#ndpldr pics, video and a few thoughts

It was a very long Saturday at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre -- about 12 hours for me, longer for others -- for the NDP to arrive at what, for many, was an inevitable result: the election of Thomas Mulcair as their new leader. With Mulcair set to take his seat as leader of the official opposition Monday, only one party in the House of Commons still lacks a permanent leader.

The weekend itself was an odd one, featuring some of the elements of a traditional delegated leadership convention: the candidate showcases, the war rooms, the swag, the flash mobs, the vote line-ups. But it was also very different: people were also voting online across the country, and many more had voted well in advance of the weekend. What this was, largely, was a made for TV spectacle. In a one member, one vote era, the media still need something to cover, and the party still needs something to generate (and somewhere to focus) media interest. There are lessons positive and negative the Liberals can take ahead of our own leadership race next year; I'll save that for another post.

One has to wonder if the result could have been different had this been a delegated convention. After candidates got each ballot's results and were either automatically dropped or dropped by choice, we all watched closely to see where the candidates would go (most stayed neutral) and where their supporters would end up. But with the vast majority of votes having been cast in advance, the ability of a dropped candidate to be influential by walking over to a particular candidate was minimal: the preferential ballot decisions were already set in stone.

I tweeted after the first ballot that a similar scenario could be developing to the Liberal 2006 race, with Mulcair as the Michael Ignatieff that didn't mean first ballot expectations, Brian Topp as Bob Rae the second favourite going in but without a firm grip on second, and Nathan Cullen as Stephane Dion, the potential consensus candidate in third in need of a Gerard Kennedy to vault him into the mix. In the end, though, even if Paul Dewar or Peggy Nash wanted to play kingmaker to upset a Topp/Mulcair showdown they couldn't on the day of; the die was already cast with those pre-picked preferential ballots. They'd have had to made any deal, and encouraged their supporters to rank their ballots accordingly, weeks ago.

For me, the second ballot results made the final outcome inevitable. After the first ballot, I felt only Mulcair or Cullen could win. My prediction was that if Cullen could leapfrog Topp for second, he would draw enough support from Topp and Peggy Nash's supporters to potentially win a squeaker in the end against Mulcair. But if Topp remained solidly in second, when Cullen dropped off most of his support would go to Mulcair, making his victory inevitable. When Cullen failed to pass or even gain much ground on Topp on the second ballot, meaning Topp could still see a theoretical path to victory, even though it really wasn't there for him, it was really already over. The only thing that could have changed the outcome would have been for Topp to fall on his sword, but that would be a difficult thing to do. He convinced himself maybe, just maybe, they could pull enough Nash and Cullen votes. But it wasn't going to happen.

What could have made things different, and more like a delegated convention in the sense of people reacting ballot by ballot and shifting votes, would have been higher online turnout. Less than 10,000 people voted online the day of the vote, compared to 50,000 or so in advance. The potential pool of total voters was something like 150,000. At first, I was flabbergasted by the low turnout. Then, when we learned of server capacity issues preventing people from voting, I was astounded at how poor the NDP's IT planning was when even such low turnout was crashing their servers. Then, when the NDP claimed it was a Directed Denial of Service attack crashing the servers, it made slightly more sense, and put into stark relief the risks associated with online voting. I heard at one point tens of thousands had been unable to vote, which makes one wonder how the result could have changed if they'd been able to. We'll never know.

So after two more ballots, hours of delays and dinner with several Liberal bloggers (and one NDP blogging friend), it was back to the hall late Saturday night (I think the hockey game was even over by this point) for the inevitable result and a surprisingly lacklustre victory speech by Mulcair. Which, at the end of the day, won't matter a bit -- as long as he doesn't keep giving lacklustre speeches, of course. All the technical difficulties and delays will be forgotten too. For all the talk of any anybody but movement, and potential for holding "what if" grudges over suppressed votes, I don't think a divided party much of a risk. Not based on the mood in the hall, anyway. I think the members will get behind Mulcair because he brings them closer to power, and they'll be a moderating influence on him as well, ensuring he doesn't stray too far from the party's ideals.

Don't expect Topp to hold to his promise to seek a seat in the House, win or lose. Certainly no NDP incumbent is going to step aside for him. He ran a disappointing campaign that signalled he's a better fit for the backroom, and Mulcair would be wise to make use of his talents there. If one can win without finishing first Cullen did; his positive ideas-based campaign gained him friends and respect. The loser has to be Dewar, who was touted as a potential contender but ran a disappointing race that ended with a disappointing result. Nikki Ashton was running for experience and accomplished her minimal goals, while Martin Singh proved a compelling candidate that Mulcair would be wise to recruit to run for a Maritime seat in 2015. His business perspective would be an asset to the NDP caucus.

And so the NDPers fled from the convention centre for either their beds or the "unity" party where, I'm told, even the $10 cover and exorbitant cash bar didn't stop them from dancing into the wee hours. In the next post I'll look more into the future with a Mulcair-led NDP, and my thoughts on what the Liberals need to do, but first here's a video of the final ballot announcement and some pictures from throughout the event.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cullen won #ndpldr showcase showdown, but it's likely meaningless

With the candidate showcase showdown in the books and just over an hour until the Jack Layton tribute, I have time to switch from tweeting quick sarcastic comments to blogging with a bit more deliberative thought. Like the Senate, but even more sober (there's an open bar in the media room, but I'm behaving). (Update: the bar is for regular media only, so no need to worry)

I've already declared my soft spot for Nathan Cullen, but I think I'm not alone in thinking he had the best speech of the afternoon. Unlike most of the others, he eschewed the elaborate floor demonstration. No grand walk-in, no video testimonials, no three rounds of on-stage introductions. The stage lights came up he was on stage, microphone in hand, talking off the cuff without a prompter or a script. He sounded a bit hoarse (he said from the hospitality circuit last night), but he spoke with energy and with passion. And for those looking for that certain something, that jelly that makes a leader, he had it. It was reminiscent of Bob Rae's Montreal off the cuff, no script fireside chat in 2006, except Nathan remembered to speak French. As for the content, I was mainly pleased, save a few unnecessary nods to the evils of capitalism. One thing that struck me was that, while he did pitch progressive cooperation, he never once used the word Liberal. It's like we're Voldemort or something. Anyway, in an afternoon of not overly impressive speeches from my perspective, Cullen stood out.

Paul Dewar was the first of the candidates to have an elaborate pre-speech demonstration. Each candidate had 20 minutes to use however they want, so the more introduction the less time for the candidate's speech. Still, after some pre-game festivities and a video introduction from Mahar Arar, Dewar was up. Like Cullen, he was one of the candidates to nod toward opening the tent to people that have voted elsewhere in the past, although his analogy was setting another place at the table. Paul spoke with more passion and energy than I've seen from him in the past, although late in the speech it seemed to accelerate into yelling. He also almost had a Howard Dean moment, as he talked about winning each province. We're going to win Newfoundland, and PEI, and we're going to win Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. All that was missing was the Yeeeahhhhhh! Overall, a better performance than I've seen from him in the past, but not a barnburner or anything.

He was followed by Brian Topp, and what struck me was that, for a candidate tagged by some as the establishment pick (which isn't necessarily a compliment) he seemed to bring out title-holder after title-holder to sing his praises, with a theme of he's ready to lead. (Update: Bob Rae used the same line in his leadership showcase video at Montreal 2006) Also, Shirley Douglas and Gordon Pinsent cameos. Well, Gordon as video narrator. Finally, Topp came and delivered a speech that (for him) was fine content and message wise, but he just seemed to lack a certain gravitas, the jelly of a leader. As I said earlier, very capable organizer and strategist, but this new role needs a different skill-set. Anyway, in a not overly subtle shot at Tom Mulcair he said he's a proud and unapologetic social democrat and always has been. A few shots at the Bay Street fat cat gamblers, and some actual policy mini-nuggets with promises of a home retrofit program and a national transit strategy. Anyway, if Topp needed a big impact to turn around his underwhelming performance, this wasn't it. He's fading back in the pack.

That brought in Tom Mulcair, the perceived frontrunner of the campaign. He had the longest pre-speech show yet, between videos and an extended drum-accompanied entry that, while impressive, ate up a great deal of time so that, when Mulcair finally began to speak, he had only minutes left. It seemed to be like he raced through his speech in order to fit it all into the time left and, therefore, it was hard to really absorb much of the content. But is truck me as a fairly boring, safe, front-runner sort of address. Nothing he hasn't said before, nothing to get him into trouble. I did hear, though, that he was rather peeved leaving the stage at the timing of the thing. His speech has been panned by most observers for whatever that's worth which, frankly, isn't that much. But more on that soon.

Peggy Nash had the biggest floor demonstration of the convention, which should be expected as she represents the riding next door. But between that and the pre-speech show, she had the least time of any candidate for her actual speech. I moved up front to try to get a look at the countdown clock. I couldn't find it, but I did notice she went almost immediately off the prompter, and the operator began to race through the script. Some said it was a prompter malfunction, but from my vantage that wasn't the case. Recognizing she only had minutes left she decided to ad lib to get a few key points in; the prompter began racing through the script trying in vain to find where she was and catch up. In the end, she was completely out of time and kept talking as first the music tried to play her off, until they finally cut off her microphone. It was rather unfortunate, and while she may gain sympathy I don't think the showcase helped her cause. I was reminded though of Stephane Dion's mic being cut in 2006 after an extended Glen Pearson introduction; didn't seem to hurt Dion  in the end.

As for the two candidates expected to be at the back of the pack, I'd give Martin Singh the edge over Nikki Ashton. Singh's animated video was the best of the videos this afternoon, his son fiddling was great and his speech was dell delivered. It was interesting that, of the field, only Ashton and Singh took shots at the Liberals. (Shortly after recycling the lame "same old story" attack, Ashton talked about reaching out to progressives,  Perhaps they don't feel they need to worry about growing the tent as they're unlikely to win. Shots at the Conservatives, though, were plenty.

So, those are my impressions on the speeches but here's the thing: I really don't think they mean much of anything. Almost 60,000 have voted in advance. They're done, their votes are locked for all ballots. The 4500 or so people here still voting ballot by ballot are a fraction of that. The question is, how many people are still voting at home, online, ballot by ballot? Unless it's 45,000 or so people, this race is probably already over and we just don't know the results yet, making today purely a made for TV spectacle. So take all of this with a grain of salt.

Anyway, time has flown and the MCs are hectoring people to sit down for the Layton tribute. So I'll sign off and head back to tweeting. Please excuse the typos; I'll be back later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

“Dion syndrome” is revisionist history masking self-interest

Leadership races are always places for amusing and nonsensical spin, and the current NDP race is no exception with some participants warning against a supposedly deadly, but entirely fictional, new malady: Dion syndrome.

Named for former Liberal leader Stephane Dion, it’s meant to describe the horror of a candidate that finished third on the first ballot going on to win because of their strong second-choice support. Or in other words, winning because more members like them than like the other choices.

Here it is in common ussage:

* An NDP MP is warning party members to be wary of the “Stéphane Dion Syndrome.” .. “I’m behind Thomas Mulcair,” he said. “However, I’d prefer if the winner were Brian Topp instead of everyone’s second choice.”

* Last week party officials were warning about "Stephane Dion syndrome," referencing the third place Liberal contender who won his party's leadership because of divisions between Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae supporters.

First of all, it’s amusing to see the notion of preferential balloting degraded by supporters of a party that has made electoral reform and the evils of first past the post a key policy plank for years. Preferential balloting is fairer; I won’t bother repeating the argument as they've already made them ad nauseum.

But a look at who is pushing this narrative (primarily Mulcair supporters) reveals why they’re tossing-out past arguments of fairness: self-interest. It’s in the interests of the two media-anointed front-runners (Mulcair and Brian Topp) to do everything to frame this as a two-way race, and force members to make a polarized choice. While they may like one of the supposed second-tier candidates better, if there are only two “real choices” they’re forced to choose between them.

Ironically, it’s the same strategy the Liberals and NDP have ran against each other at the riding level for years. Only we can stop the Conservatives, so vote for us or you’re electing the Conservatives/throwing your vote away. Just hold your nose and pick the lesser evil…

However, they can’t just come out and say “we’re the only real candidates and those other guys suck” because, besides not being true, they do actually need the support of people that like those other candidates. Hence the invention of “the Dion Syndrome” to frighten people about the evils of electing a third-place candidate. While I would take many lessons from Stephane’s leadership, this isn’t one of them.

Let’s look back and look at the numbers. Going into Montreal in 2006 much of the media had framed it as a two-way race: Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. This offered a compelling media narrative for a number of reasons. For one, a two-way race is easier to cover. Also, their personal history made it compelling: former roommates who went off and made good in the world, now battling for the leadership. And like it is for Topp and Mulcair, it was in Ignatieff and Rae’s interests to promote this narrative. One was right of centre, one left, and both were polarizing figures. And neither had strong second-place support. So make it a two-way race and let the chips fall.

Except, once the members began to vote it was clear this was anything but a two-way race. Going into the first round of voting, Ignatieff campaign members told me they’d be in the high 30s. Rae would be within striking distance, was the word.

Instead, we got Ignatieff 29.3%, Rae 20.3%, Dion 17.8%, Kennedy 17.7% on the first ballot. Ignatieff’s results were nowhere near his campaign’s over-spin, and just a few per cent separated supposed also-rans Dion and Kennedy from the supposed front-runners.

Now, to follow the logic of those diagnosing “Dion Syndrome” everyone but Rae and Ignatieff should have dropped-out because of a difference of 121 votes out of 4,815. Of course, they didn’t, and with Ignatieff and Rae’s support stalled Dion would take the lead on the third ballot and win on the fourth.

Now, there are lessons to learn from Dion’s leadership. He won with the support of the delegates (not the wider membership, which is why we went to WOMOV a few years later) but little support from caucus, which would prove a problem. And some supporters of other candidates declined to down tools, preferring to wait him out. But to think picking one of the supposed front-runners would have changed that is incorrect; first past the post would have elected a candidate with less support from the membership, not more.

The lesson is the same as it is from any leadership race: respect the will of the membership and work together to support the new leader or we won’t get anywhere. I’d actually call that Liberal Syndrome, and its one non-fictional malady that, speaking from experience, the NDP would do well to avoid.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The myth of the positive 2011 NDP campaign

There seems to be this impression out there that the 2011 NDP election campaign was all sunshine and lollipops. NDP leadership contender Brian Topp sought to re-enforce that impression yesterday, as he tries to paint himself as the candidate of positivity (unlike those other bastards? -- ed.)

"I don't believe that straight negative campaigns aimed at the Conservatives will defeat them," Topp said Friday, noting that the Liberal party failed miserably in its hardball campaign against the Tories.

(snip)

"The style of our next campaign may emerge as a point of debate in this leadership race. In my view, we won't defeat Mr. Harper by 'taking him on,' by 'hammering' him, or by 'facing him down,'" Topp wrote. "Angry, negative campaigning works better for Conservatives than for social democrats, because it motivates Conservative voters while persuading progressives not to vote."

Topp, in his "let me say hello" letter, said Jack Layton's "propositional" approach that focused on policy solutions rather than attacks is the way to win government.

It's funny, because I remember being impressed with some of the NDP's negative TV ads in the last election campaign, particularly the health care pieces. And in British Columbia, where I spent the campaign (in an NDP target riding), they spent millions blanketing the radio waves with highly negative, fear mongery ads on the HST. Basically, they said Harper will make BC fire doctors and nurses and jeopardize the health care system by asking for the HST harmonization money if the referendum fails, but if you vote NDP you can keep the money and your doctors.

And Topp, of course, played a very senior role on that campaign and called a lot of the shots. He was national campaign director in 2008, when they blanketed Quebec with particularly impressive negative ads. He ran negative ads against the Liberals while trying to negotiate a coalition with us. So he certainly has no aversion to negative campaigning. So I find his claims of piety a little amusing.

If he wants to turn over a new leaf though, power to him.

(Not to say their 2011 campaign didn't also have very positive messages; just that it also had very negative ones.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers