What the Liberals can learn from the NDP Leadership Race
[Welcome, National Newswatch readers!]
Today as the nation's capital focuses on the first in a series of votes on the government's budgetary, economic, and kitchen sink policy, another set of votes will be taken on the future of one of the historic players in Canada's political party system.
It's the day the leadership of the Liberal Party sets down the rules by which the new Leader will be selected.
The Ottawa bubble is focused on two major storylines in that regard – whether Bob Rae can run, and whether Justin Trudeau will (or should) – but many other issues must be decided, any of which could have an impact on the party's chances of rebuilding and moving forward.
The Liberals arrive at the point of choosing a Leader in a very different set of circumstances than the NDP, and somewhat different from the Bloc Québécois. Like the Bloc, their leader resigned in the immediate wake of a surprisingly poor showing in the May 2011 election, though had both their fortunes unfolded differently, Michael Ignatieff probably had a little more shelf-life as leader than did Gilles Duceppe.
This means that several potential Bloc leadership candidates had already been testing the waters, building a platform and team, and getting ready for a possible leadership run by the time of Duceppe's exit, and that party had a fairly clear process for picking his replacement. Though a minority preferred a longer renewal and decision-making timeline, the Bloc's braintrust settled on a quick leadership race, which featured a smaller subset of the original likely candidates, but a set of them ready to go, regardless. A caucus elder was the obvious choice for interim leader, he led in the interim which was mercifully short, and once the decision was made everyone just got on with it.
The Liberals, by contrast, opted to try and cure themselves of repetitive leaderitis, and thus took a longer period of reflection (which would have also afforded any potential candidates sufficient time to assess the competitive landscape and do the necessary prep work to help them make a good decision when the time came).
Either way, both of those parties will have arrived at leadership launch day with some pretty well-formed leadership campaigns ready to go.
That was not the case for the NDP, many of whose potential leadership candidates were expecting a race as many as four years down the road, and who were thus still assembling their campaigns on the fly behind the scenes after the campaign officially launched. While the media called the race long and tedious, much of the groundwork usually laid months and years in advance was now taking place in real time, and the obvious deficiencies of each candidate were often left unremedied for lack of time to fully address them. In reality, the NDP didn't have much choice in the matter, as they needed to move to a race fairly quickly given the other circumstances, but it did lead to a campaign somewhat lacking in full-on policy development in a number of cases, and candidates who needed some more experience in a number of key skills.
This, I believe, leads to the first lesson the Liberals should learn from the recent NDP Leadership Race:
1. Take the time truly required to ensure that a good number of potential candidates are ready to put their best foot forward in a leadership campaign.
In fact, there are a number of Liberal leadership candidates who have already been travelling to party events across the country, and have campaign teams in various states of readiness. They aren't always the names you hear in Ottawa, but if I was one of those candidates, the Hy's summer patio would be one of my last campaign stops, not one of the early ones, at this stage of the game.
A related issue is getting the incentives right for the appropriate balance between facilitating new blood to run, and not hampering substantive debate between the candidates. Just ask the NDP how difficult it was to get the 9-candidate debate formats right in order to please multiple interests (party members, the media, live broadcasters, leadership candidates, local organizers, etc.). A fully regionally, generationally, linguistically, and visibly diverse group of candidates is also a large group of candidates. And there's only so much you can say of substance in 30-second answers. Hence the next lesson:
2. Make sure the entry rules enable a true and fulsome debate between a set of viable and well-prepared candidates.
Part of what many NDP members pushed the party executive to do was set the rules so as to give them a wide range of choices. In particular, they wanted Mr. Mulcair's candidacy to be viable, which meant giving the party's Quebec section time to catch up in membership work with the rest of the country. In the end, it's not clear the extra time did accomplish that to the extent they hoped for in Quebec, I've argued elsewhere. Perhaps human nature needing a deadline would have accomplished the same work in less time, who knows. But this emphasizes another lesson.
3. Design the process in a way that will help build the party on a long-term basis.
I wonder if the new Supporter category is going to do this for the Liberals. To me, you want people with at least some stake in the outcome making the decisions if they're going to be good ones, and no membership fee = potentially no stake. Of course, all Canadians have a stake in the outcome of electios, but picking the person who will make all the key strategic and resource allocation decisions of a political party in order to help that party win actual seats entails a very different set of intermediate stakes – the kind that riding activists and party election volunteers are much more attuned to.
The Supporter category does have the benefits of (a) being something new, and (b) allowing the party to harvest email addresses of its universe of likely supporters in the next election, so it's not without some merit. On the other hand, I wonder if Liberal Party elders have fully absorbed how potentially disruptive it could be to their party's infrastructure to have a swarm of minimally committed social media denizens vote and run, leaving the party with a leader having little institutional mandate to undertake the reforms they know have to come next. And speaking of next steps …
4. Make sure the race itself doesn't hobble the party in what it needs to do afterwards.
So much money (not by their standards at the time, mind you, but in light of subsequent financial demands) was spent on the 2006 Liberal leadership race on things like salaries and hospitality suites and who knows what other luxuries, that the cupboard was bare amongst party donors by the time a major TV ad buy was needed to respond to the Conservatives. And some candidates are still struggling to pay off those debts.
The spending limit has to reflect the party's new circumstances. The Liberals need to find a leader who can maximize the value of every campaign dollar now, because that's the kind of leader they'll need in 2015.
Another aspect of this lesson is to ensure that all candidates and their teams believe they've been treated fairly, and that all eligible voters (members and "Supporters") feel they've had a fair opportunity to participate and cast their ballots. The contest has to be run by a group of party elders with no other interests than the long-term best interests of the whole organization. High penalties should be levied for hijinks and trying to skirt the rules, and some of the crazy membership rules (you can only get xx number of forms at a time, and only if you have a friend in the department and stand on your head while juggling, etc., etc.) need to be tossed in favour of a system where any Canadian who wants to can join up, and each of the leadeship contestants can have fair and equal access to that new voter. And create a culture that will reward collaboration after the race, rather than exacerbate divisions.
This leads me to the last lesson for the party:
5. Plan for the long-term, focus on what matters, and don't sweat the small stuff so much.
The amount of fuss about an interim leader having some advantage through extra Question Period profile or travel time is out of all proportion to the actual benefit, and overlooks the associated risks for that individual now having a record as well. Every candidate is going to have some inherent advantages and acquired shortcomings before this is all over. It doesn't matter. Also, as Interim Leader, that person was never supposed to make party policy, nor could they be expected to out-poll a honeymooning competitor, or move mountains either for that matter. The leadership process now is supposed to allow the party to pick the best leader for the next task at hand. Focus on that.
Equally, the next interim leader does not need to win every news cycle in Twitterdom. No-one will remember that in a year's time. And any party preference polls taken during the leadership race are purely hypothetical, as will be the ones that test various leadership candidates' names against the current Prime Minister or NDP Leader. Plus, if the GOP primaries were anything to go by, in a large slate, each contestant is going to go through a honeymoon followed by a brutal vetting, so don't count any chickens before they've fully hatched.
Whoever is elected leader will need to have and share a long-term vision for the party, and curb its tendency to manage only to the daily Ottawa news cycle. They will need the trust of the members and a mandate to take the difficult decisions. Twitter stardom may or may not help in all this, but gravitas or down-home common sense might do the job just as well.
As for some of the mechanical details, if the Liberals are going to use online voting, they will be at less risk of a serious Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack if it's used only for advanced voting, or is not constrained to short voting windows while on live TV. If it's high profile and time-limited on the other hand, it's an irresistable target for the parents' basement nerd disrupter squads.
While we're at it, it's not only the Liberals who have some lessons to learn, but the rest of us when following the race. Here are some of the pointers I've taken away;
- The Ottawa media will crown someone as a front-runner who they know and/or think their audiences already know.
- For this reason, carrying the mantle of the early "front-runner" is not always all it's cracked up to be.
- A good idea and a clear message about it can vault an underestimated candidate into the final consideration set, ahead of many other more familiar names.
- One member-one vote races require organization to win, but organization alone is not sufficient to win them.
- Regardless of how many other things a candidate does well, it will be One Big Thing that trips them up in the end, and that one big thing is usually knowable or guessable in the first week or so.
- It can be hard to tell the difference between a Game Changer and a Hail Mary Pass when you're in the thick of a campaign, but it's obvious to pretty much everyone else on the outside eventually.
Are there any other lessons you think can be drawn from recent experience?
Tags: Leadership Contests, Liberal 2013 Leadership Contest, NDP 2012 Leadership Contest
Characteristically solid analysis.
I would add one final, crucial leadership “don’t”. Do not permit your interim leader to become a flashpoint for visceral division which at once saps needed party energy, provokes conflict between already hostile factions and – worst of all – invites explicit or coverdoubts edible doubts about the fundamental fairness of the process itself.
Nycole Turmel’s interim leadership was unfairly blasted in some (overwhelmingly Liberal) quarters for its lackluster quality, but in fact she did precisely what interim leaders are explicitly meant to: hold down the fort, maintain unity, and ride with dignity into the leadership sunset once the membership speaks. Somewhat ironically, Bill Graham was another good example of this internal statesmanship.
Rigged executive decision or not, Bob Rae’s entry into the race in defiance of his “solemn undertaking” to remain neutral and avoid any perception of exploiting his sensitive position during the party’s desperate recent nadir has the potential to become explosively divisive real fast.
The Liberal executive ought to consider this a point of core credibility.
Good piece Alice – it reminds us how much we miss them when you don’t writ for awhile! ;-(
A few other points from the NDP contest:
Don’t let the race be such a grueling marathon. All candidates & teams were exhausted by the end, while the media were bored & dismissive because the campaign lasted longer than Joe Clark’s government did!
And spending limits that seem fair aren’t if stretched too far.
Second – don’t start voting before the official tour & debates end. Sounds reasonable but the NDP did begin balloting early – see my rant on that – http://billtieleman.blogspot.ca/2012/03/why-does-federal-ndp-allow-voting-to.html
Third – expect one candidate previously unknown nationally to catch fire – Nathan Cullen did that for the NDP & raised interest in the whole contest.
Lastly – expect an attack not only from the rich Conservative Party but also from the not poor NDP – both have an interest in keeping the Liberals down in the polls.
Good post Alice. I think that maybe you are missing something, to whit: The new supporter category changes everything, and I mean EVERYTHING. Past leadership contests in the Liberal Party have been won by the team best organised to recruit ‘rent-a-member’ lists of new supporters. Sure the ‘recruits’ paid $20 each, but that hardly constitutes a commitment. The campaigns will now have to behave in a way that mirrors an actual campaign, they will have to reach out to masses of people in the general population, and try to motivate them to become committed supporters and cast a ballot for their preferred candidate based upon pretty much the same factors that would motivate them to vote in an election. That means that the campaign teams will be building the party in the long term, because those who fail to make a lasting impression in a wider venue will get nowhere. In addition, those lists of supporters will mean more than large email lists to harvest. There will be plenty of work done identifying issues of interest, and fleshing out those lists of supporters with additional information that is absolutely critical for any party that wants to narrowcast to taregetted lists of supporters on specific issues. The Liberals have a very long way to go to catch up to the CPC, or even the NDP on that front. From my perspective, this contest will give the Liberal Party a huge leg up when the next general election rolls around. I would rather have a fair amount of information on a huge list of quasi committed supporters than a collection of bare names and addresses of people who coughed up $20 and whose contact information was hidden or destroyed by those who recruited them.
No, I get that it changes how the race will unfold, You’ve identified the way it could work well, but a lacklustre job or short-term-ism could see a lot of those potential benefits unfulfilled, too.
Some very good advice. Will the Liberals take it? I doubt it. The fix is in and Rae will be crowned the new leader. The rules will be rigged in his favour and he will be the new messiah. That is what the Liberals want…a messiah. Hence the name of Justin Trudeau keeps popping up in the media. Why? Because the media think there will be Trudeau mania again. The kids may vote for him but the older population will simply smile and vote for somebody else and that would be Stephen Harper. Honestly do the Libs believe that Justin Trudeau could beat an incumbent PM? Where is there evidence he has any leadership abilities. What has he done personally and professionally that would cause serious minded Canadians to vote for him.
There is no evidence the Libs have learned their lesson. They are still arrogant as is the interim leader of that moribund party. No matter who becomes leader the Liberals are not in the running in 2015 given their starting point.
Well all I can say is that any candidate who tries to win under the old rules (lack-lustre and short-term-ism) will get nowhere. The winner of the race will have to campaign in the ‘correct’ way. The race will be won by reaching out to the general population, and motivating ’soft’ supporters. Damn, it is interesting! I think it is time for me to post on a ‘model’ campaign plan under the new rules. Don’t expect any six figure budgets for hospitality suites! The membership will be the grounds in which volunteers and donors will be recruited, the actual campaign will likely have a huge earned and paid media component. Like I said, EVERYTHING will change this time.
All this pre-supposes a need for a Liberal Leadership Convention. It is time for the Executive of the Party to start listening to the party members. According to a recent poll 64% of Liberals and 57 % of NDP members believe the 2 parties should combine in some form. The only people who seem to be against the idea are the Executives and present leaders of the two parties. I find it sad that Bob Rae and Thomas Mulcair continue to be oblivious to the fact that Chretein won three majorities due to the division between the PCs and the Reformers. Also to the fact that Harper only won when Mulrooney impressed upon Harper and McKay the need to unite. If we do not unite the progressives will wander in the political desert longer than Moses did in his.
Great post Alice and good advise. As a Liberal activist in Saanich – Gulf Islands I am looking forward to the next few months. The ’supporters’ addition is going to be interesting and we are planning to take advantage of its opportunities here. I tend to agree with Bluegreenblogger on this.
More to come, keep up the great analysis. I agree with Bill T, we really miss you when you are off doing other things like trying to make a living!!
“The contest has to be run by a group of party elders with no other interests than the long-term best interests of the whole organization.”
In the Liberal party, finding anyone who fits both those criteria at once might be tough. Liberal party elders tend to be corrupt backroom boys with axes to grind.
The truth be known, Rae has concluded that the LPC is unrepairable and it will soon split between Red and Blue Grits, each going their own way… to the Dippers or the Cons. Anybody who thinks that Justin Trudeau, barely out of political diapers, can take hold of the Liberal party and breath life into it, is truly deluded. Justin had enough problems trying to organize his personal life, and to expect him to rebuild the Liberal party in His image … well that’s ludicrous.
A good way to look at a leadership race once more of the pieces have fallen into place is to examine some of the fault lines amongst the candidates.
These fault lines will often mirror broader divisions within the party because obviously the candidates believe there is a constituency for them. (Not that they are always correct on that count …)
So who’s going to be the Nathan Cullen of the Liberal race and advocate riding level cooperation or outright merger with the NDP and or Greens ?
No doubt Chretien will play the role of Pat Martin and boost the notion from the sidelines.
But i’d expect some pretty strong, even hostile pushback against the unity candidate.
Lacking clear ideological motivations the Liberals are even more likely to identify with the Liberal/Canada brand and exhibit tribalism than other progressives.
You dont need me saying Chretien from the ’sidelines’ is a bit more of a force than Pat Martin in the NDP.
In fact, knowing you would have Chretien’s backing is qyuite an incentive for someone to enter the race with the main plank of pushing even outright merger.
Good thing I didn’t comment yesterday with my lead that there was no way Rae wasn’t going to run and probably win.
I doubt Justin will run but at least at 40 if he wants to commit to 25 years focused on saving his party and at best achieved second place and Leader of the Opposition, at least that’s a reasonable goal.
As I keep on about, the important factor in leadership races is the war between the Blue and Red wings of the Party and that the losing wing accepts their defeat. Libs would be better served to have a race like the Conservative one where the Blue Tories and Reformers beat the Red Tories. Really a two person race with Belinda funding Tony to try to pick up his second ballot votes.
The last Lib race in 2006 (not counting Iggy’s rigging in 2008) was an ego fest with candidates with no hope running to improve their chances at a seat in Cabinet.
A caucus member has to win, a leader outside of the House will hasten the party’s death. LeBlanc is my gut’s pick. Justin maybe if he surrenders to the media pressure.
To narrow the list of 33 MPs, if you are not under 50, you shouldn’t run. If you didn’t win by a comfortable margain, you shouldn’t run. McGuinty at 52 could pull it off.
My perception is that LeBlanc is mostly a Blue Lib as is McGuinty is as well so is there anyone from the Red Libs left to run? Just Justin without actually studying a list.
It is a long standing pattern the Red never let a Blue be the Leader so this increases the pressure on Justin.
“It is a long standing pattern the Red never let a Blue be the Leader so this increases the pressure on Justin.”
George, interesting observation. Just out of interest where do you place PM’s Turner and Martin on this Blue – Red continuum?
Alice, going to your first point, I think that Rae, having made the decision he did, has given the Party and any potential candidates, the breathing space they need to begin planning. There will be no reason for anyone to start their campaign til September which will give everyone involved opportunity to do some serious planning. Rae remains as Interium Leader so there are not the same sort of pressures that the NDP were under with the untimely death of Jack Layton.
That being said, I am looking forward to a series of potential candidates coming through SGI during the summer to test the waters!
Totally Blue both of them, Paul. Reds tried to dump Turner during an election, faction was more important than the Party.
Tories have the same thing but it is far more pronounced in the Libs being a centrist party. NDs have a little of it as well but not ever being in contention, it has not developed as it has for the other two.
This of course could change now.
Jean C is the one that I argue with a Lib buddy in Van about as I call him Red more because he was the flagbearer of their faction. He was really a manager, probably from his many years of Cabinet in many roles. He was the ultimate civil servant who was in charge.