NDP Next Steps Roundup

Not surprisingly, plenty in the Canadian media have responded to the NDP's first big news of the summer with all kinds of discussion as to where the party will go next. But let's take a quick look at some of the particularly noteworthy coverage.

Sheila Copps' tribute to Jack Layton stands out as a show of respect from a political rival. In contrast, Tim Powers engaged in some concern trolling par excellence, warning Nycole Turmel that the Cons might not appreciate the NDP's principled opposition. But fortunately, Turmel doesn't seem to be taking Powers' advice.

Speaking of whom, Susan Delacourt profiled Turmel in her new leadership role. Bea Vongdouangchanh did the same for Brian Topp as the initial face of Layton's announcement. And Joanna Smith looked in depth at the NDP's team which has helped to propel the party to its Official Opposition status.

Daniel Leblanc and Gloria Galloway covered some of what might come next for the NDP - albeit with some stunningly obvious commentary (does anybody need to be told that the NDP should promote its own values rather than the Bloc's?) mixed in. Andy Blatchford noted that Layton's absence may make for an ideal opportunity for the NDP's younger and newer MPs to grow into their roles.

And finally, Gerald Caplan served up a reminder that the party isn't over no matter what.

Tuesday Morning Links

- Don Pittis finds an important lesson in the PCS takeover reports, noting the importance of Crowns past and present in building wealth where it would otherwise have been siphoned off:

The huge value the market is placing on Potash Corp. reminds us that despite the current ideological tide against these kinds of entities, government corporations remain part of our economic tool chest.

Some fail but that is true of all endeavours. When they are successful, they can accumulate capital that may take years to show its value.

They can create new business when no one else is willing to invest. They can create wealth and power. And if you don't believe me, ask the Chinese. They have plenty of government-owned corporations that are said to want in on this bidding war as well.

- The Hill Times' report on the Cons' plan to set up their own committee system to bypass that less-easily-controlled one in Parliament manages to completely miss a rather important question: does anybody really think the problem with the Harper government is that it hasn't been insular enough? (And it's particularly odd that Marlene Jennings fails to raise the point in her response on behalf of the Libs.)

- Sheila Copps has the right response to immigrant-bashing from the Cons and their media division at QMI:

Historically, most Canadian national leaders have avoided the divisive tendencies that can infect all politicians. They usually are the ones calling for calm, asking the population to reach out to fellow world citizens in need.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has determined that fear and loathing is more effective than bridge building. He has been very successful, thus far, in convincing the rest of us that this boatload of people is truly nothing more than Tamil terrorists.

Had Prime Ministers Joe Clark and Pierre Trudeau followed that path, we would never have opened our hearts to 50,000 boat people.

This time, Canada won't be getting a United Nations award.

Instead, we mount the barricades to keep 492 war torn souls from finding peace. Is that really the new face of Canada?

- Don't worry about the fact that Environment Canada's weather service programs which would otherwise provide vital information about our environment are falling apart at the seams due to cutbacks after the Cons blew billions of dollars of "environmental" funding on the most wasteful programs on the planet. After all, surely we can all agree to a gut feeling that the wind is blowing however best suits the Cons.

(Update: Or maybe the Cons actually do care about accurate information when it's their Supreme Leader's safety at stake. It's just the rest of us who aren't important enough to merit the same consideration.)

- And finally, great work by the Rev. Paperboy, Alison and Pale in their updated status report on Canada Inc.:

On overheated rhetoric

Shorter National Post editorial board:

BREAKING: A single overstated phrase in a Sheila Copps column proves conclusively that everybody to the left of Ted Morton hates Canada and considers it hell on earth without any supporting evidence. We now return to our regularly-scheduled column on how human rights commissions are worse than Hitler.

Intractable differences

Sheila Copps responds to the Libs' attempts to woo her into running for the party:

If nominated I will not stand.

Which clearly makes her a terrible fit for the party. After all, for the Libs one has to get elected before not standing becomes the rule.

It only counts if you're a Liberal

Most readers will be familiar with the concept of IOKIYAC, meaning "it's okay if you're a Conservative", as a shorthand for the double standards typically applied by the right. But it may be time to unveil a new abbreviation along similar lines: IOCIYAL, for "it only counts if you're a Liberal".

For today's example, let's go to Sheila Copps' column on women in politics:

A record number of Canadian women actually rode into Parliament on a wave created by the election's biggest loser. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion announced early that he would try to nominate an unprecedented one-third women for the Grit team. In the end, the party topped its target, nominating an unprecedented 113 women or 37 per cent of its candidates.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and Dion's bold move encouraged most other political parties to expressly target more women nominations.

The Bloc Québécois ran 20 women and managed to elect 15 of them, defying the prevailing myth that women are somehow less electable than men. The New Democrats nominated 104 women, electing 11.

Copps' claim is a fairly simple one: that Dion's target influenced the NDP and the Bloc to nominate and elect more female candidates. But there's a fairly glaring problem with the assertion if one actually checks the evidence.

After all, a quick look at the Pundits' Guide election numbers shows that in the 2006 election, the NDP led the pack by far with 108 female candidates, with the Bloc running 23 (to 79 for the Libs).

As a result, it would seem to be beyond reasonable dispute that both the NDP and the Bloc were doing plenty to bring female candidates into the fold long before Stephane Dion won the Lib leadership. And moreover, the Libs' target had absolutely nothing to do with the number of female candidates nominated by the other opposition parties.

Now, it's worth noting that attempting to give credit to the Libs for being on the cutting edge is itself a fairly laughable proposition. In every previous federal election in the Pundits' Guide database, the NDP had a healthy lead on the Libs in the number of female candidates nominated - and in both 1997 and 2006 the NDP had already exceeded the 33% target which Copps claims to have been so revolutionary.

Which means that if one wants to give credit to anybody for setting a precedent for relative gender parity that other parties have felt a need to follow, the place to direct praise would be toward Alexa McDonough and Jack Layton. But thanks to IOCIYAL, Copps and her party are apparently well along the path toward editing the history books to delete any reference to female candidates prior to Dion.

On bridge-building

Sheila Copps has an interesting theory about NDP MPs:

Once elected, NDP members of parliament usually are harder to dislodge than your garden variety MP. With more freedom to freelance, they share with the Bloc the benefits of a parliamentary platform with no government responsibilities. Socialists usually are good constituency members who work hard in the riding and build bridges with community groups.

While "good constituency members who work hard in the riding and build bridges with community groups" sounds like an entirely fair description of the NDP's members, I have to wonder about the theory that Dippers are actually harder to dislodge. Maybe it's just my recent memory of Nystrom, Proctor, Nystrom (again), etc. in the time I've been watching Saskatchewan ridings which raises some doubts. Or maybe the phenomenon is different in the Ontario ridings more familiar to Copps - which would bode well for the Dippers in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek among others.

But it's worth asking whether there's anything to Copps' theory. Do NDP MPs in fact tend toward a higher re-election rate than other MPs? And if indeed the NDP does tend to do well in re-electing its members, have the Dippers' new additions since January 2006 developed strong enough roots in their ridings to continue the trend?