Newfoundland NDP Leader Facing Revolt?

150 posts / 0 new
Last post
Centrist
Newfoundland NDP Leader Facing Revolt?

Nfld NDP leader Lorraine Michael had a 63% approval rating in the latest Angus Reid Canadian premier's survey - the 2nd highest support level in Canada, of any leader, after Brad Wall from SK. And the Nfld NDP has been polling very well, thank-you very much.

And then I just stumbled upon this... WTF? 

Quote:

N.L. NDP Leader Lorraine Michael facing caucus revolt

4 MHAs send letter asking for leadership convention to be held in 2014 for 'party renewal'

The entire Newfoundland and Labrador NDP caucus says Lorraine Michael’s position as leader should be put to the test in a party vote next year, CBC News has learned.

"We believe that a leadership convention in 2014 is critical if there is to be party renewal and growth in support for the New Democratic Party in Newfoundland and Labrador," the caucus wrote in a letter emailed to Michael this weekend.

"We collectively make this request out of genuine concern for our party's ability to attract quality candidates and build on our level of public support in advance of the 2015 election …

We hope you are receptive to our request."

The entire NDP caucus — Dale Kirby, George Murphy, Gerry Rogers and Christopher Mitchelmore — signed the message.

Michael feels 'betrayed'

Michael told CBC News Monday she feels “betrayed” by the letter.

“I was really quite shocked because there had never been a discussion of this nature with me before I went on holiday,” Michael said.

Within hours of returning to the province this weekend, Michael received the letter.

She says her chief of staff and the provincial NDP president were also shocked.

“It blindsided all of us, really,” Michael said.

The matter must be resolved “fairly quickly,” she says.

Michael plans to meet with her fellow MHAs as soon as possible.

“I’m going to sit with them and talk and see if that’s what they really mean. I know what’s in the letter. I want to say, ‘OK, is that what you want? You want me gone?’ Well, there’s only one way for that to happen — it’s either for me to resign or for the party to go ahead and put petitions out and kick me out …

“If they say they want me gone, and they’re not ready to sit down and talk about issues, then I’ll have to consider what that means.”

Michael won leadership in 2006

Michael – a former teacher, Roman Catholic nun and social advocate – won the Newfoundland and Labrador NDP’s top job in 2006. She replaced long-time leader Jack Harris after his retirement from provincial politics.

She won a byelection in Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that year, defeating Tory star candidate Jerome Kennedy.

Michael was re-elected in the 2007 general election, and served the next four years as the only New Democrat in the legislature.

The NDP surged to five seats in 2011, establishing a strong beachhead in the metro St. John’s area and narrowly missing out of Official Opposition status. The New Democrats took 25 per cent of the overall popular vote – six points higher than the Liberals.

Months later, in the summer of 2012, the NDP made history by leapfrogging the Tories into first place in a province-wide public opinion poll. An Environics Research Group survey put their level of support at 38 per cent.

But that surge has since stalled. The Liberals have pulled into first place in recent polling with NDP numbers remaining strong, but flat.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/n-l-ndp-leader-lorraine-michael-facing-caucus-revolt-1.2129212

 

Anyone have anymore insight?!

 

NorthReport

Every single cancus memeber wants her to go and so she should.

Do the right thing and resign as leader.

jerrym

Here's a video of Lorraine Michael being interviewed on CBC about the revolt. 

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/NL/ID/2413308355/

pebbles

My respect for the four NDP MHAs, who were elected under Lorraine's leadership just two years ago this month, has gone way, way, way, way down.

 

I really expected better. This is disgusting.

pebbles

[double post]

pebbles

NorthReport wrote:

Every single cancus memeber wants her to go and so she should.

Do the right thing and resign as leader.

Every single caucus member needs to give their head a shake. This is how opposition parties STAY in opposition for a very long time.

NorthReport

First of all, you have never been an NDP supporter that I can remember, so I take whatever you Liberals say about the NDP, with a very large grain of salt. 

hTe fact that it is every one of the caucus members states a clear and unequivocal message. This person is not the right leader for the job, and it is about friggin' time the NDP started to wield the knife when things are going South on them. 

 

Bravo! Smile

pebbles

NorthReport wrote:

First of all, you have never been an NDP supporter that I can remember, so I take whatever you Liberals, or whatever  you say aboutr the NDP, with a very large grain of salt.

hTe fact that it is every one of the caucus members states a clear and unequivocal message. This person is not the right leader for the job, and it is about friggin' time the NDP started to wield the knife when things are going South on them. 

 

South? Polling consistently in the 30% range - unprecedented for the NL NDP? One of the most popular provincial political party leaders in Canada, according to the polls? This is "south"?

Give your frigging head a shake. The four rats have just blown up their own party. IT WILL NOT BE WORTH LEADING after this fiasco.

Now, who is behind all of this, really? Jack Harris on behalf of Danny Williams? Ryan Cleary? Something is up.

janfromthebruce

I would not be putting out "names" here as that is pure speculation. I also agree that this or whatever this is should have been handled differently. And I agree that the NFLNDP was doing well in the polls and that the leader had high leadership numbers when polled.

I really find knifes in bks type of politics pretty disgusting.

Stockholm

None of us (as far as I know) are actual members of the NL NDP caucus who have to work with Lorraine Michael on a daily basis. There may be a lot more to this story than meets the eye. Sure, the public likes the septuagenerian ex-nun they see on TV every now and then...but maybe inside the caucus and the party she might have all kinds of shortcomings that we can only guess at. The four members of the NL NDP caucus are a very diverse group - some a very much on the left wing of the party and some are more moderate Third Way types. One is a lesbian documentary film-maker, one is a man from the outports and a couple are middle aged men from St. John's...but they all seem to agree on one thing - Lorraine Michael has to go. Writing this letter is not something the caucus would have taken lightly so i have to assume that the problem with her is bigger than we would think as outside observers. This is NOT like the Carole James situation in BC where 13 people in caucus wanted her to quite - but another 20-odd wanted her to stay. In this case the ENTIRE caucus wants her to quit.

It appears that Lorraine Michael was very good at caucus management from 2006 to 2011 when she was a caucus of one and all she had to do was talk to herself. Evidently, she finds it more difficult to manage a caucus of 5. Draw your own conclusions.

Lens Solution

pebbles wrote:

South? Polling consistently in the 30% range - unprecedented for the NL NDP? One of the most popular provincial political party leaders in Canada, according to the polls? This is "south"?

Give your frigging head a shake. The four rats have just blown up their own party. IT WILL NOT BE WORTH LEADING after this fiasco.

Now, who is behind all of this, really? Jack Harris on behalf of Danny Williams? Ryan Cleary? Something is up.

Why did Jack Harris leave provincial politics and suddenly go back into federal politics?  I never quite figured that out, but I don't know NL politics that well.

Anyways, speaking of polls, this CBC article says that the NDP was ahead in 2012, but now the Liberals are ahead.  Perhaps that's what the NL NDP caucus is complaining about?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/newfoundland/story/1.2129212

janfromthebruce

‘I betrayed Lorraine,’ George Murphy admits

Getting the facts is good

Murphy said he thought he was calling for a party leadership review.

He said he wanted the party to “come together and, I guess, give that ringing endorsement to Lorraine Michael.”

looking very inexperienced

Instead, he said he didn’t sleep Monday night after the news broke, and he’s tormented by the turmoil that his party is now facing.

“I’m feeling like I betrayed Lorraine, and that wasn’t the intent,” he said. “It was a mistake, and that’s all I can say about it.”

snip

But by Tuesday morning, some of his comrades were backtracking.

MHA Gerry Rogers said she signed the letter because she felt that a leadership review is a healthy thing for the party to do from time-to-time.

But she said that on further reflection, sending the letter was a mistake.

“We didn’t handle this well. It was really clumsy,” Rogers said. “I wish we had done it another way.”

Rogers said she’s heard from New Democrats who support Michael, and also party members who question her leadership.

snip

“We’re now into 2013. It’s been seven years. And it’s necessary and healthy for parties to have reviews,” she said.

As for Michael, she said receiving the letter hurt, because it felt like her four caucus members snuck up on her.

“I felt betrayed by the letter,” she said. “There’d been no lead-up to it.”

It appears by some caucas members that they didn't know what they were signing or thought they were doing a good thing. Asking for a leadership review since it hadn't happened in 7 years.

It also appears that one person ensured it was leaked to the press. I actually find it quite sad as they were doing well in the polls but now it looks like amature hour.

Caissa

St. John's East MHA George Murphy said Wednesday that fellow NDP caucus member Dale Kirby pressured him into signing a memo to party leader Lorraine Michael that she saw as a demand for her resignation.

 

Murphy said that he and fellow caucus member Gerry Rogers had tried but failed to prevent the letter — which was signed by all four members of caucus — from being sent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ndp-mha-blamed-for-instigating-leadership-fracas-1.2186463

NorthReport

Looks good.

Sonia Williams considering run for NDP

http://www.cbncompass.ca/News/Local/2013-10-22/article-3435819/Sonia-Wil...

Aristotleded24

It's a tough one. Michaels has led the party to its highest ever standing, and that is worthy of respect. However, she has been in the position for a long time, and it may have been that she was considering stepping down.

Anyways, this appears to have been poorly handled. Inexpereince among the elected members seems to be the big factor, but at least some Caucus members are brave enough to admit that. I hope they get the matter sorted out, and soon.

jerrym

The above Sonia Williams website seems to be down. The quote is from the Google reference to this website. 

Quote:

The Compass has learned the New Democratic Party (NDP) has begun recruiting for the Carbonear-Harbour Grace byelection.

 

Here is her background.

Quote:
 Williams is a Research Associate in the Low-Wage Workers and Communities policy area in MDRC’s New York office. Since joining MDRC in April 2008, she has provided technical and analytical support to several projects, including the Employment Retention and Advancement project for low-wage workers, Accelerated Benefits for Social Security Disability Insurance recipients, and the New Communities Program in Chicago. Prior to joining MDRC, Sonya was an economist for the State of North Carolina, providing labor market analysis to support workforce and economic development projects. She has a master’s degree in sociology from Cornell University.

http://www.mdrc.org/about/sonya-williams

 

 

A_J

I think it's far more likely that the Sonia Williams considering running as the NDP candidate in the Carbonear-Harbour Grace byelection is in fact Harbour Grace deputy mayor Sonia Williams, and not Sonya Williams from New York/Chicago/North Carolina.

Just a hunch Tongue out

jerrym

Oops! That's what happens sometimes when you comment on something on the other side of the continent. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

They really need a YND out there.  It allows one to practice Machaivailien politics with the luxury of having no real power to screw things up.

Newfoundlander_...

From what I have heard, Lorraine Michael is not easy to work with. A former candidate and member of the executive, who left the party because of her leadership, said that when working with her it was either her way or the highway. Dale Kirby also mentioned that she was still leading the party like it was just her in the caucus. He said something about how she has randoly announced policies in public, that had not been discussed by caucus, yet the caucus was just suppose to accept that whether they supoported the policies or not. I was also surprised to hear that the party's organization was not as strong as I had thought it was. The party supposedly has just 9 active district associations in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Now I am not positive what was meant by "rural" but I would imagine that it would mean the party may only has active distict assocations in half, or even less, of the province's 48 districrs.

There had also been a mechanism in the constitution that required a leadership review, and over the last few years it has been removed. Some supporters have said they are not sure how or when it was actually removed. I had spoken to people who thought that a leadership review would be held at the next convention, in the fall of 2014, but that's not the case anymore.

Michael has done very well in the Angus Reid polls that ask if you support the job she's doing as opposition leader. However, while many people think she's done well in opposing the government they still don't see her as someone who could be premier of the province. As for the parties poll numbers, they are at historic highs. The last poll had them at 33% and in second place, but that's down from 39% earlier the year when they tied the PC Party for first place. Since that time the PC Party has continued to bleed the support, which is going to the Liberals. From August 2012 to August 2013 the PC Party went from 45% to 26% in CRA polls, while the NDP remained at 33%.

Michael's leadership may have been safe had she faced a leadership review, or even ran in a leadership convention. Nobody in the caucus would have challenged her, seeing Kirby has ruled it out and George Murphy has said none of them are ready to be leader. There is also not many names of people outside of cacus who could take over. One name mentioned is Ryan Cleary, who has been mentioned as a person who may have orchastrated this whole leadership fiasco. But that's just pure speculation.

Stockholm

I wonder if Jack Harris would come to become leader of the NL NDP again now that he is established as such a senior statesman etc...

BTW: I see that Michael has announced that she will submit to a leadership review in 2014...so it seems like they have patched things up again.

NorthReport

Oh my goodness, what a motley crew!

Two Newfoundland NDP members who called for leadership review quit caucus

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/national/Newfoundland+members+called...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Jeez! they thought she was sinking the party....so they decided to beat her to it? 

WTF!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

BTW...is there a left-wing/right-wing element to this dispute in the NNDP?  If she was a former social activist, an outsider would assume that the dissident MHA's might think she was too radical and want the party blanded out and centerized.  Is that a faulty assumption?

Stockholm

My impression (albeit as an outsider) is that this conflict is 100% personality based and has nothing to do with ideology. In some ways it reminds me of what happened to the Canadian Alliance after the 2000 election when they had this year long civil war to get rid of Stockwell day that culminated in half the caucus quitting and forming something called the Democratic Reform Caucus...until finally Day stepped down and ran to succeed himself in a leadership contest. There was no ideological split there either - just that half the caucus came to the conclusion that day was nuts and could never win an election.

Newfoundlander_...

Ken Burch wrote:

BTW...is there a left-wing/right-wing element to this dispute in the NNDP?  If she was a former social activist, an outsider would assume that the dissident MHA's might think she was too radical and want the party blanded out and centerized.  Is that a faulty assumption?

Personality seems to play a big role, but this is also correct. Kirby, and I guess Mitchelmore too, is a more moderate New Democrat and a Mulcair supporter. Lorraine Michael and Gerry Rogers both started off supporting Peggy Nash in the federal leadership and eventually ended up supporting Topp. From what I understand there are people in the party who are very interested in governing and are willing to compromise some of their views in order to get the public support to win. While there are others, Michael supporters, who would rather stay in opposition forever than compromise anything they believe in.

In the 2007 election Michael proposed new taxes on fur, expensive jewelry and high end cars. While that was not in the 2011 election platform, which I believe Kirby played a big role in crafting, it does give a bit of an idea of her views. Kirby was supposedly upset that Michael had recently spoke about raising taxes, which was something that had not been party policy.

felixr

Ryan Cleary is interested in Michael's job. One of the allegations was that the dissident MHAs wanted to bring in Cleary from the wings. link

ghoris

janfromthebruce wrote:

‘I betrayed Lorraine,’ George Murphy admits

Getting the facts is good

Murphy said he thought he was calling for a party leadership review.

He said he wanted the party to “come together and, I guess, give that ringing endorsement to Lorraine Michael.”

looking very inexperienced

Instead, he said he didn’t sleep Monday night after the news broke, and he’s tormented by the turmoil that his party is now facing.

“I’m feeling like I betrayed Lorraine, and that wasn’t the intent,” he said. “It was a mistake, and that’s all I can say about it.”

snip

But by Tuesday morning, some of his comrades were backtracking.

MHA Gerry Rogers said she signed the letter because she felt that a leadership review is a healthy thing for the party to do from time-to-time.

But she said that on further reflection, sending the letter was a mistake.

“We didn’t handle this well. It was really clumsy,” Rogers said. “I wish we had done it another way.”

Rogers said she’s heard from New Democrats who support Michael, and also party members who question her leadership.

snip

“We’re now into 2013. It’s been seven years. And it’s necessary and healthy for parties to have reviews,” she said.

As for Michael, she said receiving the letter hurt, because it felt like her four caucus members snuck up on her.

“I felt betrayed by the letter,” she said. “There’d been no lead-up to it.”

It appears by some caucas members that they didn't know what they were signing or thought they were doing a good thing. Asking for a leadership review since it hadn't happened in 7 years.

It also appears that one person ensured it was leaked to the press. I actually find it quite sad as they were doing well in the polls but now it looks like amature hour.

I'm sorry, but something about this smells. Are we supposed to believe that George Murphy and Gerry Rodgers were so naive that they did not know what they were signing and what the implications were?  If in fact they truly did not, then calling this "amateur hour" is charitable in the extreme.

felixr

Maybe Lorraine Michael didn't want to be privately blackmailed and leaked the letter to the media herself, "sunlight being the best disinfectant."

janfromthebruce

ghoris, just the messanger. And I find this all disheartening. Either way one looks at it, it doesn't make these members look good.

pebbles

Lens Solution wrote:
Why did Jack Harris leave provincial politics and suddenly go back into federal politics?  I never quite figured that out, but I don't know NL politics that well.

Harris quit provincial politics in 2006, and didn't run federally until 2008, so it wasn't what I'd call "sudden".

And maybe being grandfathered into the old MP pension plan helped entice him back? :)

pebbles

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:
Michael has done very well in the Angus Reid polls that ask if you support the job she's doing as opposition leader. However, while many people think she's done well in opposing the government they still don't see her as someone who could be premier of the province. As for the parties poll numbers, they are at historic highs. The last poll had them at 33% and in second place, but that's down from 39% earlier the year when they tied the PC Party for first place.

They were actually ahead of the PC's for a while.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

BTW...is there a left-wing/right-wing element to this dispute in the NNDP?  If she was a former social activist, an outsider would assume that the dissident MHA's might think she was too radical and want the party blanded out and centerized.  Is that a faulty assumption?

Personality seems to play a big role, but this is also correct. Kirby, and I guess Mitchelmore too, is a more moderate New Democrat and a Mulcair supporter. Lorraine Michael and Gerry Rogers both started off supporting Peggy Nash in the federal leadership and eventually ended up supporting Topp. From what I understand there are people in the party who are very interested in governing and are willing to compromise some of their views in order to get the public support to win. While there are others, Michael supporters, who would rather stay in opposition forever than compromise anything they believe in. In the 2007 election Michael proposed new taxes on fur, expensive jewelry and high end cars. While that was not in the 2011 election platform, which I believe Kirby played a big role in crafting, it does give a bit of an idea of her views. Kirby was supposedly upset that Michael had recently spoke about raising taxes, which was something that had not been party policy.

I appreciate both your explanation and the one that Stockholm offered.  The last thing the NNDP needs to do is to embrace the economic policies that just led to complete electoral humiliation for the NSNDP...and I'm afraid that at least SOME of the anti-Michael cabal don't understand that.

Hunky_Monkey

Embrace the economic policies that led to the electoral humiliation of the NSNDP?  Absolutely priceless.  I just love it Ken Burch when you latch onto things like this that have little basis in reality just to support your own politics.

1springgarden

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Embrace the economic policies that led to the electoral humiliation of the NSNDP?  Absolutely priceless.  I just love it Ken Burch when you latch onto things like this that have little basis in reality just to support your own politics.

HM, you yourself have been in denial for the past few years while Dexter's signature economic policy - corporate welfare as industrial strategy - was rejected by voters.  In the process, the NSNDP has lost support that took decades to amass.  I noticed that the NDP base was noticably uninspired in the lost election campaign.  In Nova Scotia, there is no way a neo-liberal should get anywhere near the leadership, if the NDP expects to credibly rebuild. 

In Newfoundland, party members should consider the principles which have built their support base and not toss those principles aside only to then fall flat on their face at a future date.

 

Hunky_Monkey

"Corporate welfare" as you call it has been done for ages and is used by every government of every stripe in this country.  Are you saying the far left voters of Nova Scotia, the vast majority *cough*, woke up and said they had enough?  Uh huh.

It's pretty convenient to latch onto whatever you disagree with as reason for the NDP losing.  Doesn't make it reality.  

We lost because we allowed the Liberals to define us and didn't punch back, we didn't toot our own horn enough with our achievements, and we didn't give voters anything to sink their teeth into for the next four years.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

At the risk of turning this into another Nova Scotia postmortem thread, it sounds like you actually don't think the NSNDP should change anything but the messaging...that you think Dexter's government COULD have been re-elected, despite the sellouts to corporate greed, simply by "getting the mssage out"...not that there was much of any posiive message to get out, as far as that goes.

 

And it's not a queston of "latching on" to things...it's a question of having watched the last thirty years of failed strategy by social democrats worldwide and being incredulout, in Newfoundland's case, that there would still be some(using the code phrase "compromise")who would call for embracing Hawkeism/Blairism/Clintonism(i.e., The Third Way)even though it's been a universal disaster for the people who voted for those social democratic parties in every situation that's been tried.

 

Moderation means being exactly like Dexter, Rae and Romanow.  There's no such thing as a more progressive, humane form of moderation.

 

At a bare minimum, the only way social democracy can survive is to totally abandon austerity and the deficit fixstion and put nothing at all before full employment and social equality as the economic priorities of the day.

Hunky_Monkey

I think it was not being political enough.  You don't sit back and take a quarter of a million dollars in attack ads with a smile.  Then only punch back when you've been defined.

And like Tommy Douglas who believed in balanced budgets, so do most New Democrats today.  The Dexter government took a far more balanced approach than previous governments.  Like it or not, whether it was restoring children's dental care coverage or helping low income seniors or human rights protection and covering SRS for transgender people, the NDP was the most progressive in my lifetime.  And Dexter was clear in the 2009 campaign... balanced budgets and living within our means.  Voters didn't have an issue with it then.

There is also little logic in your arguement as well since there's a history of re-electing centre-right governments in this province and across the country that are real zealots in what you accuse the Dexter NDP of. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Tommy believed in balanced, budgets, but never in balancing them by cutting programs for the poor OR funding for education  He believed in balancing budgets by making sure the rich paid the proper share of their taxes.

And Tommy NEVER bought the argument that tax cuts for the rich create jobs(btw, you do realize that the state of the economy under Dexter proved, yet again, that tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs, don't you?)  Tommy would never have accepted the notion that the NDP should embrace any part of supply-side economics.

Hunky_Monkey

You do know Ken Burch that the Dexter NDP brought in a new higher tax bracket for the top 1%, right?

 

And can you list the programs Dexter cut for the poor?  And funding per student was at it's highest under Dexter.  With 30,000 fewer students than a decade ago and education funding skyrocketing, 1.3% less funding in 2012 for example with 1.7% fewer students was quite reasonable when health and education make up the majority of your budget.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

And funding per student was at it's highest under Dexter.  With 30,000 fewer students than a decade ago and education funding skyrocketing, 1.3% less funding in 2012 for example with 1.7% fewer students was quite reasonable when health and education make up the majority of your budget.

This is the EXACT rationale the BC Liberals have used as it guts the education system in my province.

Hunky_Monkey

You're saying 1.3% for example is gutting?  

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I didn't say anything about NS. I said that the BC Liberals use the same excuse and it has resulted in the gutting of many school services.  It is a phoney baloney right wing argument that has little basis in the reality of rising prices for everything. If a school has 1,000 students there are no savings if 17 less students attend the next year. Its just bullshit designed to justify cutting education funding. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

That doesn't seem right.  I sat on the advisory council at the high school (about 1000 students).  17 less kids probably meant a few classes dissappeared.  17 kids time 8 blocks is 136 class seats.  Yes there are lots of fixed costs, but fixed costs are all variable depending on the timelines.

Not advocating cuts in education, it is at the top of my list of priorities (probably ahead of health spending) , but a 1.7 % reduction in students is not inconsequential.  Just like the 1.3% funding cut is not.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

My statement was that the BC Liberals have been using the same argument about falling student enrollment for ten years and BC now is last in most categories of education funding.  If the NS NDP or the Nfld NDP wants to make that argument that is their problem.  The experience in this province is that using that method of budgeting has led to the gutting of many things in the system especially the support for special needs students and services like libraries.

When I hear a government using that kind of argument I know they are devoid of ideas and falling back on an excuse that is the equivalent of the dog ate my homework.

http://www.bctf.ca/IssuesInEducation.aspx?id=29502

Pogo Pogo's picture

It is usually a truism that if the Liberal/Socreds use the argument that it is wrong.  However declining enrollment does mean declining demand regardless of whether it is a Liberal talking point.  And it is fair to say it in Nova Scotia even if the BC Liberals said it first.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Whatever. I have seen the results of that argument. In a world where all costs are rising and where new technologies are rightly entering the classrooms basing budgeting on last years student numbers is a recipe for declining education services. If the NDP sounds and acts like the right wing neocons what is the point of electing them? The problem is that education is not a commodity that should be based on supply and demand economics and the fact is that the NS NDP didn't understand that.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Just to  be absolutely clear.  I think that education is a high prioritity, more important than improving health care.  By investing in education we help people become better citizens.  We as a society are able to contibute more to our community and to our economy.  It makes us richer in pretty well all senses of the word.

That said we need to deal with the realities that surround us.  In Richmond enrolment has declined significantly as housing prices have sky-rocketed.  Many of the high schools are having serious declines in their enrollment.  It means choices have to be made.  On Thetis Island where my children attended the one room school, it is a constant issue about keeping enough kids in the school to justify keeping it open.

The numbers have to make sense whether it it the BC Liberals or NS NDP and it is a poor argument to say the NS NDP are wrong because their argument sounds like a BC Liberal argument and I don't like the policies of the BC Liberals therefore that argument must be wrong.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You are right there is no reason to believe any political party in this country is capable of thinking outside of the box. 

Your example of Richmond is way more than dealing with a 1.7% increase. I can't play a game where the goal posts keep moving, you win.

bekayne
Caissa

Kathy Dunderdale said today she is stepping down as the 10th premier of Canada's 10th province, saying she leaves Newfoundland and Labrador with a strong economy and a higher standard of living. 

Dunderdale said Wednesday she will resign as premier on Friday. Her decision comes after months of poor performances in public opinion polls and amid criticism, including from within the governing Progressive Conservatives, that she was failing to connect with voters who may have been growing tired of the Tories after three terms.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/kathy-dunderdale-confirms-stepping-down-as-n-l-premier-1.2506233

Pages