I recently had a very interesting conversation with a high-level supporter of another Sask NDP candidate.
I made some comment about the NDP being in a great position to renew itself with all of the great young candidates that are running. He replied something along the lines that “only your candidate is talking renewal.”
That took me aback a bit, I have to admit.
After all, the NDP suffered its worst defeat in a generation during the last provincial election. So I think renewal/rebirth is a natural course of action. And that informed my reply when I told him “If a candidate isn’t talking renewal for the party, I’m not ranking them on my ballot – period!”
But in contemplating what he said, I think there’s perhaps a bit of truth in that there’s very clearly a range of how much renewal each candidate will represent for the party should they be chosen as the next leader.
I would rank it as follows, from least renewal to most:
LEAST
Trent Wotherspoon – as sitting MLAs, both he and Cam Broten have very similar profiles and at some level, are going to represent the least amount of change on that basis alone. But as I’ve noted in previous posts, Trent is also the only leadership candidate who supported Dwain Lingenfelter in the 2009 race. So even if Trent is talking about party renewal this time around, I think his actions speak louder than words and it’s somewhat disingenuous if he’s asking for party renewal in 2012 three short years after he failed to recognize that need in the last leadership race. A related fact (again which I’ve mentioned on this blog before) is that Trent has the support of many party insiders who supported Link last time as well – which also speaks more to status quo than change.
Cam Broten – like Trent, Cam is a sitting MLA and that inherently represents a bias towards the status quo. Further to that, although he didn’t support Dwain Lingenfelter in the 2009 race, by supporting Deb Higgins, another long-time MLA instead of throwing his support behind one of the bright young lights of the party like Yens Pedersen or Ryan Meili who had chosen to put their names forward, he was showing a bias towards maintaining the status quo rather than a desire for real renewal when it was most needed and would’ve arguably put the party three years out of the hole it currently finds itself in.
Erin Weir – Erin represents real renewal for the party in a number of ways – both as somehow who isn’t currently part of the party establishment and also as the youngest candidate in the race as well as someone who hasn’t lived in Saskatchewan for a number of years (although keeping his eye on his home province very closely, I’m sure.) But he also has deep roots in the party which mean he’s not the candidate most representative of change (which in many ways makes him very intriguing as a potential compromise candidate.)
So in terms of who represents the most change, that would be…
Ryan Meili – Without question, Ryan represents the biggest chance the party has to renew itself. He doesn’t have a long history with the party (which I know many long-time members see as a weakness but given a) how politicians, left or right, are regarded in general by society, and b) how the NDP are regarded in the province right now, that’s actually a strength as far as I’m concerned.) Beyond Ryan’s lack of a long history with the Sask NDP, he has a proven track record of reaching out to others to create new coalitions – whether as a driving force behind the inter-disciplinary SWITCH program at the U of S or with the number of new members he brought to the party in 2009 – skills which would serve him well as leader trying to renew and expand a party that’s somewhat damaged goods right now. Again, you may disagree but I think we need that type of broadening of the party in the worst way right now and I think Ryan’s easily the best positioned to accomplish this.
You’re probably reading this and thinking I’m dismissing the other three and holding up Ryan as some perfect choice for the party. In a weird way, I think it may be the opposite.
In my view, Ryan’s the right choice. But he’s got probably the biggest hurdle in front of him to make this case to others who will be voting for leader. Even with the debacle of the last provincial election, studies have repeatedly shown that people are naturally resistant to major change – even when they should know better – and this leadership race could end up being another example of that.
Ultimately, it will all come down to how much the party membership realises they need to change – if they feel the party just needs to tweak itself, Trent Wotherspoon and Cam Broten are well positioned. If they want a bigger shift, it could be Erin Weir. And if people are really willing to look at the possibility of a wholesale, ground-up, massive renewal effort (which is what I think the colleague who I mentioned at the start of this post was implying Ryan represented that the other candidates didn’t), then Ryan’s your guy and Bob’s your uncle!
Comments 4
”Renewal’ and ‘change’ are not necessarily the same thing. I find that these two words are being used interchangeably in this posting.:
-Change:is defined as: “to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone:”
-Renewal is defined as: “to begin or take up again, as an acquaintance, a conversation, etc.; resume.”
Change means to move to something different while Renewal means to resume that which was.
After the 2011 provincial election, there is no doubt in my mind that renewal of the party is necessary.
The CCF/NDP has a long history in Saskatchewan and for the record, has been the most successful political party for over 60 years. Based on the policy and direction that we offered, the people of Saskatchewan gave the NDP electoral mandates to govern in 1991 – 1995 – 1999 – 2003. After the Devine era, we were the ‘change’ that the people selected to clean up the mess and get the province back on track.
No one should argue that after being in power from 1991 to 2007, the people of Saskatchewan opted for ‘change’ from the NDP. Something totally different is what they voted for in 2007,
As a long time New Dem, I don’t believe that the 2007 and 2011 elections were a directive from the people to scrap the values, policies and traditions of the New Democratic Party. The people used their democratic mandate to opt for new management and we respect the will of the people.
I am all for renewal. Each year, winter fades into spring and life renews itself across the land.
Not having won the electoral trust of the people in 2011 it is appropriate that the NDP do some self examination. Our current leadership campaign is a great way to discuss what we offer the people of Saskatchewan by way of economic and social direction. Renewal is healthy and appropriate.
However, change is not necessarily a component of renewal. If, in our renewal debate, we find that the NDP was incorrect in some policy area, or if we find that our direction was wrong, then I would say that change is needed.
Those who advocate for massive change to party policy and direction (simply because the people opted for different management in the election), may actually be jeopardizing the future of the Saskatchewan NDP.
Our renewal may require some change. It may require radical change. But I am not convinced that opting for the candidate who symbolizes the most change is actually what the Party needs right now. That is yet to be determined. Party renewal? YES … Change, however, requires a bit more introspection and sober debate.
Hi Jim,
I admit I was using the words “renewal” and “change” somewhat interchangeably but that’s because, at least in this context, I think they are somewhat synonymous or at least closely inter-connected.
What I mean by that is, if we are in agreement that the party needs renewal (which we appear to be) then, in my view, the best way to achieve that, especially given the scope of the last loss which was one of the worst in the party’s history, is we need to have significant change in leadership. (However, to be clear, I do not equate this with a radical shift in the party’s underlying principles or fundamentals which is what I think you may have interpreted my post as implying?)
In terms of significantly changing the leadership, I want to see a leader with a completely different style, approach and background to our last leader. Why? There are many reasons but as I stated in my post, one of the big ones is that most politicians don’t have a good public perception at the best of times (somewhere between “used car salesman” and “loan shark” is how I think I’ve heard it described.)
What both Ryan and (to a lesser degree, Erin) bring to this contest is that they’re not perceived as “traditional politicians” in the same way that Trent and Cam are. I think many who pay a lot of attention to politics see that as a strength for Trent and Cam and a weakness for Erin (and especially Ryan.)
I see it completely the opposite. I’ve seen it time and again how Ryan can reach so many voters – across the entire political spectrum including those who don’t normally engage in the political process – in a way that, frankly, I don’t think any of the others can.
Ultimately, that’s what my post is about – there’s a range in the candidates from those who represent renewal to those who represent renewal + change. And the latter is what I think the party needs – to renew itself by changing the type of leader we have.
Thanks for helping me to clarify my thoughts!
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your comments over on my blog. And yes, we can certainly agree on robot arms for those who want them.
As for the changes in the party. I’m not personally sure that I could rank the candidates in order of most to least likely to affect some change on the party.
I say this, because as I mentioned in my blog post, I think of them are brining something to the table in terms of changes and renewal needed within the party. Furthermore, everyone has talked about their own plans in involving members, non-members, and community leaders in the future.
At the very least, the methodology behind spurring on change is fairly constant amongst all four candidates; which makes me think, personally, that regardless of who wins the same approach is likely to be followed in reaching out across Saskatchewan.
The only difference I would argue, would be that Cam and Trent would likely have a bit more ease at involving the current NDP caucus in their approaches. This isn’t to say that Ryan and Erin couldn’t get the caucus on board, but as colleagues, Cam and Trent already have an inside track at getting the fellow MLAs on board.
I’m certainly all for discussing the pros and cons of the candidates; as one of the “undecided” bloggers in the race, it’s a good exercise in helping me and other undecideds find a camp; hence my original response to your post.
I’m going off of memory here for you comments, as the iPad isn’t ideal for looking at two things at once, so hopefully I’ve covered everything you asked of me. If not, please feel free to leave another comment an I’ll get back to you.
I actually agree with you that all will bring something to the table in terms of renewal and change.
My point is that it’s very clear when you look at current positions, who supports them, their background, etc. that there’s an obvious continuum for how much renewal each may represent.
Cam or Trent may have an easier time involving the current NDP caucus but then again, they might not. I have no idea how each is regarded by their colleagues and with some MLA’s supporting Trent and some supporting Cam, there’s already a chance for internal divisions if one or the other wins.
An advantage that Ryan (and presumably Erin though I can’t say for sure) bring is both would come to the leadership role without the same level of pre-history with the current MLA’s and as more of a “clean slate”.
Also regarding the advantages of electing a sitting MLA, there are comparable disadvantages. We already have a very limited caucus of 9 people and if one of them becomes leader, it spreads us even thinner. If we elect a non-sitting MLA on the other hand, that person can do much of the work of renewing the party without having immediate duties in the legislature (I think you blogged about this after Ryan’s Town Hall?)
Ryan’s calling this idea “9+1” and citing leaders across the political spectrum – from Jack Layton to Grant Devine – who were elected as party leaders without holding a seat which allowed them to catapult their parties to their greatest successes.
Cheers!
Trackbacks & Pingbacks 5