Sask NDP leadership race

Trivia

Sask CCF-NDP Leader / age at election as leader / age at last general election as leader / age at stepping down

M.J. Coldwell / 43 / 45 / 47

G.H. Williams / 40* (acting at 39) / 42 / 47

T.C. Douglas / 37 / 55 / 56

W.S. Lloyd / 48 / 53 / 57

A.E. Blakeney / 45 / 60 / 62 + 61 days

R.J. Romanow / 48 / 60 / 61

L.A. Calvert / 48 / 54 / 56

If Dwain Lingenfelter were to win the upcoming leadership race, he would be 60 upon assuming the leadership. By the time of his first general election as leader (assuming Brad Wall keeps his fixed election date commitment), he will be 62 + 253 days - the oldest leader in the history of the Saskatchewan CCF-NDP.

I'm just sayin'.

Malcolm, anybody else tell you you're being rather ageist?

Age is a state of mind, not just a number. Chretien was a vigorous prime minister despite being around 65 when elected.

quote:Originally posted by Malcolm:
I am anticipating that there will be those who attempt to make an issue out of the "youth" of a cadre of candidates in their 30s and 40s.

There are some of us who believe that real renewal requires generational change - and for the record, I'm of the generation that will be skipped.

I know one of the "youth" candidates personally. I'm not going to say which one - but he's a real "stick in the mud", as far as I'm concerned. He'll go far [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

Malcolm, it strikes me there is a difference between considering age as one issue of many, and preferably age within the context of whether the older candidate has the energy and seems to be up on the current issues well enough for the leadership, and being obsessed about it.

Every post you have written on the race has mentioned age. Your obsession, to be 'politically correct' is ageist.

[ 03 November 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

People live a lot longer these days, so the analogy is skewed. Notice how the NDP leaders of late have tended to be older than those of yore.

Perhaps the Saskatchewan MLAs, however, are motivated by the saying, "young cardinals elect old popes." In other words, get us across the goal line Link, then take your rest?

quote:Originally posted by Malcolm:

The problem with that is (from my perspective) that institutional renewal, though essential, is not enough. The party also needs intellectual renewal and policy renewal. I'm not convinced that Dwain Lingenfelter and the cadre of party grandees surrounding him can deliver that.

That's certainly my concern. If I thought Lingenfelter represented new ideas, or at least someone who would provide an environment where new ideas would flourish, I wouldn't be so worried about him becoming leader. However my suspicions are that Dwain will simply reinforce the existing party structure, and any "young Turks" that are groomed for taking over will be very much in the same vein.

Mind you, as I've said before, I'm not convinced any of the "kids" are going to be the new broom to sweep the party clean, either. I don't think Pedersen or Tzorchewski will be notably more left-wing or more of a force for renewal than Lingenfelter will be, but their election would at least demonstrate that the party's willing to make *some* nod to the looming retirement age of many party stalwarts...

Malcolm, I don't really see the distinction you're raising here. In my experience in the Sask NDP, I can't ever recall meeting anyone who I would call a "movement" person who was on the right of the party. There's certainly diversity within the "movement" wing. Some care more about economic issues, some are more into social justice, and some are certainly more hard-line about either one than others. What they have in common was that they were to the left of the party leadership. Frankly, there's not much point in joining the NDP to move the province rightward... the Sask party is a far better vehicle for that.

The party people, on the other hand, tend to view any policy in terms of its immediate impact on the party's electoral success. They don't tend to care which way the ship goes, so long as they're at the helm. Those on the left really have no other viable party to vote for, whereas those on the right have 2, so the party folks veer right whenever it's popular to hold on to the right wing vote. The massive income tax cuts brought in by Romanow, for example. The party folks talk about how you can do more to further progressive causes when you hold power... then they do get into power, and they wind up doing far fewer progressive things, and more regressive ones, to hold onto that power.

I'm pretty sure Lingenfelter doesn't see that, or doesn't care. From what I've seen, he's even more "radically pragmatic" than Romanow was, and hence, even more willing to ignore the movement folks. His victory would likely see even more progressive people abandon the party.

The only possible silver lining to his candidacy is that he might decide to run from the left, at least mildly, in an attempt to energize the base. While I'm sure he'd abandon the left if he ever took power, he might not have time to accomplish that before his age catches up to him. That said, I think it's far more likely he'll do the opposite.

quote:Originally posted by Chester Drawers:

All you have to do is look south, Obama had no long time political baggage and was completely new in policy as well.

If the Dipper bring in one of the old guard, they will be in opposition for quite a while me thinks.

Calvert's NDP left Saskatchewan with balanced budgets and a bustling economy. Not a good comparison. I predict one term for the SaskaTories.

I don't disagree with Dogbert that the movement people tend to be to the left of the party people. But there are quite a few left wing party people. (Pat Atkinson and Clay Serby come to mind.)

Rightish movement people not so much. But they do exist. (Note, by right in this context, I mean the right side of the CCF-NDP, not right of the usual centre. If we were talking the usual political categories, they'd be more aptly described as centrist or even left centrist.)

Like any broadbrush category, this is a bit of an oversimplification. But it is a more useful one, to my mind, than the usual left-right categories which simply do not capture what the real issue is.

With respect, Fidel, while nothing is impossible, defeating the Sask Party after one term is a long shot. To date, apart from one weak minister, they really haven't screwed up anything - and they really haven't p*$$*d anybody off. I'm certainly not game to bet the farm on winning in 2011, whoever the leader may be.

Now, much can happen between now and then, but bold predictions of a one-term Wall government have no basis in objective reality.

Somebody seems to be paying attention.

quote:

The reason why many have called this a generation-defining election is because it's been just that.

Maybe this isn't really all that new. From the younger Stephen Harper taking over from Paul Martin and Jean Chretien to Brad Wall succeeding Lorne Calvert to what's already going on in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race where bloggers are now noting Dwain Lingenfelter would be the party's oldest-ever leader, age has become a political issue. We're starting to see it everywhere.

About once every generation in a democratic society, a new group steps up and serves notice that it is ready to take the helm. The election becomes about a new generation's new ideas and new ways of doing things.

More so than sex or skin colour, this American election was about the baby boomer generation -- the generation that starts to become senior citizens next year -- perhaps finally losing its grip on political power.

I don't mean to suggest that everyone in the movement wing is on the radical left of the NDP. They do, however, want to see the party stake out a clear policy direction, and for the vast majority, that direction is to the left of where it is now. I don't think that's something that can be glossed over. That said, on reflection, I agree that the movement vs party distinction is a useful one.

I also agree on the age part. Running someone from the Romanow era, left or right, isn't going to be a winning strategy against Wall. Hopefully some more folks will declare soon so we can take this conversation out of the abstract.

I know a guy who works for a major income trust company who says it costs $1000 for a meeting with the premier. I'm talking an oil income trust company whose head office is outside Saskatchewan. And I'm saying that they are being squeezed by the Shockparty's politicos to make "contributions."
You also have to realize that they are talking about selling off the crown's assets which are located outside of the province is their 'Saskatchewan First' policy. Deals gentlemen. Deals. They fashion themselves as competent business people when in reality they are banal buffoons.
The leadership candidates are going to have to ride the wave of the new awakening. The awakening to the south I'm talking about. Did you see the Conservatives today to try and find a way to ride the Obama victory wave?
Find the parade and get out in front of it. That's all Brad Wall does you know. Like claiming to love the Riders (conveniently) when his bio says he's an LA Raiders fan. Or Harper writing a book about hockey. That type of stuff.
The candidate I'd like to see is someone who will call their collective bullshit. Lingenfelter did that the other day when when Mr. Wall said 'running against him would be like running against my dad.' and Lingenfelter answered that 'Brad Wall does seem childish in some ways.' Lingenfelter's good on his feet and can counter the conservative messaging. Calvert, in my opinion never got enough credit for his oratory.
What to do? Question every God Damn thing the SP says and does. Get the facts. Demand the facts. Investigate them and their deals (like Bruce Power, or carbon sequestration [which doesn't work] or the Nova Scotia deal). You think those guys got into politics for the common good?

quote:Originally posted by Louis Riel Trail:
Anybody But Lingenfelter
quote:Originally posted by peskyfly1:
I just read the 'Anybody but Lingenfelter' bit. The SP could have put that up.
I wonder if they did. The creator claims to be named Maria Lampose, but this persona has no Facebook friends, and Google knows no one by that name.

Well, if you look at the members list, it contains at least two former NDP federal candidates. If Lingenfelter really is as right wing as he sounds (I'm from Manitoba, so I really only know how right-wing some Manitoba NDPers are), is it really out of the bounds of possibility that people in the party left of Lingenfelter would be concerned and would support anyone else?

I would like to see all of the evidence necessary to support the charge that Mr. Lingenfleter has a 'rightish edge.' All I see is opinion being passed off as fact.
Further, it is self defeating to pit leadership candidates against one another when the focus must remain on the SP.

     Well mom, how about this... I doubt anyone from the NDP called your organization 'feminazis.'   That's a term you might find coming from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.  Second, maybe your agenda was too radical for the NDP at a time when the provinces finances were the number one priority and what on earth makes you think the universe has to revolve around you?   Third, what's with the z as in boyz?  That's American rap spelling isn't it? 

     We can go on.  Like why is it you haven't provided any actual substantiation to your assertions of back- stabbing?  Lingenfelter as the enemy of progress?  By what standard or definition? 

I believe what occured during the time individuals such as Roy and Link were involved within the NDP was an increase in membership and a decrease under Lorne Calvert.

 I am not sure what ilk you speak of? Link has made it clear he is going to recruit young candidates including running more females then were ran in the 2003 and 2007 election. I have no idea how attempting to increase the representation of younger candidates or women as candidates can be seen as the boys club? Then again some people just hate Link for whatever reason and cannot leave that hatred aside for a rational debate.

He was included in the initial Romanow cabinet based on experience as a House Leader and somebody with a record of being able to get things done and not based on his ideology. Link has largely been a Minister which deals with economic issues which has overshadowed what he was able to do when was Social Services Minister and brought in what many view as the largest social program since medicare. I don't think based on the roles Link was given in Cabinet that you can accurately define him in the NDP.

I believe when he was a cabinet minister he was very involved in advising the federal NDP and believe he is on decent terms with Judy Wasylycia-Leis so I see no reason why Link would not be willing to work with and have a friendly relationship with the federal party.

Dinning and Link are friends from the days when they both were serving in cabinet, Dinning in Aberta and Link in Saskatchewan. I would say that any ties to the Dinning campaign were based on their friendship and little beyond that. Though individuals from Alberta would know that many individuals who either traditionally support or are members of the NDP and Liberals went to Dinning knowing that a Premier Morton was not in the best interest for their province. Though I do know Link and Ned Shillington both have sat down with the Alberta NDP to see if their experience could be any help to the party.

Herbert Hoover ran a string of balanced budgets and even claimed to have been practicing Keynesian economics years after being rejected by American voters. But Hoover was lying when he made that claim.

In Canada, successive Conservative and Liberal governments "grew"  federal debt to a whopping $590 billion dollars, and then used that as an excuse to sabotage the Canadian Social Transfer and paving the way for second-hand neoliberal ideology in Canada and orchestrated by Ottawa for the last 28 lacklustre years.

BMO: Saskatchewan NDP racks up 14th balanced budget in a row

16 straight credit upgrades and paying down $1.2 billion dollars in debt since 2004

New Democrats most fiscally responsible: Federal government report

I think you answered the question yourself with admitting old debts were borrowed at certain rates and are refinanced at the end of term. Off budget accounts can't always cover year to year diffs in program spending needs. The former Conservative Devine government did sell off a number of crowns during the neoliberalisation period which placed more emphasis on export dependent economy for natural resources. Hewer and drawer export driven economies are vulnerable to global forces. And the NDP largely opposed that direction at both federal and provincial levels from the beginning. But once the family jewels and silverware are pawned off, it's far too expensive to buy them back in the middle of commodities bubbles. It would be wonderful if massive debts incurred by previous governments are paid off in good time, but it's not always the rule.

Paul Martin claimed to have balanced federal budgets and began running surpluses in 1998, but we also know that the federal Liberals were being warned by AG Denis Desautels to stop cooking the books for several years before finally switching to accrual accounting. Federal Liberals slashed tens of billions of dollars from Canada's social transfer beginning in 1995 and created a $130 billion dollar budget/infrastructure  deficit across the country - and gutted social program spending in the process -  and resulting in enormous political pressure on prov. governments ever since.

The whole country is indebted to private banks and creditors to the tune of somewhere over $2.1 trillion dollars since 94% of money creation was privatized in 1991 to bail out Canada's big time banksters from their gambling losses in the global casino economy. And Sask debt represents somewhere less than 1 percent of grand total. It's a far more debt driven money supply overall since the neoliberal era. This is a hard reality no one in this country seems to be able to avoid.

This relates to two of the criticisms I have of the Romanow-Calvert ministry.

1.  They weren't sufficiently hawkish about the debt.  Once the budget was balanced, Romanow instituted the 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 principle - one third to tax reduction, one third to program enhancement, one third to debt reduction.  It should have been 1/4 - 1/4 - 1/2.  Debt means interest paid to capital - only progressive if you're a fool.

2.  While the <10% increase in the total debt is, relatively speaking, not a cause for panic, far too little of that went to any sort of strategic investment in either hard or soft assets.  It was mostly dribbled out to satisfy interest groups without really satisfying any of them.  It did aittle to improve physical infrastructure.  It did a little to reduce taxes.  It did a very, very little to shift the 60/40 funding of education.  But most of those interest constituencies just had their appetites whetted.  On the public policy end, it bought very little.  On the political end, it bought nothing.  It's one thing to increase your debt if you thereby enhance your assets (ie, bigger mortgage for better house).  It is quite another to increase your debt for no tanglible improvement in assets.

Fidel, do you not mean the $21.6 billion debt.   

AGAIN with the diss about "purists", Malcolm.  What is your point here?  Are you saying that no one to YOUR left in the NDP or any other "left" party has any right to speak up and fight for their principles?

Are you saying that people of the left basically have no right to expect ANYTHING from the parties they elect?

Why so much arrogance? 

And would you at least agree that there will never be any good reason for an NDP government to be as far to the right as Romanow's was?  Even you would have to admit that that government had no progressive achievements whatsoever.  Fine, surrendering to the bankers may have been necessary seventeen years ago, but why confine the NDP and the rest of the "center-left" to that approach forever, when doing so means forever making the election of "center-left" parties a meaningless act?  The insistence of the Blairs and the Mitterrands and the Felipe Gonzaleses and the Schroeders on accepting Margaret Thatcher's "TINA" dictum made every electoral victory by those parties into a waste of time and an insult to the workers and the poor who elected them. 

We're not in the austerity age anymore, Malcolm.  Please stop insisting on chaining the NDP and the rest of the world's lefts to the worst parts of the past.

And stop acting like YOU are the only person who either knows how to win an election or wants to.  The left no longer has to check its soul at the door to get power.

If a Lingenfelter-led NDP came to power, would it be ANY different from the Saskatchewan Party regime at all?  It wouldn't be if it wasn't to the left of Romanow. 

Fidel, I have no clue how they came up with that number.  I wish that all parties used the audited financial statement as the source.  The report has the numbers, use them.

To cherry pick numbers does everyone a disservice.  It hides the truth.

Based on the audited financial report only Romanow reduced the total debt from 1993 to 1999.  That is when the more right wing of the NDP government starting leaving the nest. After 1999 the total debt crept up again.  Not sure about the year ending Mar. 31, 2008, still waiting for my copy of the report. 

Ken, you might try reading the whole thread.  It's not as though I was the person claiming that Dwain Lingenfelter is on the left of the NDP.

You might also find (if you actually read the whole thread) that I do not consider the principle division within the NDP as being between left and right.

I have never argued that the left (or anyone else for that matter) has to "check their soul at the door" if they seek to play a leadership role in the party.  Indeed, FWIW, I voted first for the most left wing candidate in the running in the last provincial leadership race.

There are, however, those who believe that an uncompromising and rigid adherence to leftwing shibboleths is the course to victory.  I find those people woefully naive.  There are also those (though admittedly rare in Saskatchewan thankfully) who believe there is some sort of nobility in losing elections.

For me, the issue is tactical.  Better for the party to present a moderate progressive program, get elected and gradually move public policy to the left than to present a rigid, hardline program and watch a government of the other party move public policy gradually to the right.

BTW, had you read the entire thread, you'd realize that I am not supporting Dwain for the leadership.  He's yesterday's man and he brings us no promise of renewal.  I don't know that a Lingenfelter government would necessarily be to the right of a Romanow government, but it would certainly be to the right of a Lloyd, a Douglas or a Blakeney government.  The charge that it would be indistinguishable from a Wall government seems over the top to me.

I'm not arguing for austerity budgets either, Ken (though I find that you generally prefer to fight straw men).  However fiscal responsibility IS a progressive value.  Deficit budgets are a transfer of wealth from the public purse to private capital.  If you think that's progressive, you should get out more.

So, Ken, when your interested in having a real discussion, look me up.  In the meantime, spare me your distortions.

One thingno one is talking about is what is likely to happen to the economy in Saskatchewan over the next couple of years. There was a boom there almost 100% because of the soaring price of oil and gas etc...but now the world prices of those commidities is crashing through the floor. I think that Brad Wall and the Sask. Party may find themselves in a position similar to Grant Devine in the late 80s of being in power just as the economy foes into meltdown. If that happens the NDp could be back in power faster than people think.

Ken, perhaps ypou should look in the mirror.

A rational debate?  Oh, I get it!  I'm an irrational, emotional woman.  And the only valid concerns are those of the intellect, right? It matters not that I was there, with my sisters, at the table, on the streets, organizing, getting out the vote? You'll just invalidate that experience and tell me that I hate Link.  It matters not to you that me and my community were ultimately and hugely betrayed by the Cabinet in which he served as Deputy Premier.

No sexism at rabble, eh?

My point was not that Dwain said x or y or even z for that matter.  My point is that he was on the leadership team in the party at that time and he did not stop the denigration of feminists in the party at the time.  He did not behave as a good leader would and work against that culture.  As such, he was an enemy of the women's movement. I do not believe he has changed in the interim.

Sexism? Asking for a rational debate was me asking for facts versus people simply saying they heard a rumour so it must be true. I never mentioned gender but assume the worst if you want. I apoligize if you felt the statement asking for rational debate was sexist as that was not the intent simply asking for honesty in the debate. 

So were Calvert, Pat, Preble, Romanow, Higgins and many others so I hope you hold them to the same level as the others. However, so far the only individual to even talk about increasing females into the party is Link and individuals who often enjoy labelling themselves as progressive ran less females than the Saskatchewan party and the Liberals.

Excuse me, but Link's website has absolutely no substance with respect to  what you've posted.  No plan, no details. 

I should add that it's clear Babble has a subtle agenda of supporting Lingenfelter.  Why, his nickname's at the bottom of every post!