Lessons for the Liberals from the NDP leadership and showcase weekend

With the NDP leadership race and showcase weekend in the books, there are some lessons the Liberal Party should draw from the experience as we prepare for our own leadership vote, scheduled for some time next spring.

I think the first lesson is that you need a strong field of candidates to generate any kind of public and media interest and being new life into the party; coronations aren’t exciting at all. But that’s an obvious one. I think lessons can be drawn in two main areas: the system of voting, and the leadership weekend.

The Leadership Weekend

Love them or hate them, delegated leadership conventions were exciting. They’re now, though, a thing of the past. That’s a positive in that the variations of one member, one vote that have replaced them are far more democratic and more accurately reflects the will of all party members, not just those than can get elected as delegates and can afford to go. It does, though, remove some of the excitement from the equation, and leaves the media without something to cover.

Which was really what the NDP’s weekend leadership event in Toronto was all about. It was a made for TV spectacle designed to replicate some of the elements of a traditional delegated convention (the candidate showcases, flash mobs, scrums) and give the media somewhere to focus and ground their attention and coverage. It actually worked so well at times we forgot we weren’t covering a traditional delegated convention, and that most of the voting had already happened or was happening online elsewhere.

The event was also useful to bring nearly 5000 NDP supporters together for the shared experience of picking their next leader and, as it wasn’t delegated, accessibility wasn’t as much of an issue.

Bringing together the media, the pundits, party staffer and leadership candidates with supporters all in both gives the media a way to cover the news and allowed the party to at least try to control the story somewhat, as well as respond on the fly as events transpire. The delays caused by issues with the voting system aside, the weekend was a strong success in terms of generating the volume and tone of media coverage the NDP was looking for, and a record number ofjournalists were accredited for the event.

While the level of coverage can partially be attributed to factors the Liberals can’t replicate, such as the fact they were picking a new opposition leader and a successor to the late Jack Layton, the NDP has still provided a model we would do well to replicate.

I would also hold our event in the Toronto area, as it has both the highest concentration of media in the country, as well as the largest remaining pool of Liberal supporters to draw into the event. As this isn’t a delegated event, I’m less worried about the need to move it around the country. (And besides, Toronto is actually due.) It’s about maximizing member/supporter and media attendance.

We should do the candidate showcases, fete our outgoing interim leader (assuming he’s not running for the permanent gig), and pump people up about being Liberals. We need a focal point to make the leadership selection real not just for the media, but for Liberals and Canadians as well, and give the new leader a launching pad.

I’d also encourage the organization of regional satellite events to bring local Liberals together to watch the proceedings, cast their votes and experience the event as a shared experience.

The Voting System

First, I should note one key difference between the NDP and Liberal methods of leadership selection. The NDP has a system of “pure” one member, one vote. On the plus side, every vote is equal, but on the down side, if one region (say, B.C.) has most of the members, it also has most of the say. The Liberals, like the Conservatives, have a regionally weighted system: Each riding, despite the number of members and supporters, is equal, receiving 100 points to be distributed amongst the candidates based on the percentage vote of its voters. So while someone voting in a riding with lots of members may have their vote somewhat diluted compared to a voter in a less populous riding, every region of the country is equal and a leader needs pan-Canadian support to be elected.

So in essence, our system is slightly more complicated than the NDP’s. There’s also the wrinkle of our new supporter system, which has the potential to substantially increase the potential pool of voters. It makes some sort of online and/or phone voting system a necessity. However, with the problems the BC Liberals had with getting PINs to members before their leadership vote, and the major troubles the NDP experience this weekend with an alleged DirectedDenial of Service attack possibly disenfranchising thousands, online voting is not without its issues.

Despite the difficulties though, on paper I loved the two-phase NDP plan. In the first phase, voters could choose to submit a complete preferential ballot, and they’re done. Or they could take part in phase two, voting one ballot at a time, so they can react to the results of each ballot. Were I an NDPer, I would have opted for the second option.

I’d urge the Liberal national executive to immediately begin researching online voting systems, and exploring ways to minimize the risk of such attacks occurring or minimizing the impact if they do. If we can’t assure ourselves that we can create a safe and secure online system, we need to make sure we have reliable backups, such as a phone system, in place. This research and work should be happening now. It is vital that Liberals, Canadians and potential candidates have faith in the integrity and stability of the system we’ll use.

Of course, the tried and true option is voting by paper, either the day of the event or in advance by mail. Both have their issues. Particularly if many supporters sign up, organizing polling places across the county is both logistically challenging and expensive, and particularly tough for rural ridings that both lack volunteers and, with their size, would require multiple polls. And both an in-person or mail-in vote would require a preferential ballot, which lacks the drama of ballot by ballot voting.

Personally, I do favour the two-option approach the NDP used. And the more people that opt for phase two, the more potential for drama on leadership weekend. But we need to ensure first that we can build a stable and safe system that will allow everyone that wishes to participate to cast their votes. That must be the top priority.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Post-#ndpldr, with Mulcair change will be more personality than politics

Leadership contests tend to create the appearance of stark differences where none really exist – it’s in the interests of both candidates looking to differentiate themselves and media looking for a meaningful race to cover. In reality, these differences are usually exaggerated, and governing tends to be a moderating influence anyways.

That’s certainly the case with the recently completed NDP race which crowned Thomas Mulcair the successor to Jack Layton. If there was one real contrast in the field, it was over Nathan Cullen’s proposal for joint nominations in select ridings with the Liberals. More broadly though, Mulcair, Paul Dewar and others all spoke about reaching out to other progressives, even if they ruled-out Cullen’s specific proposal. The difference that got the most attention though was the perception that Mulcair wanted to move to the party to the centre, while candidates like Brian Topp and Peggy Nash were traditionalists that wanted the NDP to hold to its roots.

Frankly, there’s less to this supposed contrast (mainly painted as Topp vs. Mulcair) than meets the eye. Jack Layton did more than anyone to move the NDP toward the centre, so far in fact that there is comparatively little distance left for Mulcair to travel. It was a key part of the success the NDP enjoyed under Layton. And right there by his side during this shift to centre as one of his key strategists was Brian Topp.

So where Mulcair seems to want to move the party is hardly in a new direction, and to the degree that it will upset traditionalists, it’s likely a fight that was fought (and lost) long ago. The only question is, will the traditionalists be less willing to accept compromise with a perceived outsider at the helm than they were with Layton. Time will tell, but I wouldn’t be overly worried.

It’s worth remembering too that governing tends to be a moderating influence, even governing a political party. Mulcair will need to bring rivals into his tent now and work with caucus and the wider membership, so he’s unlikely to get too far ahead of them.

It’s about policies and personalities more than political positioning

All this talk about moving to the centre, about usurping traditional Liberal territory, is frankly a little irrelevant. Outside the bubble no one says “well I’m centre-left, so I’m going to vote…” Canadians think in terms of issues and ideas that impact their everyday lives, communicated by leaders they can relate to and trust. Where Layton and Stephen Harper succeeded recently was in clearly defining their value proposition with Canadians, communicating a clear set of relatable, relevant ideas and policies that are more every day than pie in the sky, and being seen as leaders that can be trusted to do their best to deliver their promises. In sort, people knew what they stood for and trusted them to do their best to do it. As for why the Liberals have struggled, it’s the opposite of all that.

So if Mulcair is going to shift the dynamic as opposition leader, for better or for worse, it will be with his personality. To cement the gains the NDP made under Layton, and to build on them, as important as the policies he brings to the fore will be the tone with which he does it. His opponents will be looking to bring out his famous temper; he’ll need to keep it in check if he’s going to connect with Canadians. Harper has managed to do the same, so it’s hardly mission impossible.

And, of course, there’s the old define or be defined battle. Mulcair is a known quantity in Quebec, which will be helpful given the importance of that province to the NDP’s future. Outside of Quebec though, he’s an unknown. Much of the NDP’s success in the last election was driven by Layton’s connection with Canadians. A Conservative negative ad onslaught to define Mulcair, if unanswered, could prove deadly in the so-called Rest of Canada.

What are the Liberals to do?

I really don’t think the Liberals need to particularly react to Mulcair’s selection, in the sense that our essential challenge was and is the same no matter whom the NDP picked. It’s not about left, right or centre. It’s about the marketplace of ideas, and we need to get in there and compete. We need better ideas, and we need to communicate and sell them better. We’ve too long been pie in the sky when Canadians want meat and potatoes.

Our challenge is what it has been all along. Rebuild and streamline the party infrastructure for the modern era, finally figure out fundraising, revamp the policy development process to generate ideas from the ground-up that resonate with Canadians, and develop the capacity and skill to clearly communicate those ideas. We need to develop an identity Canadians can identify, and identify with. And then, next year, we need to elect a permanent leader to help us bring it to the people.

In short, we need to get our own act together and worry less about our opponents. I will give special mention though to Quebec, as it’s touted as the one key advantage for Mulcair, and challenge for his opponents. And rightly so; Mulcair is well-regarded in the province and Quebecers like voting for one of their own. He definitely has the potential to hold and grow NDP support there. But he’s not invincible.

I’ve long been calling for the Liberals to adopt a more stridently pro-federalist position in Quebec, and I think with Mulcair’s election, the NDP’s ascendency and their Sherbrooke Declaration-based Quebec policy it’s a smart strategy now more than ever, not just in Quebec but in the rest of Canada too. Point out the gap between Sherbrooke andthe Clarity Act (the NDP has liked to say one thing in Quebec and another elsewhere) and the NDP’s mirroring of Bloc positions on policies such as language and other issues.

With the Conservatives also championing asymmetrical federalism (although for other reasons: they want to weaken central government), the ground is clear for a staunch defender of a strong, pan-Canadian federalist option. And there is support to be carved out for a party that takes such a position. It would also have the benefit of providing personality and definition to the Liberal Party. If Quebec is to be a four-party province for the foreseeable future, it’s not enough to be just one of three non- sovereignist parties fighting for the same pool of voters. We need to differentiate.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

#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

A Liberal perspective on #ndpldr in Toronto

I hear a wildcat strike by unionized Air Canada workers at Pearson Airport has been delaying some NDP delegates from making it to the leadership convention, but luckily the TTC is still running and I've arrived at the Metro Toronto Convention  Centre, gotten my media/blogger badge, and settled into the blogger command centre on the convention floor to begin my Liberally-tainted coverage of the battle to succeed Jack Layton.

While walking through the Skywalk on my way to the MTCC, an older gentleman came up to me and told me I had a walk like some guy who used to lead the Ontario Federation of Labour. I'm not sure if it was intended as a complementary comment or not, but I'll take it as a sign I'm fitting in amongst the Dippers. I'll note for the record that, as a teenager working at The Real Canadian Superstore in Courtenay, BC, I was a member of Local 777 of the United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW). So, solidarity forever and what not.

I'll be here all weekend and I'l be tweeting more than blogging, so keep an eye on my Twitter feed (@JeffJedras) for updates, pictures and sarcastic comments. Blogging will be for more indepth commentary at less regular intervals.

Going into the weekend, everyone seems to think Thomas Mulcair has this thing wrapped up. That may well be true, but I don't think that's really based on any scientific evidence. There's no real polling or anything to back it up. And I'm reminded of the Liberal leadership convention in Montreal. Everyone thought it was Michael Ignatieff's, or maybe Bob Rae in case of upset. Instead a scrapper named Stephane Dion came out of the pack, and the rest, well, that weekend was great anyway. Point is, anything can happen, and while it's easier for anything to happen at a delegated convention (now a thing of the past), there's still no way of knowing how a preferential ballot will shake out until it does, and the pundits are often wrong.

Anyway, I'll be looking to see which of the candidates looks ready to lead on the national stage as a potential Prime Minister, and how the supporters of other candidates react when the others are on stage. Also, as the NDP will need the support of Liberals like, well, like me if they're to grow, I'll be looking to see if I could possibly see myself supporting any of these people, and if any of them have any crossover appeal/send any signals of reaching outside the tent.

And I'll be hoping for multiple ballots and some drama. Random thoughts on the race so far:

Mulcair has performed well and I'm very surprised he has kept angry Tom in check. But if there's an anybody but movement, it's against Tom. I find the distortion of his pro-Israel comments particularly interesting and, frankly, it makes me like him more. But I then go the other way when I read the "vote Tom or you hate Quebec" line pushed by some pundits.

Brian Topp has been all flash little substance, under-performing and underwhelming. At the outset he was touted as a frontrunner, and while he seems to have the establishment support they each only get one vote, and are less influential in an OMOV system than in a delegated vote. He may be a capable backroom organizer, but being the front-person is a very different job and he won't be the first to fail to make the transition.

If I was ever in the NDP, I would be at one end of the party and Peggy Nash the other. She has definitely struck me as the left-wing candidate, and I disagree with her on nearly everything. That said, she's smart and talented and could well emerge as an anybody but Tom standard bearer, particularly for those who fear Mulcair shifting the party to the centre. Picking Nash would very much limit their the NDP's growth potential. Which, naturally, makes her the favourite pick of Liberals.

Paul Dewar showed a lot of promise out of the gate but, besides his questionable French, he hasn't really caught fire. While he's a possible safe choice for a consensus anybody but Tom candidate, he seems to have little momentum at this stage.

Confession: while I'm not sure about the mechanics of his joint LPC/NDP nomination scheme, I like Nathan Cullen. I spent the 2004 campaign working for Liberal candidate in Miles Richardson in Prince Rupert, when Cullen was elected for the first time. He's a warm and engaging guy that actually shares a lot of my values. He has performed ably as an MP, and the Liberals and even Conservatives I speak with that work on Parliament Hill all speak highly of him as someone that works well across party lines. While his cooperation scheme is contentious in NDP ranks, he has run a solid campaign and has potential as a darkhorse anybody alternative.

And then there's Niki Ashton and Martin Singh.

An interesting two days ahead, so stay tuned and have fun.

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

Are NDP leadership candidates showing up for work?

The proverbial "knock-out punch" in a political debate is a largely fictional, media-driven phenomenon. At best, it's rare. But if there was one during the leaders debate in this spring's federal election, it was probably this blow NDP leader Jack Layton landed on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:

"You know, most Canadians if they don’t show up for work they don’t get a promotion."

Layton was taking issue with Ignaiteff's attendance record in the House of Commons, saying he shouldn't expect a promotion (to Prime Minister) when he spent so much time "not at work" in the House. Of course, Layton deliberately overlooked the fact Ignatieff wasn't on vacation, or at home watching TV, but was touring the country meeting with Canadians talking about their concerns for the country. An unfair shot, but that's politics, and it was a shot that resonated with Canadians (due, in part, to Ignatieff's feeble non-response) around the point the NDP began its meteoric rise up the polls .

Nevertheless, Layton has set the bar. If you want a promotion, get your keester into your seat in the House of Commons while Parliament is in session. Which brings us to the NDP's leadership race, which now features five sitting MPs among the registered candidates. Are these MPs who are asking for a promotion showing up for work?

Let's take a look at this week, which saw the House sitting dealing with issues such as the Wheat Board and the Gun Registry, to name but two of many.

Paul Dewar wasn't at work; he spent Wednesday and Thursday off the job in Saskatchewan campaigning for NDP candidates in the provincial election, as well as drumming up support for his leadership campaign. He also came to Toronto Monday evening to talk cities.

Thomas Mulcair wasn't at work but instead spent the week in B.C., spending four days in Victoria meeting with environmentalists. And maybe tea at the Empress, but that's unconfirmed.

Peggy Nash skipped work Friday to launch her leadership campaign in Toronto, although most MPs tend to skip out on the Friday house sittings. Unfortunately, like most Canadians, my boss still expects me to work Fridays, right until 5pm. And when you put "for a full time MP" on your campaign signs, should you really skip Fridays?

Romeo Saganash was also out in Saskatchewan this week, stumping Monday in Saskatoon and Tuesday in North Battleford. And a Happy Birthday to Romeo, who turns 50 this weekend.

Nathan Cullen didn't have a large Google news footprint this week, so I'm not sure if he left work or not. Once story from this week does have a brief mention of him "campaigning in Saskatchewan and Manitoba these days."

Now, if it were up to me, MPs taking a few days off work to campaign for the leadership wouldn't be too big a deal, as long as they're back for key votes and debates and aren't excessive about it. It's par the political course in this sort of situation. And an MP's job isn't just in the House, of course, but in their ridings too. And they can't let their seatless competitors Brian Topp and Martin Singh have all the fun, can they?

However, it's not up to me. Jack made it clear that if you don't show up for work (in your seat in the House of Commons), you don't deserve a promotion. And since the party seems unable to go a day in this race without invoking his memory or asking "What Would Jack Do?", shouldn't they be held to the standard he put forward?

You want a promotion, you come to work, right? So far, these NDP candidates are earning a #fail.

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

Belated random thoughts on political happenings

I've found myself too busy with work and what not lately to be blogging as much as I should be, so here's some short random thoughts on recent events until I can write something longer. Which I promise to do soon. Ish.

* Montreal's crumbling Champlain Bridge was in the news today; it was a topic in question period and apparently Conservative transport minister Denis Lebel is about to visit the city to announce another study on its replacement. This tweaked my memory, as I recall the Conservatives, during the 2008 by-election in St. Lambert (cancelled by the 2008 general election) were doling out pork and promised to replace the bridge. Three years and two election after Lawrence Cannon said "We are starting to plan for the construction of a new bridge" they're going to launch another study?

* Peter Julian won't be running for the NDP leadership. As much as I would have enjoyed a battle of the roomates (he shares an Ottawa apartment with fellow BC MP Nathan Cullen) and the fun that could have ensued (Peter doesn't wash the dishes! Nathan drinks the last of my fair trade coffee!) it's probably for the best. I spent some of the 2008 election in the Burnaby area (Peter represents a Burnaby-area riding) and he struck me as a rather abrasive fellow. Maybe it was just seeing him in contrast to fellow Burnaby NDPer Bill Siksay, a very warm and personable guy. Anyway, when his name was floated I just couldn't picture Julian as a unifying bridge-builder.

* On the other hand, I'm really happy to see Nathan Cullen running for the NDP leadership. I spent the 2004 federal election in Prince Rupert working on the Liberal campaign of Miles Richardson, who, along with Nathan, was seeking to unseat Conservative incumbent Andy Burton in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. I got to see a fair bit of Nathan on the campaign trail and he's a great guy, very friendly, kind and in touch with the communities of the riding. I disagree with him on a few issues (his support of the gun registry, for example, although that is definitely reflective of his riding) but he has proven himself a very hard-working MP. He'll make this a better race, for sure.

* Speaking of the NDP leadership race (which also includes party insider Brian Topp, another great guy in Paul Dewar, the unknown but possibly impressive Romeo Saganash and the just plain unknown Martin Singh ... Tom Mulcair may deign to run at some point) it occurs to me I'm having a hard time picturing one of this group as a Prime Minister. Because, for the first time in their history, the NDP aren't just choosing a leader. They're choosing the next Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and a leader who, in three years, will go to the polls and ask for the trust of Canadians to be their Prime Minister. They've asked for that before but this time, people won't be snickering. It's a whole new field they're playing on, and the rules of the game have changed. It will be interesting to see how, and if, they can adjust.

* Of course, things haven't changed too much yet. Love may be better but politics is politics, and rival leadership camps are already sparing. But you know it's an NDP leadership race when you get smears of opponents like this one:

Mr. Brahmi added that Mr. Topp, who has the endorsement of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent and former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, “is the candidate of the apparatchik.”

* Meanwhile, there's a provincial election going on in Ontario. I confess, I've been unable to muster-up too much enthusiasm and interest. But I do know it's getting nasty, and I'm pretty sure it's not going too well for Tim Hudak's (not overly) Progressive (but very) Conservative Party. The polls are all over the map, from a strong Liberal lead to too close to call. We'll see who gets their vote out Thursday. What all of them show though is an undeniable trend over the past year of Conservative decline and Liberal rise. And it's clear who is panicking. Watching TV the last few nights, I've seen a steady diet of harshly negative Conservative ads and extremely positive Liberal ads. That's telling as we go down to the wire. But hey, Tim can still draw a crowd.

* Speaking of panic, this homophobic flyer from the Ontario Cs (I've revoked their P) is disgusting. When I first saw it on Twitter this weekend I thought it had to be a plant, a sick joke. But then Hudak embraced it on Monday, and it was more saddening than upsetting. First, much of the brochure is misleading, if not outright lies. And much of the material in question was developed under the last C government, in which Hudak was a minister. They're so panicked that Hudak goons are elbowing reporters in the gut to keep them away from one Brampton-area candidate that was distributing the fliers.

* But as mentioned, I haven't been following the race that closely. I observed early on though that McGuinty's Liberals are, quite wisely, running the same campaign Stephen Harper's federal Cs (they redacted their own P) ran this spring. No extravagant promises, the steady hand on the tiller with the experience to make the tough decisions, it's no time for rookies and risky schemes. McGuinty ('s comms staff) has even been tweeting "Only a strong, stable #olp government will create jobs in tough economic times." Harper's line repeated Ad nauseam was "strong, stable, Coservative majority government."

* John Baird drew some attention with his gold-embossed business cards. We're all attracted to shiny things so this drew much mockery, though not enough Austin Powers references. Baird was able to laugh it off though because the criticisms ignored the real story: he also redacted Canada from his business cards. Yes, he ordered the Canada wordmark, including the Canadian flag, removed from his cards. And it's not like he's the minister responsible for FedNor, he's the frickin' Foreign Affairs Minister! Of Canada! Yes, on the one hand they want to protect the flag, and on the other they want it off their business cards. And you're focusing on the extra couple hundred dollars it cost to emboss the coat of arms? Forest for the trees; it's the flag, stupid!

* To end on a positive note, I was pleased to see the Liberals focus on a substantive and important policy issue today with a call for a National Suicide Prevention Strategy that was embraced in the House of Commons by the Conservatives and the NDP. It's an important and overlooked issue, and hopefully this leads to more action. You can still sign the petition here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers