Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Carol Linnitt notes that British Columbia's provincial pipeline spill map has been conspicuously disappeared by the Clark Libs in the lead up to an election where environmental protection is a major issue. And Kathy Tomlinson is the latest to highlight both the glaring lack of reasonable fund-raising regulations in B.C., and the fact that corporations are still managing to break the law with impunity.

- Meanwhile, Emily Eaton and Simon Enoch examine how the oil industry is distorting education in Saskatchewan. 

- Bob Berwyn warns about the impending release of greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost. And Robin McKie writes that the loss of sea ice is threatening the entire Arctic ecosystem.

- Kate Lord discusses Canada's shameful history of systemic discrimination against indigenous children. Michael Enright writes that there's no excuse for the continued lack of clean water on many First Nations reserves, while Sarah Giles, Lindsay Hancock and Lisa Letkemann point out that allocated funding for health services isn't being spent due to an overly stingy travel policy which prevents needed treatment from being approved. And Paul Dewar suggests that instead of following through on the Cons' ideological anti-communism memorial, we direct our efforts toward building a National Aboriginal Centre.

- Alan Freeman notes that money launderers are effectively being welcomed to Canada and told they'll be shielded from public view. And Harvey Cashore, Kimberly Ivany, Frederic Zalac and Gillian Findlay expose a few of the bigger names linked to KPMG's offshore tax evasion, while noting that none of them figure to face any consequences for cheating the public.

- And finally, Jim Bronskill reports on CSIS' glaring failure to assess privacy risks before it approved the wholesale collection of metadata.

On dividing lines

For the most part, Joan Bryden's report signals that there isn't much controversy left arising out of Alexandre Boulerice's comments about niqabs in the civil service. But it's worth asking whether the trial balloon floated by Boulerice serves any purpose whatsoever:

Martin added that he has no problem with Boulerice's suggestion that a pan-Canadian commission — along the lines of Quebec's Bouchard-Taylor commission in 2007 — should be created to find a consensus on how far the country should go to accommodate minority cultural and religious practices.

However, Dewar, whose riding is home to many civil servants, said there is no issue to resolve; he's never had a single complaint about public servants covering their faces.

"Why would you have a study on something that doesn't exist?"

Dewar is right to note that there's no apparent problem to solve which would merit study by a commission. But even if there were some complaints being raised about face coverings, we also shouldn't ignore the fact that there are existing answers as to how much accommodation is required.

In addition to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, individual rights are also protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory treatment based on national or ethnic origin and religion unless there's a bona fide requirement which justifies that treatment.

In the case of a civil servant, that would mean that any prohibition against wearing a niqab would have to be justified by evidence that having a covered face prevents an individual from performing a job. And nothing in the current discussion suggests that's an even remotely reasonable position.

The effect of a commission would then be at best to confirm the existing standard, and at worst to establish some new threshold which prioritizes an explicit distaste for minority cultural practices ahead of the current balance between individual beliefs and practices and bona fide job requirements.

Which is to say that Boulerice's call for a commission should be dismissed as quickly as any call to discriminate based on niqabs in particular. He's entitled to his personal views, but not to try to use public policy to require individuals to conform to them. And the NDP should take the important opportunity to be the only party standing up for that principle in stark contrast to the Cons and Libs, rather than looking for some arbitrary dividing line of its own.

Update: Haroon Siddiqui makes a similar point. 

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- David Miller makes the case to take aim at inequality in Canada:

With globalization being the holy grail of efficiency, it became a race to the bottom as international capital sought the lowest cost and the lowest wages. The result in Canada and many other countries was the closing of industries, the gutting of union organizing through new laws that attack unions and limit their ability to operate, and the gradual rise in income inequality since 1990. Canada now ranks 12th out of 17 first-world economies for income inequality, and were given a "C" grade by the Conference Board of Canada.

How do we reduce this trend and reap the long-term rewards? There are a number of potential solutions, but I'll touch on three.

First, we need to re-think the "lowest possible cost" globalization mantra. International trade is here to stay and can yield many benefits, both in Canada and abroad. But the emphasis should be less on "free trade" and more on "fair trade," so that people from all walks of life can benefit. The recent factory collapse in Bangladesh is just one example of what can happen when the lowest cost trumps everything.

Second, we need to strengthen the rights of trade unions to organize in the new digital economy. The power balance has swung too far -- and we need to better empower trade unions in their fight to bargain for fairer wages. For those not in a trade union, we need to raise the minimum wage to reduce the incidence of subsistence living.

Third, we need to examine how we can use public policy for all projects at all levels of government to advance the economic prospects for those least well off. For example, in Toronto, when we decided to reinvest in one of our poorest neighbourhoods, Regent Park, our procurement policies stipulated that 25 per cent of jobs related to the rebuild go to local residents. It was an effective way of ensuring that greater economic benefits flowed directly to the community that needed it most.

- Meanwhile, Jim Stanford is optimistic that Canadian governments are looking for new revenue tools to help address inequality. And Avaaz is leading a public push to close international tax loopholes which could go much further.

- But then, Paul Dewar observes that the Cons are still determined to prevent international action on issues which should represent simple areas of agreement - writing in particular about Stephen Harper's attempt to protect illegal arms brokers.

- Seumas Milne writes that a combination of relentless lobbying and a revolving door between regulators and industry has resulted in a thoroughly corrupted state in the UK - and the problem figures to be no less significant in Canada. And Simon Ravenscroft notes that the rich have been conspicuously unaffected by the austerity afflicted on mere commoners.

- Peter Kent is trying to spin as a plus the fact that oil companies are demanding that their old, dirty operations be allowed to continue without being subject to environmental regulations. And Leslie Young reports that we have plenty of reason to worry about newer installations as well - as the Plains Midstream debacle in Peace River resulted in Alberta pulling its limited regulatory staff from inspections of new pipelines in order to help assess the existing mess.

- Finally, Linda McQuaig presciently suggested that Nigel Wright's role as a party bagman should receive far more attention. And one secret seven-figure Con slush fund later, it looks like we'll be talking about the Cons' off-the-books and under-the-table dealings for a long time to come.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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;

- 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;

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.

One-Stop Consumer Protection, proposed by Thomas Mulcair:

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (Finance)
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.

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.

Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, proposed by Peggy Nash:

Pursue the implementation of a system of proportional representation by:
• 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;

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.

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.

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:

Cullen isn't shy about what he has in mind.

"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...

Meanwhile, both Frank Graves and Barbara Yaffe talk about some of the possibilities for cooperation.

- 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.

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:

What are the top three policy issues you think the NDP should focus on? Why?

“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."

- Brian Topp succinctly summed up the lesson worth taking from the 2011 election:

Topp said it's important to remember that Layton left "an extraordinary legacy" before his death last August.

"He showed that the NDP, as the NDP, could be very successful."

- 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.

- 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.

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.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - March 18, 2012

Since last week, we've seen the NDP's leadership campaign win plenty more attention in the media. But has any of the news managed to change the positioning of the candidates?

1. Thomas Mulcair (1)

Well, we've certainly seen Thomas Mulcair under the microscope more than he's ever been. But while the week gave rise to a couple of points which may not help his cause (with controversy over his positions on marijuana decriminalization and Syria among the points which may lose him later-ballot support), he still looks likely to hold a significant first-ballot lead over the next tier of candidates. And with Martin Singh expressly directing second-choice support toward Mulcair, we should expect another 5-point bump beyond what Mulcair gets on the first ballot before the rest of the candidates' supporters sort through their options.

2. Peggy Nash (2)

Nash still looks like the most likely of those options to emerge as leader. Until we see some more recent polling, the best operating assumption seems to be that she's still in the #2 position to start with, and she's positioned herself as a plausible choice for backers of all of the rest of the candidates.

3. Paul Dewar (3)

But I do see the gap between the #2 and #4 positions on this list tightening as the race draws to a close - and the most important question may be that of who ends up #2 on the first ballot. If Dewar can get the jump on Nash, then he figures to have a strong chance to draw in supporters from her and Topp to set up a final ballot challenge to Mulcair - and the more time members spend wondering about the front-runner, the less likely they'll be to focus on Dewar's French as a deciding factor.

4. Nathan Cullen (4)

Unlike the two candidates ahead of him, Cullen has been the beneficiary of plenty of pundit commentary over the past month or so - and it seems to have at least some basis in fund-raising numbers. But the issue for Cullen remains his ability to draw in down-ballot support, so merely starting off in second place may not be enough if a good number of Nash/Dewar/Topp supporters join forces.

5. Brian Topp (5)

While Ed Broadbent's public statements this week earned Topp some attention, they also hinted at the largest issue with Topp's campaign: less than a week from the leadership vote, he still hasn't developed enough of a profile to make a dent compared to his more storied supporters. And that combined with a backlash from other camps figures to severely limit Topp's likelihood of convincing anybody to offer down-ballot support.

6. Niki Ashton (6)

One of the less-discussed advantages any candidate has enjoyed in the leadership race has been the fact that the Harper Cons have been pushing a pipeline right through Nathan Cullen's riding, giving him a signature issue to point to throughout the race. Ashton's great "what if" may be the question of whether she could have turned earlier news about a Viterra buyout - fitting with both her prairie base and concern about foreign takeovers - into enough of a membership and profile boost to rank higher in the field.

7. Martin Singh (7)

He's maximized his possible impact on the race by offering his second-choice support to Mulcair. But I'm still less than convinced that he's done much for his standing within the party even if Mulcair wins.

Leadership 2012 Questionnaire Response - Paul Dewar

While noting the resources involved in responding to a request for information delivered late in the NDP's leadership campaign, I have to be impressed when a candidate who could easily enough have pointed to a well-publicized platform plank instead deal directly with the specific issues raised in a questionnaire. And the final two responses get extra points on that front - starting with Paul Dewar.

1. As leader, what changes (if any) would you seek to make to the NDP's:
(a) caucus management and discipline?

I know that as a big tent, our party includes a diversity of opinion. As I've shown during my years working as the Foreign Affairs critic (one of the files with the widest variety of opinions in our party), I reach unity and consensus through engagement and discussion.

As leader, Jack built a caucus team based on consensus and consultation with all of us elected MPs, and as leader I would follow the same path. For me, caucus solidarity is crucial and something all MPs must understand and abide by to the best of their abilities. It is something a leader must work on by meeting and listening in groups and individually to each and every MP.

I also want to be clear that I believe that difference of opinion held within caucus is natural. I am not interested in punishing colleagues for minor transgressions over policy. Rather, we must accept that our differences in opinion are valuable learning experiences and not reasons to divide us. Our party is a big tent, even more so since the last election, and what is important is that we, as a caucus, stick to a vision that encompasses our social democratic values and principles.

(b) membership engagement and organizational structure?

I'm the only candidate with a clear plan for engaging our members and riding associations in reaching out to voters and building our capacity to win the next 70 seats we need to form government. The details are in my Next 70 plan:

-Develop regional outreach plans, including a Western Strategy to reach out to new voters in Western Canada.

-Create Civil Society Outreach teams, led by MPs, to listen and share views, and coordinate with allies to advance progressive policies and build electoral support for winning the next election.

-Hire a youth organizer to work with campus clubs, youth groups and civil society organizations to organize young Canadians on college and university campuses, at high schools, workplaces and communities across the country.

-Implement an outreach strategy to New Canadian communities to increase diversity in our party membership and organization.

(c) policy development process?

As part of my Next 70 plan I’ve proposed to:

Set up a commission to organize around ‘Ideas for Progress’ so that we can build upon Jack Layton’s final letter to Canadians and create what Stephen Lewis described as the “manifesto for social democracy”. This commission would include Canadians from different walks of life, including the arts, labour, academia, business, agriculture, environmental organizations, poverty groups, women's rights organizations and others. It would allow greater access and involvement for Canadians in the development of our policies and planning.

In addition to this specific ‘Ideas for Progress’ initiative, I’d like to bolster our policy outreach and development processes at the regional and local riding levels in the build-up to our Party’s policy convention already slated for 2013.

(d) candidate recruitment and nomination process?

I will provide greater support to candidate search committees, I will maintain open and democratic nomination processes and I will provide additional resources to train candidates. We will share these resources with our provincial sections and progressive municipal allies.

(e) relationship to other political parties?

I have always worked with others to get results on issues that matter to us. I will continue that work in parliament with other party MPs or whole caucuses in Parliament and on an issue-by-issue basis.

(f) relationship to traditional allies in the labour, environmental and social justice movements?

I'm proud of our roots in labour, social and environmental movements. I will maintain and strengthen these ties, particularly by creating Civil Society Outreach teams, led by MPs, to listen and share views, and coordinate with allies to advance progressive policies and build electoral support for winning the next election.

(g) relationship to interests not traditionally allied with the NDP?

My outreach plans are meant to find common ground with those who have not traditionally voted NDP or have not voted at all. I have done that work in Ottawa Centre where we have grown our support in every election since I was first elected. I will create these new ties and expand our base by providing concrete solutions to issues that people care about, solutions that are rooted in our values and principles as social democrats.

2. As leader of the NDP, what roles would you anticipate within the party for:
(a) each of your fellow leadership candidates?

As soon as I win the leadership, I will invite my leadership colleagues to a meeting to discuss the road ahead. Ensuring that our caucus and our party is united and ready to take on Stephen Harper and the Government’s budget will be my first priority on March 25th – win or lose.

Part of building on our positive leadership contest will be to make sure that every one of my fellow candidates will be a big part of our fight inside and outside parliament to win the next 70 seats. I won’t speculate on specific roles before the leadership vote.

(b) any noteworthy organizers, volunteers or other participants in the leadership campaign on behalf of the other leadership candidates?

All campaigns teams have displayed great organizational skills. I don’t think it’s appropriate to mention individual names, but let me say this. One of the truly positive developments from our leadership race is that it has helped train a whole new generation of NDP campaigners. Organizers, press secretaries, social media experts – you name it, we’ve now improved an already strong NDP staff and volunteer team.

As leader I look forward to the opportunity to expand the team!

(c) the NDP's campaign team members from recent federal elections?

I will reach out to the campaign team members from recent elections to ensure they will be a part of our efforts going forward. Political judgment and strategic thinking are valuable skills that are gained over time through successes and mistakes. We will need the expertise of every team member to replicate our successes and avoid repeating mistakes.

3. If another candidate is elected leader, what other role do you believe would suit you best within the NDP?

I've always been a team player. We are fighting for a cause that is greater than any one of us. If our members elect another leader, I will offer my full commitment to working with our leader in whatever role they see fit for me in the team.

If there's any nit to pick in Dewar's response, it's that he's framed his first steps as leader around a question that he himself doesn't want to answer: it would seem a logical extension of "I'd ask what the other candidates want to do" to anticipate that Dewar himself would be able to offer a response.

But that's a minor point in what's otherwise a thoughtful and thorough response to some of the major organizational issues faced by any political party. And in particular, Dewar's commitment to working based on consensus decision-making and member-driven policy development and nomination processes - rather than seeing a need to close ranks and impose top-down discipline - only adds to my comfort level with the organizational plan he had already released.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

The latest couple of days worth of news as the NDP's leadership campaign enters its final week - aside from multiple candidates including Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar and Peggy Nash all taking the opportunity to call for unity in the wake of the continued overreaction to Ed Broadbent's latest comments.

- Ashton made the case for the NDP to hold a prairie breakthrough conference.

- Cullen was profiled by Allan Woods, while earning endorsements from Stephen Elliott-Buckley and a noteworthy set of Saskatchewan stalwarts including Peter Prebble and Nettie Wiebe.

- Thomas Mulcair won a number of endorsements for himself, including a massive media push from the Star. But the show of support which best reflects what I'd hope for in a Mulcair-led NDP (albeit extended far beyond the acceptance speech) is Gerald Caplan's:

He can immediately reassure the entire party in two critical ways. He can in his acceptance speech give voice to those magnificent social democratic ideals and principles – equality, social justice, peace – for which the New Democratic Party has always existed. And he can show his magnanimity in victory and his understanding of the need for a strong, united, inclusive movement by embracing not only his worthy opponents but their talented and committed workers as well.

My support explicitly assumes him doing exactly that.

Meanwhile, other voices weighed in on Mulcair including Joanna Smith, Chris Selley, Paul Wells and Barbara Yaffe.

- Peggy Nash made the case that being from Quebec isn't a prerequisite to connecting with the NDP's new Quebec voter base, while also making an appeal for respect for Canada's democratic system:



- Martin Singh answered questions from Macleans' Gabriela Perdomo.

- Aaron Wherry rounded up some of the candidates' recent video clips. Smith reviewed the latest fund-raising numbers showing Cullen again performing well at the end of the campaign. And Justin Ling echoed Brian Topp's theme that the NDP can win with a social democratic message.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

A couple more days' worth of developments in the NDP's leadership campaign...

- Niki Ashton argued that Canada's grain supply should be considered a strategic resource in evaluating takeover bids for Viterra, and earned a glowing profile from Carol Goar.

- Nathan Cullen unveiled another caucus endorsement from Bruce Hyer (who also listed Thomas Mulcair and Paul Dewar as his ballot choices), while earning some fund-raising support from former B.C. Premier Glen Clark. And as pointed out by Dan, he also clarified that joint nominations aren't the only possibility on the table to beat the Cons:

Yahoo!: Are strategic alliances the only way to beat Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in the next election?

Cullen: No, it's just one of the better ways. It's a way that reflects progressive values and it reflects the NDP's experience.

- Thomas Mulcair won the support of Jack Harris. Bill Tierney profiled Thomas Mulcair as a successful political risk-taker, while Jooneed Khan suggested his Quebec establishment support should be seen as a kiss of death.

- Alice discussed Martin Singh's candidacy on Power Play:



Meanwhile, Singh himself released a denial which directly recommends that his supporters list Mulcair 2nd on their ballots - and I'm curious to find out whether that will stick out like a sore thumb for the balance of the campaign, or whether other candidates will follow suit in trying to shape how their supporters fill out their preferential ballots.

- Brian Topp unveiled a rare endorsement switch, as MP Sana Hassainia retracted her earlier endorsement of Mulcair to join Topp's backers.

- Tariq Jeeroburkhan graded the leadership candidates - though with a few seemingly questionable conclusions (does anybody else rate Cullen at the back of the pack for media presence?). John Doyle's belated debate analysis featured plenty of praise for Nash. Alice Klein suggested that voters list Cullen 1st and Mulcair 2nd, while Jeremy Richler made his case for Mulcair. And Joanna Smith reported on the candidates' social media attention, with Cullen leading the way.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

Followup commentary from the final NDP leadership on Sunday, as well as a couple more days worth of developments in the campaign.

- Most of the post-debate coverage focused on a Thomas Mulcair-vs-the field contrast, while Quinn and Adventures in Socialism offered a few more interesting observations.

- Niki Ashton released her arts and culture policy, including a couple of proposals which could offer far better rights for art consumers and producers alike:

•Promoting ideas like the “creative commons” which provide a means for artists to protect the use and integrity of their work while allowing others to build on their work;
...
•Fighting censorship and protecting free speech by ensuring that decisions about arts funding or tax incentives are based on objective criteria and are made by independent juries of artists, not by politicians or bureaucrats, and by rejecting proposed Conservative legislation that would force Internet Service Providers to invade Canadians’ privacy...

- Nathan Cullen was the subject of Barbara Yaffe's latest column.

- Paul Dewar provided a first example of what his issue-based advocacy might look like - though he's a little bit behind the curve in encouraging leadership voters to pay attention to the Cons' attacks on retirement security.

- Mulcair's anti-coalition stance is starting to attract some attention, with Ian worrying that a refusal to work beyond party lines will undermine the NDP's message in Quebec.

- Finally, Bill Tieleman raised some questions about the timing of the last debate within the voting window. Greg Morrow endorsed Mulcair based on experience and leadership, while Marc Laferriere gave his nod to Paul Dewar based on his grassroots building approach. Chantal Hebert is sticking with the line that Mulcair and Cullen are two of a kind no matter how diverge on the central theme of Cullen's campaign. Lysiane Gagnon reminds us how quick some in the media were to anoint Topp as the next leader - but makes the same mistake again by pretending he and Mulcair are the only two candidates in the race. The NDP's Persons with Disabilities Committee offers questionnaire responses from four of the candidates.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - March 11, 2012

Over the past couple of weeks, we've seen what look to be a couple of noteworthy efforts among the NDP's leadership candidates to reach out to other campaigns' supporters in order to win over the down-ballot support that will likely decide the outcome of the campaign. So how have those efforts changed my rankings as to who's most likely to emerge as the winner?

1. Thomas Mulcair (1)

Not much at the top, as Mulcair still looks like at least an even-odds candidate to win. He didn't offer a great deal in response to a series of direct questions as to his plans for the NDP's future, but he once again performed well otherwise.

2. Peggy Nash (2)

However, the recent shifts in campaign strategy play a significant role here. I probably would have moved Nash down the rankings this week if her campaign hadn't positioned her to benefit from Nathan Cullen's supporters with a focus on both proportional representation and co-operation short of joint nominations. But she now figures to have a much better chance than the other second-tier candidates of rallying enough of the combined 2-through-5 support to overcome Mulcair's lead - and Paul Dewar's debate effort to draw a contrast on the latter point may have helped Nash more than himself.

3. Paul Dewar (3)

Which isn't to say Dewar is lacking for some pluses of his own as the campaign winds down. He's conspicuously positioned himself as the leading defender of cooperation within the NDP, and looks to have a relatively direct path to a final-ballot photo-finish if he can get ahead of Nash early to win the votes of her supporters.

4. Nathan Cullen (5)

Cullen was the other candidate to make a smart appeal to an important source of potential down-ballot support - as his question to Martin Singh about his attacks on Brian Topp will likely make Topp's set of vocal defenders see him in a new and more positive light.

5. Brian Topp (4)

I agree with the view of many pundits that Topp performed very well in today's debate - as the punchlines which fell flat through much of the campaign suddenly seemed to land at every turn. But unfortunately for Topp, that success is more than offset by the fact that the media which so willingly listed him as a front-runner from the beginning seems to have concluded he's an afterthought. And I'm not sure he has another path to victory if he's indeed lost the media air war.

6. Niki Ashton (6)

Ashton delivered her best debate performance today as well - which was to be expected given the fit between the topics and her campaign themes. But even if she sneaks ahead of one of the second-tier candidates on the first ballot, it's not clear where she'd have room to grow enough to win.

7. Martin Singh (7)

Finally, Singh's late-campaign decisions may have gone past the point of being useless in the context of the leadership race to actually hurting his future within the NDP. While I'm skeptical about the Mulcair alliance theory, his refusal to back down from his attacks on Topp will make it difficult for a victorious Mulcair to give Singh a prominent role without raising questions and hackles - and Cullen's appalled reaction during the debate itself figures to nicely sum up how the other candidates and NDP members view his choice of targets and messages.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

A few days worth of news from the NDP's leadership campaign...

- Niki Ashton appealed to NDP members to consider the need to build among younger voters.

- Co-campaign manager Jamey Heath took to the opinion pages in defence of Nathan Cullen's joint nomination proposal. But I seem to recall much of the same argument being applied to a rather different conclusion (emphasis added):

The NDP needs to grow and add a part, in small-l liberals who have concluded the big-L Liberal charade is too hollow to support. It is like Lego, and if we want a bigger progressive party we are going to have to build it, to mirror the clout social democrats and environmentalists use in Europe to great effect. But the meaningless middle needs to go first. Taking lefty Liberals as welcome refugees, of course.

- Paul Wells profiled Paul Dewar:

What counts is organization, acceptability to many of the party’s assorted factions, and a general sense that a candidate incarnates New Democrats’ sense of themselves.

And by those less tangible criteria, Dewar is having a pretty good winter. His record of strong performance in the House of Commons on foreign policy issues—in English—is an asset. “I’ve watched Stephen Harper,” he said in an interview. “I know how to handle him. This isn’t someone who loses his cool. But he makes others lose their cool and their focus. And I’m not going to do that.”

He also speaks a lot about wanting to run “issue-based campaigns” in the same way Harper’s Conservatives do, rallying party members around specific hot-button issues that motivate them to donate, organize and vote. “I don’t like the issues they run on, but they’ve done the organization well,” he said. “We’ve got to do the same.”

- Thomas Mulcair unveiled about the most significant endorsement possible at this stage of the campaign, as Romeo Saganash (who once seemed to have a path to the leadership based largely on his being an alternative to Mulcair as a high-profile Quebec MP) offered his support to the front-runner.

- Peggy Nash took Rabble's questions, including this answer on her plans to build the NDP:

Nothing wins the air war like bold ideas and clear direction. This past week I put forward the type of plan that can draw a lot of attention and sway a lot of voters. I think one of the main things we have to champion in the next 4 years is that of bringing in a proportional representation voting system.

People have felt so disconnected for so long from the electoral process because the outcome doesn't reflect their vote. I know the NDP has proposed this in the past, but we can shake things up and get people excited about implementing real change and getting a system where the parties actually cooperate with each other. Imagine if we could convince Canadians that their vote could actually bring the change they've wanted for so long.

For this we have to move beyond the platform. We need active campaigns across the country that includes civil society, NGOs, our riding associations and our MPs. We can't just talk about our ideas anymore. We need to use new social media and new outreach methods to connect with people and get them excited about CHANGE -- not just ideas.

If we remain bold and exciting and don't shy away from risks, I think we'll sway the 40% that didn't even bother to vote this last election.

- And Brian Topp was interviewed by the Huffington Post's Althia Raj.

- Alice noted that recent fund-raising data actually has Cullen in front of the rest of the field, while Thomas Walkom saw Cullen's success as a plus for Mulcair. Quinn evaluated the entire field of candidates, while Ryan considered a choice between Mulcair and Dewar. Don Newman figured the Cons' fear of Mulcair is reason enough to choose him, and Le Devoir offered Mulcair its endorsement. Peter O'Neil reported that the Nash and Topp camps aren't planning on joining forces as the race reaches its conclusion. The Hill Times compiled a thorough list of endorsements. Fair Vote Canada evaluated the candidates' position on electoral reform. And CBC's At Issue panel discussed the leadership campaign:

Leadership 2012 Roundup

As we enter the last few weeks of the NDP's leadership race, we're of course seeing loads of attention. But what from the flurry of activity might actually affect the results of the leadership race as well as the party's future development?

- Niki Ashton took questions at Rabble, including this on how to fight back against the Cons:

I have dealt with the Conservative attack machine directly. In 2006 I was targeted because i was nominated and campaigned in support of same-sex marriage. In the 2011 election I was targeted by Conservative robocalls because I support trans-gendered rights. I have found the best way to fight the Conservative attack machine is to expose it and fight back on the issue itself.
...
Canadians know that all of us rely on advisors. Stephen Harper relies on spin doctors and corporate lobbyists. For myself, I will make it clear that I intend to make decisions based on solid evidence about what works and what doesn't. And I will put forward a vision of a new kind of leadership-one where leaders have the confidence to allow others to show leadership, too.

- Nathan Cullen has been all over the media this week, including interviews with the Huffington Post and The Current. And the latter appearance (at roughly 6:00) offered a particularly noteworthy development as Cullen proclaimed himself "not wedded to the details" of his specific joint nomination proposal as compared to a general desire to cooperate with progressives across party lines.

- Paul Dewar summarized his campaign by the numbers.

- Peggy Nash was profiled by John Geddes, with a focus on her tenacious work on labour and social justice issues. And Nash also unveiled an open letter of support from young NDP members.

- Chrystal offered up some musings from a well-informed party newcomer. John Ibbitson theorized that Cullen might wind up playing kingmaker for Thomas Mulcair. Duncan Cameron made the case for Nash, while Ottawa Life threw its support behind Dewar. And Tobi Cohen summarized the latest financial reports which showed a couple of noteworthy developments: Mulcair has pulled into the lead with a relatively small advantage over Topp, Dewar, Nash and Cullen, while Martin Singh's number of individual donations alone (upwards of 7,000) would make for a respectable first-ballot showing if it translates into votes.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - March 4, 2012

With the voting window open and the second-last debate having just finished, we're into the home stretch of the NDP's leadership campaign. I've posted on the outcomes I'd like to see - but since that's a separate question entirely from how I think matters actually will play out, let's see if anything has changed since last week in my weekly ranking process.

1. Thomas Mulcair (1)

Once again Mulcair ranks well ahead of the second tier of candidates following another week packed with endorsements and another strong debate performance. Unfortunately nobody seriously questioned what his plans are in structuring the opposition - which means that it's no surprise that he didn't bother to explain himself, but also leaves an obvious risk for his campaign if he can't escape the question next week.

2. Peggy Nash (2)

Again, these rankings are based on who has the best chance of winning the leadership rather than my preferences as to who will. And while Nash showed a few of the same problems as usual in today's debate (again posing a question to Dewar about his planned deputies which echoed a previous questioner), she still seems to have by far the best positioning in trying to gather support within the second tier of candidates.

3. Paul Dewar (4)

At this point in the campaign, I'd think the candidates' own choice of targets says a lot about who they see as having the best chance to emerge as leader. And so it may be telling that Dewar was under fire throughout today's second question period, while nobody other than Martin Singh had much apparent interest in challenging Brian Topp.

4. Brian Topp (3)

Mind you, Topp did perform better today than he has most of the way through most of the debates, combining his usual policy substance with a much better effort to connect with the audience. But while he still has a plausible path to pick up down-ballot support, that won't do much good if he's clearly behind Nash and Dewar early on - which is looking like an increasingly likely outcome.

5. Nathan Cullen (5)

Once again Cullen performed well in today's debate, particularly in response to pointed questions from Mulcair about his support for the Sherbrooke Declaration. But in another running theme, his limited prospect of down-ballot support leaves him at the back of the pack for now.

6. Niki Ashton (6)

As in most of the debates Ashton had some strong moments today, but also struggled with a number of responses. And the opportunities to wow debate audiences to make up for limited organizational resources are running out quickly.

7. Martin Singh (7)

I'm not sure what Singh hoped to accomplish by attacking a select group of opponents as much as he did in today's debate - and indeed I wonder whether the intention is to be seen paving the way for a Mulcair victory by signalling how he'd like his supporters to vote as a second choice. But I have to figure that in the long run all the candidates will be best off not going as far over the top as Singh did.