Defining Progressive for a 21st Century Canada

In recent weeks there has been a lot of discussion about what Canadian politics will look like over the course of 2012. Much of that discussion - including here - has focused on the government, and how a Harper majority will act during its first full year.

The focus on the Harper government is understandable, particularly when one starts to consider the upcoming budget. However, politics watchers should be focusing equally on the events that will play out among the NDP and the Liberals.

Why?

Over the course of the 2012, the NDP and the Liberals will each be very busy. The former will choose a new leader. The latter will review, well, everything, as it prepares to choose a new leader in 2013.

However, there is a more important undercurrent to the efforts of both parties. As they move through their respective processes, the NDP and the Liberals will be taking big steps towards redefining what it means to be a progressive party in twenty-first century Canada.

Whether this redefinition results in two or only one progressive party remains to be seen. There will be plenty of time for a hard look at the need for and the likelihood of success of a merged party.

At this juncture, the more pressing need is for the progressive elements of the Canadian political landscape to take some time to do what, frankly, they failed to do properly over the past decade. Rather than lay out a credible and consistent vision of what a progressive party represents, both parties let the Conservatives do it for them.

That is not to say that the NDP and Liberals were silent. More that since 2006 they have been essentially on the back foot; reacting to the Conservatives' formidable communications regime.

The Liberals were the big losers in this game. However, the NDP's recent electoral success masks to an extent their own challenges. In many respects, their success was the result of Mr. Layton's appeal and the Liberal implosion.

Now, deprived of Mr. Layton the party has shown signs of drift at the very time its rookie caucus needs direction. Moreover, I would bet that few Canadians could tell you what an NDP government would look like. On a number of policy files this fall, the Liberals tended to play a more effective opposition role.

So, what to do...

To start, move away from the traditional left-right dichotomy and present a progressive vision for Canada. This vision needs to shift the dialogue such that progressive does not become a new way of saying left.

Rather, progressive needs to be defined as being about balance; about carefully and openly considering the challenges and opportunities the country faces, and collaboratively developing solutions.

It should define what fiscal responsibility means in progressive politics. Progressive cannot be simply about opposing spending cuts or raising corporate taxes. It needs to represent a balanced approach to what is an legitimate issue.

Being progressive should also be about promoting a real dialogue about how priority policy areas (health, the economy, the environment, education and foreign policy) are inter-connected.

More often than not, policy options in these areas are presented as being independent of one another. They are not. Progressive politics should be about connecting the various policy threads and telling the story in a way that connects with the voter.

This doesn't mean playing down to the voter. On the contrary, the voter needs to be challenged to see the big picture and the options a government needs to consider.

In the end, progressive politics must stand for something which resonates with Canadians and which is credible. It has to move our policy dialogue away from absolutes and the tendency to see options as mutually exclusive. It has to be more than a default to the Conservatives.

So come on NDP and Liberals - give it some thought and show us what you've got. Canada is waiting.

Quiet Riot (or when the NDP came to Vancouver)

We have seen a lot in the media in recent days on the hordes who descended on downtown Vancouver - young, energetic people caught on film as they came together and for a short while took over a city.

Yes, the NDP convention came to town this past weekend to do what convention attendees do. They celebrated successes, debated policy resolutions, attended hospitality suites and (after a morning gatorade and greasy breakfast) promised to all who would listen that the future was theirs.

The two topics over which the most ink was spilled (is ink still used - perhaps we should characters typed?) were the debate over the use of the word "socialism" and the debate over a future merger with the Liberals. It tells you a lot about the NDP and its strong affinity to its roots that the former generated as much interest as the latter.

Some good observations on the socialism issue can be found here, via Kathryn Blaze Carlson at the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/20/what-are-the-ndp-talking-about-when-they-talk-about-socialism/

For me, the issue over whether to drop the inclusion of the word in the party constitution preamble exposes the dilemma that the NDP now faces. As I mentioned in my recent "Canada's conscience or government in waiting" post, the NDP faces a choice. Does it want to be more of a beacon or conscience, advocating on select policy issues as it recognizes that it will never gain power? Or does it want to become a government in waiting, which means that it must start to appeal to a wider base?

If the conclusion is that the latter is a realistic goal, then the party has an obligation to consider all means necessary to get there. The word socialism carries with it a lot of baggage, and some members of the party have therefore concluded that it can be an obstacle to power.

In many respects you cannot blame them. The Conservative rhetoric since late 2008 has branded them socialists. Having seen how repeated branding by your opponent contributed to the Liberal demise, it makes sense that the party should look to limit their opponent's opportunities to attack in this fashion.

However, it will be in the area of policy and the credible options they can present the electorate that will ultimately make the difference. Once you cut away the words, the party needs to present an alternative that appeals to voters.

This leads to the second item of debate - a merger with the Liberals.

On the one hand you have those who question whether there is any merit in allying the NDP with a party which has been rejected by the electorate. We'll call this the "hell no" side.

On the other hand, you have those who say we have an electorate which continues to be more progressive. They argue that until we either eliminate splits or change the electoral system (not going to happen) the Conservatives will form the government. We'll call them the "let's think about it" side.

The former think that they can wait the Liberals out - that the end of the public subsidy and the two year wait for a new Liberal leader will further marginalize the Liberals and make them seem less and less like a viable option. The thinking is that there is no need to merge because in time the progressive space will be occupied only by the NDP as the Liberals fall away.

The latter feel that the NDP cannot simply hope to attract the progressive vote by default. The view is that in the same way the right needed to come together, the left will need to do the same. For them, this is the perfect time for the NDP to consider such discussions - they are in a position of strength. The terms of a merger can be more easily dictated when you are in the ascendancy. Despite their troubles, the Liberals can offer some street credibility as a party which has successfully tackled issues such as the deficit and offered credible economic management.

***

For me, the discussion on the word socialism and the debate on a merger with the Liberals are the same issue. They are both about how the NDP can move from being the opposition to being the government. It is about what steps they need to take to move from away being seen as a modern day CCF, and towards being seen as Canada's equivalent of New Labour; as a government in waiting.

Getting to an answer will not be easy for the NDP. The party will go through their own "quiet riot" as they struggle with striking the right balance between the principles of their past and their aspirations for the future.

Are they up for the challenge?

A Deep Dark Truthful Mirror

Like it or not, the time has come for the Liberals to stare into what Elvis Costello called a "deep dark truthful mirror." The results of #elxn41 and the pending elimination of the public subsidy will have the combined effect of sending Canada's former natural governing party into the political wilderness for possibly a decade.

In other words, it's time to take a long, hard look at yourself.

It would be tempting to lay the blame for the current state of affairs on Conservative attack ads or on the performance of the last two leaders, Mr. Dion and Mr. Igantieff. One could also be tempted to point a finger towards the fall-out from the sponsorship scandal.

However, while some responsibility can certainly be directed towards these areas the deep, dark truth is that they are only a small part of a problem that began some time ago.

Take a closer look at the majorities of 1993, 1997 and 2000. What you see is a party that was already hemmed in, owing its power to Ontario, select urban centres outside Ontario, and reasonable support in Atlantic Canada.

The simple fact is that the Liberal Party of Canada ceased to have any meaningful Western presence (outside BC) in the 1980s. They have not held the majority of seats in Quebec since the 1984 Mulroney sweep. By the time Mr. Chretien came to power, all they had was Ontario, urban Canada (including pockets in Quebec) and the Atlantic.

What they did have going for them at that time was the split on the right, and a general sense of fatigue with the roller-coaster of the Mulroney government (free trade, the GST, Meech, Charlottetown). The result, three majorities. And in fairness, on many fronts they provided good government (deficit reduction, targeted investments in innovation, the clarity act, electoral financing reform).

But the majorities prevented the party from asking itself the hard questions. Power shielded the Liberals from confronting the truth that - depending on your perspective - they were in decline or under attack. And that time was inevitably going to run out.

Even when the right was united, there was a sense that under Mr. Martin the party would thrive. Then along came the sponsorship scandal, which over the course of two elections laid bare the degree to which the party was vulnerable.

Faced with a united right, further erosion in Quebec and a general concern about the perception of scandal, the Liberals were left with only one option - play defence. There was no place where the party could grow; no place where losses could be off-set. From that point on, it was only a matter of time.

Yet the party still seemed to believe the natural order would, in due course, return them to power. At some point, the thinking seemed to be, you eventually get out of the penalty box. What they did not count on was five years of Conservative minority government.

The threat of the election around the corner further hemmed the party in, depriving them of the time (even if there wasn't the willingness) to stare into that mirror. To start the process of renewal, both in terms of policy and in terms of organization.

Further compounding the problem was the failure to develop a robust fundraising mechanism. Even accounting for a degree of hindsight, it is bewildering to see how the party that brought in the changes to election financing was so unprepared for their impact. You can argue whether we should have a public subsidy (for the record, I favour it), but you can't argue in favour of making yourself so dependent on it.

So where do things stand?

- The Liberals have their lowest seat total, based in small enclaves in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario

- Funding is about to take a huge hit

- The party is suffering an existential crisis

- The Liberal organization often looks less national and more like a series of "interest fiefdoms", while riding associations have little power

- There is no leader

- Their principal opponent will get stronger, while their nearest challenger has a unique opportunity to further marginalize them

But what they do have is time. If there is one silver lining from this election, it is the time it has afforded the Liberals to stare into the deep dark truthful mirror. It is a time for earnest reflection, difficult conversations and brave decisions.

The political landscape has been re-drawn in Canada, but not in permanent marker - yet.

The steps the Liberals take over the next four years will determine whether they can redefine themselves for the 21st century and emerge once again as a power. If not, the 2011-2015 period may simply become the last phase of a process of erosion and marginalization that began many, many years ago.

I've fallen and I can't get up - #elxn41 and the Liberals

Prior to May 2, 2011, the Liberals had never finished anything other than first or second on election day. Today, they are facing the prospect of at least two terms in the wilderness - and that's the good news. Their next steps are, not to put too fine a point on it, crucial.

I won't get into a "what went wrong" analysis here. An excellent article was published today in the Toronto Star which provides an overview (as do both Jane Taber's and Michael Valpy's pieces in the Globe and Mail).

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/987422--what-really-sunk-michael-ignatieff-and-the-liberals?bn=1

Having fallen so far, the question now is whether they can get up. In this third piece on each of the three mainstream parties, I offer some (unsolicited) advice to the Liberals.

1. Start with a blank piece of paper

Before going down the road of leadership, you need to develop a stronger sense about what you want to represent as a party. Despite having over two years to prepare, the Liberal narrative and vision for Canada never really seemed to take form.

The constant Conservative attacks on Mr. Ignatieff's leadership clearly had an impact. These attacks undermined Liberal efforts to shape a narrative. However, the Liberals must also take some of the blame.

Too often their focus was on what, rightly or wrongly, the public saw as the minor foibles of the government. They rightly understood that there was a reason the Conservatives were stuck in minority territory, but failed to tackle the more important issue as to why they could not capitalize.

Over the next few years, a lot of time and energy needs to be spent determining what it means to be Liberal. It is no longer sufficient to assume that you are the default party of choice, so take a blank piece of paper, look carefully at the results of 2006, 2008 and 2011, and start thinking. Look as well at the challenges you could avoid focusing on in 1993, 1997 and 2000. You won majorities, but were heavily dependant on Ontario, vote-splitting and urban centres. Be honest about your weakness and go from there.

2. Be the middle man

Building on the point above, we know that the Liberal platform tacked left in an attempt to attract NDP supporters. It turned out that while Canadians may have liked the message, they did not like the messenger. This reasoning would suggest that the Liberals simply find a leader who can carry the same message more effectively.

That would be a mistake.

By tacking left, the Liberals left the impression that the Conservatives were the only party occupying the centre/centre-rght. This partly explains why the NDP surge sent people to the Conservatives.

Looking ahead, the Liberals need to re-establish their brand as a centrist party in Canada. This means finding the balance between compassion and discipline; between willingness and prudence.

Being in the centre means you invest, rather than spend. It means you engage before deciding. It means demonstrating that you have convictions, but that you are prepared to listen such that your convictions can be informed.

This was the space that the Liberals used to occupy and it is the space to which they need to return. For the time being, it is unoccupied. That won't last, so move in quickly.

3. Cash is King

You are about to lose the public subsidy and, unlike 1993 when the Progressive Conservatives fell to two seats, there are now strict limits as to what you can raise from corporations. You need to develop a more robust fundraising mechanism.

Following up on points one and two above will be important in this regard. People like to know what they are buying, so put something compelling in the window. Invest in the technology, leverage social media, engage youth. Every dollar counts, so go after them.

4. Choose carefully

You will be choosing a new leader. Recognize that there is no such thing as a ready-to-go Prime Minister. Whomever you choose will need time and more than one election to have a realistic chance of winning. Give them that time.

When you choose, make sure you remember that you can't build a sustainable party around a leader; the leader must represent the vision of the party. If you don't know where you want to go, how can you pick the driver?

Mr. Dion was a compromise candidate. Mr. Ignatieff was seen as someone who could play a Trudeau-esque role (forgetting that Mr. Trudeau had long-held views on a range of issues and had been politically active for some time - something Mr. Ignatieff did now have on his cv).

Today, you need a standard-bearer for the Liberalism you want for 21st century Canada. You want someone who typifies what you want your party to represent.

***

You have to be down before you can get up. That's where the Liberals are today. Despite showing early promise in #elxn41, they fell badly from the debates onwards such that today there are many questioning their future in Canada.

I don't think they are dead. I think the inexperience of the NDP will create opportunities for them. But they have to be ready. They have to be ready with a vision, a leader which represents that vision, and who can effectively communicate it. And they have to be patient. There is a long road ahead for the Liberal Party of Canada, and it is going to take time to re-establish themselves in Canadian politics.

The Liberal Platform - offering a choice; tacking left

The Liberal platform was released yesterday, generating a lot of discussion and commentary. While I am not planning on presenting a full proposal-by-proposal assessment, I think there are some themes and initiatives worth highlighting.

1. The notion of choice

Go back 12-18 months ago, and you would have seen a Liberal Opposition that had not done much to frame an alternative vision of Canada. It was not clear what they stood for or what a Liberal government would look like.

Now fast forward to today and you have your answer. Through this platform, which the announcements of week 1 were designed to build up to, the Liberals have given themselves definition. They have moved from presenting a "we're not the other guy" argument towards "this is who we are and what you can expect."

Canadians are now better placed than they have been in some time to ask themselves which party is more aligned with their priorities. This doesn't mean they will suddenly vote Liberal. But it does mean they can make a more informed choice.

2. Clarity of message

Taking a page from the 2006 Conservative campaign, the Liberals have opted for a focused message which highlights their core priorities. The goal here is simplicity and clarity. You can't be everything to all people; you can't do it all. You want what you stand for to be memorable, to be suitable for an elevator conversation or a chat when you are waiting in line. The "Family Pack" theme ticks this box. In fact throughout week 1 the Liberals have largely been on-message.

3. Know your audience

Women voters are key to Liberal hopes. While the Conservatives have a strong grip on the middle-aged male demographic, women are another story. This platform, with its focus on families and education, is geared towards this demographic.

It is also very much focused on the left. The Liberals had a decision to make. Do we try and take from the Conservatives or from the NDP? They have opted for the latter, and are trying to do so in two ways.

First, they are intent on communicating this as a 2-horse race with the Liberals as the only party capable of stopping Harper. This was the message after the by-elections in the fall and it's the message today.

Second, they have adopted policy positions clearly more attractive to an NDP voter. Roll-back of corporate tax cuts, training, the learning passport, child care...the list goes on. If the NDP had released this document, no one would have been to shocked with the main elements. In some parts, I actually felt like I was reading New Labour from the UK.

For better or worse, they have tacked left. Time will tell whether this was the right decision.

4. Where's the fix?

If I were to choose one area where I was disappointed, I would likely go with the limited focus on the erosion of our democratic institutions. This has been the one theme on which all of the opposition has focused consistently for 2 years. We have been told that Parliament is broken and that our institutions are in jeopardy. The election was actually brought about as as result of a contempt finding.

So, where's the fix? Yes, this theme is discussed and some novel ideas are presented. But compared with the substance behind the Liberal's other proposals, I found the discussion in the platform thin. I am hopeful that this issue gets more airing in a debate.

***

Those are some of my initial observations. What are yours? Has the platform influenced how you are looking at this election?

Interestingly, despite the plaudits the Liberals have received for their week 1 performance the Conservatives are continuing to enjoy a very healthy advantage in every poll I have seen. We'll see if week 2 and the release of this platform changes anything.

Thoughts?

Ready to Oppose?

With all of the recent commentary on the Liberal's caucus retreat, recent poll numbers and the generally positive media coverage of the Liberal Express, I have found myself wondering what the Official Opposition has learned in the past year.

The party line is that things have improved, the ship has been righted, the caucus is on side and they are ready to be a true Official Opposition. In truth, the recent signs are encouraging.

Now, as they enter the fall session in the House my thinking is that the party needs to more deliberately frame its message to the voter; to frame the infamous ballot box question. Already there are signs that this is a priority, with the "Big Red Tent" messaging.

Here are some suggestions on how to build on their summer momentum:

1. Play the arrogance card. Often. Canadians draw a fine line between respecting strength and loathing arrogance, and for many the Harper government has on more than one occasion come very close to that line. The Liberals need to make this a core part of their message.

2. Play the bully card. Often. Memorize the list of public servants who have been marginalized by the governemnt for making their views known and weave it into your messaging.

3. Do not forget the economy. Points 1 and 2 are great, but at the end of the day given a choice between worrying about their jobs or the census, voters will focus on their jobs. The Liberals need a clear message on their vision for the economy, and a credible plan as to how they will achieve it. At the end of the day, voters will ask "how much will this Big Red Tent cost?"

The improving Liberal fortunes we have heard about are, to some degree, a result of them no longer making the types of mistakes that were occurring in 2009-2010. However, their fortunes have also improved as their opponents have suffered missteps. They cannot count on this type of political generosity forever.

Now is the time to start to stake their claim to be a true government-in-waiting. This means being ready to oppose and presenting a clear option. Are they ready?

Thoughts?

"Denis la Menace"

The question I am asking myself tonight is relatively straightforward. When Mr. Ignatieff stood up at his caucus retreat and said "no more" to the government, did he really expect things to unfold as they have?

Clearly the answer is no.

A few weeks ago I had suggested that however awkward the current situation was, the Liberals had nevertheless managed to break free from supporting the government. Long-term, that was an important win. At the same time, election fear had pushed the NDP to support the government allowing the Liberals oppose without consequence.

All good, right? Cue Denis Coderre.

I am not going to go through all of the background on this one but suffice to say Mr. Coderre has taken (in the grand scheme of things) a small story and made it into a big one. What was a Quebec riding issue is now being characterized as an indictment of Ignatieff's Toronto-based staff (Jane Taber has a nice piece on this in the on-line version of the G&M).

For Mr. Ignatieff, these are not happy days. The Liberals have some valid arguments to make against the "90% done" messages on the government's stimulus plan. They have tabled their confidence motion. Yet they now have to spend time and energy dealing with the Coderre fall-out and the impression it has left that things are not right at party HQ.

Tell me Mr. Harper isn't looking at Jack and saying "Why now, Jack? Why support me now?". Yes, things are looking rosy for the Conservatives.

Thoughts?