Let's close this blog's discussion of #vancon2011 with one last post, this time dealing with the NDP's constitutional preamble - which figured to be the convention's main topic of interest until it was deferred for further consultation.
There's no doubt that at least some delegates were prepared to fight hard against the proposed changes. But I'm far from sure that the amendment would have been defeated if it had come to a vote at the plenary: while the new preamble won only a narrow majority in the resolutions panel, that same panel was almost unanimous in beefing up and passing the non-merger resolution which was later defeated in plenary, signaling that the influence of the delegates most averse to change was likely to be much smaller in a full vote than it was at the panel level.
So we shouldn't see the deferral as being based on a conclusion that a vote on the preamble would have faced a foregone conclusion. Instead, it looks to reflect a genuine sense that there's room to improve the revised draft now that the NDP has a bit of breathing room.
Now that the consultation process has been set in motion, though, it may be even more important than one might think at first glance.
After all, one of the major criticisms leveled at the NDP in this spring's election campaign was its willingness to consider constitutional change at the national level. And even with the public much less averse to reopening constitutional talks than Canada's chattering classes, there isn't much room for doubt that some controversy would result.
With that in mind, the NDP will probably be well served to consider the revision of its own constitution - complete with a need to broker compromises among multiple types of supporters in the face of changing party demographics - as a smaller-scale test of the challenges involved in engaging in the same type of project on the national level. And if it can satisfy its internal constituencies and come to agreement with time to spare before the 2015 election, then the experience and end result should provide a ready counter if the same line of attack surfaces again.
Those who defend power tend to screech the loudest when power is genuinely threatened.
Showing posts with label #vancon2011. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #vancon2011. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2011
On learning experiences
Labels:
#vancon2011,
constitution,
internal,
ndp
On maturing processes
Let's take a look at a couple of final issues from #vancon2011, starting with the series of machinations around resolutions ruling out merger or non-compete agreements with the Liberals.
As I noted at the time, the convention planners gave a prominent place to a resolution ruling out a merger with the Liberals while giving a lower priority to one also ruling out a non-compete agreement - perhaps signalling that at least some within the party saw substantially different issues between the two, and an anti-merger resolution as a more reasonable outcome. But the panel combined the two into a single resolution.
Meanwhile, both resolutions referred specifically to the Libs alone, rather than to a set of general principles to be applied to dealings with other parties. (I'd hoped to amend the resolution in panel to remove the Lib reference so that it would apply to the NDP's dealings with any other party, but the question got called first.)
That left the plenary session to deal with a strongly-worded and restrictive resolution aimed solely at the Libs. And a combination of poorly-received speeches in favour and a strong appeal from Peter Stoffer in opposition resulted in the resolution being defeated.
Of course, that isn't to say that there seemed to be any particular appetite on the part of anybody speaking on either side to approve of merger or non-compete talks. But the plenary vote reflected the willingness of delegates to live up to the party's message of leaving the door open for co-operation where it's possible to do some good in the process.
Which figures to be a plus in the long run. But I'd think the progress of the resolution shows there's still work for the party to do in recognizing and defining its place on the Canadian political scene.
In effect, it seems that at least some delegates were eager to single out the Libs for denigration based on last month's election results. And the focus might have been understandable to a point given the longstanding rivalry between the two parties, as well as the fact that as recently as a couple of months ago the NDP perceived itself as facing an uphill climb to overtake the Libs.
But from my standpoint, the focus of the resolutions only made exactly the same mistake the NDP has criticized in others for so long - ascribing undue importance to the Libs instead of zeroing in on what the NDP has done and can do as a party. And hopefully by the next convention, the respective positioning of the NDP and the Libs (which still seems new now) will have become familiar enough that delegates won't see the need to trumpet it.
As I noted at the time, the convention planners gave a prominent place to a resolution ruling out a merger with the Liberals while giving a lower priority to one also ruling out a non-compete agreement - perhaps signalling that at least some within the party saw substantially different issues between the two, and an anti-merger resolution as a more reasonable outcome. But the panel combined the two into a single resolution.
Meanwhile, both resolutions referred specifically to the Libs alone, rather than to a set of general principles to be applied to dealings with other parties. (I'd hoped to amend the resolution in panel to remove the Lib reference so that it would apply to the NDP's dealings with any other party, but the question got called first.)
That left the plenary session to deal with a strongly-worded and restrictive resolution aimed solely at the Libs. And a combination of poorly-received speeches in favour and a strong appeal from Peter Stoffer in opposition resulted in the resolution being defeated.
Of course, that isn't to say that there seemed to be any particular appetite on the part of anybody speaking on either side to approve of merger or non-compete talks. But the plenary vote reflected the willingness of delegates to live up to the party's message of leaving the door open for co-operation where it's possible to do some good in the process.
Which figures to be a plus in the long run. But I'd think the progress of the resolution shows there's still work for the party to do in recognizing and defining its place on the Canadian political scene.
In effect, it seems that at least some delegates were eager to single out the Libs for denigration based on last month's election results. And the focus might have been understandable to a point given the longstanding rivalry between the two parties, as well as the fact that as recently as a couple of months ago the NDP perceived itself as facing an uphill climb to overtake the Libs.
But from my standpoint, the focus of the resolutions only made exactly the same mistake the NDP has criticized in others for so long - ascribing undue importance to the Libs instead of zeroing in on what the NDP has done and can do as a party. And hopefully by the next convention, the respective positioning of the NDP and the Libs (which still seems new now) will have become familiar enough that delegates won't see the need to trumpet it.
Labels:
#vancon2011,
internal,
libs,
ndp,
unite the left behind the ndp
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
On training opportunities
Naturally, there's plenty to catch up on from #vancon2011 - but before I get into the news from the convention, let's note one relatively surprising omission from the agenda for most of the weekend.
At the NDP's previous convention in Halifax, delegates were offered the option of focusing on their choice of the usual schedule (resolutions and speeches), or a multitude of training sessions to assist in riding association development and election planning. And while I'm not sure exactly what results came of that effort (which did give rise to some scheduling problems as multiple sessions happened at the same time), it would have seemed to make sense to include a substantial training component this time as well - particularly to the extent the post-election period looks to be an ideal time to provide training on longer-term building in the absence of an immediate election threat.
Of course, there's still loads of time to develop riding-level capacity in the lead up to 2015. But there doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that the NDP has plenty of building left to do in order to win the next federal election. And we'll have to hope the Vancouver convention doesn't prove to be a missed opportunity on that front.
At the NDP's previous convention in Halifax, delegates were offered the option of focusing on their choice of the usual schedule (resolutions and speeches), or a multitude of training sessions to assist in riding association development and election planning. And while I'm not sure exactly what results came of that effort (which did give rise to some scheduling problems as multiple sessions happened at the same time), it would have seemed to make sense to include a substantial training component this time as well - particularly to the extent the post-election period looks to be an ideal time to provide training on longer-term building in the absence of an immediate election threat.
Of course, there's still loads of time to develop riding-level capacity in the lead up to 2015. But there doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that the NDP has plenty of building left to do in order to win the next federal election. And we'll have to hope the Vancouver convention doesn't prove to be a missed opportunity on that front.
Labels:
#vancon2011,
grassroots,
ndp,
strategy
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Light Posting
For those who hadn't noticed, I haven't had a chance to post on #vancon2011 yet. But you can get some updates from my Twitter feed - and there looks to be no lack of noteworthy material to discuss once the convention is over.
Labels:
#vancon2011,
meta
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
On timelines
August 2009: The NDP's federal convention in Halifax votes to have the party's executive draft a new preamble to the NDP's constitution.
May 2011: The NDP achieves unprecedented success in Canada's federal election, forming Canada's Official Opposition for the first time.
June 2011: The revised preamble is made public.
June 2011: Concerned citizens everywhere commence kvetching as to how the new preamble serves as evidence that the NDP's rise in popular support has radically changed its focus.
Truly, concern trolling defies the laws of physics.
May 2011: The NDP achieves unprecedented success in Canada's federal election, forming Canada's Official Opposition for the first time.
June 2011: The revised preamble is made public.
June 2011: Concerned citizens everywhere commence kvetching as to how the new preamble serves as evidence that the NDP's rise in popular support has radically changed its focus.
Truly, concern trolling defies the laws of physics.
Labels:
#vancon2011,
internal,
media bias,
ndp
Monday, June 13, 2011
Up for debate
The NDP has released a first look at the prioritized resolutions from this weekend's #vancon2011 (PDF). And while most of them may not come as too much surprise (or appear particularly controversial), there are a few which look highly noteworthy in developing and refining the party's policies.
In particular:
Resolution 1-09-11, submitted by Davenport, proposes an Urban Worker Policy Initiative with a focus on addressing the challenges facing vulnerable workers both in accessing government programs and in treatment by contractors/employers. In effect the proposed initiative would look to bring together the concerns of several classes of workers in a common initiative - helping to build the types of numbers and connections needed to ensure that concerns are addressed.
Resolution 2-07-11, submitted by four B.C. ridings, calls for a "triple bottom line" approach (including environmental, social and economic effects) to policy development
Resolution 3-09-11, submitted by Ottawa Centre, calls for the development of a comprehensive national policy on mental illness and mental health.
Resolution 5-05-11, submitted by Trinity-Spadina, proposes that by-elections be called on a schedule set by the Chief Electoral Officer, ensuring that a Prime Minister can't delay as long as possible and leave seats vacant as the Harper Cons have done at every opportunity.
And in case there was any prospect of a merger with the Libs anytime soon, Toronto Centre's resolution 7-04-11 would reject that possibility - serving mostly to put what already figured to be the party's position in front of delegates for a formal discussion and vote.
While the above may make for noteworthy developments, I wouldn't expect them to cause much controversy. But two parts of the resolution list may lead to somewhat more of an internal debate.
First, resolution 5-09-11 (submitted by five B.C. ridings) calls for a strong federal role in both funding and delivering social programs. We'll find out shortly whether the proposal will be seen as controversial by the newly-strengthened Quebec contingent - which may serve as an important indicator as to whether there's actually real potential for internal dissatisfaction over the proper role of the federal government, or whether the party can come to a broad consensus.
And second, resolution 7-01-11 sets out a new constitutional preamble which eliminates the references to socialism which are the usual target for opponents' potshots, but replaces them with social democracy, "economic and social equality" and "ensuring that wealth and power are in the hands of the many and not the few". In general the proposal looks to be more a matter of modernization than a fundamental change in focus - but I'm sure we'll hear plenty of parsing of both the existing and revised versions to try to tease out any differences as the resolution is considered.
In particular:
Resolution 1-09-11, submitted by Davenport, proposes an Urban Worker Policy Initiative with a focus on addressing the challenges facing vulnerable workers both in accessing government programs and in treatment by contractors/employers. In effect the proposed initiative would look to bring together the concerns of several classes of workers in a common initiative - helping to build the types of numbers and connections needed to ensure that concerns are addressed.
Resolution 2-07-11, submitted by four B.C. ridings, calls for a "triple bottom line" approach (including environmental, social and economic effects) to policy development
Resolution 3-09-11, submitted by Ottawa Centre, calls for the development of a comprehensive national policy on mental illness and mental health.
Resolution 5-05-11, submitted by Trinity-Spadina, proposes that by-elections be called on a schedule set by the Chief Electoral Officer, ensuring that a Prime Minister can't delay as long as possible and leave seats vacant as the Harper Cons have done at every opportunity.
And in case there was any prospect of a merger with the Libs anytime soon, Toronto Centre's resolution 7-04-11 would reject that possibility - serving mostly to put what already figured to be the party's position in front of delegates for a formal discussion and vote.
While the above may make for noteworthy developments, I wouldn't expect them to cause much controversy. But two parts of the resolution list may lead to somewhat more of an internal debate.
First, resolution 5-09-11 (submitted by five B.C. ridings) calls for a strong federal role in both funding and delivering social programs. We'll find out shortly whether the proposal will be seen as controversial by the newly-strengthened Quebec contingent - which may serve as an important indicator as to whether there's actually real potential for internal dissatisfaction over the proper role of the federal government, or whether the party can come to a broad consensus.
And second, resolution 7-01-11 sets out a new constitutional preamble which eliminates the references to socialism which are the usual target for opponents' potshots, but replaces them with social democracy, "economic and social equality" and "ensuring that wealth and power are in the hands of the many and not the few". In general the proposal looks to be more a matter of modernization than a fundamental change in focus - but I'm sure we'll hear plenty of parsing of both the existing and revised versions to try to tease out any differences as the resolution is considered.
Labels:
#vancon2011,
democratic reform,
economy,
environment,
federalism,
internal democracy,
labour,
mental health,
ndp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)