Mining For Good Policy in the NDP Leadership Race
Paul Dewar tells reporters about the fish he just caught. Just don’t ask him about policy.
Via the Canadian Press
This week, I was offered a curious thought.
The thought goes that this NDP leadership race ought not introduce any new policy, and rather it should focus itself on who is best able to lead the party to victory.
It’s a valid thought, no doubt, and it makes a lot of sense coming out of Mulcair’s camp.
That said, I think it’s enormously stupid.
Now, let me frame that by saying - I think, perhaps, the idea is correct insofar as the leader must be a leader, not a policy maker (at least to some extent.) But, on the other hand, this is perhaps the best chance for innovative, bold policy solutions to come forward on the national stage. And it doesn’t matter if the candidate proposing those policies wins - it matters that the policy gets out there.
Being a leader is important, but offering a robust plan to actually address some of the issues that this country faces is much, much important. I realize that Tom is running on his experience crafting the party over the past few years. That’s a fine record to run on, and I won’t deride that. I just think he’s missing a great opportunity to put forward a more bold solution. Hey, maybe he will, but it doesn’t look like it at present.
And that’s why it’s such a shame that some of these candidates are keeping their cards close to their chest. No doubt every campaign has a great braintrust of very smart folks, and releasing that deluge of knowledge would benefit the candidate, the party, Canada, AND THE WORLD.
Peggy Nash Dips a Toe In
I’ve been a tad harsh on the Peggster and her black hole of concrete policies. That has changed (a smidgen) with a few policy documents that have come out recently.
Unfortunately, Nash hasn’t released real policy documents and has instead limited herself to press releases with bullet points of policy. However, it’s better than nothing, and it’s giving us a look into her progressive financial bona fides.
Soft Protectionism.
The first press release delves into the Investment Canada Act. That’s pretty nerdy, so naturally my goosebumps were on edge.
The document is a tad repetitious and, perhaps, needlessly complicated for the point she’s trying to make - let’s make sure that foreign capital coming into the country is benefiting Canada. One way to do that, she says, is to lower the threshold for a review on investments to $100 million (it currently stands at $330 million, a $158 million increase since 1997.) According to Industry Canada, these limits apply only to WTO members (non-WTO members are given much lower levels.)
Okay, so the first plank basically says that Prime Minister Nash would instigate more reviews of foreign investment in Canadian industry. A very soft, indirect protectionism.
The next three bullet points riff on the same theme. Public consultations and cost-benefit analyses of foreign investment.
That’s all great, and it’s a great theme, but is it actually substantive enough? You can review until you’re blue in the face, but this isn’t exactly bold policy. Bold policy would alter the way that foreign companies invest in Canada, not merely mitigate the problems with it. Bold policy would shed protectionism for the sake of strong industrial policy here in Canada. I have no doubt that Peggy has those answers in her bag of financial policy, I’m just dying to see it.
So it’s a good start for her, but it’s not enough. This feels more like a third-tier policy announcement.
Keep It Light, Keep It Bright, Keep It Gay!
Peggy also rolled out her LGBT platform (No Q, Peggy? C’mon!)
In it, she commits to implementing the NDP’s trademark Trans Rights bill. That’s no surprise, as all the caucus is in ‘violent agreement’ on that one. In fact, Peggy-endorser Randall Garrison is re-introducing that very bill (for the umpteenth time.)
Now the next point is a tad thorny (and difficult to do accurate research on, it seems, due to lack of media interest in the story. Sigh.) but Peggy commits to “restoring adequate and long term Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) funding to deal with Canada’s HIV/AIDS/HCV epidemics.” Now, as best as I can tell, there are no funding cuts to HIV/AIDS/HCV programs in the PHAC. At the time that this document was released, it was speculated that there may be, so it’s not like this is out of left field. The real issue with the changes to HIV/AIDS funding in the PHAC is detailed in this Xtra story. Basically, the government has made it harder for independent groups to file for funding with PHAC. It’s nice that she included this, but she’s tilting at windmills a bit. (If anyone can point me to PHAC cuts that I’ve missed, feel free.)
Next is a commitment to tie foreign policy to LGBTQ rights. I’ve already written on this issue when Hilary Clinton proposed it, and the principal stands. Using Western-metrics to gauge how other countries treat their queer populations is absurd, and it’s even crazier to try and leverage change from the other side of the world. Queer imperialism isn’t going to work.
The last point is about supporting provincial anti-bullying campaigns. That’s not revolutionary, but a good idea nonetheless.
Basically, this whole policy doc is a big yawn. It’s nice that she’s released something - anything - on LGBTQ rights, but it’s a shame that it’s offering no new solutions.
The Bold and the Bald; Nathan Cullen Answers the Questions That Nobody Asked.
I’ve done my fair share of Cullen-bashing, too, but I think I’m warming up to the guy. He’s still a long-shot, a wonk, and completely off-base with his cooperation scheme, but he’s an interesting fellow.
Energy Policy!
This is a really exciting document that I hope the eventual-winner (whoever it is) commits to memory.
Interest-free retrofit loans for low-income families? Updating the National Building Code to focus on energy-efficiency? Joining California on fuel-efficiency standards? Encourage local energy production? These are wonderful ideas. The document also says how he’ll pay for it.
It’s not that Cullen is proposing things that other candidates will disagree with, that’s not the point of proposing policy. What’s great is that he came out, put it in the forefront of the dialog and encouraged others to do the same. Opening up the marketplace of ideas is always a great way to improve a party. That’s why the Liberals risk falling into oblivion - they’ve closed their policy dialog and are trying to look unified and strong. Cullen is putting his cards on the table and thus pushing others to do the same.
And Then There’s the Queen.
He also proposed putting the monarchy to a vote. I’m not even against this idea - quite the opposite, I’m entirely for it. That said - why, Nathan, why? Nothing turns voters off more than wacky suggestions that address none of the fundamental issues facing the country. When people are asking you how you’ll save their job or help them feed their kids, you don’t respond with “THE QUEEN HAS GOT TO GO!”
No, this is something you do, not something you promise before the fact. Wildly changing the subject threatens to derail intelligent conversation and leave people questioning your commitment to, y’know, dealing with important things.
Nevermind the ‘cooperation’ thing. (Don’t get me started.)
Brian Topp, the Policy Guy
I’ve already done the “I’m so impressed that somebody is actually putting together creative policy” pitch for Topp. Between his smart taxplan that everyone is thinking but nobody is saying, to his document outlining his vision of social democracy (a political science major’s wet dream. Luckily I’m not a political science major) or his really clever solution on dealing with the House and Senate.
Brian has, thus far, talked about his policies more than actually detailed them. The stuff he’s released so far has been great, and the stuff he’s talking about has been encouraging. I’ve been told we can expect a deluge of more hard-core policy documents in the coming weeks, which makes me remarkably excited.
It’s exciting, because Brian need not release any policy at all. All he really had to do was whip out the 2011 NDP platform, throw it on the debate podium and give the other candidates a “Yeah? What’s up? That was me” look.
Luckily, he didn’t do that. Rather than resting on the laurels of the previous platform, he’s putting forward new solutions and challenging others to do the same. That’s exciting. I’m hoping for some exciting proposals in the coming weeks.
And Here’s Martin Singh
Say what you will about Martin Singh (believe me, I’ve already said it - but meaner) at least he’s proposing something different.
Sure, You’ve Seen Martin Singh, but Have You Seen Martin Singh - ON DRUGS?
He released a 22 page healthcare document. Like, holy crap. It even has footnotes. And graphs.
It is quite possibly the most intelligent thing I’ve read so far in this race. I think it may even be more detailed than the NDP’s pharmacare plan. I sincerely hope that Martin wins himself a seat very soon and writes more of this stuff for massive nerds like myself.
In the document, Martin suggests a federal prescription drug plan. That’s a really good idea. It may not sound revolutionary, but it would involve fusing together provincial and private plans into one, federally-administered one. Considering that some provincial parties, such as the Alberta NDP, are proposing provincial drug plans, a strategy that takes into account those caveats in the final federal plan is a very good idea. No doubt, Martin knows how to do that.
Stuff About Entrepreneurs, Too.
Okay, this policy document is a little less exciting. It’s mostly just “encourage people!” but stretched to 1,500 words.
But it definitely fills the void created by the endless proselytizing in the top-tier over the environment, jobs and inequality. Certainly those three things are major priorities, but there is room to talk about other things (just not the damn queen, Nathan.)
There’s Bad Policy, Too. Just Ask Paul Dewar.
Oh, Paul.
I want nothing more than to like Paul Dewar. I’ve watched him for years. Being a massive foreign policy wonk, I sat and waited with bated breath for Dewar to come out with some exciting policy.
Nothing.
What does he have? A vague promise to reduce tuition fees and interest on student loans. Essentially, if you read between the lines, he’s just copying the NDP’s 2011 post-secondary education act. There’s virtually no difference.
Then there’s the promise to peg federal financing to political parties based on how many women they run. This is, of course, absurd. While encouraging more women to run is great, his proposal would essentially empower the federal parties to over-ride direct democracy in the riding associations and install female candidates merely because they want the money. That’s not a solution.
And then there’s a really vague document about creating jobs or something.
Nevermind his performance at the debates. He basically just repeated “EAST-WEST GRID! INFRASTRUCTURE FUND!” until he was blue in the face. Neither ideas are new, exciting or (in the case of the grid) viable.
And the Other Three
Mulcair, Ashton and Saganash have put on a good show, but have said very little.
Mulcair, the Leadership Guy.
Mulcair is content being the ‘leadership’ guy. The one that looks nice on a stage, can carry a message and who looks like he can win. That’s certainly a good strategy, but I’m not convinced it’s a good idea.
Substance is important for social democrats. Those nuts need to know, A. You’re left-wing enough, B. You’re committed to fundamental New Democrat values, C. You’re not Bob Rae.
Without releasing substantive policy, I think many New Democrats might not trust Mulcair.
Ashton, and New Politics™
I’ve made fun of Ashton plenty for her New Politics™ shtick, but I’m really disappointed that she appears to have come out for nothing.
Ashton is a bright kid with a strong future in the party, and may well end up as leader a few years down the road. Just because she won’t win this time doesn’t mean she shouldn’t bring something to the table. As of right now, Ashton is sort of just there. She’s offering nothing. She’s the kind of person who shows up to a potluck and doesn’t bring anything. Not even wine. She just tells you how much she loves potlucks.
Now, any Ashton supporters reading this are probably already mumbling ”But she has a 10-point-plan!” This is true. Unfortunately, there’s nothing in that plan that contains policy or new ideas.
Where’s Saganash?
Like Ashton, it’s such a shame that Saganash isn’t coming out more vocally on policy. Travelling the country and glad-handing supporters is great. Bringing forth his immense wealth of experience on First Nations issues, foreign policy, trade, housing, etc. would be much more useful.
