Cons in the West: if anything, the "new politics" mantra she's repeated throughout the leadership campaign may undersell the significance of those plans. And Ashton can also point to a few of the campaign's more noteworthy policy proposals amidst a generally strong (if slightly inconsistent) platform.
2. How will she respond when pushed off course?
But the perception that Ashton has ranked below the top tier of candidates has kept her from being tested in the same way that the five main contenders have all had to answer pointed questions from each other. Which means that it's been difficult to add much to the information we already have on this point - which does include a noteworthy stand to vote according to her promise to constituents on a previous incarnation of gun registry legislation.
3. How do her personal traits affect her ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
Ashton has been fairly effective in the debates and other public appearances throughout the campaign, and there's at least a reasonable prospect she could extend her appeal to the general public (particularly the groups she's targeted in her leadership campaign). But other than an unexpectedly strong performance in the first debate back in December she hasn't stood out within the field.
Conclusion
In retrospect, it's a shame that Ashton hasn't received more of an opportunity to show how she could compare and compete against the perceived upper-tier candidates - and she'd rank ahead of at least a couple of them if I were assembling a ballot today. But I can't go much further than that without more direct evidence as to how Ashton would handle the pressures of the leadership, and it doesn't look like there's time for that in advance of this month's vote.
Showing posts with label leadership 2012 candidate analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership 2012 candidate analysis. Show all posts
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Nathan Cullen
Nathan Cullen has managed to put together than some observers (myself included) expected when he first raised the idea of joint nominations as a campaign centrepiece - and all while emphasizing that controversial proposal. But has he overcome the initial concerns?
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
Well, I'll have to mention the joint-nomination plan as by far my largest concern on this point - even if I don't plan to repeat myself as to the issues it raises. But the initial concerns are now compounded by a sense that Cullen is now sticking to the joint nomination idea as a matter of showing resolve - which doesn't entirely fit with his justification for the plan in the first place of considering different possibilities in the lead up to 2015.
Otherwise, Cullen has generally presented well-thought-out policies which combine a progressive populist message with ideas that can be pitched to a wider audience. But when priority #1 is as problematic as Cullen's, it's hard to consider this question to be anything other than a significant weakness.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
Which is a shame, since Cullen is one of the top contenders on both other fronts. He's spent nearly the entire campaign under fire due to the joint nomination proposal, if more by design than as a matter of surprise - and he's made about as strong a case as can be made for the plan in the face of tough criticism from the bulk of his competitors.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
And the occasional question from the commentariat about his French aside (which seems an overblown concern based on his debate performances), Cullen has been stellar as a retail politician from the start of the race - combining a command of issues second only to Mulcair's with by far the best sense of humour among the contenders. So all else being equal, there's nobody in the race I'd expect to perform better as the face of the NDP if given the chance.
Conclusion
But Cullen is seeking a mandate for something other than a full focus on building the NDP. And while he's managed to win over substantially more members than I'd have thought possible, that's still a bridge too far from my standpoint.
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
Well, I'll have to mention the joint-nomination plan as by far my largest concern on this point - even if I don't plan to repeat myself as to the issues it raises. But the initial concerns are now compounded by a sense that Cullen is now sticking to the joint nomination idea as a matter of showing resolve - which doesn't entirely fit with his justification for the plan in the first place of considering different possibilities in the lead up to 2015.
Otherwise, Cullen has generally presented well-thought-out policies which combine a progressive populist message with ideas that can be pitched to a wider audience. But when priority #1 is as problematic as Cullen's, it's hard to consider this question to be anything other than a significant weakness.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
Which is a shame, since Cullen is one of the top contenders on both other fronts. He's spent nearly the entire campaign under fire due to the joint nomination proposal, if more by design than as a matter of surprise - and he's made about as strong a case as can be made for the plan in the face of tough criticism from the bulk of his competitors.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
And the occasional question from the commentariat about his French aside (which seems an overblown concern based on his debate performances), Cullen has been stellar as a retail politician from the start of the race - combining a command of issues second only to Mulcair's with by far the best sense of humour among the contenders. So all else being equal, there's nobody in the race I'd expect to perform better as the face of the NDP if given the chance.
Conclusion
But Cullen is seeking a mandate for something other than a full focus on building the NDP. And while he's managed to win over substantially more members than I'd have thought possible, that's still a bridge too far from my standpoint.
Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Paul Dewar
Paul Dewar has been the quintessential middle-of-the-pack candidate thus far in the NDP's leadership race, combining one obvious weakness with a strong organization and personal appeal to place himself within the second tier of contenders. So where will he place as the campaign draws to a close?
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
As with most of the party's veteran MPs there's little doubt about Dewar's commitment to progressive principles, with his "more caring Canada" theme serving as a useful central message. And he's also been able to point to a relatively detailed plan to get the NDP organized from day one after the leadership convention.
But Dewar's policy offerings have been inconsistent at times, ranging from terse bullet points (see for example his urban strategy) to plans made up almost entirely of low-content aspirational language (see e.g. point 4 here) alongside his more thorough proposals.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
Dewar has been strong in dealing with challenges (subject to the language issues described below), notably by turning the somewhat controversial announcement of Charlie Angus as a provisional deputy leader into "Charlie envy" on the part of his competitors. And there's no reason to think he'd have any trouble responding similarly in a leadership capacity.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
The obvious concern here is that Dewar's French is still a work in progress: he's been able to identify topics and provide effective basic statements with increasing ease, but still looks to be a long way from having the ability to process, analyze and speak to complex policy issues.
Otherwise, Dewar has shown plenty of personal appeal in own-event settings while becoming more comfortable with debate formats since the start of the campaign.
Conclusion
Dewar's strategy over the second half of the campaign has plainly been to try to push ahead of Brian Topp in order to position himself for later ballots. And based on the polling numbers available to date, he seems to have done fairly well on that front. But I have him falling just short of Topp on all three considerations - meaning that he'll place similarly on my ballot.
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
As with most of the party's veteran MPs there's little doubt about Dewar's commitment to progressive principles, with his "more caring Canada" theme serving as a useful central message. And he's also been able to point to a relatively detailed plan to get the NDP organized from day one after the leadership convention.
But Dewar's policy offerings have been inconsistent at times, ranging from terse bullet points (see for example his urban strategy) to plans made up almost entirely of low-content aspirational language (see e.g. point 4 here) alongside his more thorough proposals.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
Dewar has been strong in dealing with challenges (subject to the language issues described below), notably by turning the somewhat controversial announcement of Charlie Angus as a provisional deputy leader into "Charlie envy" on the part of his competitors. And there's no reason to think he'd have any trouble responding similarly in a leadership capacity.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
The obvious concern here is that Dewar's French is still a work in progress: he's been able to identify topics and provide effective basic statements with increasing ease, but still looks to be a long way from having the ability to process, analyze and speak to complex policy issues.
Otherwise, Dewar has shown plenty of personal appeal in own-event settings while becoming more comfortable with debate formats since the start of the campaign.
Conclusion
Dewar's strategy over the second half of the campaign has plainly been to try to push ahead of Brian Topp in order to position himself for later ballots. And based on the polling numbers available to date, he seems to have done fairly well on that front. But I have him falling just short of Topp on all three considerations - meaning that he'll place similarly on my ballot.
Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Thomas Mulcair
Thomas Mulcair has held the pole position from day one of the NDP's leadership campaign, and only looks to have entrenched that status as the candidates behind him have focused largely on trying to make the final ballot.
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
And that's much to Mulcair's benefit, as there's some significant reason for skepticism as to what he'd choose to do as leader of the NDP. On substantive policies he's mostly stuck to the contents of the party's 2011 platform, generally accompanied by messaging twists intended to make the policies sound like less significant changes than they ought to be. Which neatly fits Mulcair's "bring the centre to us" philosophy - but also risks falling into the trap in which a lack of anybody strongly pushing a progressive frame leads to a perpetual drift to the right.
Even more problematically, Mulcair has taken to talking regularly about substantially reshaping how the NDP operates - while being one of the few candidates who hasn't released a platform plank as to what his NDP would look like. Rob Silver notes the immediate ideological implications of Mulcair's call for a sweeping mandate to overhaul the NDP, but I'm equally concerned about the organizational ones: even if one doesn't think Mulcair himself is likely to substantially change the NDP's direction, a top-down structure which empowers the party's leader to exclusively define its priorities at the expense of members would create the conditions for full large-L Liberalization, with leader-driven factions rather than values defining the party.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
On the bright side for Mulcair, his political seasoning has been obvious throughout the leadership campaign. Mulcair hasn't only defended himself from challenges by competitors and outsiders alike, but has frequently made the attacks look silly: take for example his defusing in a matter of days a citizenship issue that dogged Stephane Dion for a substantial length of time.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
Meanwhile, Mulcair's greatest advantage is the fact that he's the lone candidate who can point to actual status as a household name and political rock star (at least in Quebec), rather than merely projecting how the public might come to see him. And he's done little to suggest he'll have much trouble extending that reach across much of Canada if he gets the chance.
Conclusion
I'll hope to see Mulcair expand on his plans for the NDP over the next few weeks, and may well see him as the best option by the end of the race if he offers some reassurances that his plans to modernize the party mean updating and strengthening its values rather than making them subject to leader-driven control. For now, though, Mulcair seems to be asking too high a price for his obvious political skills - and so I can't put him at the top of my ballot.
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
And that's much to Mulcair's benefit, as there's some significant reason for skepticism as to what he'd choose to do as leader of the NDP. On substantive policies he's mostly stuck to the contents of the party's 2011 platform, generally accompanied by messaging twists intended to make the policies sound like less significant changes than they ought to be. Which neatly fits Mulcair's "bring the centre to us" philosophy - but also risks falling into the trap in which a lack of anybody strongly pushing a progressive frame leads to a perpetual drift to the right.
Even more problematically, Mulcair has taken to talking regularly about substantially reshaping how the NDP operates - while being one of the few candidates who hasn't released a platform plank as to what his NDP would look like. Rob Silver notes the immediate ideological implications of Mulcair's call for a sweeping mandate to overhaul the NDP, but I'm equally concerned about the organizational ones: even if one doesn't think Mulcair himself is likely to substantially change the NDP's direction, a top-down structure which empowers the party's leader to exclusively define its priorities at the expense of members would create the conditions for full large-L Liberalization, with leader-driven factions rather than values defining the party.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
On the bright side for Mulcair, his political seasoning has been obvious throughout the leadership campaign. Mulcair hasn't only defended himself from challenges by competitors and outsiders alike, but has frequently made the attacks look silly: take for example his defusing in a matter of days a citizenship issue that dogged Stephane Dion for a substantial length of time.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
Meanwhile, Mulcair's greatest advantage is the fact that he's the lone candidate who can point to actual status as a household name and political rock star (at least in Quebec), rather than merely projecting how the public might come to see him. And he's done little to suggest he'll have much trouble extending that reach across much of Canada if he gets the chance.
Conclusion
I'll hope to see Mulcair expand on his plans for the NDP over the next few weeks, and may well see him as the best option by the end of the race if he offers some reassurances that his plans to modernize the party mean updating and strengthening its values rather than making them subject to leader-driven control. For now, though, Mulcair seems to be asking too high a price for his obvious political skills - and so I can't put him at the top of my ballot.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Peggy Nash
From the start of the NDP's leadership campaign, I've been just one of many commentators anticipating a final ballot of Thomas Mulcair vs. Peggy Nash. But while Mulcair still looks like a safe bet, Nash is looking less so - and the factors at play in that assessment match my take on her as a candidate.
1. What direction will she set for the NDP?
Based on her longtime involvement with the NDP and the labour movement, Nash seems to have calculated that she doesn't need to prove her left-wing bona fides with appeals comparable to Brian Topp's call for higher taxes on the wealthy. And a result, her plans have actually played just as well in the press as with party members (though there's plenty to like in her party-building proposal as well).
Despite that strategic choice, I'd still classify her as the candidate who would figure to implement the most progressive policy program over the course of a term of majority government. And yes, I see that as a massive plus.
2. How will she respond when pushed off course?
But in order to have a chance to implement any of her policies, she'll need to show far better political instincts than she has in the course of the leadership campaign.
At times her difficulties have involved completely unforced errors - such as somehow mentioning the gun registry in response to a question on how to win in Western Canada. At others she's fallen into strategic traps set by opponents, such as Paul Dewar's question about user fees. And in many cases she's simply failed to adapt to circumstances; in the question periods of at least a couple of recent debates she's stuck to lines of questioning which merely duplicated in weaker terms what the candidate immediately before her had already asked.
But the common denominator has been regular difficulty in responding quickly to the types of immediate pressures that face a leader of the Official Opposition every day. And it's hard to see much prospect of improvement at this late stage of the leadership campaign.
3. How do her personal traits affect her ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
Aside from that problem, Nash has acquitted herself well in the leadership campaign, addressing concerns about her ability to inspire a crowd while also making a conscious effort to run a more positive campaign than some of her competitors. And even when she's gone off course, her campaign has normally put matters back on track in fairly short order.
Conclusion
But it won't be so easy to make up for any questions about unsure political footing once a new leader faces a Con government eager to spread banana peels everywhere then run attack ads about a lack of balance. Which is why Nash has gone from being my initial first choice to near the bottom of my ballot - and why NDP members may need to tread carefully in approaching Nash's candidacy.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
1. What direction will she set for the NDP?
Based on her longtime involvement with the NDP and the labour movement, Nash seems to have calculated that she doesn't need to prove her left-wing bona fides with appeals comparable to Brian Topp's call for higher taxes on the wealthy. And a result, her plans have actually played just as well in the press as with party members (though there's plenty to like in her party-building proposal as well).
Despite that strategic choice, I'd still classify her as the candidate who would figure to implement the most progressive policy program over the course of a term of majority government. And yes, I see that as a massive plus.
2. How will she respond when pushed off course?
But in order to have a chance to implement any of her policies, she'll need to show far better political instincts than she has in the course of the leadership campaign.
At times her difficulties have involved completely unforced errors - such as somehow mentioning the gun registry in response to a question on how to win in Western Canada. At others she's fallen into strategic traps set by opponents, such as Paul Dewar's question about user fees. And in many cases she's simply failed to adapt to circumstances; in the question periods of at least a couple of recent debates she's stuck to lines of questioning which merely duplicated in weaker terms what the candidate immediately before her had already asked.
But the common denominator has been regular difficulty in responding quickly to the types of immediate pressures that face a leader of the Official Opposition every day. And it's hard to see much prospect of improvement at this late stage of the leadership campaign.
3. How do her personal traits affect her ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
Aside from that problem, Nash has acquitted herself well in the leadership campaign, addressing concerns about her ability to inspire a crowd while also making a conscious effort to run a more positive campaign than some of her competitors. And even when she's gone off course, her campaign has normally put matters back on track in fairly short order.
Conclusion
But it won't be so easy to make up for any questions about unsure political footing once a new leader faces a Con government eager to spread banana peels everywhere then run attack ads about a lack of balance. Which is why Nash has gone from being my initial first choice to near the bottom of my ballot - and why NDP members may need to tread carefully in approaching Nash's candidacy.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Martin Singh
Let's turn to the second candidate to be reviewed as a contender for the NDP's leadership. Martin Singh still looks to trail most of his competitors in the leadership campaign, but has undoubtedly raised his profile both inside and outside the party. So what would we expect if he were leader?
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
Singh hasn't had to answer many questions about his organizational philosophy. And so the main information we have on this point comes from his platform and debate messaging.
On that front, Singh has been quite clear that he's concerned about appealing to business with a particular focus on entrepreneurship, while building those interests into his other platform planks on health care and the environment. Which means that he ranks further to the right than any other candidate in his core message.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
And how we've heard that core message throughout the campaign. Singh gets credit for knowing what he wants to say and repeating it, but he's taken even the most basic questions on unrelated issues as an invitation to launch into his platform. Which means that we don't much know how he'd respond in substance to a serious challenge to position.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
Singh has impressed some by holding his own in debates against far more experienced politicians, and his claimed membership numbers certainly look impressive as a measure of his ability to win over first-choice followers. But he hasn't stood out as a performer among the field of contenders, and wouldn't figure to have any particular advantage under this question either.
Conclusion
Singh has nicely laid out the groundwork for a future as a relatively centrist NDP MP. But based on his inexperience and the limited scope of his leadership campaign, it's likely for the best that he's in the lower tier of candidates for now.
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
Singh hasn't had to answer many questions about his organizational philosophy. And so the main information we have on this point comes from his platform and debate messaging.
On that front, Singh has been quite clear that he's concerned about appealing to business with a particular focus on entrepreneurship, while building those interests into his other platform planks on health care and the environment. Which means that he ranks further to the right than any other candidate in his core message.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
And how we've heard that core message throughout the campaign. Singh gets credit for knowing what he wants to say and repeating it, but he's taken even the most basic questions on unrelated issues as an invitation to launch into his platform. Which means that we don't much know how he'd respond in substance to a serious challenge to position.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
Singh has impressed some by holding his own in debates against far more experienced politicians, and his claimed membership numbers certainly look impressive as a measure of his ability to win over first-choice followers. But he hasn't stood out as a performer among the field of contenders, and wouldn't figure to have any particular advantage under this question either.
Conclusion
Singh has nicely laid out the groundwork for a future as a relatively centrist NDP MP. But based on his inexperience and the limited scope of his leadership campaign, it's likely for the best that he's in the lower tier of candidates for now.
Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Brian Topp
As promised, let's take a look at each of the NDP's leadership candidates through the lens of my three basic considerations - starting in reverse alphabetical order with Brian Topp.
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
Topp has been more clear than any other candidate in the leadership race as to the basic set of values he'll apply, with equality presented as the core goal. And while his policies aren't always the most detailed, they nicely fuse that core value with a healthy dose of objection to the unfairness of the status quo.
If there's any reason for concern on this point, it has less to do with Topp's current policy message than the question of whether he'll follow the pattern of spending more time repairing the federal fiscal framework than using it to achieve the goal of greater equality. But on the balance this looks to be a strength.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
And not surprisingly, Topp has lived up to his billing as a strategist by handling controversy well throughout the leadership campaign. He's met flawed calls from his own campaign with genuine denunciation, and defused questions both fair (as to his plans to win a seat in Parliament) and unfair (as to whether his desire for fairer taxes should be treated as harming charities) - all while taking little time to pivot back to his own intended message track.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
This of course is the big question for Topp. I'm far from convinced of Paul Wells' theory that charm can be learned or swept aside as a consideration for the NDP. And even if it can be improved with time, Topp figures to need the better part of the lead-up to 2015 to approach the profile and HOAG factor of a couple of his competitors - particularly if he faces the Cons' attack machine while trying to train up to the role.
But Topp has improved his camera presence during the course of the leadership campaign, suggesting that there's room for some growth.
Conclusion
I'd still consider the ideal role for Topp to be that of strategic second-in-command alongside a more charismatic leader. But in a campaign where most of the candidates who fit that bill seem skeptical of Topp's direction, such an outcome may not be an option. And Topp has a plausible path to the leadership if he can convince NDP members to put values over charm - at least for now.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
1. What direction will he set for the NDP?
Topp has been more clear than any other candidate in the leadership race as to the basic set of values he'll apply, with equality presented as the core goal. And while his policies aren't always the most detailed, they nicely fuse that core value with a healthy dose of objection to the unfairness of the status quo.
If there's any reason for concern on this point, it has less to do with Topp's current policy message than the question of whether he'll follow the pattern of spending more time repairing the federal fiscal framework than using it to achieve the goal of greater equality. But on the balance this looks to be a strength.
2. How will he respond when pushed off course?
And not surprisingly, Topp has lived up to his billing as a strategist by handling controversy well throughout the leadership campaign. He's met flawed calls from his own campaign with genuine denunciation, and defused questions both fair (as to his plans to win a seat in Parliament) and unfair (as to whether his desire for fairer taxes should be treated as harming charities) - all while taking little time to pivot back to his own intended message track.
3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?
This of course is the big question for Topp. I'm far from convinced of Paul Wells' theory that charm can be learned or swept aside as a consideration for the NDP. And even if it can be improved with time, Topp figures to need the better part of the lead-up to 2015 to approach the profile and HOAG factor of a couple of his competitors - particularly if he faces the Cons' attack machine while trying to train up to the role.
But Topp has improved his camera presence during the course of the leadership campaign, suggesting that there's room for some growth.
Conclusion
I'd still consider the ideal role for Topp to be that of strategic second-in-command alongside a more charismatic leader. But in a campaign where most of the candidates who fit that bill seem skeptical of Topp's direction, such an outcome may not be an option. And Topp has a plausible path to the leadership if he can convince NDP members to put values over charm - at least for now.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)