NDP Conventions involve a process where differences are discussed in public. For those who enjoy politics and want to watch democracy in action, that can be exciting but it can also expose the party to potentially damaging and misleading spins. Compare that to the BC Liberal Party conventions where little or no policy is debated and outside observers are effectively barred through ridiculously high visitor fees.

I don't think Vaughn Palmer writes the headlines that go on his columns, but the headline on his November 5th column read "Committees control NDP convention agenda". Of course, like any organization, committees do much of the work to prepare for convention including organizing the resolutions in each topic area in order by priority. The convention rules provide for an appeal process to change the priorities set by the various committees. The delegates control the convention; the committees merely facilitate an orderly convention although that is not as intriguing as some sort of imagined control.

As opposed to the misleading headline, Palmer's column accurately described what can be found in the draft book of prioritized resolutions. When the convention approves the agenda, a process that frequently involves debate and can include amendments, it will set time limits for each subject area. Once the time allocated to a topic area is exhausted, the remaining resolutions essentially die, although over the course of the year the party's Provincial Council may consider a handful. Old hands know that one way to defeat low priority resolutions is to have a sufficient number of people talk long enough on the first few resolutions so as to run out the clock. Those organizing to change party policy know that their resolution must be near the top priorities. It is inaccurate to report that lower priority resolutions, which don't get debated or passed, represent anything more than the suggestion of whichever component of the party submitted the resolution.

The Federal NDP elects its leader by a modified "one member one vote (OMOV)" system. Each member has a vote, and those votes make up 75% of the total vote. The affiliated organizations (unions) make up the balance. No one should think that the affiliates vote as a block; their vote always splits. The BC NDP may adopt that method but there is nothing in the first priority resolution in "party and constitutional" affairs that makes that certain. If it obtains the required two thirds majority, that resolution would amend the party's constitution so that "After 2003, the Provincial Leader shall be elected by all individual and affiliated members in good standing of the Provincial Party", but the resolution doesn't say how and it doesn't say what weight would be given to the affiliates. The proposal is that a committee be struck to work out those "details" and that its work be submitted to and extensively considered by Provincial Council over the course of at least two Council meetings. In that process, those who want "true OMOV" could attempt to reduce the weight of the votes by the affiliates to near zero.

Palmer correctly pointed to a resolution that would allow a vice president of the party to be designated the "Labour Vice President" and elected by just the members of the labour caucus. If that motion receives the required two thirds support of the delegates, it would formalize what has been a long standing practice of having one of the party's vice presidents come from labour. It is to the benefit of labour to elect a labour friendly government. Why then would labour support resolutions that generate public backlash and make it more difficult to win support for the party it supports? Maybe that is why that resolution is placed as priority 7, meaning that is stands a low chance of being debated, let alone passed.

A resolution that is the first priority in the category, "good government", would have the party support amendments to election finance legislation so as to prohibit contributions from all but individuals and to restrict the maximum amount any individual can contribute. That is a dramatic step in the direction of reducing the power of unions and companies in the political process.

Palmer claimed that "almost 200 of the estimated 850 delegates will be affiliates -- i.e., directly chosen by affiliated trade unions." In fact, there will be fewer than 160 union delegates; the lowest number at any NDP convention in the last twenty years. Labour has started the process of creating a little more distance between itself and the NDP by affiliating fewer of its members. The NDP and labour will always be close because they share common values of supporting the rights of workers, but they are showing that they understand that a new relationship between the party and labour might better serve those common interests. The political right would prefer to run against certain unions; it will do what it can to misrepresent the change that is developing in the ties between the NDP and labour. Only mischief makers look at low priority resolutions that will never be debated, much less passed, and try to portray them as representing the party.