Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Critical Choice For The NDP

Twice in my life I've had the misfortune of working in a unionized workplace. I say misfortune, because those two stints easily stand out as the most dysfunctional, backass experiences of my life. I still support unions in theory, but like many, many Canadians I understand the practical disconnect, the idealistic intent so often distorted in very unflattering fashion. The above a massive generalization, fully appreciating exceptions, fully understanding my experience of unproductive, nonsensical relationships, a limited perspective.

I'm not anti-union, I didn't support the government attacking postal workers, their one sided view of the world on fully display. I support BALANCE, which means often times unions and their right wing opposers both miss the mark, there is a compromised ground which neither has the proper capacity to appreciate. I mention all of this blathering in the context of the NDP and their internal struggle with unions and their prominence moving forward. From the outside, a fascinating debate that pits traditional leanings against pragmatic understanding of expanding your base.

There is an inherent contradiction for a party which prides itself on equality sanctioning a leadership process which GAMES the result, with a backroom flavour to boot. NDP MP Pat Martin, who has a long labour background, actually makes quite a bit of sense here:
Winnipeg MP Pat Martin similarly said he wants to see a "one-member-one-vote" leadership process, "plain and simple," with no special influence for labour.

"If labour wants a larger voice they can sell NDP memberships among their union members," Martin said.

"It would be one less thing for our enemies to use against us," he added, alluding to the fact that rival parties have often portrayed the NDP as captive to big labour.

Getting rid of the labour vote quota doesn't translate to diminished labour influence necessarily. There is nothing stopping unions- and their MASSIVE organizational tools- from being power brokers, they just have to work for it, rather than anointed say. In addition, the optics of "one member one vote" send a clear signal to Canadians that the NDP isn't a narrow party, but one that more can embrace without hesitation. People can debate until the cows come home, but the idea of the NDP closely tied to big labour is a very limiting proposition. Many people write off the NDP immediately because of this fact. As well, when one sees how quickly opponents of the NDP continually try to box them in as serving a special interest, it should act as a CLUE that beyond a certain threshold the affiliation is albatross in nature. Let's put it this way, as a Liberal I'm hoping the NDP maintain their 25% labour threshold.

Unions will always play a large role, so long as unions have a large membership capable of putting boots on the ground and influencing the process. Should unions diminish in stature, any artificial measures that prop up their role isn't representative, it's a bastardized process that looks more like a special interest lobbying effort than progressive politics. If unions want a certain leader, they have all the tools necessary to provide massive inputs, nobody disputes this potential within the NDP.

Unions may be a great source of support for the NDP, but they are also an irritant for many would be supporters. It will interesting to see if the NDP recognize potential evolution or remain shackled by one side of the modern political equation.

13 comments:

Peter said...

Yes, and if they keep the quota, they are going to have another problem. As much as its defenders will try to plant the image of heroic miners and factory workers exploited by greedy robber barons in the public mind, it will be fairly easy to reveal this as primarily a special, privileged role for teachers and civil servants, not exactly the most needy and beloved groups these days.

Slightly OT, Steve, do you have the impression that the Dippers and their blogging supporters have become tongue-tied about both the leadership and their policies? I realize they've been on an emotional roller coaster of late, but you are the only progressive blogger I can find so far to raise this, even though it is all over the media. It's almost as if they've bought into this fantasy that victory is theirs for the taking in 2015 if they just keep telling Harper horror stories and don't say anything about why they would do better.

Steve V said...

Slightly OT, Steve, do you have the impression that the Dippers and their blogging supporters have become tongue-tied about both the leadership and their policies?

I honestly can't recall the last time I've read an NDP blog that has shown any critical analysis of anything to do with the party, policies, decisions. You do the math :)

Peter said...

So, it isn't just me. It's like they've become so addicted to minority government, coalition talk, yada, yada, not to mention rending their garments over the latest Con outrage, that they can't get off that train and somehow think an election could come at any time, at which hour the righteous will arise and throw the Morlocks out. At least the Libs seem to undertstand they have to do some hard thinking trying to figure out why the Morlocks got in in the first place.

Purple library guy said...

Peter has a point. In a way, the problem is precisely that at issue is not Big Labour. Labour long ago stopped being Big due to the very successful assault on private sector unions, with the result that labour doesn't directly represent that many Canadian citizens any more.

Which makes it all the more urgent that the interests of working people be represented, but whether unions are a viable vehicle for that right now is less sure than it used to be.

Purple library guy said...

On the other hand, Peter and Steve both sound vaguely in denial. The NDP lately would seem to have been doing some fairly effective strategic thinking, if you measure by improving their results every election for the past, what, four?
Whereas the Liberals, um, haven't. So I'm not sure it's the NDP-oriented bloggers who should be jumping on the party leadership just now, mmm?

Steve V said...

"On the other hand, Peter and Steve both sound vaguely in denial"

I think it's cute that people don't realize there is co-ordination.

sharonapple88 said...

I wonder if Pat Martin's call for a one-member-one-vote for the leadership race of Brian Topp possibly jumping in the race. Topp has strong links to unions (like Layton did), and therefore he has a big advantage in this race.

Which makes it all the more urgent that the interests of working people be represented, but whether unions are a viable vehicle for that right now is less sure than it used to be.

It's hard to think of some substitute for a union in this regard.

Purple library guy said...

Uh, so mr. Steve V, you're saying you're in fact co-ordinating with Peter to be in denial?

Steve V said...

sharon

I think unions can play a role, but they shouldn't have an artifical quota.

Peter said...

No co-ordination, Plg. Steve is far too savvy to succumb to the seductive blandishments of a con and my fearless leader, Sevie H., tells me Libs are bad, bad, bad (You won't tell him I've been here, will you?). We have nothing in common, except perhaps a fondness for taking digs at you. :-)

Hey, I do understand the Dippers are on a roll and it is natural you want to keep internal personal and policy fights from slowing things down, but as Talleyrand once said, jamais trop de zèle. What you say about Dipper success is also true of the HarperCons, and you are going to have to persuade quite a few voters to give you the extra 30-40 seats you will need, absent a merger, and even with that I wouldn't bet the mortgage quite yet. Maybe you can hold Quebec and maybe even you can do so without losses in the ROC, but then what? You have northern Ontario and some of the crunchy left coast, but otheriwse you are a party of large urban cores. The Cons pretty much have the suburbs, small cities/towns and rural Canada. Their demographic is growing and yours is not. So, what policies are going to attract them to you? I can see the Libs cutting into that support, but so far not you, so where's the beef? Surely you don't plan to form the government by just telling everyone how you are all pure in thought and deed? Vote nice over nasty?

Full disclosure, I have another agenda. After five years of hearing you guys talk about little more than how scary and outrageous Alberta cowboys, shock jocks, Blogging Tories, libertarian fruitloops, the federal Cabinet, fundies and certain pundits and academics are, and how the Canadian public will never put up with the Cons, and how the Cons are both stupid and evil, and how you who have always hated Harper must affirm every day in every way you hate him even more than you thought you did (it sounds like you are all saying your rosaries), I can say with some confidence that you (pl.) are becoming become really, really boring! Where is the cut and thrust of policy debate? Since you started to smell power, you've become a little anal.

sharonapple88 said...

I think unions can play a role, but they shouldn't have an artifical quota.

Me too.

I suspect though that the outrage within the NDP about this has more about concerns about a titled playing field than anything else. If Pat Martin had Topp's links to unions, I don't think he'd be taking that particular stand on union votes. Topp, no surprise, seems to favour keeping the union votes, while Mulcair and Martin do not.

sharonapple88 said...

Uh, so mr. Steve V, you're saying you're in fact co-ordinating with Peter to be in denial?

Not everything's a conspiracy. Of course the first rule of Fight Club, though is not to talk about Fight Club. ;)

Tof KW said...

What Peter and Steve have in common here is they both recognize the NDP's hypocrisy and self-righteousness. That's not a conspiracy, as much as just stating the obvious.

Not to say the Conservative and Liberal bloggers don't have their share of both, but the more thoughtful ones recognize it and offer critical analysis against the party line every once and a while. Hell, it's a big reason why I like Steve's blog, no one can say he's a Liberal lapdog.

But the Dipper bloggers & their supportive commentators?

Forgetaboutit!