While there's been plenty of ill-informed commentary since the NDP's convention last weekend, I'll take a moment to highlight a few of the followup points which deserve a read.
- Joshua Keep rightly recognizes the new leadership election as an opportunity for renewal, but no guarantee of improvement. Gerard Di Trolio focuses particularly on the prospects of an unabashedly left-wing leadership campaign. And Selina Chignall offers a look at what the NDP may be looking for in its next leader, while Samantha Power examines some of the competing forces within the party (though we shouldn't overstate the differences, particularly given that there was little apparent problem keeping all sides of any of the issues in the fold just an election cycle earlier).
- Gerald Caplan asks the question of whether the NDP's main problem has to do with its ability to be seen as a viable government. But I'd note in response that at least over the last two elections, the issue has been one of winning first-choice support rather than being in the consideration set of enough voters to contend for power.
- Nicholas Ellan offers a look at some of the tactics which worked for the Leap and Renewal movements at the NDP's convention - while discussing how they should inform the party's own work in the time to come.
- Finally, Crawford Kilian points out that the most extreme response to the Leap Manifesto resolution amounts to an attempt to deny the glaringly obvious. And lest anybody think the issue is at all new based on the development of the Leap Manifesto itself, see my earlier discussion in this post and column.
Showing posts with label edmonton 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label edmonton 2016. Show all posts
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Friday, April 15, 2016
A place for discussion
Following up on yesterday's column, I'll expand somewhat on some of the decisions the NDP may want to consider as (or before) it elects new leaders. And since the recent federal convention has been treated by other commentators as everything from a shining example of party democracy in action to an absolute calamity, let's start at that level - with a particular focus on what should be seen as having worked and not in Edmonton.
I'll start by taking the view that whatever one's views on the merits, the convention's handling of resolutions related to the Leap Manifesto should be seen as an excellent example as to how policy debate can happen within a party.
Plenty of work went into developing a main resolution and informing members (and the public) about it. The convention's resolution panel examined its options, and put forward a primary resolution which addressed concerns about the original wording. The underlying issue was one which left room for thoughtful debate even among the convention's featured speakers. And the debate on the floor featured meaningful contributions from a combination of high-profile and rank-and-file members.
About all that was lacking was any sense of willingness to work with the outcome - which is unfortunate given that the resolution which passed leaves ample room for debate as to which portions of Leap should be accepted or not.
Unfortunately, time and capacity limitations make it impossible to engage in that level of discussion when it comes to all but a few resolutions at any given convention. And that seems to me to be a particularly important problem if conventions are seen as the sole direct opportunity for membership-level input into policies and choices.
But that's a problem which should be fairly readily fixed. The NDP's federal council has authority to make final decisions on policy between conventions - and the sheer volume of resolutions brought forward at every policy convention seems to me to signal some significant demand to ensure that more policy issues are dealt with.
With the council serving as a check on any mischief, there's no reason why the resolutions (PDF) which haven't yet been addressed by convention (and additional ideas put forward afterward) couldn't be made subject to systematic review and discussion through party channels. And the result of facilitating ongoing policy discussion could be to make the NDP and its policy conventions more productive in two ways.
First, it should help to narrow and clarify the issues up for discussion.
At the moment, there's a large amount of redundancy in the resolutions submitted since electoral district associations and commissions submit their own resolutions with little (if any) coordination. But the development of an ongoing policy forum should make it easier for EDAs and commissions to discuss and agree on the wording intended to address any given issue - which should reduce the number of resolutions submitted while better focusing their intent.
And second, the convention itself should run more efficiently and accomplish more if members' concerns have been addressed in advance, or can be addressed afterward.
In particular, there should be less room for argument about how much time is devoted to any specific policy - or policy in general - at a convention if there's a readily-available alternative forum in which to carry on the discussion.
Of course, it will inevitably take time for a new process to be developed and implemented. And I'd fully expect some of the past issues to remain until members' expectations adapt to a new policy review process. But in the long run, I'd think it's possible to put both convention time and members' policy interest to better use by making sure needed conversations about the NDP's direction take place on a continuous basis.
I'll start by taking the view that whatever one's views on the merits, the convention's handling of resolutions related to the Leap Manifesto should be seen as an excellent example as to how policy debate can happen within a party.
Plenty of work went into developing a main resolution and informing members (and the public) about it. The convention's resolution panel examined its options, and put forward a primary resolution which addressed concerns about the original wording. The underlying issue was one which left room for thoughtful debate even among the convention's featured speakers. And the debate on the floor featured meaningful contributions from a combination of high-profile and rank-and-file members.
About all that was lacking was any sense of willingness to work with the outcome - which is unfortunate given that the resolution which passed leaves ample room for debate as to which portions of Leap should be accepted or not.
Unfortunately, time and capacity limitations make it impossible to engage in that level of discussion when it comes to all but a few resolutions at any given convention. And that seems to me to be a particularly important problem if conventions are seen as the sole direct opportunity for membership-level input into policies and choices.
But that's a problem which should be fairly readily fixed. The NDP's federal council has authority to make final decisions on policy between conventions - and the sheer volume of resolutions brought forward at every policy convention seems to me to signal some significant demand to ensure that more policy issues are dealt with.
With the council serving as a check on any mischief, there's no reason why the resolutions (PDF) which haven't yet been addressed by convention (and additional ideas put forward afterward) couldn't be made subject to systematic review and discussion through party channels. And the result of facilitating ongoing policy discussion could be to make the NDP and its policy conventions more productive in two ways.
First, it should help to narrow and clarify the issues up for discussion.
At the moment, there's a large amount of redundancy in the resolutions submitted since electoral district associations and commissions submit their own resolutions with little (if any) coordination. But the development of an ongoing policy forum should make it easier for EDAs and commissions to discuss and agree on the wording intended to address any given issue - which should reduce the number of resolutions submitted while better focusing their intent.
And second, the convention itself should run more efficiently and accomplish more if members' concerns have been addressed in advance, or can be addressed afterward.
In particular, there should be less room for argument about how much time is devoted to any specific policy - or policy in general - at a convention if there's a readily-available alternative forum in which to carry on the discussion.
Of course, it will inevitably take time for a new process to be developed and implemented. And I'd fully expect some of the past issues to remain until members' expectations adapt to a new policy review process. But in the long run, I'd think it's possible to put both convention time and members' policy interest to better use by making sure needed conversations about the NDP's direction take place on a continuous basis.
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Up for discussion
Kady O'Malley has already highlighted a few of the noteworthy resolutions (PDF) submitted to this weekend's NDP policy convention. But I'll point out a few more which look to me to deserve attention.
First, in the category of simple good ideas regardless of one's ideological orientation...
Meanwhile, a few other resolutions fit with ideas which have been discussed elsewhere, but haven't been given extensive attention among Canada's federal political parties. Among those are 1-18-16 (among others) on postal banking, 1-21-16 on a financial transaction tax, 1-27-16 calling for a review of tax policy including challenging the Cons' GST cuts among others dealing with more progressive taxation, 1-67-16 providing for an inheritance tax, 3-06-16 on a basic income, 3-16-16 and others supporting a fully funded mental health and addictions strategy, 3-89-16 to eliminate mandatory minimum criminal sentences, and 6-04-16 to call for an end to carding.
And several more offer some important fodder for discussion, including a charter of citizen and corporate responsibilities (1-47-16), a detailed plan to transition to a low-carbon economy as the basis for the next campaign (2-24-16), a prohibition against genetic discrimination (3-26-16), a fund to encourage youth involvement in politics (5-12-16), and a move toward more ongoing participatory policy-making (7-14-16 among others).
Of course it's doubtful that this weekend will even scratch the surface of the above (along with many more worthwhile ideas which have been put before the convention). But there's certainly no lack of thoughtful ideas worth taking away even if they don't make it to the floor - and hopefully several of the above will find their way into platforms and policy before long.
First, in the category of simple good ideas regardless of one's ideological orientation...
1-08-16 SEVERANCE FLEXIBILITYAbout the only concern is that this might be too narrowly framed in applying only to plant closures. But it's well worth looking at ways to make sure that EI does more for workers (see also 3-05-16 among other resolutions for examples) - and the principle that EI should supplement severance packages rather than swallowing them up for workers in an especially difficult job market its the bill.
London-Fanshawe
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following be added to Section 1.5 in the policy book:
1.5.f. Amending the Employment Insurance Act (severance) and the Income Tax Act so that employees who have lost their jobs due to plant closure can, on a one-time-only basis, retain their severance packages and be able to invest some or all of that severance money into RRSPs even if the investment is above their RRSP contribution limit and can, immediately upon termination of employment, collect the Employment Insurance to which they are entitled without any loss of severance monies.
1-20-16 PLANNED OBSOLESCENCEThis would fit neatly into the categories of consumer protection and environmental policy, at least allowing people to make more informed purchasing decisions and hopefully encouraging the development of more responsible production processes.
NDP Quebec Section
...
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP require that for each device purchased, the consumer must have access to the following information:
§ A clear indication making it possible to know if the device is repairable and the duration of the availability of separate parts and accessories, as well as the device’s reasonable life cycle;
§ An explanation of the product’s environmental impact provided by the producers, such as:
§ Impact of CO2 emitted when the product was produced;
§ Preservation of natural resources: quantity of non-renewable resources (gold, silver and tin) in the composition of the product;
§ Instructions for recycling the device or returning it to the producer for recycling.
5-03-16 MAXIMUM LENGTH OF FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNSI'm not sure if anybody saw any merit in Stephen Harper's extended 2015 campaign for any purpose other than his own partisan advantage. But a legislated limit on the campaign period would seem a logical response to the issues raised when a prime minister can otherwise singlehandedly extend timelines and increase expense limits.
NDP Quebec Section, Richmond-Arthabaska, Jonquière
...
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP support the adoption of legislation limiting the length of an election campaign to a maximum of 45 days.
Meanwhile, a few other resolutions fit with ideas which have been discussed elsewhere, but haven't been given extensive attention among Canada's federal political parties. Among those are 1-18-16 (among others) on postal banking, 1-21-16 on a financial transaction tax, 1-27-16 calling for a review of tax policy including challenging the Cons' GST cuts among others dealing with more progressive taxation, 1-67-16 providing for an inheritance tax, 3-06-16 on a basic income, 3-16-16 and others supporting a fully funded mental health and addictions strategy, 3-89-16 to eliminate mandatory minimum criminal sentences, and 6-04-16 to call for an end to carding.
And several more offer some important fodder for discussion, including a charter of citizen and corporate responsibilities (1-47-16), a detailed plan to transition to a low-carbon economy as the basis for the next campaign (2-24-16), a prohibition against genetic discrimination (3-26-16), a fund to encourage youth involvement in politics (5-12-16), and a move toward more ongoing participatory policy-making (7-14-16 among others).
Of course it's doubtful that this weekend will even scratch the surface of the above (along with many more worthwhile ideas which have been put before the convention). But there's certainly no lack of thoughtful ideas worth taking away even if they don't make it to the floor - and hopefully several of the above will find their way into platforms and policy before long.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
On threshold questions
Althia Raj is predictably dispensing Lib talking points about the potential outcomes of the NDP's leadership review. So to set the record straight, let's examine what the numbers actually mean.
There's exactly one threshold which produces a binding outcome:
In contrast, any other threshold being thrown around within the pundit class is simply a matter of judgment. Any leader has the discretion to step down at any time - and talk of 70% or any other number represents pure speculation as to whether Mulcair might choose to resign his post, even though he's won in terms of the formal requirement to stay on without further review. And whatever numbers anybody else throws out, we wouldn't necessarily expect a matter of personal judgment - as distinct from voting process - to be defined in advance.
At the same time, nothing in the NDP's process suggests that a leader could lose on a majority vote, but deny the vote has any significance after the fact by claiming uncertainty about voters' intentions. Because that would just be asinine.
There's exactly one threshold which produces a binding outcome:
3(a).vSo yes, 50%+1 is indeed the standard to set in motion a mandatory leadership election process.
At every convention that is not a leadership convention; a secret ballot vote will be held to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the convention vote.
In contrast, any other threshold being thrown around within the pundit class is simply a matter of judgment. Any leader has the discretion to step down at any time - and talk of 70% or any other number represents pure speculation as to whether Mulcair might choose to resign his post, even though he's won in terms of the formal requirement to stay on without further review. And whatever numbers anybody else throws out, we wouldn't necessarily expect a matter of personal judgment - as distinct from voting process - to be defined in advance.
At the same time, nothing in the NDP's process suggests that a leader could lose on a majority vote, but deny the vote has any significance after the fact by claiming uncertainty about voters' intentions. Because that would just be asinine.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
On oversimplification
One could hardly design a more stark contrast between the complex realities of politics and the media's tendency to portray them in appallingly simplified terms than Althia Raj's report on the NDP's conference calls with party members last week. But for those willing to look past a misleading headline and lede, there's plenty in the points raised by members worth considering in advance of the Edmonton convention.
Meanwhile, it's also worth noting the significance of the call itself. As has often been the case, we should see it as a potential first step toward greater engagement with the public - but one whose value likes mostly in the prospect that it could be followed up with far more effort in the future.
On the bright side, the calls reflect a noteworthy willingness to talk to people about (and indeed allow the media to report on) their actual views on the campaign. And I'd consider that important opening lines of communication between members and the party structure at least for the moment.
That said, the greater potential for significance lies in what comes next. Here's the follow-up anticipated on the call:
More importantly, though, we shouldn't see this type of member engagement as merely a one-off opportunity for people to let off steam following last year's election.
Instead, it should represent a first step toward normalizing what Raj wrongly treats as a "gotcha" moment: the honest expression of views by members which may include constructive criticism of a party's choices (without necessarily leading to anybody being thrown under a bus). And the more the NDP can do to foster and meet the expectation that it will be unique among Canada's major parties in its responsiveness to members, the more likely it will be to avoid the type of disconnect that contributed to its disappointment at the polls.
Meanwhile, it's also worth noting the significance of the call itself. As has often been the case, we should see it as a potential first step toward greater engagement with the public - but one whose value likes mostly in the prospect that it could be followed up with far more effort in the future.
On the bright side, the calls reflect a noteworthy willingness to talk to people about (and indeed allow the media to report on) their actual views on the campaign. And I'd consider that important opening lines of communication between members and the party structure at least for the moment.
That said, the greater potential for significance lies in what comes next. Here's the follow-up anticipated on the call:
Blaikie told the more than 1,000 callers on the first phone-in that their feedback would be sent to regional party representatives who would compile the information for a mid-March draft report. The final product would be released publicly at the NDP convention a few weeks later.Ideally, I'd hope to see members' concerns today paired with some involvement in the further development of the election report - particularly given the limited number of people able to participate in a particular call.
More importantly, though, we shouldn't see this type of member engagement as merely a one-off opportunity for people to let off steam following last year's election.
Instead, it should represent a first step toward normalizing what Raj wrongly treats as a "gotcha" moment: the honest expression of views by members which may include constructive criticism of a party's choices (without necessarily leading to anybody being thrown under a bus). And the more the NDP can do to foster and meet the expectation that it will be unique among Canada's major parties in its responsiveness to members, the more likely it will be to avoid the type of disconnect that contributed to its disappointment at the polls.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
New column day
Here, with my take on the factors NDP members should take into account in evaluating Tom Mulcair's leadership.
For further reading...
- I've written numerous previous posts on the future of Mulcair and the NDP which expand on the points made in the column.
- Michael den Tandt offers his view of Mulcair. Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper serve as examples of the knee-jerk "dump the leader!" reaction which I see as calling for pushback. And while Justin Ling is somewhat alarmist about the NDP's past actions, his analysis deserves a serious look for the future.
- Finally, I'll reiterate my view that the NDP's long-term focus needs to be grassroots-driven and inclusive rather than relying on yet more central control - meaning that limiting a review to the party's executive (or putting MPs alone in charge of assessing Mulcair's future) doesn't look to be a useful response.
For further reading...
- I've written numerous previous posts on the future of Mulcair and the NDP which expand on the points made in the column.
- Michael den Tandt offers his view of Mulcair. Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper serve as examples of the knee-jerk "dump the leader!" reaction which I see as calling for pushback. And while Justin Ling is somewhat alarmist about the NDP's past actions, his analysis deserves a serious look for the future.
- Finally, I'll reiterate my view that the NDP's long-term focus needs to be grassroots-driven and inclusive rather than relying on yet more central control - meaning that limiting a review to the party's executive (or putting MPs alone in charge of assessing Mulcair's future) doesn't look to be a useful response.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
On timing
Following up on the subject of the federal NDP's leadership, I'll note that the Edmonton convention won't figure to be the only one before the next federal election - and that there might be a case to hold off for now.
The NDP's constitution provides for conventions not less than every other calendar year, meaning that another one should take place well in advance of the 2019 election. And there are factors mostly beyond the NDP's control which may influence any question as to who is best suited to lead the party.
In particular, there's likely some truth to the theory that a different electoral system might produce different incentives for political parties in general. And Mulcair may be a textbook example of a leader better suited to some systems than to others for members primarily concerned with electoral viability.
Mulcair's broad acceptability is a particularly strong asset under first-past-the-post or alternative voting systems, particularly if his relative fortune compared to Justin Trudeau gets reversed again. But in a more proportional system, somebody with a stronger personal connection to issue-based organizing might be better suited to take on the leadership role.
And there are plenty of other risk/reward considerations involved in holding a leadership race sooner rather than later. Even if one assumes a leadership race will happen at some point, the value of building a new leader's personal brand over a longer period of time can be weighed against the advantage of knowing who other parties (notably the Cons) will be putting forward before making any final decisions.
I won't presume to wade through all of the considerations which might affect a party decision as to who ought to lead it. But I do think it's safe to say there might be something to be gained by gathering more information before making any irreversible choices.
The NDP's constitution provides for conventions not less than every other calendar year, meaning that another one should take place well in advance of the 2019 election. And there are factors mostly beyond the NDP's control which may influence any question as to who is best suited to lead the party.
In particular, there's likely some truth to the theory that a different electoral system might produce different incentives for political parties in general. And Mulcair may be a textbook example of a leader better suited to some systems than to others for members primarily concerned with electoral viability.
Mulcair's broad acceptability is a particularly strong asset under first-past-the-post or alternative voting systems, particularly if his relative fortune compared to Justin Trudeau gets reversed again. But in a more proportional system, somebody with a stronger personal connection to issue-based organizing might be better suited to take on the leadership role.
And there are plenty of other risk/reward considerations involved in holding a leadership race sooner rather than later. Even if one assumes a leadership race will happen at some point, the value of building a new leader's personal brand over a longer period of time can be weighed against the advantage of knowing who other parties (notably the Cons) will be putting forward before making any final decisions.
I won't presume to wade through all of the considerations which might affect a party decision as to who ought to lead it. But I do think it's safe to say there might be something to be gained by gathering more information before making any irreversible choices.
On organization
Given some of the odd twists and turns in Paul Wells' latest piece on Tom Mulcair's future, I'm hesitant to give too much credence to his unnamed sources. But to the extent it's accurate, Wells' take on the lack of much organization on any side of a leadership vote seems fairly important:
If there were indeed a broad consensus as to the need for a new leadership contest, we'd expect it to be relatively easy for somebody to build some structure around that position. Conversely, if it's true that no substantial organizing is happening around the leadership vote, that would tend to signal that complaints about Mulcair are better classified as meaningless backseat driving, rather than a significant rallying point.
Of course, I've pointed out that some of the most important questions about Mulcair himself revolve around his fit to lead a movement-based party rather than a government-in-waiting. And I'm certainly hoping we'll see some more visible steps in that direction in the near future - whether or not they're seen as responding to a leadership challenge.
But if the most important potential weakness on Mulcair's part applies even more strongly to anybody trying to oust him, that hardly serves as an impetus for change.
Back to my first anonymous source. “There are a few angry, angry, angry people,” this person said, “who I would say are concentrated among the MPs. They’re pinning everything on Mulcair.” This person thinks it’s harsh to blame Mulcair entirely for the loss of 51 seats last October. Justin Trudeau also had something to do with it.Now, I'd disagree with the theory that any new leadership vote would be predicated on there being some obvious successor waiting in the wings. But even if any leadership campaign could wait until later, the "organizing" side is rather important.
“But I would say there’s a growing consensus that Mulcair needs to step aside,” this person continued. “But there’s no organizing or campaigning going on.”
The constitutionally mandated leadership review after an election is a simple matter. Delegates to a national convention vote on whether there should be a new leadership convention. In any party, dissatisfaction with the leader is unlikely to crystallize unless there’s a present and available alternative.
...
Maybe Mulcair will launch his charm offensive when the House returns at the end of January. Maybe he has no need to charm anyone. With no credible replacement, his opponents may well fold their tents. That’s not an ideal campaign slogan for 2019, but you make do with what you’ve got.
If there were indeed a broad consensus as to the need for a new leadership contest, we'd expect it to be relatively easy for somebody to build some structure around that position. Conversely, if it's true that no substantial organizing is happening around the leadership vote, that would tend to signal that complaints about Mulcair are better classified as meaningless backseat driving, rather than a significant rallying point.
Of course, I've pointed out that some of the most important questions about Mulcair himself revolve around his fit to lead a movement-based party rather than a government-in-waiting. And I'm certainly hoping we'll see some more visible steps in that direction in the near future - whether or not they're seen as responding to a leadership challenge.
But if the most important potential weakness on Mulcair's part applies even more strongly to anybody trying to oust him, that hardly serves as an impetus for change.
Sunday, January 03, 2016
On rebuilding steps
I've posted before about the NDP's strong progressive stance since the October election - which looks to be a positive move in terms of principles and politics alike.
But there's also a great deal of work to be done on the party side. And I'll suggest a couple of points which strike me as important in advance of the spring convention where Tom Mulcair's leadership is up for review.
First, there's the seemingly simple matter of the party's policy book (which I believe is found in an updated PDF here) and other member-generated documents.
As a reminder, the policy book was originally developed as part of Jack Layton's effort to professionalize the party - providing a statement of core values which could then form the foundation for platform development (while being general enough to allow plenty of room for maneuvering).
Nothing has been done to make the policy book any less authoritative than it ever was in reflecting the policy set by NDP members. And it would thus seem important both as a standing expression of values, and a starting point for resolutions which riding associations may want to develop.
But the policy book was removed from the NDP's website in advance of the election based on what still strikes me as a dubious rationale. And it doesn't seem to have been replaced since; in fact, the party's website no longer seems to point to any of the party documentation which was once available.
At best, that might be explained based on the party's priorities falling elsewhere in the immediate aftermath of the election. But if the issue was once one of a perceived lack of urgency, an impending resolution deadline for the convention surely makes it worth letting people know where party policy stands now. (And I'd also argue it's worth making sure that far more of the party's history in action, including convention resolutions past and present, is preserved and made available.)
Second, there's the concern about the central campaign's treatment of important parts of the progressive social movement - which arose both in candidate vetting, and in the message sent to some candidates during the campaign.
There's little way for the party to know what it can (or can't) accomplish by reaching out to the people who were refused a place within the election campaign. But at the very least, it should make the effort to do so on the basis that winning back past supporters and strengthening ties with the activist left need to be top priorities following a disappointing election.
If some of the key individuals who were turned away directly or who spoke out at the time can be brought back into the fold, that would go a long way toward confirming that Mulcair can win over some of the people who tuned out the NDP in 2015 and lead a movement-based party toward power. But even if Mulcair didn't find a receptive ear, he and the party would be better off for recognizing the need to try.
But there's also a great deal of work to be done on the party side. And I'll suggest a couple of points which strike me as important in advance of the spring convention where Tom Mulcair's leadership is up for review.
First, there's the seemingly simple matter of the party's policy book (which I believe is found in an updated PDF here) and other member-generated documents.
As a reminder, the policy book was originally developed as part of Jack Layton's effort to professionalize the party - providing a statement of core values which could then form the foundation for platform development (while being general enough to allow plenty of room for maneuvering).
Nothing has been done to make the policy book any less authoritative than it ever was in reflecting the policy set by NDP members. And it would thus seem important both as a standing expression of values, and a starting point for resolutions which riding associations may want to develop.
But the policy book was removed from the NDP's website in advance of the election based on what still strikes me as a dubious rationale. And it doesn't seem to have been replaced since; in fact, the party's website no longer seems to point to any of the party documentation which was once available.
At best, that might be explained based on the party's priorities falling elsewhere in the immediate aftermath of the election. But if the issue was once one of a perceived lack of urgency, an impending resolution deadline for the convention surely makes it worth letting people know where party policy stands now. (And I'd also argue it's worth making sure that far more of the party's history in action, including convention resolutions past and present, is preserved and made available.)
Second, there's the concern about the central campaign's treatment of important parts of the progressive social movement - which arose both in candidate vetting, and in the message sent to some candidates during the campaign.
There's little way for the party to know what it can (or can't) accomplish by reaching out to the people who were refused a place within the election campaign. But at the very least, it should make the effort to do so on the basis that winning back past supporters and strengthening ties with the activist left need to be top priorities following a disappointing election.
If some of the key individuals who were turned away directly or who spoke out at the time can be brought back into the fold, that would go a long way toward confirming that Mulcair can win over some of the people who tuned out the NDP in 2015 and lead a movement-based party toward power. But even if Mulcair didn't find a receptive ear, he and the party would be better off for recognizing the need to try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)