This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Nick Falvo points out the massive cost savings that come from investing in Housing First programming. And Keith Gerein writes that if it wanted to help people rather than merely looking to vilify those in need, the UCP would be investing in housing rather than looking to shut down supervised consumption sites.
- CBC examines Alberta's increasingly alarming number of decaying oil wells which have been abandoned by their operators for the public to clean up. And Dave Seglins and Joseph Loeiro report on the literal self-policing which sees rail companies investigate (and cast blame for) their own pattern of disasters.
- Aaron Wherry challenges the Cons' constant attempts to pretend Canada can excuse its woeful track record on climate change by pointing to our proportional contribution to global emissions - though it's worth noting that his response misses our additional harm to the planet by subsidizing the supply side of dirty fossil fuels. And Chris Turner discusses the violent misogyny deployed against women who join the fight against a climate breakdown.
- Peggy Nash asks why women aren't making the same type of progress in Canada as in many of our peer countries.
- Kyle Wiens notes that among its other desirable outcomes, a right to repair would make us far better able to withstand outbreaks and other disasters which threaten the flow of new goods.
- Finally, Rita Trichur makes the case for the Canada Revenue Agency to prepare automatic income tax assessments rather than pushing people into paying for tax services.
Showing posts with label peggy nash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peggy nash. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Sunday, December 09, 2018
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Charles Smith and Larry Savage write that Justin Trudeau's use of back-to-work legislation against postal workers may have far more significant consequences than he seems to have anticipated. And Christo Aivalis examines the next steps for Canada's labour movement - as well as their importance for the country as a whole:
- Henry Grabar writes about Minneapolis' decision to end single-family zoning which has long served as a major source of housing segregation. And Douglas Todd comments on the complex relationship between immigration and housing in Vancouver - including the reality that more for-profit development does nothing to ease the lack of housing availability for the people who most need it, regardless of their place of origin.
- Roberta Lexier and Avi Lewis argue that it's long past time for Canada's corporate welfare bums to start paying their fair share for a country that serves the best interests of its citizens. And Yanis Varoufakis and David Adler highlight the need to fundamentally reshape and empower sources of collective decision-making - including international institutions - in order to be able to respond to our common problems.
- Finally, Peggy Nash and Tracey Raney point out how more equitable representation and power-sharing is a necessary component of any plan to end gender-based violence.
- Charles Smith and Larry Savage write that Justin Trudeau's use of back-to-work legislation against postal workers may have far more significant consequences than he seems to have anticipated. And Christo Aivalis examines the next steps for Canada's labour movement - as well as their importance for the country as a whole:
...In a time of growing inequality, all Canadians need to think about the questions unions face: At what point does the concentration of economic power in the hands of massive multinational corporations limit workers’ ability to respond through the traditional means of collective bargaining? At what point does this power threaten to control the destinies of entire communities and regions, rendering the democratic will of Canadians, if not irrelevant, then certainly compromised? And will endemic automation – even if it’s farther away than some people fear – only serve to disenfranchise the masses in favour of an ever-consolidating elite with more control than ever? These were the essential forces that led to these setbacks for UNIFOR – after all, how could an American company unilaterally decide to gut a Canadian town, leaving both workers and government holding the bag? – but those issues will come to workplaces and communities everywhere before long.- Helia Ebrahimi discusses the connection between economic stressors and a hundred thousand suicide attempts in the UK in the last year alone. And Kwame McKenzie points out how it's only the people already facing the most challenges who are being asked to sacrifice by Doug Ford's government.
...
When it comes down to it, we need economic systems that reflect the democratic principles we so cherish, the ones through which we define so much of our Canadian identity. Unions have been a force for generations, giving workers at least some input into the operation of their workplaces, and organized labour will always have an irreplaceable role in building and preserving a democratic spirit that goes beyond the ballot box. It is in all our interests that unions succeed in organizing the workplaces of the present and future, that our governments enact policies that assist in this process, and that we as citizens retain a skeptical eye towards the further concentration of economic power in unaccountable private hands.If unions fail, our democracy may well be at stake.
- Henry Grabar writes about Minneapolis' decision to end single-family zoning which has long served as a major source of housing segregation. And Douglas Todd comments on the complex relationship between immigration and housing in Vancouver - including the reality that more for-profit development does nothing to ease the lack of housing availability for the people who most need it, regardless of their place of origin.
- Roberta Lexier and Avi Lewis argue that it's long past time for Canada's corporate welfare bums to start paying their fair share for a country that serves the best interests of its citizens. And Yanis Varoufakis and David Adler highlight the need to fundamentally reshape and empower sources of collective decision-making - including international institutions - in order to be able to respond to our common problems.
- Finally, Peggy Nash and Tracey Raney point out how more equitable representation and power-sharing is a necessary component of any plan to end gender-based violence.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Joe Fiorito discusses the spread of income inequality in Canada. And Doug Henwood reviews Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century, while wondering what will follow from the empirical observation that accumulated wealth tends to perpetuate itself to the detriment of most of the population:
- Carol Goar takes note of Peggy Nash's efforts to address youth unemployment, while pointing out the risk of a "lost generation" if reasonably secure jobs are a thing of the past.
- Finally, Tim Harford takes a look at how behavioural economics have already influenced public policy - and how much more room there is to test the work done by governments to maximize the achievement of policy goals while minimizing costs.
- Joe Fiorito discusses the spread of income inequality in Canada. And Doug Henwood reviews Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century, while wondering what will follow from the empirical observation that accumulated wealth tends to perpetuate itself to the detriment of most of the population:
The core message of this enormous and enormously important book can be delivered in a few lines: Left to its own devices, wealth inevitably tends to concentrate in capitalist economies. There is no “natural” mechanism inherent in the structure of such economies for inhibiting, much less reversing, that tendency. Only crises like war and depression, or political interventions like taxation (which, to the upper classes, would be a crisis), can do the trick. And Thomas Piketty has two centuries of data to prove his point.- Meanwhile, Bart Cammaerts highlights the need to distance democratic decision-making from the influence of big money. And Salon offers a few educated guesses as to when and how the next financial crash may strike - with the influence of the financial sector on lax regulation serving as a major driving force.
...
Economics as a discipline loves stories about equilibrium and convergence. Vast inequities should, in theory, be “competed away,” as neoclassical economics likes to say. But mostly they’re not. Globally, poorer countries should gain on richer ones as technology and education spread and mobile capital’s search for higher returns makes the poor less poor. That has happened to some degree, but rapidly developing economies such as India and many African nations remain much poorer than the United States or Western Europe. In the case of personal wealth, old fortunes should decline and be replaced by new ones, just as manual typewriters were replaced by electric ones, and electric typewriters were superseded by computers. But in fact old money is remarkably persistent. Yes, we’ve seen the creation of a large number of new fortunes over the last few decades, a change from wealth’s dark days of the mid-twentieth century. Bill Gates is the son of a well-off lawyer who was nowhere near a billionaire; Mark Zuckerberg sprang from the loins of a dentist and a psychiatrist. They are the very picture of modern new wealth. But despite those new fortunes, inheritance remains very important. David Rockefeller, worth $2.8 billion at the age of ninety-eight, is number 193 on the Forbes 400. Overall, Piketty concludes, it’s likely that half or more of the wealth of the upper orders originates in inheritance.And though Piketty doesn’t explore this, I’ve long suspected that a major force for the repeal of the estate tax in the United States has been that the billionaires of the neoliberal age—the tech and finance moguls, some famous, some barely known—have been thinking about their legacy. The scions of the second Gilded Age want to see their grandchildren on the Forbes 400, just like David Rockefeller is a ghost of the first Gilded Age. I’m less sure whether they want to see their names on traditional foundations—maybe more the entrepreneurial kind. But it’s clear that the political salience of the “death tax” is a reflection of a cadre of fortunes of a sort that was long out of fashion....
Anticapitalist rhetoric need not be lazy—and for all the empirical sophistication of Piketty’s work, his political thinking is hardly a model of complexity or effort. He mostly aspires to contribute to rational democratic deliberation about “the best way to organize society.”Still, while such deliberation is clearly necessary, political action cannot be factored out of that process just because we happen to have lived through the Cold War’s unmourned collapse. It’s energizing to see that a younger generation of political intellectuals, who were in grade school when the Berlin Wall came down, missed the anticapitalist vaccination. They might be able to take Piketty’s data and cause some genuine trouble with it. Because serious trouble—demonstrations, strikes, insurgent political movements—is what it will take to derail capitalism’s inevitable tendency toward concentration. Short of that, it looks like we’ll be continuing our journey along the road to a new serfdom.
- Carol Goar takes note of Peggy Nash's efforts to address youth unemployment, while pointing out the risk of a "lost generation" if reasonably secure jobs are a thing of the past.
- Finally, Tim Harford takes a look at how behavioural economics have already influenced public policy - and how much more room there is to test the work done by governments to maximize the achievement of policy goals while minimizing costs.
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Donovan Vincent reports on the Institute for Social Research's study showing Canadians are highly concerned about income inequality:
- Claire McIlveen writes that the Cons' elections legislation falls far short of what was promised, while Chantal Hebert and Steven Chase both note that it fits the Cons' pattern of suppressing voter turnout and other public participation at every available opportunity. And in case there was any doubt about elections legislation receiving more scrutiny than anything else the Cons are pushing, they're are following their usual pattern of shutting down debate (and presumably amendments as well) to ensure the truth doesn't come out until after the legislation is forced through Parliament.
- Alex Boutilier writes that the PBO has called out the Cons' compulsive dishonesty about sick leave taken by federal public servants. And John Nicol and Dave Seglins report that in the lead up to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, Lisa Raitt was receiving - and granting - a steady stream of requests for exemptions from rail safety rules.
- Finally, Thomas Walkom recognizes an important distinction between the NDP and its federal competitors:
- Donovan Vincent reports on the Institute for Social Research's study showing Canadians are highly concerned about income inequality:
“People think the income gap has gotten worse. What was surprising to me was the universality of this belief. Younger people, older, higher levels of education, lower, men and women. The fact is, a wide cross-section of Canadian society believes that the income gap has gotten bigger, or much bigger in the last five years,” survey author David Northrup said in an interview.- Meanwhile, the CCPA's alternative federal budget offers plenty of means to address Canada's burgeoning inequality and lack of social progress. And Bill Moyers points out that a substantial number of businesses stand to do better if they can appeal to a strong middle class.
“Usually we see a lot more variation in opinion in social ideas like this,” added Northrup, director of survey research at York who co-authored the report with York professor Lesley Jacobs.
“One of the fundamental bedrocks of being a Canadian is thinking we have a fair society. This survey is going against that grain.”
When it came to explaining the income gap, 70 per cent of respondents said there just aren’t enough jobs that pay a decent wage, while 60 per cent said the flight of jobs to countries that pay low wages is a major reason for the expanding income gap. About two-thirds of Canadians, 65 per cent, blamed “increasing salaries to business leaders” as a major reason for the widening income gap.
- Claire McIlveen writes that the Cons' elections legislation falls far short of what was promised, while Chantal Hebert and Steven Chase both note that it fits the Cons' pattern of suppressing voter turnout and other public participation at every available opportunity. And in case there was any doubt about elections legislation receiving more scrutiny than anything else the Cons are pushing, they're are following their usual pattern of shutting down debate (and presumably amendments as well) to ensure the truth doesn't come out until after the legislation is forced through Parliament.
- Alex Boutilier writes that the PBO has called out the Cons' compulsive dishonesty about sick leave taken by federal public servants. And John Nicol and Dave Seglins report that in the lead up to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, Lisa Raitt was receiving - and granting - a steady stream of requests for exemptions from rail safety rules.
- Finally, Thomas Walkom recognizes an important distinction between the NDP and its federal competitors:
What would the New Democrats do if they won power? In an open letter to Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Toronto MP Peggy Nash, the party’s finance critic, provides a few hints.
Her letter marks a welcome respite from the usual political bromides about the horrors of fiscal deficits. Putting government spending and revenue into balance is a worthy abstract goal. But in the real world, it can cause more harm than good.
Nash gets this. She warns Flaherty that in his rush to balance the books, he risks prolonging a slump that has already lasted six years.
She notes — correctly — that unemployment remains stubbornly high and that the savants of the International Monetary Fund predict more trouble for the Canadian economy.
Indeed, IMF economists have gently suggested to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government that it delay its budget balancing plans should the economy turn particularly sour.
...
Still, (Tom Mulcair's) New Democrats are on the right track. They understand that Canada’s economic priority should be jobs and incomes. They understand government has a role to play in this. They are not quite as terrified of breaking away from the orthodoxy of balanced budgets as they used to be.
They may not be saying much. But unlike, say, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, they are saying something.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Leadership 2012 - Policy Highlights
With the NDP's leadership convention set to start tomorrow (and assorted hospitality suites already starting up tonight), I won't be able to finish off my initial plan to put together full policy reviews for each of the candidates. But instead, I'll take some time to highlight a few innovative ideas which haven't received a lot of media attention, but stand out as deserving more discussion within the NDP regardless of who wins the leadership.
Judicare, proposed by Niki Ashton:
Arctic University, proposed by Nathan Cullen:
International Women's Equality, proposed by Paul Dewar:
One-Stop Consumer Protection, proposed by Thomas Mulcair:
Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, proposed by Peggy Nash:
Judicare, proposed by Niki Ashton:
Ensuring that all Canadians are genuinely equal before the law starting by creating a dedicated federal transfer for “judicare”, modelled on the Canada Health Transfer, that would allow legal aid programs to expand the range of services they provide to Canadians who can’t otherwise afford a lawyer;No less an authority than the Governor General has pointed out that more needs to be done to facilitate Canadians' access to justice. But rather than limiting that effort solely to the voluntary capacity of bar associations, Ashton's proposal would ensure that part of the task is carried out through public funding.
Arctic University, proposed by Nathan Cullen:
• Work with the Northern colleges to foster an Arctic University to help develop future leaders, and allow Northerners to pursue higher education without leaving their families and communities.In addition to being a worthwhile idea on its own, the proposal would also serve as an important starting point in considering what the federal government can do to ensure that Canadians falling under its jurisdiction (including on-reserve First Nations as well as territorial residents) receive both meaningful self-determination and a reasonable standard of services, rather than being alternately vilified and forgotten by a federal government determined to do as little as possible.
International Women's Equality, proposed by Paul Dewar:
- Make economic, educational and democratic empowerment for women and girls a core focus of Canada's development policy;For all the efforts that the leadership candidates have rightly made to point out the continued gender gap within Canada, the need for action is even more glaring abroad. And a concerted effort to include women in international development and diplomacy could go a long way toward breaking down barriers to both gender equality and general development.
- Promote women's meaningful participation in peace building as a central plank of our international diplomacy, and implement Canada’s National Action Plan on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security;
One-Stop Consumer Protection, proposed by Thomas Mulcair:
The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (Finance)With the Service Canada model adopted for so many interactions between the federal government and all kinds of actors, it's stunning that consumer protection - one of the areas of public jurisdiction where there's an especially obvious need for user-friendliness - has instead been both broken into multiple agencies and chronically under-resourced.
This proliferation of separate agencies has inevitably made the dissemination of information scattered and difficult for consumers to access. Nowhere is this clearer than in the government’s digital presence. The website for Industry Canada`s Office of Consumer Affairs, for instance, provides extensive content addressing a wide variety of ongoing consumer concerns, but safety recalls on toys must be sought out at Health Canada's website and those seeking information on financial products must do so at the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada's website.
...
Canadians deserve a single point of contact for vital consumer protection information and a single point of responsibility to ensure the interests of consumers will be a priority—not just the interests of well-connected corporations.
Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, proposed by Peggy Nash:
Pursue the implementation of a system of proportional representation by:While PR is of course a staple of NDP party policy, Nash's proposal moves well down the road in suggesting how it can actually be implemented: not by following the referendum model that's failed at the provincial level, but instead by engaging in a careful but efficient process to review and adapt our electoral system.
• establishing a Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, in collaboration with other parties, within the first six months of forming government to make specific recommendations on which system (or combination of systems) is best suited for Canada as well as the most effective legislative process to implement the changes;
Leadership 2012 Roundup
I didn't think much could come along at this point in the NDP's leadership campaign to significantly change my voting considerations [edit: other than the type of organizational problem discussed here]. But the CROP poll published in Le Soleil may well do just that.
No, it isn't a surprise to see Thomas Mulcair well ahead of the field in Quebec. But for all the best efforts of the rest of the campaigns as well as two debates centred on the province, not a single other candidate ranks ahead of "none of the above". And while I've emphasized the importance of allowing for three and a half years worth of growth rather than simply assuming candidate profiles will stay where they are, it's rather difficult to ignore the lack of progress so far for the rest of the field - particularly as others point out the potential for Mulcair to extend the NDP's Quebec reach.
Meanwhile...
- Paul Dewar's endorsement from two Sikh student groups may be a highly significant development if it allows him to win over enough down-ballot support from Martin Singh's camp - though of course Singh's own stated second choice would seem to render that possibility moot.
- Alice discusses Peggy Nash's candidacy:
- Brian Topp releases his closing argument:
- Environics places the NDP in a dead heat with the Cons nationally. Chantal Hebert and Antonia Maioni discuss how the leadership campaign will affect the broader political scene in Quebec, while Carlito Pablo considers it a matter of defining the NDP. Marcus McCann worries about the effect of a large number of new members on down-ballot support - though accounting for about 10,000 new Quebec members, a few thousand apiece attracted by Nathan Cullen and Martin Singh and the normal sign-up work we'd expect from the rest of the candidates, I'm not sure I see much reason for concern. But Joan Bryden's report on the complexities and uncertainties involved in a preferential voting process will certainly make the weekend interesting. Geoffrey Rowan analyzed the candidates' messages. And finally, CBC broke the race down into four main themes.
No, it isn't a surprise to see Thomas Mulcair well ahead of the field in Quebec. But for all the best efforts of the rest of the campaigns as well as two debates centred on the province, not a single other candidate ranks ahead of "none of the above". And while I've emphasized the importance of allowing for three and a half years worth of growth rather than simply assuming candidate profiles will stay where they are, it's rather difficult to ignore the lack of progress so far for the rest of the field - particularly as others point out the potential for Mulcair to extend the NDP's Quebec reach.
Meanwhile...
- Paul Dewar's endorsement from two Sikh student groups may be a highly significant development if it allows him to win over enough down-ballot support from Martin Singh's camp - though of course Singh's own stated second choice would seem to render that possibility moot.
- Alice discusses Peggy Nash's candidacy:
- Brian Topp releases his closing argument:
- Environics places the NDP in a dead heat with the Cons nationally. Chantal Hebert and Antonia Maioni discuss how the leadership campaign will affect the broader political scene in Quebec, while Carlito Pablo considers it a matter of defining the NDP. Marcus McCann worries about the effect of a large number of new members on down-ballot support - though accounting for about 10,000 new Quebec members, a few thousand apiece attracted by Nathan Cullen and Martin Singh and the normal sign-up work we'd expect from the rest of the candidates, I'm not sure I see much reason for concern. But Joan Bryden's report on the complexities and uncertainties involved in a preferential voting process will certainly make the weekend interesting. Geoffrey Rowan analyzed the candidates' messages. And finally, CBC broke the race down into four main themes.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Leadership 2012 Roundup
Another day, another set of NDP leadership campaign stories.
- Niki Ashton won the support of the NDP's Socialist Caucus.
- Nathan Cullen expanded on his joint nomination proposal with a far more appealing discussion of co-operation in general:
- Alice offered her assessment of Paul Dewar:
- Thomas Mulcair offered up an election strategy including a 338 Fund for riding-level campaigns and a commitment to have at least some campaign ready in every riding across Canada. That offers some useful indication as to how he's thinking about organizational issues - but still doesn't answer the question of what his plans would be between now and 2015.
- Tim Naumetz reports that other campaigns are "shocked" about Brian Topp's lack of organization. But let's give Topp this much: he's still apparently convinced Jeffrey Simpson and L. Ian MacDonald that he's one competitor in a two-person race - while Carol Goar slightly more thorough summary of the choices.
- Duncan Cameron reiterated his support for Peggy Nash, pointing out her positive reviews in the media during the leadership campaign as a new reason for the endorsement. The Ottawa Citizen recognized how much Ed Broadbent's comments last week were blown out of proportion. Tim Harper commented on the race to define the NDP's new leader. And the imminent election of the NDP's permanent successor to Jack Layton is also leading to plenty of discussion about what Jack accomplished - ranging from winning 3.5 million new votes for the left to building a bridge between social democracy and the wider public (with some associated costs) to "sinister mind control experiment!". Which offers an always-appreciated excuse to link to IP.
- Niki Ashton won the support of the NDP's Socialist Caucus.
- Nathan Cullen expanded on his joint nomination proposal with a far more appealing discussion of co-operation in general:
Cullen isn't shy about what he has in mind.Meanwhile, both Frank Graves and Barbara Yaffe talk about some of the possibilities for cooperation.
"If the explicit question is put to me: Am I willing to work with the Liberal party in a coalition government, then yes. I was last time."
Moreover, he said the parties should make it clear while they are seeking votes from Canadians that a coalition is a "possible scenario."
"Here is the challenge that we cannot avoid. It is that you can't say the Liberal party are evil incarnate or the worst things ever before an election but we're willing to work with those same people after. It's discordant. It doesn't sit right, particularly with progressive voters."
In the last election, Harper centred his strategy around repeatedly warning voters that he needed a majority government to prevent the opposition parties from forming a coalition.
The next time, said Cullen, that argument won't wash with many voters because they have seen how Harper's Tories have governed so pompously with the current majority...
- Alice offered her assessment of Paul Dewar:
- Thomas Mulcair offered up an election strategy including a 338 Fund for riding-level campaigns and a commitment to have at least some campaign ready in every riding across Canada. That offers some useful indication as to how he's thinking about organizational issues - but still doesn't answer the question of what his plans would be between now and 2015.
- Tim Naumetz reports that other campaigns are "shocked" about Brian Topp's lack of organization. But let's give Topp this much: he's still apparently convinced Jeffrey Simpson and L. Ian MacDonald that he's one competitor in a two-person race - while Carol Goar slightly more thorough summary of the choices.
- Duncan Cameron reiterated his support for Peggy Nash, pointing out her positive reviews in the media during the leadership campaign as a new reason for the endorsement. The Ottawa Citizen recognized how much Ed Broadbent's comments last week were blown out of proportion. Tim Harper commented on the race to define the NDP's new leader. And the imminent election of the NDP's permanent successor to Jack Layton is also leading to plenty of discussion about what Jack accomplished - ranging from winning 3.5 million new votes for the left to building a bridge between social democracy and the wider public (with some associated costs) to "sinister mind control experiment!". Which offers an always-appreciated excuse to link to IP.
Monday, March 19, 2012
The decisive question
Following up on my candidate questionnaire and previous posts about party organization, I'll offer my own observations on the final two questions I posed to the leadership candidates.
I start from the premise that the primary goals of a leader are to serve as the party's public face and chief strategist. And while all of the candidates have shown at least some obvious ability in either or both of those areas, the biggest issue facing members this week will be to sort through the fact that there's such a wide range of strengths which may not all be applied under some scenarios.
It's fairly easy to see the strengths of the lower-tier candidates worked into the structure of whoever wins: surely nobody will want to undermine the enthusiasm Niki Ashton has built on the Prairies and among young members, or Martin Singh's inroads into the Sikh community.
As for the perceived upper tier, Brian Topp may not have caught fire as a candidate, but I don't see that affecting the general view that he's one of the country's top strategic minds (and someone who should remain part of the NDP's inner circle for a long time to come). Nathan Cullen stands out as the candidate with the highest upside as the face of the NDP outside of Quebec (and arguably within it as well). Paul Dewar's organizational plan would serve as a valuable blueprint for any of the candidates, but speaks particularly well to his own thought process as a leader. Peggy Nash has lots to offer on the party- and movement-building side as well, while also having plenty of ability to strengthen the party's economic credentials (as all candidates seem to agree we need to do). And Thomas Mulcair has displayed his massive strengths as both a spokesperson and strategist within Quebec, with potential to expand that appeal nationally.
Ideally, we'd see all of those talents put to good use. But there are still some reasons for concern as to whether or not they will be.
The obvious rivalry between Mulcair and Topp over the course of the leadership campaign leads to some worry that a Mulcair-led inner circle would have doubts about the NDP's long-time strategic team - and Mulcair's limited answers about his plans for the party don't help matters. Mulcair has also criticized Dewar's party-building plan, leading me to wonder whether he'll use what may be the best available organizational blueprint. And Cullen's rapport with voters may not achieve the greatest possible effect if it's being used to pursue an interparty strategy that doesn't find a willing partner or serve the purposes it's intended to achieve.
Of course, the members' means of trying to achieve that end is through a vote for a single leadership candidate. But that leads to what may be the key question in evaluating the candidates: who, if elected, would best recognize and apply the collective strengths of the leadership candidates, caucus and party at large? And my suspicion is that the answer to that question - viewing the candidates in terms of organizational leadership, rather than either personal profile alone or compromises among camps - should be our guiding principle in deciding which candidate to support.
I start from the premise that the primary goals of a leader are to serve as the party's public face and chief strategist. And while all of the candidates have shown at least some obvious ability in either or both of those areas, the biggest issue facing members this week will be to sort through the fact that there's such a wide range of strengths which may not all be applied under some scenarios.
It's fairly easy to see the strengths of the lower-tier candidates worked into the structure of whoever wins: surely nobody will want to undermine the enthusiasm Niki Ashton has built on the Prairies and among young members, or Martin Singh's inroads into the Sikh community.
As for the perceived upper tier, Brian Topp may not have caught fire as a candidate, but I don't see that affecting the general view that he's one of the country's top strategic minds (and someone who should remain part of the NDP's inner circle for a long time to come). Nathan Cullen stands out as the candidate with the highest upside as the face of the NDP outside of Quebec (and arguably within it as well). Paul Dewar's organizational plan would serve as a valuable blueprint for any of the candidates, but speaks particularly well to his own thought process as a leader. Peggy Nash has lots to offer on the party- and movement-building side as well, while also having plenty of ability to strengthen the party's economic credentials (as all candidates seem to agree we need to do). And Thomas Mulcair has displayed his massive strengths as both a spokesperson and strategist within Quebec, with potential to expand that appeal nationally.
Ideally, we'd see all of those talents put to good use. But there are still some reasons for concern as to whether or not they will be.
The obvious rivalry between Mulcair and Topp over the course of the leadership campaign leads to some worry that a Mulcair-led inner circle would have doubts about the NDP's long-time strategic team - and Mulcair's limited answers about his plans for the party don't help matters. Mulcair has also criticized Dewar's party-building plan, leading me to wonder whether he'll use what may be the best available organizational blueprint. And Cullen's rapport with voters may not achieve the greatest possible effect if it's being used to pursue an interparty strategy that doesn't find a willing partner or serve the purposes it's intended to achieve.
Of course, the members' means of trying to achieve that end is through a vote for a single leadership candidate. But that leads to what may be the key question in evaluating the candidates: who, if elected, would best recognize and apply the collective strengths of the leadership candidates, caucus and party at large? And my suspicion is that the answer to that question - viewing the candidates in terms of organizational leadership, rather than either personal profile alone or compromises among camps - should be our guiding principle in deciding which candidate to support.
Leadership 2012 Roundup
With the NDP's leadership campaign entering its final week, it's no great surprise to see plenty more punditry than usual surrounding the race. But what might influence the ballots cast this week (which may end up making all the difference)?
- The most attention over the last day or so has gone to Doris Layton's letter in support of Brian Topp - which certainly offers a stronger and more sentimental appeal than a lot of the other late-campaign messages. But given that her endorsement had already been announced, I'm far from convinced the latest appeal will make all that much difference - no matter how well-worded.
- Bill Tieleman offers his theory as to how Peggy Nash can win the leadership. And T.C. Norris provides similar analysis of the relative positioning of the candidates, albeit leading to a conclusion that Thomas Mulcair is likely to emerge victorious.
- Tim Harper wonders whether Mulcair's opponents have helped pave his path to victory by not coordinating with each other's camps. And in particular, I'll note that the work the campaigns have done to encourage advance ballots aimed at a single candidate (or limited number of them) may make it easier for an early leader to hold on in a multiple-ballot vote.
- John Ibbitson declares Mulcair a shoo-in before offering a warning about undue certainty in prediction:
- Finally, Mulcair offered a stronger rebuttal than usual to the suggestion he'd want to move the NDP to the right:
- The most attention over the last day or so has gone to Doris Layton's letter in support of Brian Topp - which certainly offers a stronger and more sentimental appeal than a lot of the other late-campaign messages. But given that her endorsement had already been announced, I'm far from convinced the latest appeal will make all that much difference - no matter how well-worded.
- Bill Tieleman offers his theory as to how Peggy Nash can win the leadership. And T.C. Norris provides similar analysis of the relative positioning of the candidates, albeit leading to a conclusion that Thomas Mulcair is likely to emerge victorious.
- Tim Harper wonders whether Mulcair's opponents have helped pave his path to victory by not coordinating with each other's camps. And in particular, I'll note that the work the campaigns have done to encourage advance ballots aimed at a single candidate (or limited number of them) may make it easier for an early leader to hold on in a multiple-ballot vote.
- John Ibbitson declares Mulcair a shoo-in before offering a warning about undue certainty in prediction:
(A Cullen win) remains the least-unlikely alternative to the much-more likely victory by Mr. Mulcair. Your correspondent is as certain of this as he was in October, 2007, that Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic presidential nomination.- Ish Theilheimer looks to sum up the differences between the leadership candidates. And John Baglow sorts out a four-candidate top tier.
- Finally, Mulcair offered a stronger rebuttal than usual to the suggestion he'd want to move the NDP to the right:
(Topp) has repeatedly said that Mulcair's vision for modernizing the party would move the party over to the centre.- Which is for the best, since Frank Graves points out why the NDP looks to be in a strong position in building toward 2015:
But in a french-language interview with Radio-Canada's Sunday political flagship program Les Coulisses du Pouvoir, Mulcair said he has never used that expression.
"Others have used it for me, and attributed it to me," he said.
"What I have said from the start, however, is we have to bring the centre towards the NDP," specified Mulcair, who sees a distinction between the two positions.
Mr. Graves said he believes, based on his polling trends and contrary to the view held in red Liberal territory, that the NDP has shown, leaderless as it has been and with most of its star frontbenchers out of House action since October, that its success last year was not “an ephemeral blip propelled by the charismatic authority of Jack Layton.”
Mr. Graves posed that it is because, underneath the effect Mr. Layton’s leadership and strategic success in Quebec had, there have been dramatic subterranean shifts in Canada’s voting population in the past five years, which in the broader international sense, have also been reflected by the post-recession upheaval over the mushrooming gap between the poor and the rich.
“It is the increasing ideological fragmentation of the Canadian electorate, but also new sort of splits on, I’m not sure another term captures it as well, basically class conflicts. The new dominant issue that we see, but which nobody else is talking about, what the Americans are noting as the new number one issue, is income inequality,” said Mr. Graves.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
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.
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 - Peggy Nash
Last week, I crowdsourced some questions to the NDP's leadership candidates about their plans for party organization. (Unfortunately the comments have disappeared, and I'm still working on getting them to reappear - but as you'll see I incorporated changes into my draft version.)
Obviously it's been a busy time for the campaigns, and so I greatly appreciate that four have been able to provide at least some response so far. And I'll give them each a post to highlight the response and my own quick analysis - starting in reverse alphabetical order with Peggy Nash.
But with the answer to #1 not adding to what's already on the public record, the most interesting part of Nash's questionnaire response may be her take on question #3. While I wonder whether the praise Nash has received on the policy front might position her well, she's expressed a clear interest in focusing on finance and the economy in her previous role as finance critic - and I'd imagine the other leadership candidates will take note.
Obviously it's been a busy time for the campaigns, and so I greatly appreciate that four have been able to provide at least some response so far. And I'll give them each a post to highlight the response and my own quick analysis - starting in reverse alphabetical order with Peggy Nash.
1. As leader, what changes (if any) would you seek to make to the NDP's:So what do I take from Nash's response? It's true that her party-building platform largely deals with the contents of question 1, subject to a couple of points such as policy development and caucus discipline. And that certainly speaks well to her awareness and interest in party-building as a fundamental role of a leader.
(a) caucus management and discipline?
(b) membership engagement and organizational structure?
(c) policy development process?
(d) candidate recruitment and nomination process?
(e) relationship to other political parties?
(f) relationship to traditional allies in the labour, environmental and social justice movements?
(g) relationship to interests not traditionally allied with the NDP?
The answers to these questions can be found in Peggy's detailed organizational blueprint for forming government in 2015. You can read the plan in full here:
http://peggynash.ca/2012/nash-launches-plan-for-ndp-to-form-government-in-2015/
2. As leader of the NDP, what roles would you anticipate within the party
for:
(a) each of your fellow leadership candidates?
(b) any noteworthy organizers, volunteers or other participants in the leadership campaign on behalf of the other leadership candidates?
(c) the NDP's campaign team members from recent federal elections?
I will examine the make-up of the caucus and staff team because they are all worthy of the positions they currently hold, and decide what changes can be made to include the 3 categories of people you have listed above so that the caucus is as united as possible and that each person is ideally suited for their role.
3. If another candidate is elected leader, what other role do you believe would suit you best within the NDP?
I would ideally be suited to take back my previous role as Finance Critic.
But with the answer to #1 not adding to what's already on the public record, the most interesting part of Nash's questionnaire response may be her take on question #3. While I wonder whether the praise Nash has received on the policy front might position her well, she's expressed a clear interest in focusing on finance and the economy in her previous role as finance critic - and I'd imagine the other leadership candidates will take note.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
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:
- 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.
- 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.Meanwhile, other voices weighed in on Mulcair including Joanna Smith, Chris Selley, Paul Wells and Barbara Yaffe.
My support explicitly assumes him doing exactly that.
- 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.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
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:
- 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.
- 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?- 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.
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.
- 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.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
On shifting alliances
Having pointed out the effect of Peggy Nash's willingness to consider cross-party cooperation in my rankings post, I'll double back to one of the other noteworthy developments today - as Thomas Mulcair may have utterly reshaped the expected movement of down-ballot support.
Since the start of the campaign, plenty of commentators have tried to divide the candidates into two camps - with the two consistent divisions being Mulcair/Nathan Cullen on one side as the candidates seeking to challenge party orthodoxy, and Peggy Nash/Brian Topp as the comparative traditionalists.
But by announcing that he's not open to cooperation with the Libs on any front (including post-election coalitions of the type the NDP has organized in the past), Mulcair effectively severed ties with a good number of Cullen voters. After all, surely nobody drawn to Cullen based on his appeal for cross-party relationships can then turn around and offer second-choice support to the lone candidate who's ruling out anything of the sort either pre- or post-election.
Now, I'm not sure the shift is necessarily a damaging one for Mulcair: it could be that he'll win over more support from other candidates' backers who see the move as assuaging any question about his party allegiances than he'll lose votes from Cullen backers. But for anybody who sees the NDP's Quebec gains as the result of a combination of Layton, Mulcair and a willingness to work beyond party lines, Mulcair has made clear that members will have to give up the latter in order to present him as the face of the party. And that may force plenty of commentators to rethink their assumed voting patterns.
Since the start of the campaign, plenty of commentators have tried to divide the candidates into two camps - with the two consistent divisions being Mulcair/Nathan Cullen on one side as the candidates seeking to challenge party orthodoxy, and Peggy Nash/Brian Topp as the comparative traditionalists.
But by announcing that he's not open to cooperation with the Libs on any front (including post-election coalitions of the type the NDP has organized in the past), Mulcair effectively severed ties with a good number of Cullen voters. After all, surely nobody drawn to Cullen based on his appeal for cross-party relationships can then turn around and offer second-choice support to the lone candidate who's ruling out anything of the sort either pre- or post-election.
Now, I'm not sure the shift is necessarily a damaging one for Mulcair: it could be that he'll win over more support from other candidates' backers who see the move as assuaging any question about his party allegiances than he'll lose votes from Cullen backers. But for anybody who sees the NDP's Quebec gains as the result of a combination of Layton, Mulcair and a willingness to work beyond party lines, Mulcair has made clear that members will have to give up the latter in order to present him as the face of the party. And that may force plenty of commentators to rethink their assumed voting patterns.
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.
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
Assorted news and notes from the NDP's leadership campaign as we approach today's final debate...
- Niki Ashton pointed out how the NDP should be able to tap into the desire for democratic decision-making that once motivated the Reform Party before it was turned into a top-down organization under the thumb of Stephen Harper.
- Nathan Cullen is suggesting that he may have enough momentum to come up the middle at the leadership convention. And in an interview with Planet S, he had this to say about some of the major challenges to the Cons' corporate-driven agenda:
But I'd have to consider the result fairly unimpressive: not only does it fail to answer any questions about his campaign, it also falls into some process traps that I've readily pointed out when other parties have considered their own treatment at the hands of the Cons more of an outrage than the effects on Canadian voters. And indeed I wouldn't be surprised if a better video could be cobbled together from Mulcair's answers within any of the English debates.
- Joanna Smith profiled Peggy Nash, including this on the need for citizens to stay engaged in their government:
- Finally, Jeffrey Simpson and Joel-Denis Bellavance both compare Mulcair and his plans for the NDP to Tony Blair and the Third Way - though neither offers any particular explanation as to what that actually means in terms of the NDP's organization. KK offers up some reasons to vote for Paul Dewar. And Marc Laferriere offers an overview of the candidates who recently appeared in Brant, while making this suggestion for the end of the campaign:
- Niki Ashton pointed out how the NDP should be able to tap into the desire for democratic decision-making that once motivated the Reform Party before it was turned into a top-down organization under the thumb of Stephen Harper.
- Nathan Cullen is suggesting that he may have enough momentum to come up the middle at the leadership convention. And in an interview with Planet S, he had this to say about some of the major challenges to the Cons' corporate-driven agenda:
PS: Are you optimistic about the (Gateway pipeline) hearings?- In the same Planet S interview series featuring Cullen, Mulcair offered this on the effect of the Occupy movement:
NC: Do we have the money and lawyers that Enbridge has? No. But we have people, and there are more of us than there are of them. And we’re right. I’m resolved, and my people are resolved. I’ve never felt so determined about something.
How maddening is it for Harper to call people who care about their homes and communities “foreign radicals”? By calling Canadians who care about the environment enemies of the state, while obviously taking sides with foreign-owned oil companies, he’s laying the seeds of his own demise.
...
PS: What, if anything, do you think the Occupy movement contributed to Canadian politics?
NC: It opened up a question for many people: how did we end up with such a rigged system? The movement has tapped a sentiment and asked the questions that are important to people, but it remains to be seen what we all are going to do about it.
PS: What, if anything, do you think the Occupy movement contributed to Canadian politics?Meanwhile, Mulcair also released a new video to define himself as the campaign draws to a close:
TM: It was a wake-up call that the root causes of the crash of ’08 have not been addressed, and there are a lot of people in our society who are being left behind. The people who brought that crash are still in charge and they’re still making the same decisions. I can tell you that a lot of the analysis that is being done by leaders of the Occupy movement has a foundation in fact, and it’s the first time since the environmental movement in the ‘60s that the public has taken such direct action.
But it does seem to have run out of steam. More long term, the answer is going to have to be political.
But I'd have to consider the result fairly unimpressive: not only does it fail to answer any questions about his campaign, it also falls into some process traps that I've readily pointed out when other parties have considered their own treatment at the hands of the Cons more of an outrage than the effects on Canadian voters. And indeed I wouldn't be surprised if a better video could be cobbled together from Mulcair's answers within any of the English debates.
- Joanna Smith profiled Peggy Nash, including this on the need for citizens to stay engaged in their government:
(Nash's travels abroad) made her thankful that she lived in a peaceful and politically stable country, but also somewhat wistful that Canadians were not more politically aware and engaged, something she still wishes were the case today.- Brian Topp released his immigration plan (emphasizing the treatment of new Canadians as people rather than economic tools) just in time to greet the Cons' anticipated budget going in the opposite direction.
“We all know, vigilance is key,” she says of the importance of political awareness even when a country is not experiencing the kind of crises she witnessed during her travels. “Every generation has to fight for things all over again.”
She explains that she is talking about the rights of women being threatened by the Conservative government doing things like refusing to include funding for abortion in the G8 initiative on maternal child health, but also about growing economic inequality through job losses and attacking collective agreements.
“There has been pressure building for several years, but it’s increasingly gaining velocity. It’s accelerating and I think we should all be concerned about it,” says Nash.
- Finally, Jeffrey Simpson and Joel-Denis Bellavance both compare Mulcair and his plans for the NDP to Tony Blair and the Third Way - though neither offers any particular explanation as to what that actually means in terms of the NDP's organization. KK offers up some reasons to vote for Paul Dewar. And Marc Laferriere offers an overview of the candidates who recently appeared in Brant, while making this suggestion for the end of the campaign:
A united NDP, no matter who becomes leader, will be able to achieve the dreams set up before us by leaders like Tommy, Ed and Jack. These candidates, and even more importantly their teams, have done an incredible job separately and have learned much. When we all get back on the same team, watch out.
My challenge to all New Democrats from every leadership team is this: The leadership race has to end on March 24th. No camps, no grudges, no hurt feelings. Let's see what we can do together and where we are a year from now as a united force for a better, more progressive Canada.
Friday, March 09, 2012
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):
- Peggy Nash took Rabble's questions, including this answer on her plans to build the NDP:
- 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:
- 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.- 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.
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.”
- 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.- And Brian Topp was interviewed by the Huffington Post's Althia Raj.
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.
- 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:
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
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:
- 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.
- 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.- 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.
...
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.
- 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.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
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.
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.
Leadership 2012 Roundup
I haven't done a roundup post in quite some time (having focused instead on candidate analysis and preliminary endorsement posts over the past week). But in advance of today's Montreal debate, let's take a look at some of the noteworthy developments from the week.
- Niki Ashton spoke to the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance about her rural priorities while observing again that the eliminating of the single-desk Wheat Board without any input from producers could be a huge turning point when it comes to prairie support.
- Paul Dewar was the latest subject of a Joanna Smith profile while adding Dennis Bevington to his list of endorsers. And Dewar alsoanswered Aaron Wherry's questions, including this on the question of whether the party's work in expanding its base is a matter of values or language:
- Peggy Nash promised a Royal Commission on Electoral Reform aimed at implementing proportional representation - which looks to have been nicely timed to catch the attention of any new party members supporting Nathan Cullen in the hope that his joint nomination process would lead to PR.
- Brian Topp released a new endorsement statement from Roy Romanow, while facing round of questions about Bay Street contributions of his own.
- On the commentary side, Dan Lett offered his analysis of the field in the wake of last weekend's Winnipeg debate:
- Niki Ashton spoke to the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance about her rural priorities while observing again that the eliminating of the single-desk Wheat Board without any input from producers could be a huge turning point when it comes to prairie support.
- Paul Dewar was the latest subject of a Joanna Smith profile while adding Dennis Bevington to his list of endorsers. And Dewar alsoanswered Aaron Wherry's questions, including this on the question of whether the party's work in expanding its base is a matter of values or language:
Q: I’m not quite clear to what degree the debate is actually happening within the party, but to the degree that it is, where do you find yourself on does the party need to go to the centre or does the party need to continue on the path it’s on? Do you take a particular position on that?- Thomas Mulcair unveiled endorsements from Robert Chisholm and David Christopherson, while releasing a labour rights policy which mostly sticks to the NDP's existing platform.
A: I’d like to build on the work that we had done in the last election, which was fine-tuning our message and small, practical steps to get to a more equitable, egalitarian society. I think that’s what’s proven successful in the past and certainly my connections to the Manitoba party illustrate that I’m very much interested in taking that path. In doing so though, you don’t say, well, we’re not going to talk about the importance of our relationship with labour or the importance of working people. You actually open it up to say and we think that other people should benefit from solid pensions and benefits and that government has a role to play here.
- Peggy Nash promised a Royal Commission on Electoral Reform aimed at implementing proportional representation - which looks to have been nicely timed to catch the attention of any new party members supporting Nathan Cullen in the hope that his joint nomination process would lead to PR.
- Brian Topp released a new endorsement statement from Roy Romanow, while facing round of questions about Bay Street contributions of his own.
- On the commentary side, Dan Lett offered his analysis of the field in the wake of last weekend's Winnipeg debate:
The NDP should be happy to see seven candidates in this race. It tells Canadians this is a job worth fighting for. The Manitoba wings of the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties, which are both in search of a leader but have not a single declared candidate between them, would be well-advised to pay close attention to the breadth and strength of the slate of candidates looking to fill the late Jack Layton's shoes.Meanwhile, Alice crunched Dewar's polling numbers to figure out which candidates have an apparent path to victory. Quinn compiled the available candidate positions on LGBT issues. Gloria Galloway summarized the voting process and noted that between 80% and 95% of ballots may be marked in advance of the convention. And Ian assembled his candidate rankings.
...
In late March, Layton's shoes will be filled by a new leader who will be given a little more than three years to prove 2011 was something more than an anomaly. Sunday's debate did not demonstrate with certainty who the best person is for that job. But it did show that the NDP has some fascinating options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)