Reply to comment

You raise some interesting points Judy. The relationship between the NDP and the social movements are at least as strong as each of the parts. That symbiotic relationship benefits both "sides". The social movements have a foot onto Parliament Hill with some influence, voice, solidarity and advice to the party, while the party translates that into votes in elections. Perhaps - notwithstanding real policy differences within and outside the party with Mulcair - his victory is an opportunity to strengthen and expand that relationship.

In his victory speech, Mulcair said that his strategy is to win the next election, in part, by networking and winning over movement activists and groups which are disengaged from electoral politics. I think that should be seen as a positive signal. As well, he has asserted that finding an broader NDP constituency means reaching out to people who don't vote because they don't see the point. That's another positive signal vis a vis Nash and Cullen's push for prioritizing proportional representation.

A process that would enable the social movements and Tom Mulcair to get to know each other better could be a vital first step to building the kind of machine that will be needed to defeat Stephen Harper. Fillmore's comment at the top of the comments lays out a challenge to social movements / ngos. The stakes are too high to substitute sound bites for concrete analysis. There are many creative approaches that can be taken which can help both the social movements and the NDP get closer to their goals.

As Nathan Cullen said, we need to have a respectful conversation and never be afraid of ideas.