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

“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

Thomas Mulcair: Looking out for number one

Future NDP leadership candidate (assuming Martin Cauchon doesn't defeat him in the next election) Thomas Mulcair asked the following question of the government he's propping-up in question period on Monday, regarding the HST:

Thomas Mulcair (NDP): (Voice of Translator): Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are busying themselves harmonizing sax tax increases in Ontario and British Columbia, Quebec is still waiting. Still waiting for the compensation it's owed after having harmonizeed its tax in THE '90s. 6 billion here. Instead of his usual boasting, can the minister of national revenue for once in his life answer the following question: When will Quebec finally be compensated?

Here Mulcair, as the NDP often does, is jumping on a BQ talking-point to try to curry favour in Quebec. If Ontario and BC are getting money to harmonize sales taxes now, why not Quebec, he asks, which harmonized some years ago.

Even if you accepted retroactive compensation as valid and not a cash-grab, why is Mulcair, whose party staunchly opposes the HST, not arguing for retroactive compensation for the other provinces that have previously harmonized?

Why isn't Mulcair demanding compensation for New Brunswick or Newfoundland? And why isn't he demanding compensation for Nova Scotia, home of NDP Premier Darrel Dexter?

No, it seems Mulcair is only concerned about Quebec, and not the Atlantic HST provinces. And I'm sure it has nothing to do with his Quebec seat being in trouble, and his not so secret dreams of replacing Jack Layton being on the rocks...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper sat on a wall. Stephen Harper had a great fall.

Remember when the Stephen Harper Conservatives had a reputation for being shrewd and savvy master political strategists and technicians? Well, what a difference a few days can make. Now Harper is on the verge of losing government, and he has no one to blame but himself, and his own supposed political acumen.

Harper backed-down today on taking away the right of public sector unions to strike, and he agreed to move the next budget up by a few weeks. This followed his two-stage backdown on ending public funding of political parties. All minor concessions that don't go far enough to placate an opposition that clearly has had enough.

But the Conservative coup de grace today was to be their much hyped proof that the NDP and the BQ have been in cahoots to bring down the government preceding the economic update.

This smoking gun, a recording of a private NDP caucus conference call, was naturally leaked to CTV's Bob Fife, who with breathless enthusiasm gleefully and dutifully recited the Conservative talking points. Funny thing happened though when the Harper PMO released the recordings to all the media, and everyone could read the transcripts themselves, minus the spin: the smoking gun turned out to be nothing of the sort.

What the tapes revealed was that Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe had talked about cooperating to get things done in Parliament, about common ground, and how they could work together. Kind of what parties in parliament, particularly opposition parties, are supposed to do. Exactly like Harper did with Layton and Duceppe when they were in opposition. Heck, they even wrote a joint letter to the Governor General asking her to give them a crack at forming government should the Paul Martin government fall.

With NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulclair having demolished the Conservative spin during his press conference, he raised the issue of just what the heck the Conservatives were doing covertly listening-in on private NDP caucus conference calls. Mulclair says the NDP is consulting legal counsel on the matter to see if there may be legal recourse.

Criminal or not (I have my doubts), at the very least it's pretty sleazy and unethical, and will repulse Canadians, costing the Conservatives even more in public opinion. All that, and the call only revealed that the NDP and the BQ talked strategy just like they did with the Conservatives.

What this all shows is that the Harper Conservatives are increasingly desperate. They've overplayed their hand and they know it. They're losing the battle for public opinion. They attempted to play games during an economic crisis, and they've shown an utter unwillingness to provide the economic relief Canadians are demanding. They're tone deaf to the concerns of working Canadians, and to their desire to see their representatives work together. They're willing to do anything to defect and distract from their own incompetence.

The fact that they're considering proroguing Parliament until the new year to avoid defeat, to avoid accountability, confirms just how scared and desperate Harper has become. How ridiculous would that be, to end this sitting after one week? To bring back Parliament in the new year with ANOTHER throne speech? It would be an admission that Harper has lost the confidence of the HoC, and is too much of a coward to face the people's representatives. Any public support left would evaporate for a government that would have demonstrated just how morally and ethically bankrupt it had become.

Whether he wants to admit it or not, Stephen Harper's days in 24 Sussex are numbered.

And all Stephen Harper's horses, and all Stephen Harper's men, couldn't put Stephen Harper's government together again.

(NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulclair's press conference this afternoon)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How not to convert wavering left Liberal voters

If the NDP is trying to soften-up the Liberal left flank and convince some its members to lend them their votes, or lease them outright, its apparent strategy on the scandalous Cadman allegations is only going to hurt them.


Their strategy has been most curious.

It seems to many, myself included, like they’ve been trying to downplay it. Why? The answer to that is readily apparent. The Liberals have been out in front on this, it’s quite possible the NDP fears that if this thing takes off in the public consciousness the Liberals will gain support. Of course, the Conservative will lose support, but the NDP aren’t going to gain support from the Conservatives. Any gain in Liberal support is bad for the NDP. It’s just politics.

Now, the NDP and its supporters will insist that this isn’t about politics at all. Frankly, every party plays politics, the NDP included, yet only they insist they don’t. Not sure who they think they’re fooling. But anyway, they’ll also insist that they do think these allegations are very serious and should be investigated fully.

They’ll point to their support of an RCMP investigation and one by the special prosecutor to support that claim. Pat Martin’s prior professed lack of faith in the RCMP aside, and his apparently not knowing what the special prosecutor actually does, I’m willing to grant most NDPers some ground here.

They lose me though on their lack of support for an investigation by the parliamentary ethics committee. I don’t find their reasoning here as having merit, nor do I Paul Szabo’s for that matter. They say concurrent hearings could impede any RCMP investigation. That’s just not true. And even if it did, that didn’t stop the NDP from supporting committee hearings into Adscam, or Mulroney/Schreiber.

Let’s say though that the NDP truly want this issue investigated, and believe committee hearings would hamper the RCMP. That line of reasoning becomes hard to swallow when your star MP makes comments like these:

Mulclair
"At the end of the day, we have a Liberal opposition that's not there in the House of Commons"

Newman:
"What's that have to do with, with all due respect, financial considerations in a tape recording from 2005?"

Mulclair:
"Don, it's got everything to do with what there up to. They're trying to pound the table over an issue where the only person who actually knows what went on, who's unfortunately no longer with us, said there is no offer."

Was Muclair betraying the NDP’s true feelings on the Cadman scandal, minimize and keep attacking the Liberals, or was he freelancing and out of bounds? If it is the latter and not the former Jack Layton should smack him down or make him issue a clarification. Because otherwise, the impression he leaves about the NDP’s motives on the Cadman mess are clear.

The Globe’s Adam Radwanski is perplexed:

The NDP has an opportunity to pain itself as the only national party willing to stand up to the Conservatives. But they're so busy explaining that the Liberals aren't standing up to the Conservatives that they're forgetting to do so themselves. And so when he took to the airwaves today, the New Democrats' leader-in-waiting accidentally backed himself into the Tories' position on the Cadman mess - dismissing the entirely relevant questions about what the Prime Minister was talking about in '05 as irrelevant.

… But the Liberals aren't in government; the Tories are. If you forget that, you become a pretty lousy opposition party - which helps explain why, amid all of Stephane Dion's woes leading the Liberals, the NDP has managed to lose public support since the last election.

The Toronto Star’s editorial board is too:

Layton's apparent rationale – that the RCMP should be left to do the job – is unpersuasive. Yesterday Layton slammed Harper over the Cadman affair. "We get half truths, half the time," he said. Shouldn't the NDP then be pressing for full answers? Or is Layton more concerned about preventing the rival Liberals from profiting politically from the Tories' embarrassment?

…The reason offered by NDP panel member Pat Martin for objecting to a parliamentary probe is risible. "We don't need a parliamentary committee to tell us whether it is right or wrong to bribe a Member of Parliament," he said. By that skewed logic the NDP could just as easily have objected to looking into the controversial business dealings between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber. In fact, Martin and the NDP played a big role in those hearings.

The fact is, Canadians want answers on this Cadscam. And they’re going to look pretty unfavourably, to say the least, on the NDP if it stands in the way because it won’t hurt the Liberals. If they insist on looking at is strategically, then they should consider how a lefty Liberal voter on the fence will react to their downplaying allegations the Conservatives tried to buy off an MP. Not favourably.

Bottom lining it

I think we need an ethics committee investigation because, frankly, it’s the best way we have of potentially getting to the truth here, and getting the facts to the Canadian people.

The RCMP should investigate. As I said, committee hearings won’t hamper that work at all. I think it’s pretty likely no criminal charges will ever result though. There is insufficient admissible evidence to meet a legal burden of proof. Chuck Cadman isn’t with us, the Cadman family’s accounts are pretty much hearsay, and if there ever was a paper trail it’s long gone. The RCMP may get lucky, and it should do its work. But I’m not holding my breath. It also does its work in private, and on its own schedule., as it should frankly.

But Canadians deserve to have the facts on this scandal, as much as is possible, before the next election. The only way to do that is with immediate ethics committee hearings. These aren’t legal proceedings. All the facts will be presented, testimony will be given under oath, and then the jury will be the Canadian people, at the ballot box. The NDP shouldn’t deny them the right to have all the information possible before they make their decision.

MORE READING: Steve for the Liberals, Cam for the NDP.

PS: Just to balance things out, this motion from the Liberals is really very stupid, and embarrassing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers