I’ve been
putting off writing this blogpost for far too long. In part, my procrastination stems from a
general feeling of boredom related to the subject matter – even though the
subject matter is important. I had been
hoping that I might be turned on at some time over the past several months –
turned on enough to write a real rah-rah piece about one of the contenders for the
NDP’s leadership. I’ve been following
the contest fairly closely – I even attended the “debate” that was held here in
Sudbury on May 28th. But I’ve
been unable to muster much interest in writing – and I fear that this piece
will suffer as a result of my ‘meh’.
In all
seriousness, I had hoped for the kind of leadership race that might prove to be
inspiring – inspiring in a way that led to the election of Jeremy Corbynn as
Labour Party leader in the U.K. – and inspiring in the way that led many to
take a very close look at Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders during the U.S.
Democratic Party leadership run. I know
I wasn’t the only one looking for something that none of us should be surprised
just wasn’t in the cards. The situations
with the Labour Party and the Democratic Party are quite different than with
Canada’s New Democratic Party. In the
U.K., Labour has been trying to wake-up from the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown era,
and ultimately turned to a life-long socialist to re-invigorate the Party. In the U.S., many have long felt (with plenty
of good reason, in my opinion) that the Democratic Party is not all that
different from the Republicans. In both
cases, significant space had been created for the right personality (er,
actually a personality of the left) to step in and force change.
But Canada’s
NDP hasn’t really ever been in that situation.
As much as it has drifted to the right of the political spectrum since
Jack Layton took over, the NDP have remained a relatively progressive party –
especially when compared to Canada’s Conservative and Liberal parties. Here I’m talking more about the policies
that NDP members have approved, rather than the way in which the NDP has
approached elections and platform creation.
One of my own biggest issues with the NDP has to do with the way that
the Party behaves as a populist political animal – playing politics rather than
staying true to its principles and policies. I know that I’m not the only one
who is turned off of the NDP because of their tendency to be hypocritical.
Leadership
But how
much further to the left would any candidate have been able to take the NDP
while remaining serious in a way that Sanders and Corbynn were? Because the NDP’s policies are already progressive,
it really shouldn’t have come as a surprise that just about all of the
candidates in the race to replace Tom Mulcair have stood up and said, more or
less, the exact same things as one another.
With only a couple of exceptions, Guy Caron, Niki Ashton, Jagmeet Singh
and Charlie Angus have all been singing from the same song sheet. And there’s nothing wrong with that, because
it’s a pretty good tune in my opinion.
Fact is,
any one of these 4 will make an excellent leader of the NDP. What I’m less certain of is whether any of
them can make voters want to cast their ballots for New Democrats in the face
of Justin Trudeau, who I continue to believe will remain a formidable force in
2019 with his faux progressive values.
What can any of the NDP contenders offer the public that’s new – besides
more progressive policy?
And that’s
got to be the key to this whole leadership discussion. Which of the 4 leadership candidates can be
the best salesperson for the job of selling Canadians on the superiority of the
NDP’s policy approach to progressive Canadians?
If that sounds pretty shallow on my part, so be it. But remember: under Jack Layton, the NDP won 103
seats. Under Tom Mulcair, the NDP took
just 44. Sure, Layton was up against Harper,
who was no Trudeau – while Mulcair was steamrolled by a slick campaign with a
happy face. But politics today really is
mostly just a sales pitch – albeit one that clearly includes the ability to
package and showcase key pieces of policy.
Which is
why Trudeau and the Liberals will win another majority government in 2019.
The NDP: Now An Existential Question for Greens
But back to
the NDP. So, what does it matter to me,
a member of the Green Party, whom I think would be the best leader of the
NDP? It matters a lot – because this
decision of New Democrats actually represents an existential dilemma for my
Party. What the 4 NDP leadership
candidates have been talking about out on the campaign trail (yes, the same
stuff generally met with yawns from the mainstream media and the wider Canadian
public) has been the same sorts of stuff that Greens have been talking about for
years, for the most part. In some respects,
the NDP has moved ahead of where we Greens are at on issues that we have
considered fundamentally our meatless-meat and potatoes. Whomever emerges leader of the NDP is likely
to embrace many of the policy positions of his or her rivals – and if not
directly, you can bet that grassroots New Democrats are going to continue to
push their party to adopt the truly progressive policy planks of defeated
leadership rivals.
I’ll come
back to all of this in a little bit.
Right now, let’s take a look at the four candidates – and what I think
New Democrats ought to do.
Guy Caron
Caron
started the leadership contest pitching a Basic Income policy very similar to
the one that the Green Party has long advocated. I happen to like the idea of a Basic Income –
and so do many New Democrats. To my
surprise, however, there has emerged on the left serious opposition to any sort
of Basic Income. Mainly this appears to
be out of fear that a Basic Income could lead to the state reducing services
that promote equity. I get it, it’s not all about money, and certainly a poorly
designed Basic Income would not be a benefit to the nation. But Caron wasn’t pitching a poorly designed
version. Nevertheless, Niki Ashton felt
compelled to oppose Caron on this – and she was wrong to do so.
When the
dust settles from the leadership contest, Caron will not emerge
victorious. But his Basic Income policy
will be a big winner with New Democrats – and you can bet that the Party will
continue to push for promoting a Basic Income, to the chagrin of what I predict
to be an unmotivated minority (meaning, a small number of extreme leftists in
the party who won’t get all that worked up about this particular policy).
What, in my
opinion, completely disqualified Caron from becoming the next leader was the position
that he took on the rights of people, especially women, to wear what they want
to wear vs. the rights of the Quebec Assembly to legislate racist laws that
prohibit people from wearing religious symbols – laws that can’t possibly stand
up to a Charter of Rights challenge.
Caron had the opportunity to defend Canada’s Charter, but instead he
opted to defend what he views as Quebec’s right to give the Charter the middle
finger. Sorry, Caron – but that was
clearly the wrong choice. I know, I know
– I’m over-simplifying the issue. But
really – not by much, not from where I sit in Sudbury, Ontario.
Not only
would I not recommend Caron as leader of the NDP, but I think that most New
Democrats are going to see things the same as me – and Caron will be the first
one eliminated on the ballot (or receive the fewest overall votes on the first
ballot).
Niki Ashton
Ashton
really really tried to be Bernie Sanders.
She figured out a way to (mostly) talk the talk of the truly
progressive. But unlike Sanders and
Corbynn, there has always been something about Ashton’s authenticity – and it’s
not just because of the habit that she developed during the campaign of
acquiescing and clarifying her position, leaving everyone with a muddled
opinion of just where she stood on a good number of issues. Rather, the lack of authenticity reminded me
of Kellie Leitch. Ashton appeared to
wake up one morning and decided to put on a suit of clothes she never wore
before in order to become someone she wasn’t.
Same as Leitch, whom I know is not as bad a person as she made herself
out to be during the Conservative Party’s campaign. Ashton became an actor – and never really
looked all that comfortable.
And that’s
too bad, because the real Niki Ashton does have a tremendous amount of
authenticity when it comes to connecting with younger voters. To make these connections, she didn’t have to
go full lefty radical – and I think she and her campaign would have been better
off. Rather than channelling Bernie
Sanders, she should have tried to channel Jack Layton.
Ashton is
going to continue to be a strong asset for the NDP. I just hope she puts away the faux radical
and decides, instead, to be herself and build on her truly natural strengths of
connecting with people.
I hope she
decides to do an about-face on her Basic Income stance. Her initial waffling on the Quebec religious
garb issue was problematic, but she recovered – I get what was going on there,
too – Ashton sees Quebec as an opportunity for herself for when Caron drops off
the ballot, so she did what she thought was best to appeal to Caron’s voters
for their second place preferences. And
who knows – it may have worked. I do
expect a lot of Caron’s people will move to Ashton – but not enough to see her
make it through the second ballot.
Ashton will
be the second leadership hopeful exiting the contest (or she’ll receive the second
lowest vote count on a first ballot victory of another leadership contestant).
Singh and
Angus
So that
leaves Charlie Angus and Jagmeet Singh – two candidates who actually exhibited
a little bit of a less-than friendly rivalry during the leadership contest,
which is very uncharacteristic for the NDP.
But you know what? I really think
these two got underneath each other’s skin.
Singh’s jab about Angus not really caring about seniors was completely
over the top and frankly not in keeping with reality. Angus, probably realizing whom his real
competitor was going to be early on, took jabs at Singh’s lack of commitment to
universality for social security – and was right to do so, given the NDP’s long
history here. Perhaps Singh was thinking
ahead to when he was going to have to face a broader electorate – and not just
New Democrats.
Anyway,
Singh doesn’t appear to have been harmed by these true missteps. If Angus represents the Party’s historic
core, Singh represents what the Party aspires to be – and if he really has
signed up 47,000 new members, it’s quite likely that Singh will find himself
leading the NDP when all of the ballots are counted.
Angus has a
lot of passion, and I hope that Singh can find a way to reconcile himself with
the MP from Timmins-James Bay. Singh and
Angus will make a great one-two punch for the NDP – and if Singh wins, he would
be foolish to try to dim the light on Angus.
Of course,
if Angus wins, it’s doubtful that Singh is going to stick around federal
politics – not when there’s a provincial election coming up in Ontario in 2018,
which is likely to be Andrea Horwath’s last as Ontario NDP leader. In many respect, it’s really too bad that
Singh is leading the provincial party right now. But I digress.
Charlie
Angus would make an adequate leader of the federal NDP – but his rumpled
approach to party politics isn’t going to make much headway against Justin
Trudeau. I like a lot of the things that
Angus was saying during the campaign – but I think that the NDP would be making
a serious, albeit not fatal, mistake if Angus was selected as leader.
Gotta Go With Singh
Clearly, in
my mind, the NDP has to go with Singh.
He may be the most lightweight candidate in the running (from both a
policy and politics perspective), but if any of these four have what it takes
to motivate voters, it’s Singh. Look, I
understand the fears about Quebec – and I suspect the New Democrats will take a
hit in that province with Singh as leader (but I also expect they’d take a hit
there with Angus or Ashton or Caron as leader, too), but Singh’s ability to
connect with people can’t be overlooked.
He’s the only one that can out-selfie Justin Trudeau.
But that’s
not the only reason that New Democrats ought to select Singh over Angus. Angus has, quite frankly, just been too
wishy-washy on a number of issues of growing importance to New Democrats –
specifically on climate change and pipelines.
Don’t misunderstand me – I like Angus’ carbon budget – but it’s just not
a winning policy when Angus is caught leaving the door open to pipelines (in a
way that Singh has refused to do). That
might play well in Alberta – but it’s a problem in Quebec, and more
importantly, in B.C. And B.C. is ground
zero for the NDP in 2018 – the lower mainland will be one of several primary
battlefields where the NDP has a real chance to knock off some incumbent
Liberals.
Why I Prefer Angus
So, as a
Green, I’m rooting for Angus – because I believe that Angus will be the best
choice the NDP can make (besides maybe Caron, which isn’t going to happen) for
the Green Party to really grow our support. Angry Angus from mine-living
Northern Ontario who won’t say no to pipelines will play well for Greens in
B.C.
And it’s
why a Jagmeet Singh-led NDP scares me, as a Green. Remember: in 2014, Greens went into the
election targeting maybe 20 ridings across the nation. Just about all of them were on Vancouver
Island or in the lower mainland. And we
got our hats handed to us –not by Justin Trudeau, but by the NDP. When the Liberals were steamrolling New
Democrats east of the Rockies, the NDP made gains in B.C. – in those very
ridings that Greens thought we could figure out a way to win in. And that was under a cautious, uninspiring
Tom Mulcair. What chance are we going to
have in B.C. with Singh leading the New Democrats?
And that’s
why the NDP’s leadership contest might be a bit of an existential question for
Greens. If the NDP has some (mostly)
really good and progressive policy, why should we continue to fight them? I
mean, ok, maybe the NDP has to do a bit of a reckoning with carbon pricing –
but perhaps Singh could see the wisdom on revenue neutrality (especially if he
continues to question universality of old age security).
The NDP: a New Green Party
What I saw
during the leadership campaign were a group of people more than willing to turn
their Party into a Green Party. Maybe
not exactly what the Green Party of Canada is today – but certainly something
very recognizable to Greens. And I think
it would be incumbent on the part of we Greens to figure out whether we should
be continuing to put our efforts into opposing the NDP – and ask ourselves if
our time and resources might be better spent doing something different.
Since the
massive disappointment of the 2015 election, I’ve stayed with the Green Party
out of optimism that when Canada’s electoral system was changed, Greens might
be able to figure out a way to have more influence – not to punch above our
weight class, but instead to have influence equal to the will of the electorate
– something Greens and Green supporters have been denied for too long, thanks
to First Past the Post. So the only
saving grace coming out of 2015 was Trudeau’s promise to reform the electoral
system.
Tough Conversations Ahead
With
electoral reform off the table, where does that leave the Green Party? Especially in the face of the NDP becoming a
green party, likely led by a dynamic and likable leader who connects with
voters, who surrounds himself with a strong team of former leadership
candidates and a few others. While I
still don’t think that the NDP is going to be able to topple Trudeau from power
in 2019, I see gains (and yes, likely some offsetting losses in Quebec – but enough
gains to make the NDP more than viable come 2023. And I see yet more nothing for a Green Party
that has almost completely disappeared from the public consciousness outside of
British Columbia.
I hope that
my fellow Greens are following the NDP leadership contest as closely as I have
been. I think it’s time that we all had
a bit of a discussion about our collective future. We may not have seen a Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbynn emerge from the ranks of the NDP - but maybe we will see a Jason Kenney - someone who has the ability to make a case to his own Party that it's time to extend a hand of friendship, welcome and - dare I say it - love - to political rivals who perhaps shouldn't be.
And I
suppose that’s yet another reason why I’ve been putting off writing this
blogpost – because thinking about change is scary. It’s draining. You don’t know where things are going to end
up, you lose control. Who wants that?
But
ultimately, the one constant in life is that change is inevitable.
And maybe change is just what Canada needs right now.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)
3 comments:
You utterly and unfairly misrepresented Guy Caron.
Guy Caron has repeatedly condemned bill 62.
Guy Caron also have the bigoted Bloc leader a big written smack down when she went after Jagmeet Singh.
https://mobile.twitter.com/OhmsB/status/910234498180239361
Also have you considered that trying to legislate behavior and what Bills can be passed in the National Assembly could back fire and boost support for Bill 62?
Also it's legally questionable whether just legislation would be constitutional.
Not that anyone has said they would block Bill 62 in Parliament, so in effect their position is exactly the same as Guy Caron.
BTW Guy Caron has not suggested that Bill 62 shouldn't face a court challenge, just that the federal government shouldn't interfer (which as I pointed out is no different in practice to anyone else).
You utterly and unfairly misrepresented Guy Caron.
Guy Caron has repeatedly condemned bill 62.
Guy Caron also have the bigoted Bloc leader a big written smack down when she went after Jagmeet Singh.
https://mobile.twitter.com/OhmsB/status/910234498180239361
Also have you considered that trying to legislate behavior and what Bills can be passed in the National Assembly could back fire and boost support for Bill 62?
Also it's legally questionable whether just legislation would be constitutional.
Not that anyone has said they would block Bill 62 in Parliament, so in effect their position is exactly the same as Guy Caron.
BTW Guy Caron has not suggested that Bill 62 shouldn't face a court challenge, just that the federal government shouldn't interfer (which as I pointed out is no different in practice to anyone else).
Actually Jagmeet Singh has stated he would consider supporting organizations that would fight bill 62, which is an indirect way to interfere with Quebec's National Assembly business. I took that as supporting them financially or with free legal consultations.
Niki Ashton said in an interview she would consider challenging the legislation, but she flipped flopped on this issue, I'm not sure if her official statement accurately represents her POV on this matter.
No federal leader has business interfering in any provincial legislature. Imagine if Justin Trudeau declared he would interfere in 15$ hour minimum wage provincial legislation?
We would be in an uproar. Let the federal play in their own backyard and let the provinces be autonomous.
No matter how outrageous bill 62 is, Quebec citizens do not need the patronizing and paternalistic attitude of the federal to fight its own battles. I'm sure we can fight it without any help from Jagmeet Singh or anybody else for that matter.
Post a Comment