Leadership 2012 Roundup

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

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

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

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

- Paul Wells profiled Paul Dewar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New column day

Here, on how Robocon may damage the Harper Cons' reputation for years to come - so long as the opposition parties seek out better ways to reach voters in the meantime.

For further reading...
- Again, the focus on the "least informed, least engaged voters" comes from Susan Delacourt.
- Annick Papillon comments on the need to turn outrage into engagement and action.
- And there's plenty more on Robocon itself here (and elsewhere through the links you'll find in my earlier posts).

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Amy Minsky uncovers some suspicious-looking spending patterns underlying Robocon, while Postmedia also points out that election results in at least a couple of seats may plausibly be subject to challenge. Emma Pullman offers some more details on the Manning Centre's voter suppression school. And Andrew Coyne expands on the culture that's led to the Cons' combination of regular scandals and complete denial of the obvious, while Bob Hepburn makes the point that Harper has far exceeded the abuses that causes voters to turn against Brian Mulroney and reduce his party to three two seats. [Fixed as per comment.]

- Dale Smith notes that the Cons have granted REAL Women of Canada - active homophobia and all - the opportunity to make recommendations as to who should receive medals for public and service.

- Ben Parfitt offers reason for concern about whether the public will ever be informed about problems with pipelines, as a known leak in an existing line with the potential to affect well water has been subject to a complete whitewash for a period of over six months.

- And Thomas Walkom notes that while it's a plus to see Toronto's City Council express reservations about CETA, there's plenty more work to be done at all levels of government.

On best-case scenarios

Any organization faces questions in trying to make the best use of the resources available to it. And in most cases, a deliberative body should be able to consider who might contribute what to the organization's goals, and ensure that power and responsibility are allocated accordingly.

In principle, there's no reason why political parties should operate any differently. But in most cases, they do: while there are plenty of subsidiary party bodies which consult and/or exercise formal power over decision-making, the fact of the matter is that we tend to operate on the assumption that all power flows from the party's leader. (And in the case of Stephen Harper's Cons, those same types of bodies which might serve as counterweights have been wiped out for the purpose of enabling Harper to exercise total top-down control.)

To some extent, that's been exacerbated by the requirement that a party leader sign nomination papers - which has facilitated central control over anybody who wants to run under a party banner. But there's no reason why a leader's role shouldn't be subject to both some discussion during a leadership campaign as to how to manage the talents of all the candidates, and ongoing checks and balances to keep leaders in touch with party members.

Those observations bring us to the NDP’s leadership race – where there’s a stark gap between the choices the organization would likely make based on a measured attempt to make the best use of each candidate’s talents, and the actual options for leadership voters as defined by the candidates themselves.

As a matter of personal appeal, there’s relatively little disagreement that Thomas Mulcair and Nathan Cullen have presented themselves as the most skilled media operators and best presumptive faces of the party.

But both have attached their personal appeal to platforms which may give many members reason for concern. Mulcair is seeking what amounts to a blank cheque to “modernize” the party in unspecified ways – creating both uncertainty as to what he’d ultimately do, and backlash among members who don’t see the party’s best electoral outcome ever as a reason to change course and imitate the third-place party. And Cullen has generally stated that he sees the leadership as a mandate to pursue a multi-party joint nomination proposal - which is as worrisome to a great number of NDP supporters as it is difficult to defend in practice.

In a model which involved substantial discussion as to the best path forward, we’d expect either or both to be willing to talk out any differences in search of territory that’s more palatable to NDP members - with the likely end result that one or the other might become leader only by putting some water into his own wine (as both are eager to ask of members). But instead, both perceive their success as being tied to a brand which must be preserved at all costs. And so neither has been willing to move off of his controversial stance in public.

If the leadership contenders won't start a dialogue themselves, though, I'll challenge members to recognize that we're doing more than approaching a vending machine with a loonie in hand and seven different predetermined varieties of chips from which to choose.

Instead, we have a real role to play - not just in voting for a single leadership candidate, but in considering what each of the leadership candidates can best contribute to the party and country we want to build. And we should work both on discussing the possibilities, and casting votes intended to get to the best possible end result - even if the result doesn't fit with the simple narrative of "seven choices, pick one".

That may mean a strategic effort to place a vote for Romeo Saganash first in front of any votes intended to be subject to a caveat - providing substantive support for the individual candidate in the basic roles of face of the NDP and chief strategist, while also sending a clear message that the intention isn't to turn over unchecked power. And hopefully, we'll also see some pointed discussion by the candidates as to how they'd plan to work with the NDP's existing party structure.

But in the end, it's NDP members who have the power to decide the outcome of the leadership vote. And we should tread carefully with anybody who wants to assume control of the party without being willing to discuss how best to manage it for the years to come - while recognizing that a willingness to look to the wider interests at stake is exactly what we should want in a leader.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Wednesday Morning Robocon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor dig deeper into the story behind Robocon alias Pierre Poutine.

- Maurice Vellacott admits that the voter lists needed to carry out multi-riding voter suppression were controlled strictly by the Cons' central command - meaning there's no prospect of foisting blame onto a single riding-level campaign.

- Aaron Wherry points out Angus Reid's findings as to which parties are seen as likely to mislead voters - with the Cons ranking as twice as likely to do so.

- And the Cons' attempts to stonewall against any investigation as to how Robocon came to pass are making for a nice contrast with the NDP's efforts to give Elections Canada the tools it needs to uncover the perpetrators.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Comfy cats.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- In the latest on Robocon, John Ivison rightly notes that the scandal figures to give many Canadians a long-overdue first look at the Cons' computerized voter information. Meanwhile, Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher note that the Cons' spending in last year's election campaign is coming under scrutiny - and at least one newly-elected MP is running into serious trouble while others wonder whether they'll keep their jobs. Kady notes that at least one party ignored Elections Canada's admonition to use lists of updated polls for internal purposes only. Gloria Galloway is only one of many to point out the stunning double standard as the Cons demand the release of Lib calling information while obstinately refusing to provide anything of the sort themselves. Dr. Dawg documents the Cons' distraction tactics, while Alison shreds a few of the more laughable excuses.

- Meanwhile, Lawrence Martin earns a bullet point of his own for pairing a chronicle of Stephen Harper's seething hatred for Elections Canada with this contrast between Harper's one-time words and his government's actions:

Mr. Harper’s words have a rather peculiar ring today. Elections Canada bureaucrats went after Mr. Bryan, he said in his letter, “to establish the precedent of government control of the Internet. … The implications are very ominous, very scary.” And yet, his own government recently tried to introduce Internet surveillance legislation, only to be thwarted by a public backlash.

“Iron-fisted bully tactics have no place in a free and democratic society,” Mr. Harper wrote, in reference to Mr. Kingsley. “Information is power. The less control the government has over the flow of information, the less control it can exert over its citizens. … We cannot allow the government to dictate what information we can and cannot publish.”

Ironically, on information flows, the Harper government is widely viewed as one of Canada’s most restrictive. Just last week, the journal Nature accused the government of muzzling the science community.

The battles against gag laws by Mr. Harper, who recently lifted the law on the broadcasting of election results, cost the Citizens Coalition more than $1-million in legal fees. In respect to the “in and out” scheme, the RCMP raided Conservative offices in 2008, and the party sued Elections Canada. Ultimately, the party pleaded guilty to overspending during the 2006 campaign.

In his 2001 letter, Mr. Harper accused Elections Canada of being “out of control.” The question today, as the robo-call scandal continues, is whether it’s his own party members who are out of control.

- But far be it from the Cons to let a good scandal go to waste - as they've finally conceded defeat on Conadscam while the media is focused elsewhere.

- Finally, as the federal budget approaches, Jim Flaherty wants to make sure that any budget slashing doesn't affect free toys for rich people. And the Cons are pouring millions of dollars into trying to attack public servants in the name of cost efficiency.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

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

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

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

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

- Paul Dewar summarized his campaign by the numbers.

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

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

On subtle effects

I'm not the first to make the point, but I'll briefly wade into the Frank Graves vs. Nik Nanos debate over Robocon by noting why this may be a scandal which may have far more of an impact on Canadians' perceptions than prorogation or contempt of Parliament.

In those cases, while political observers were quick to recognize the seriousness of the Cons' intrusion on democracy, issues about the Cons stonewalling Parliament may not have been seen to bear any link to the daily reality of Canadians - especially the "least informed, least engaged voters" who don't much follow politics between elections. And that distance between the Cons' actions and anything which could connect to everyday experiences made it easy for voters to forget about them.

But the nuisance of unwanted marketing phone calls is a constant reality for...well, pretty much everybody. And if each annoying call gets linked even slightly in the minds of Canadians to the Harper Cons, that subtle annoyance factor may make a world of difference when voters who don't think much about politics decide who seems like an acceptable choice in 2015.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Frank Graves notes that for all the spin from the Cons and their enablers about public acquescience in program slashing, there's actually another issue taking centre stage among Canadian voters:

(I)f people prefer spending cuts to increased taxes and debt, they prefer “investment” in health, education and jobs by an even larger margin. At 63 per cent, that constitutes an overwhelming majority of Canadians and that number is up modestly but significantly since the 2010 budget. The emphasis on social investment is dramatically higher among women, younger Canadians, university graduates, and among non-Conservative supporters. So the front-page Globe and Mail headline suggesting Canadians are “bloodthirsty” is only partially true...

Decision-makers and budget planners should be aware of something new on the minds of Canadians: Income inequality. The issue has vaulted from relative obscurity to a pinnacle position in Canadians’ hierarchy of economic and social concerns...

Even arrayed against jobs and growth, health care, and education, the growing gap between rich and poor emerged as the top priority. It eclipsed such fiscal issues as taxes and debt by a margin of more than three to one.

- Susan Delacourt is rightly concerned about the prospect that elections might be decided by precisely the "least informed, least engaged" voters. But I'd think that by raising the concern she also hints at precisely the best way to change matters for the better: rather than simply trying to develop a better brand for a single party, the key is to get more people engaged so as to make it more difficult for political marketers to sway or dissuade voters with a single campaign.

- And while electoral reform alone may not resolve all the problems, it's certainly worth noting the role it might play in unifying and engaging Canadians who want to see their votes better reflected in national policies.

- Rev. Paperboy neatly sums up who bears responsibility for Robocon. And Dan Leger suggests judging parties by their tactics.

- Finally, Erin notes that artificially low resource royalties may be doing just as much damage to the provinces who accept them as to those whose non-resource economics are hollowed out as a result. Which may offer just one more line of attack if the Cons insist on "drill baby drill" as their 2015 slogan - and as Paul Wells notes, they seem to be headed in that direction:

Meanwhile, over on the other side, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver will on Monday deliver a keynote address to the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, on what a news release called “the government’s plan to streamline the approval process for major economic projects across Canada. In addition, Minister Oliver will highlight Canada’s leadership role in exploration, mining and processing, which alone employees [sic] more than 320,000 people across the county (not counting related support sectors).”

Note that the word “environmental” didn’t make it into that release before “approval.”

On case studies

Chantal Hebert draws pretty much the exact opposite conclusion as I do from the opportunities raised by a close leadership race. But yesterday's debate offered us a neat reminder as to whether we should buy into the theory that the NDP will continue its success in Quebec if and only if it hands a completely open-ended mandate to Thomas Mulcair.

While there were plenty of jokes about Mario Dumont's ideological positioning compared to that of the NDP, it's worth keeping in mind the track record of the ADQ which so many commentators have pointed to as an example of fleeting success in Quebec.

For 13 years, the ADQ was identified almost entirely with an increasingly popular leader in Dumont - leading to the 2007 election where Dumont's coattails led it to official opposition status despite an organization far weaker than that of its main opponents. So how did that total reliance on a single charismatic leader turn out?

Well, Dumont led the party into another election in 2008 - where his profile couldn't stop the ADQ from losing official party status. And so its machinery mostly went idle until this past year, when it's been repurposed to support another leader-based effort focused on Francois Legault.

Naturally, I'd think there are lessons to be learned from the ADQ's quick rise and fall. But surely "don't rely too much on a single leader" has to be near the top of the list - making it downright bizarre how many commentators seem eager to push the NDP into doing just that.

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.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your pre-debate reading.

- Dave connects a few more dots as to who's behind Robocon. Guy Giorno helpfully acknowledges that the Cons were supposed to have business-style processes to avoid the exact kind of electoral fraud that's been discovered across Canada - signalling both that they're indeed on the hook for any illegality in their midst, and that they seem to have followed the familiar corporate pattern of prioritizing immediate profit over mere trifles such as legality or human decency. Susan Riley wonders whether Robocon will have much staying power, but I tend to think Warren Kinsella is right in theorizing that it will - particularly as the Cons desperately try to cover up facts which are bound to come to light as the next federal election approaches even when a bit more willingness to acknowledge reality might serve both they and the country better in the long run.

- Erin points out some good economic news which shows that matters are getting somewhat better despite corporate tax slashing rather than because of it. And Paul Krugman continues to expose the completely contradictory claims about corporate taxes which are alternately used by corporate apologists to suggest either that the wealthiest already pay their fair share, or that the brunt of any taxes is felt entirely by workers.

- Which leads nicely to Marc Zwelling's commentary as to how we need to reframe discussion of taxes:

The correct way to talk about taxes is to tie them to the services taxes deliver and the outcomes they generate. Say taxes and services in the same breath. For instance:

* In a Vector Poll™ in 2010, 57 percent favoured more government spending for health care "even if it means higher taxes."

* 56 percent in an Angus Reid Public Opinion survey this year agreed that "even if it means increasing taxes" the federal government "has an important role to play to redistribute the wealth and intervene in the economy." Some 36 percent disagreed, and 8 percent were unsure.

* Despite the Right's 30 years of anti-tax rhetoric, six in 10 people (63 percent) in a 2010 Vector Poll™ say they would rather have good public services even if it costs more in taxes, not lower taxes "if public services are not as good" (37 percent).

Arch-conservatives will continue shrieking about taxes the way the Puritans talked about the Salem witches. But there's no excuse for progressive people to help the Right with burning at the stake.

- Finally, Martin Regg Cohn nicely highlights the absurdity of Alison Redford demanding that Ontario take its side in promoting the tar sands over any other economic development. And that pressure combined with the Cons' service to the oil industry in refusing to work with anybody who might raise concerns about pipeline construction and oil tanker traffic (even with donated money) only amplifies Bruce Livesey's concern that petrotyranny isn't far down the road.

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:

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?

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.

- 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.

- 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.
...
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.

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.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- The blogosphere is now out in force in chasing down new angles on Robocon. Dave pointed out that the misleading calls look to be linked to a "target seat management unit" set up by the Cons' central brain trust; Saskboy connected that same unit to familiar Harper apparatchik Ryan Sparrow; Sixth Estate both highlighted how the Cons' desperation has pushed them into several easily-disproved lines of spin and caught a Con donor trying to change the subject and sully the good name of Elections Canada all at once; and Alison neatly tied all the news together.

Meanwhile, one of Richard Nixon's co-conspirators declared the vote suppression scam to be worse than Watergate, with Susan Delacourt concurring; Scott Tracey noted the direct pressure the Cons' national campaign exerted in Guelph; Chantal Hebert tied Robocon into the Cons' greater disconnection from anything resembling what Canadians want out of our government; Nycole Turmel cited Robocon as just another example of a broken Ottawa which needs to be fixed by a progressive government which has respect rather than contempt for its citizens; and Gerald Caplan nicely summarized the real danger posed to Canadian democracy by the Cons' war-against-all-dissenters mindset.

- EKOS' latest poll shows the NDP holding in the high 20s - meaning that even without a permanent leader, the party is within the margin of error against a collapsing Con vote.

- SOS Crowns points out the latest example of how the Sask Party can't pretend to show interest in, say, renewable energy without setting up a nine-figure corporate giveaway which undermines the ability of the province's public sector to provides services.

- Jesse Brown notes the failure of Canada's ISPs to impose usage-based billing has only led to another attempt to use the CRTC's regulatory scheme as a means to ensure government-endorsed price-fixing at consumer expense.

- Finally, Rob Anders made news. No further comment necessary, though followup invariably only makes the story even better.

Musical interlude

Sophia May - Another Day

On non-factors

Having raised what I see as significant issues for Thomas Mulcair's NDP leadership campaign, I'll take a moment to contrast those against the trumped-up story that's become the latest shiny object to catch the media's attention in the race.

Simply put, we don't trust Con spin or leaks generally because we know them to be politically motivated and often easily disproven. And it's not hard to see the incentive involved in attacks on Mulcair - not merely to stop him from winning the leadership as suggested by Lawrence Martin, but to cultivate negative sentiment about him within the NDP to give the party a tougher path ahead regardless of what happens in the leadership campaign.

No matter what one's take on the leadership race, that's a result well worth avoiding. So let's make sure the rest of the leadership campaign focuses on how best to get the NDP working together - and not waste time echoing outside efforts to push us apart.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- In the last couple of days' worth of developments on Robocon, the Cons defaulted to their standard setting of admitting nothing and misleading about everything - though it's hard to see that strategy working out well given the amount of information that's already coming to light. Dan Arnold and Michael Harris considered the necessary ingredients to make the electoral fraud into a lasting scandal. Trish Hennessy ran some numbers on vote suppression. Andrew Coyne lamented the state of Canada's institutional accountability, while Chantal Hebert hopes Elections Canada can get to the bottom of the fraud. While the Cons' latest spin is that their national party (which is of course already an admitted electoral cheater) had nothing to do with the scheme, Harold Albrecht has already acknowledged otherwise when it came to false calls in his own riding. And Sixth Estate identifies the various parts of the Cons' vote suppression organization while rightly suggesting that we focus on full disclosure and investigation rather than getting caught up the prospect of by-elections.

- Meanwhile, Helene Buzzetti exposes a new incarnation of Conadscam, as Quebec ridings once again plowed tens of thousands of dollars of claimed election spending into they-can't-explain-what in an apparent effort to shift expenses down from the national level.

- Barbara Yaffe compares the Cons' no-price-is-too-high attitude toward prison spending with their miserly attitude toward Canadian seniors. Which is surely the kind of unflattering comparison the Cons want to shut down by hiding the books from Parliament and the public alike.

- If we were lacking for reasons to doubt the spin of corporate tax-slashers, Erin provides them with a particular focus on an attempt to keep racing to the bottom ahead of the United States.

- Finally, the main difference between Richard Evans and a good chunk of the right-wing noise machine is that he's foolish enough to connect the dots in combining eliminationist rhetoric with hatred for anybody who isn't in the tank for the oil industry. But it's well worth highlighting just what happens when the dirty truth manages to seep out.

Leadership 2012 - Preliminary Endorsement

I've run through a high-level analysis of the NDP's leadership candidates this week knowing that paper ballots are being mailed out, that online voting starts today, and that the leadership candidates will soon be racing to lock in as many votes as possible (with little focus on the down-ballot impacts on other candidates which may ultimately decide the campaign). And so there's not a moment to lose as I implore NDP members to...

1. Be Patient

Yes, the voting window is opening. But there's still plenty of time for additional developments in the race: the positioning of the candidates ranked 2nd through 5th still seems to be in flux, and there's plenty of reason to reserve judgment until we have as much information as possible as to exactly what our options are. (As a particularly interesting possibility, Alice notes that Romeo Saganash's name will be on the first ballot - making for a useful parking spot for any concerted effort at an outcome such as "Cullen minus joint nominations".)

Otherwise, the danger is that a reasonable explanation as to Thomas Mulcair's plans for the party or a compromise as to Nathan Cullen's joint nomination pitch might come too late, as enough votes are already locked in to push the outcome in another direction. Which is why I'll be waiting until convention to vote - and encouraging readers to do the same.

2. If You Must Vote Now...

(a) Rank Brian Topp 1st

I've come to the conclusion that Topp is the best of the candidates as matters stand now based on his obvious strengths in policy command and organizational acumen, as well as the progress he's made in his public presentation.

But equally importantly, even if he's indeed at the bottom of the second tier for the moment, a candidate who's written the book on how to make deals under fire looks like the best option to use his voting bloc to secure the best possible compromise outcome at the leadership convention. So if I had to vote today, it would be Topp leading the way.

(b) Rank Nathan Cullen over Thomas Mulcair

My two preferred outcomes actually involve one of these candidates winning after what would hopefully be considered a palatable change in course. But while there's no apparent prospect that Cullen will win an easy early-ballot victory, there's a real possibility that Mulcair might get exactly the sweeping mandate he's requesting rather than having to answer the concerns of other camps. And a stronger showing for Cullen will again improve the leverage of other candidates to secure compromises.

(c) Rank Paul Dewar over Peggy Nash

Finally, among the candidates perceived as compromise leaders (as distinct from strong candidates who may need to compromise on their mandate expectations), the choice comes down to a candidate whose weakness (Dewar's French) can be fixed, against one whose major flaw (Nash's difficulties under pressure) won't likely improve with time. And so I'll recommend putting Dewar ahead in the head-to-head matchup.

Again, though, my immediate preference is for as many members as possible to reserve enough judgment to be able to influence what the candidates see fit to offer as the campaign draws to a close.

New column day

Here, on the opportunities and limitations associated with the City of Regina's new open data portal.

For further reading, see David Eaves generally, but particularly his analysis of data licensing (where the City looks to have met rather well).

Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Niki Ashton

Let's finish my series of relatively brief NDP leadership candidate evaluations with a look at Niki Ashton.

1. What direction will she set for the NDP?

There's plenty to like about Ashton's central themes of pursuing equality, engaging younger Canadians and non-voters and mounting a direct challenge to the Cons in the West: if anything, the "new politics" mantra she's repeated throughout the leadership campaign may undersell the significance of those plans. And Ashton can also point to a few of the campaign's more noteworthy policy proposals amidst a generally strong (if slightly inconsistent) platform.

2. How will she respond when pushed off course?

But the perception that Ashton has ranked below the top tier of candidates has kept her from being tested in the same way that the five main contenders have all had to answer pointed questions from each other. Which means that it's been difficult to add much to the information we already have on this point - which does include a noteworthy stand to vote according to her promise to constituents on a previous incarnation of gun registry legislation.

3. How do her personal traits affect her ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?

Ashton has been fairly effective in the debates and other public appearances throughout the campaign, and there's at least a reasonable prospect she could extend her appeal to the general public (particularly the groups she's targeted in her leadership campaign). But other than an unexpectedly strong performance in the first debate back in December she hasn't stood out within the field.

Conclusion

In retrospect, it's a shame that Ashton hasn't received more of an opportunity to show how she could compare and compete against the perceived upper-tier candidates - and she'd rank ahead of at least a couple of them if I were assembling a ballot today. But I can't go much further than that without more direct evidence as to how Ashton would handle the pressures of the leadership, and it doesn't look like there's time for that in advance of this month's vote.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Nathan Cullen

Nathan Cullen has managed to put together than some observers (myself included) expected when he first raised the idea of joint nominations as a campaign centrepiece - and all while emphasizing that controversial proposal. But has he overcome the initial concerns?

1. What direction will he set for the NDP?

Well, I'll have to mention the joint-nomination plan as by far my largest concern on this point - even if I don't plan to repeat myself as to the issues it raises. But the initial concerns are now compounded by a sense that Cullen is now sticking to the joint nomination idea as a matter of showing resolve - which doesn't entirely fit with his justification for the plan in the first place of considering different possibilities in the lead up to 2015.

Otherwise, Cullen has generally presented well-thought-out policies which combine a progressive populist message with ideas that can be pitched to a wider audience. But when priority #1 is as problematic as Cullen's, it's hard to consider this question to be anything other than a significant weakness.

2. How will he respond when pushed off course?

Which is a shame, since Cullen is one of the top contenders on both other fronts. He's spent nearly the entire campaign under fire due to the joint nomination proposal, if more by design than as a matter of surprise - and he's made about as strong a case as can be made for the plan in the face of tough criticism from the bulk of his competitors.

3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?

And the occasional question from the commentariat about his French aside (which seems an overblown concern based on his debate performances), Cullen has been stellar as a retail politician from the start of the race - combining a command of issues second only to Mulcair's with by far the best sense of humour among the contenders. So all else being equal, there's nobody in the race I'd expect to perform better as the face of the NDP if given the chance.

Conclusion

But Cullen is seeking a mandate for something other than a full focus on building the NDP. And while he's managed to win over substantially more members than I'd have thought possible, that's still a bridge too far from my standpoint.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The revelations just keep on coming in Robocon, to the point where the news of an offensively-named burner cellphone account used to leave fraudulent messages with Racknine has already been overtaken by more ridings and staffers being implicated - even as the Cons embarrass themselves with some of their least plausible talking points yet (along with a completely cavalier attitude toward electoral fraud).

- Meanwhile, Stephen Hume notes that the Cons' legitimacy is at stake - and rightly in question as long as they keep on hiding and distracting from the facts. Alison's post complements that point by noting how many close races were affected by Robocon. And Tim Harper wonders whether such crime simply turns off voters in keeping with the Cons' general goal of vote suppression - though I have to think this may be the point where they've crossed the line where Canadians may be encouraged to vote out of outrage.

- In other news, the Cons have officially confirmed (as if there was any doubt) that they think their desire to impose total message control is more important than any poor sap's job or ability to plan for the future.

- And they've also managed the brilliant trick of shutting down in-person job centres in favour of online processing at the same time that their online job bank is down - sending a similarly clear message to students as to how little interest the Cons have in connecting them to sorely-needed summer jobs.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Paul Dewar

Paul Dewar has been the quintessential middle-of-the-pack candidate thus far in the NDP's leadership race, combining one obvious weakness with a strong organization and personal appeal to place himself within the second tier of contenders. So where will he place as the campaign draws to a close?

1. What direction will he set for the NDP?

As with most of the party's veteran MPs there's little doubt about Dewar's commitment to progressive principles, with his "more caring Canada" theme serving as a useful central message. And he's also been able to point to a relatively detailed plan to get the NDP organized from day one after the leadership convention.

But Dewar's policy offerings have been inconsistent at times, ranging from terse bullet points (see for example his urban strategy) to plans made up almost entirely of low-content aspirational language (see e.g. point 4 here) alongside his more thorough proposals.

2. How will he respond when pushed off course?

Dewar has been strong in dealing with challenges (subject to the language issues described below), notably by turning the somewhat controversial announcement of Charlie Angus as a provisional deputy leader into "Charlie envy" on the part of his competitors. And there's no reason to think he'd have any trouble responding similarly in a leadership capacity.

3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?

The obvious concern here is that Dewar's French is still a work in progress: he's been able to identify topics and provide effective basic statements with increasing ease, but still looks to be a long way from having the ability to process, analyze and speak to complex policy issues.

Otherwise, Dewar has shown plenty of personal appeal in own-event settings while becoming more comfortable with debate formats since the start of the campaign.

Conclusion

Dewar's strategy over the second half of the campaign has plainly been to try to push ahead of Brian Topp in order to position himself for later ballots. And based on the polling numbers available to date, he seems to have done fairly well on that front. But I have him falling just short of Topp on all three considerations - meaning that he'll place similarly on my ballot.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Thomas Mulcair

Thomas Mulcair has held the pole position from day one of the NDP's leadership campaign, and only looks to have entrenched that status as the candidates behind him have focused largely on trying to make the final ballot.

1. What direction will he set for the NDP?

And that's much to Mulcair's benefit, as there's some significant reason for skepticism as to what he'd choose to do as leader of the NDP. On substantive policies he's mostly stuck to the contents of the party's 2011 platform, generally accompanied by messaging twists intended to make the policies sound like less significant changes than they ought to be. Which neatly fits Mulcair's "bring the centre to us" philosophy - but also risks falling into the trap in which a lack of anybody strongly pushing a progressive frame leads to a perpetual drift to the right.

Even more problematically, Mulcair has taken to talking regularly about substantially reshaping how the NDP operates - while being one of the few candidates who hasn't released a platform plank as to what his NDP would look like. Rob Silver notes the immediate ideological implications of Mulcair's call for a sweeping mandate to overhaul the NDP, but I'm equally concerned about the organizational ones: even if one doesn't think Mulcair himself is likely to substantially change the NDP's direction, a top-down structure which empowers the party's leader to exclusively define its priorities at the expense of members would create the conditions for full large-L Liberalization, with leader-driven factions rather than values defining the party.

2. How will he respond when pushed off course?

On the bright side for Mulcair, his political seasoning has been obvious throughout the leadership campaign. Mulcair hasn't only defended himself from challenges by competitors and outsiders alike, but has frequently made the attacks look silly: take for example his defusing in a matter of days a citizenship issue that dogged Stephane Dion for a substantial length of time.

3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?

Meanwhile, Mulcair's greatest advantage is the fact that he's the lone candidate who can point to actual status as a household name and political rock star (at least in Quebec), rather than merely projecting how the public might come to see him. And he's done little to suggest he'll have much trouble extending that reach across much of Canada if he gets the chance.

Conclusion

I'll hope to see Mulcair expand on his plans for the NDP over the next few weeks, and may well see him as the best option by the end of the race if he offers some reassurances that his plans to modernize the party mean updating and strengthening its values rather than making them subject to leader-driven control. For now, though, Mulcair seems to be asking too high a price for his obvious political skills - and so I can't put him at the top of my ballot.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Tabled cats.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Peggy Nash

From the start of the NDP's leadership campaign, I've been just one of many commentators anticipating a final ballot of Thomas Mulcair vs. Peggy Nash. But while Mulcair still looks like a safe bet, Nash is looking less so - and the factors at play in that assessment match my take on her as a candidate.

1. What direction will she set for the NDP?

Based on her longtime involvement with the NDP and the labour movement, Nash seems to have calculated that she doesn't need to prove her left-wing bona fides with appeals comparable to Brian Topp's call for higher taxes on the wealthy. And a result, her plans have actually played just as well in the press as with party members (though there's plenty to like in her party-building proposal as well).

Despite that strategic choice, I'd still classify her as the candidate who would figure to implement the most progressive policy program over the course of a term of majority government. And yes, I see that as a massive plus.

2. How will she respond when pushed off course?

But in order to have a chance to implement any of her policies, she'll need to show far better political instincts than she has in the course of the leadership campaign.

At times her difficulties have involved completely unforced errors - such as somehow mentioning the gun registry in response to a question on how to win in Western Canada. At others she's fallen into strategic traps set by opponents, such as Paul Dewar's question about user fees. And in many cases she's simply failed to adapt to circumstances; in the question periods of at least a couple of recent debates she's stuck to lines of questioning which merely duplicated in weaker terms what the candidate immediately before her had already asked.

But the common denominator has been regular difficulty in responding quickly to the types of immediate pressures that face a leader of the Official Opposition every day. And it's hard to see much prospect of improvement at this late stage of the leadership campaign.

3. How do her personal traits affect her ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?

Aside from that problem, Nash has acquitted herself well in the leadership campaign, addressing concerns about her ability to inspire a crowd while also making a conscious effort to run a more positive campaign than some of her competitors. And even when she's gone off course, her campaign has normally put matters back on track in fairly short order.

Conclusion

But it won't be so easy to make up for any questions about unsure political footing once a new leader faces a Con government eager to spread banana peels everywhere then run attack ads about a lack of balance. Which is why Nash has gone from being my initial first choice to near the bottom of my ballot - and why NDP members may need to tread carefully in approaching Nash's candidacy.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Martin Singh

Let's turn to the second candidate to be reviewed as a contender for the NDP's leadership. Martin Singh still looks to trail most of his competitors in the leadership campaign, but has undoubtedly raised his profile both inside and outside the party. So what would we expect if he were leader?

1. What direction will he set for the NDP?

Singh hasn't had to answer many questions about his organizational philosophy. And so the main information we have on this point comes from his platform and debate messaging.

On that front, Singh has been quite clear that he's concerned about appealing to business with a particular focus on entrepreneurship, while building those interests into his other platform planks on health care and the environment. Which means that he ranks further to the right than any other candidate in his core message.

2. How will he respond when pushed off course?

And how we've heard that core message throughout the campaign. Singh gets credit for knowing what he wants to say and repeating it, but he's taken even the most basic questions on unrelated issues as an invitation to launch into his platform. Which means that we don't much know how he'd respond in substance to a serious challenge to position.

3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?

Singh has impressed some by holding his own in debates against far more experienced politicians, and his claimed membership numbers certainly look impressive as a measure of his ability to win over first-choice followers. But he hasn't stood out as a performer among the field of contenders, and wouldn't figure to have any particular advantage under this question either.

Conclusion

Singh has nicely laid out the groundwork for a future as a relatively centrist NDP MP. But based on his inexperience and the limited scope of his leadership campaign, it's likely for the best that he's in the lower tier of candidates for now.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Erin notes that the revenue gap being used as an excuse to demand massive cuts in Ontario is nearly entirely closed with a more plausible set of underlying assumptions and projections - and that's without taking the look at revenue which was omitted from Don Drummond's mandate.

- thwap points out that Canadians need to highlight the importance of Robocon to make sure it leads to lasting consequences for the party which sees fraud as a valuable strategic tool. Which means it's well worth noting the followup reporting from Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor, the repentance of Victor Pocaterra, and new columns from Barbara Yaffe, Warren Kinsella, Chantal Hebert, Dan Gardner, the Calgary Herald and the Telegram. And even the dissenting voices of Nik Nanos and Colin Horgan questioning how voters will respond may make for a useful discussion as to whether Canadians will and should be outraged.

- Meanwhile, those looking to tie Robocon into larger issues of human nature will find some perfectly-timed reporting on the link between greed, unethical behaviour and wealth inequality.

- Bruce Cox opines that dissent is a vital part of democracy - rather than a bug to be crushed as the Cons seem to believe.

- Finally, Rights and Democracy hasn't gone away - and Paul Wells notes that the same issues he so carefully addresses over the past couple of years are now reported to have been equally obvious to the Cons for some time before that.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Analysis - Brian Topp

As promised, let's take a look at each of the NDP's leadership candidates through the lens of my three basic considerations - starting in reverse alphabetical order with Brian Topp.

1. What direction will he set for the NDP?

Topp has been more clear than any other candidate in the leadership race as to the basic set of values he'll apply, with equality presented as the core goal. And while his policies aren't always the most detailed, they nicely fuse that core value with a healthy dose of objection to the unfairness of the status quo.

If there's any reason for concern on this point, it has less to do with Topp's current policy message than the question of whether he'll follow the pattern of spending more time repairing the federal fiscal framework than using it to achieve the goal of greater equality. But on the balance this looks to be a strength.

2. How will he respond when pushed off course?

And not surprisingly, Topp has lived up to his billing as a strategist by handling controversy well throughout the leadership campaign. He's met flawed calls from his own campaign with genuine denunciation, and defused questions both fair (as to his plans to win a seat in Parliament) and unfair (as to whether his desire for fairer taxes should be treated as harming charities) - all while taking little time to pivot back to his own intended message track.

3. How do his personal traits affect his ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?

This of course is the big question for Topp. I'm far from convinced of Paul Wells' theory that charm can be learned or swept aside as a consideration for the NDP. And even if it can be improved with time, Topp figures to need the better part of the lead-up to 2015 to approach the profile and HOAG factor of a couple of his competitors - particularly if he faces the Cons' attack machine while trying to train up to the role.

But Topp has improved his camera presence during the course of the leadership campaign, suggesting that there's room for some growth.

Conclusion

I'd still consider the ideal role for Topp to be that of strategic second-in-command alongside a more charismatic leader. But in a campaign where most of the candidates who fit that bill seem skeptical of Topp's direction, such an outcome may not be an option. And Topp has a plausible path to the leadership if he can convince NDP members to put values over charm - at least for now.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- In the surest sign yet that the Robocon scandal involved a calculated decision by political operatives rather than having anything to do with mere overzealous volunteers, the Star reports that call centre staff hired by the Cons to perform live calling actually tried to correct the false information supplied to them by the party. [Update: And Susan Delacourt rightly zeroes in on the script as a major piece of the puzzle.] Meanwhile, Exigenomicon distinguishes between the two scams at play; Scott wonders whether there's any prospect of outright dismissing Stephen Harper from office; the Star, John Ibbitson and Michael Den Tandt all say that however much Harper tried to insulate himself from the fraud itself, he'll bear full responsibility if he tries in the slightest to cover up or deflect from the scandal; and Lawrence Martin fits the electoral fraud in with the Cons' pattern of behaviour.

- Meanwhile, the revelation that the Cons may not have won a valid mandate in the first place should surely lead to far more question about their legitimacy in trying to ram harmful legislation through Parliament. And Danny Graham suggests that their omnibus dumb-on-crime bill would be a great place to start with some serious debate.

- Michael Geist points out that online surveillance involves some intersection between a government which wants to be able to intrude on citizens' privacy without accountability, and private-sector profiteers who see the potential to make money off of state-mandated snooping. Which is just one more reason we should be glad to know the Cons are running scared on the issue.

- Finally, Michael Marin and Anouk Dey note that greater equality serves as an important part of encouraging the education and innovation that all parties see as necessary to our future economic development. And Ricardo Fernholz and Robert Fernholz contemplate the need for ongoing equalization to counteract a natural tendency toward the concentration of wealth.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to close out your weekend.

- Erica Alini points out that the effect of the Cons' lobbying on behalf of the tar sands has been solely to make sure that the absolute worst polluters force the public to pay the cost of their activities, as anybody actually operating cleanly in the oil sands would actually have a competitive advantage under the European Union's proposal which is now temporarily on hold:

(T)he basic message from Brussels is one we should listen to. The oilsands are, after all, a dirtier kind of fuel feedstock and we’d probably be doing a lot better in our global PR crusade if we had made more of an effort to make Alberta’s oil cleaner. Besides, the FDQ, as currently formulated, contains a clause that allows oilsand producers to obtain a lower-carbon fuel label if they can show that their emission performance is actually below the default value associated with their feedstock type, notes Pembina’s Jennifer Grant. Some of Alberta’s producers may already qualify for this.

- Others have already responded to last week's trial balloon by noting the fundamental unfairness involved in charging more taxes on poor Canadians in order to hand out yet more free money to the rich. But there's another aspect to the assumptions underlying the theory as well: in effect, that it's not worth anybody's time to try to figure out how to make fairer taxes work, such that tax policy should be based almost entirely on ease of enforcement (which will of course mean wringing as much as possible from people who can't afford to plan around tax changes rather than pursuing anything even faintly linked to principles of justice or fairness).

- Which leads nicely to Susan Delacourt's take on Robocon highlights the fact that the Cons' political success rests almost entirely on the assumption that voters are easily turned off of the political process - highlighting the need to make sure that assumption won't hold up:

"Voter suppression" is the alleged purpose of the calls. The idea was that if you phoned people, told them the voting location had changed, they'd just decide it was too much of a hassle to go and cast a ballot. Think about that for a second. To pull this off with any success, you had to count on people being so lazy, busy or disengaged that they'd throw away their democratic franchise because of a minor inconvenience. Cynical? Or just realistic? Voting, the most basic act of our democracy, rests on the idea that people will make a physical effort to participate. Someone (or many someones) calculated that the prospect of even slightly more effort would kill voter motivation. That's kind of insulting, actually. Not as insulting as calling people child pornographers, I guess, but still a rather minimalist view of the Canadian public -- as robots, easily reprogrammed.

- Meanwhile, the NDP digs up the direct connections between Racknine and the Cons. Sixth Estate is neatly charting the ridings affected by the Cons' electoral fraud.

- Finally, pogge notes that we should be entirely willing to listen to any actual examples of problems pointed out by Cons as well. And indeed I wouldn't be at all surprised if, as Stephanie Levitz theorizes, the end result is a long-needed discussion as to how voter data should be handled by political parties.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - February 26, 2012

Today's debate didn't do much to resolve the continued uncertainty surrounding the NDP's leadership campaign, particularly among the candidates I've had ranked between 2nd and 5th for the bulk of the race. But let's see if the last week has changed any of the rankings...

1. Thomas Mulcair (1)

Mulcair still ranks well ahead of the pack, and indeed is largely rising above the most contentious exchanges as the candidates below jockey for position. But his new "strong, structured opposition" catchphrase rather cries out for explanation - and I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of NDP members have serious concerns about the prospect of top-down organization and message control if that's what he has in mind.

2. Peggy Nash (2)

I count myself in the crowd that's long expected a Mulcair vs. Nash final ballot. But I'm becoming less and less convinced that Nash will indeed be the final candidate left to challenge Mulcair - and she holds this place on the list for another week mostly for lack of a clear indication who's set to step into the position.

3. Brian Topp (4)

Topp could well be that candidate, as he once again showed his ability to drive the narrative this week, first seeing his camp join Mulcair's in suggesting the next leader has to come from Quebec before launching a strong challenge to Mulcair. But at least from my observations of the debates so far, Topp has all too often conveyed a much higher personal opinion of his performance than the audience has offered - and it's hard to see that being a recipe for down-ballot success.

4. Paul Dewar (3)

Meanwhile, Dewar had a good week on a couple of fronts, winning over key support from Romeo Saganash's former camp while sounding convincing on the party-building front in today's debate. But his French is still at best borderline for a serious contender, and it'll be tough to place him higher then Nash or Topp in the long run without either showing a similarly fundamental weakness.

5. Nathan Cullen (5)

Today offered a first indication as to how Cullen will respond to being seen as a serious threat to the rest of the upper-tier candidates. And while he wasn't able to play the jokester to quite the same extent as a result, he generally held up well under the pressure.

6. Niki Ashton (6)

Once again Ashton had her moments in today's debate, particularly in a rousing warning to Stephen Harper at the end of her closing statement. But she was somewhat inconsistent as well, starting the same address sounding somewhat flustered and uncertain - and she's running out of time to show she can stay consistently effective throughout a debate.

7. Martin Singh (7)

Singh took a couple of steps beyond his core campaign messages today, and with one key exception that generally served him well. But his repeated challenges to Brian Topp look to have been utterly misplaced: the last thing the NDP can afford in trying to promote a progressive economic message is to have prominent figures promoting generous tax regimes for the wealthy in order to fund the charitable sector, and Singh's one-note questioning on that front did more to call his own judgment into question than Topp's

Three questions

Plenty of others have already discussed the factors they'll be taking into account in evaluating the NDP's leadership candidates as the campaign progresses. But as we approach the point where members will be casting ballots which will ultimately determine the outcome of the race, I'll set out my three basic questions in approaching each candidate (which I'll then use to evaluate each contender before making an endorsement).

1. What direction will he/she set for the NDP?

This question encompasses a variety of considerations including underlying values, specific policies and organizational strategies. The leader of the opposition (and hopefully Prime Minister to be) figures to have more ability than all but a few other people to set the tone for Canadian political activity over the years to come - and the most basic question for any leadership candidate is whether members actually agree with the goals and priorities that candidate will set if elected to the leadership.

2. How will he/she respond when pushed off course?

But then, the political scene doesn't allow any single leader to completely dictate the course of events. And so I'd consider it similarly important that a leadership candidate possess both the right values to apply in addressing the unexpected, and strong enough political instincts to avoid getting caught off guard.

3. How do the candidate's personal traits affect his/her ability to reach the destination implied by the answer to question 1?

Finally, there's the question of how a candidate's personality, organizational style and other personal traits affect the likelihood of being seen positively enough by the general public to be able to reach his or her goals - as the most noble of ends won't do much to help the NDP or the country if a leader can't connect enough with Canadians to advance them.

Again, I'll be examining each of the candidates through the above lens in determining how I'll be voting. And I'll encourage other NDP members to do the same - even if the result is to reach different conclusions than I do.