If your answer was bury your head in the sand, than you just might be Jack Layton. And your short-sighted decision then, is looking like its really going to hurt you now, in 2011.
Jack Layton is a committed environmentalist. He hasn't owned a car since 1983. His house, a charming semi in downtown Toronto is environmentally sound, retrofitted to reduce its footprint. And one suspects that he, like most environmentalists, recognise that without a real tax on carbon it will be next to impossible to mount an efficient and cost-effective campaign against greenhouse gas emissions.
The problem with a carbon tax is, of course, that it will increase costs for the largest consumers of carbon, i.e. heavy industry, inefficient manufacturers, and oil and gas producers. But that shouldn't be a problem for the NDP, right? Layton spends half his time railing against corporate interests. And there's little else in the NDP philosophy that is business friendly. So, everything being equal, it would have been a no-brainer for the party to adopt an aggressive, progressive environmental platform, thus stealing the thunder from shaky Stephane Dion's Liberals and, more critically, snuffing the green fire that was spreading on their left. But they didn't. Instead they ran with an uninspired environmental platform that was only slightly more credible than the Conservatives'.
Facing low expectations, the NDP had a good election in 2008. They increased their seats by eight. They held the line on their percentage of the popular vote. Layton's personal popularity increased. But a closer look at the results suggests that the rise of the Greens delivered a serious blow to the NDP, the effects of which have rippled across to 2011. Had the NDP been able to develop itself as a serious option for the environmentalist vote it would have captured most of the Green vote and siphoned off some of the Liberal votes. This could have resulted in 5 to 10 more seats for the NDP in 2008 at the expense of both the Conservatives and the Liberals, giving it more influence and more national prominence. More critically, it would have given them an opportunity to continue to distinguish themselves from the parties on their right and a better basis from which to fight this election.
But, instead of being positioned to benefit from the campaign, the NDP are vulnerable to collapsing in the face of the rising fortunes of the Liberal party and Michael Ignatieff. While Layton remains personally popular, the NDP platform feels sluggish, outdated and out of sync with the voter and the party is being squeezed out of relevance and media focus.
At the root of the NDP's inability in 2008 to adapt to the challenge on its left was its traditional enslavement to labour. Even though many labour leaders have softened on the party, the NDP has been unable to detach itself philosophically from its unionside roots. An aggressive environmental policy, especially one featuring a carbon tax, would have risked alienating the union leaders of Ontario's dying manufacturing base. This was in 2008, remember, before the auto sector imploded, when we were worried about the auto sector imploding.
This smaller story about failing to sieze the opportunity to embrace a green platform, redefine its relationship with labour and defend its left flank, is indicative of its faded relevance in general and its inability to reinvent itself nationally. While provincial NDP governments have shown competence, creativity and pragmatism in their different incarnations, the federal party is still beholden to aging leftist boomers, fighting ancient fights, cleaving to old allegiances and satisfied with being the occasional strident conscience of the nation instead of a generator of new ideas and policies. And satisfied with a leader who is personally popular but not capable of shaping his party into a foundation for a centre-left government.
Ideas are powerful and can be game-changing. But they are risky. Too often the inertial force of past decisions and hazy short-term considerations weigh against developing new policies and fresh perspectives. The media is mostly reactionary and backward looking. Voters are cautious and suspicious. Look what happened to Stephane Dion. But, over time, ideas can settle and frame public opinion and political debate. The politician who fails to take visionary risks does so at his or her peril.
In tonight's debate, Layton will have a last chance to demonstrate his party's relevance. He is good at the whole television thing and will undoubtedly land a few sharp quips and bon mots. But unless he can convince the electorate that his party and its policies reflect a brighter, smarter way forward, all that will happen is that he will attract more personal kudos while his party slips further and further off the voter's radar, bleeding voters on both the right and the left.
-BC
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment