NDP -Insider versuchen, das Führungsrennen für einen Establishment -Kandidaten zu beheben
NDP insiders are trying to fix the leadership race for an establishment candidate
NDP -Insider versuchen, das Führungsrennen für einen Establishment -Kandidaten zu beheben
NDP insiders are trying to fix the leadership race for an establishment candidate
12 Kommentare
The BC NDP did the exact same thing a few years ago during their leadership race so it wouldn’t surprise me. Still would be a bummer, I always find it weird when parties do this kinda thing. The goal (ostensibly) is to pick a candidate who is going to compel people to vote for the party, so going into the leader selection process with a predetermined pick seems counterintuitive
I would disagree with a short race but what is to long of a race? 3 months would be short, a year is getting too long for a 7 MP party.
>The overall result would be perverse: you could have a candidate who signs up tens of thousands of members lose to someone who signs up only a fraction of that. It would turn a race that should test which candidate can generate national enthusiasm into one that tests which can most effectively micro-target 343 ridings—an obvious advantage for leadership candidates who have the aid of those who control the party levers.
I’m flummoxed at the disdain for riding weighting. Have NDP members memory holed the last leader who signed up members in very specific areas and then gave away all but one Quebec seat in his first election. Theory vs reality in action here.
Speaking as a lifelong New Democrat, I do not find the prospect of a nine to twelve month leadership contest ‚energizing.‘ Frankly, it sounds exhausting.
Whatever its length, I’m also not keen on *any* approach that turns the race into a membership drive, the outcome of which is determined by new recruits with no history with or attachment to the party, and who may not even have paid for their own memberships. This kind of contest is also easily distorted by diaspora politics and vulnerable to foreign interference.
Bring back the delegated convention!
It felt like there was exactly one NDP member who the press and public paid any attention to in this past election, and he wasn’t even running. Seems like they might want to pay attention to what Angus was doing that the rest of them weren’t.
The NDP is going to have to decide what their future is, whether they want to be an activist party that is the „consciousness of parliament“, or whether they want to be a serious party that governs the country one day. Moving farther to the left satisfies the activists, but the voters aren’t there, no matter how much they pretend there is some fringe that’s waiting for the party to become left enough. Look what happened with Jama in Hamilton-Centre during the Ontario election, every „left activist“ was helping her out and she couldn’t even get 15% in the most left wing riding in Ontario. The votes just aren’t there.
The article does make good points that the consultant class which dominates the party has to go, but their reasoning is mostly wrong. These types have to go because they don’t understand how to do politics, and have lost every election they’ve ever been involved in, yet keep falling upwards. The article writer seems to dislike the NDP executive because they don’t pander to whatever fringe issue of the day they’re interested in. If the NDP executives were competent the party would have been realistic about their chances this election, ran a data-driven campaign that directs resources into key seats, and they wouldn’t have lost party status. Instead we saw them burning away money on seats they ended up losing by 50 points. That is why they should be fired.
In the end, the race will come down to McPherson versus some fringe activist, and these article writers are going to be confused when party membership chooses the „establishment candidate“ in a landslide.
I’m sorry, but 4-6 months is *ample* time for a leadership race to last. An entire year is just ridiculous, even for the bigger parties that would be interminable.
The idea that a six-month long campaign would be somehow be too short a timeline, enough to „fix“ the results, is absurd. The Liberals just showed us what a „short“ leadership campaign looks like, so the idea that taking half a year will be biasing it in favour of anyone just seems ridiculous.
I also have to say, I find parts of the left almost as willing as the right to believe in some shadowy „establishment“ keeping their ideas down. It’s a narrative I don’t tend to care for, because it’s really good for nothing but pointing fingers and creating infighting, so I can’t say I’m a fan of this article taking such a tone.
I don’t really think most people care *how* the new NDP leader is chosen, just that the party return to being a party worth voting for that looks out for working class issues. Go back to being that party arguing about why bank fees are so high again like they were under Layton.
This is a tough read. You can hear the spittle flying among the cries of conspiracy, grievance, and disdain for any ideological impurity. No coincidence these same traits are what discredits the NDP in the eyes of mainstream voters.
The logical leaps and spirals are best captured when he accuses the party of conspiring to have a short race, then assumes they’ll have a (very reasonable) membership deadline, then complains that doing the work of organizing before that deadline would have to happen in summer. It’s completely unsubstantiated, but that’s not slowing down the logical inference that the party hates activists and summer holidays.
I would also love a tiny bit of introspection from the Appadurai people: let’s imagine if she won that leadership fair and square. Is there any evidence her supporters can point to that John Rustad wouldn’t be the premier of BC right now? Eby barely clung on by holding places Appadurai wouldn’t have stood a chance: Vernon-Lumby. Coquitlam-Burke Mountain. Kootenay Central. Richmond-Steveston. We’d be looking at a much, much worse BC government right now if Appadurai was NDP leader.
These breathless op-eds about how anything less than a marathon slog being anti-democratic are completely exhausting and make no sense. There’s nothing more democratic about a campaign that’s 6-8 months too long, and there’s no reason to seriously believe that such a long campaign would garner more media or public attention than a reasonable 3-4 month race.
The idea of a year long campaign is completely ludicrous. And the notion that a reasonable length race is somehow an „establishment“ coup is equally ludicrous. It really reads like some people really just want there to be an „establishment“ conspiracy that they can get mad at.
I think they should change the name. What does ’new democrat‘ even mean? If you’re going after the working class vote, call yourself the Labour Party like in Australia and the UK. If you’re going more left and going after the urban educated vote, call yourself the Progressive Party; at least the name on the tin is easier to understand.
Keep the orange, though
I voted for the NDP, and it sucks that they were destroyed this time around. But it was worth it to see the smug wiped off PP’s mug. Amazing.
But who the NDP chooses now as leader… hardly matters. What matters is finally getting proportional representation in Canada. That’s the best thing for the party and the country.
Now I know the NDP can’t hold much sway with so few seats, but the Liberals ought to know their days are numbered, and the best way to avoid a disastrous Conservative majority is proportional representation.
So the federal NDP will continue on the path of being a bunch of suits with practically no membership, like the BC NDP.