NS NDP

According to the latest news, two-thirds of the 3,000 eligble members of the provincial party have already voted. And the Party expects another 10% or so to vote in the coming 24 hours.

A wholly unauthorised description of the three candidates:

Gary Burrill is a former back-bench MLA and United Church Minister, well known amongst old-school lefties for his work on The New Maritimes paper for many years through the 80s and 90s. He is playing the Bernie Sanders / Tommy Douglas role in this race.  

Dave Wilson is a former cabinet minister in the Dexter Gov't and a long-standing MLA. He was a first responder medic / fireman before entering politics, and has the 'working man' touch. Widely seen as 'labour's choice' for the leadership, he carries the 'aura' of experience and the baggage of the previous gov't.

Lenore Zann: a bit of a wild card, Lenore is from the arts/film sector, was a back-bench MLA thru the Dexter years, and to the surprise of many, held on to her traditionally Conservative seat in the ensuing 2013 debacle. Initially seen as a bit of a 'lightweight', she has done well getting her message out over the past six months, and has since secured some key endorsements, including that of Alexa McDonough.

I am told that the smart money is on Dave Wilson, but as a new arrival don't actually have much insight on what's been happening across the province.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ndp-leadership-convention-zann...

Yup. we had a very good turnout online - over 74% of all membership voted, which was claimed to be some sort of record. With the majority going to "The Change Candidate", - Burrill who does not currently have a seat in the legislature and who regularly quotes (channels) Bernie, Corbyn and Tommy Douglas in his speeches.

It was 1. Burrill / 2. Zann / 3. Wilson in the first round, with Wilson's votes then putting Burrill over the top in the second round.

It will be interesting to see now how the Party - and the Province - responds: presumably Burrill will spend much of the next 12-18 months 'on the road' trying to get the grassroots re-mobilised and re-energised in advance of the next election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ndp-leadership-nova-scotia-zan...

We have no fixed election legislation in Nova Scotia, - so its a bit of a mug's game trying to guess. The last election was October 2013, so sometime in 2017 would be most likely.  Which will give Burrill a year to establish a stronger public presence and persona - and to see if he can re-energise the NDP base.

Very good.  I don't know a huge amount about Nova Scotia, though I do have a good friend from there.  She's rather right leaning, so she generally strays Liberal.  Her big gripe about the Nova Scotia NDP was that they didn't enforce back to work legislation on striking transit workers, which according to her hurt many low income people.  So, ensuring workers have the right to strike is an act against low income people, apparently (an argument I heard by some against Toronto's mayor David Miller regarding his dealings with CUPE Local 416 (outside workers)).  Anyway, I plan to get the book What I learned about politics : inside the rise--and collapse--of Nova Scotia's NDP government, to learn more of Nova Scota and the NDP's rise and fall from power there.

Good luck in the next election!

Thanks sherpa-finn, I'll get that one from the library as well.  Regarding your description of Steele's cynicism, it sounds similar to thoughts I myself have had.  It just seems that provinces don't have that much financial clout.  The federal government is where the money and clout is, which is why I was so disappointed with the last federal election result.  Still, I'm not completely cynical about provincial politics, so I look forward to checking out Rise Again: Nova Scotia's NDP on the Rocks as well.

#FeelTheBurrill

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

  Promising the moon and not saying how you'll pay for it except "we already pay for it in other ways" will be something new to try with voters.  Will it work?  I suspect not.

But that is exactly what Justin Trudeau did in the federal election and look at how well it worked for him!!

True in a sense, Stockholm.  However, in addition to Trudeau's personal appeal which Gary doesn't have, he targeted a lot of his stuff to the middle class.  Gary is an old school socialist running on eliminating poverty for example.  Worthy goal and should always be something a government works toward.  But does that win elections?

And while Trudeau lied about his costing, he at least said "this is how much it will cost".

And "Dexterism" got the NS NDP elected.  I don't think they lost in 2013 because they weren't left enough.  Lots of other screw ups led to that.

I think they were too cautious and too focused on balancing the budget in a specific time period.  That said, they inherited a huge mess.  A $1.3 billion deficit that was originally pegged at around $200 million.  

Dexter ran on a very limited platform including "living within our means".  But somehow voters lurched to the left after he was elected? 

There were many progressive items accomplished.  People over $150,000 had their taxes increased.  Low income seniors were taken off the income tax rolls.  Affordable Living Tax Credit was introduced.  Province's first Mental Health Strategy created.  First Affordable Housing Strategy.  Children's Dental Care was expanded.  Emergency room wait times were cut.  List goes on and on.  

As for education, it was a 1.65% reduction when we had 10,000 fewer students over the last decade and 2% fewer students per year.  Education funding was actually at the highest per capita.

Personally, I don't think Dexter, who governed in the mold of Gary Doer, was cut out to go on the attack and fight for his job.  He became premier because people liked him and trusted him.  He was your favourite uncle type.  After the expense scandal, he became just another politician that was in it for himself.  Then the Liberals got their act together, focus grouped and polled what would move votes regardless what if it was doable or not, and spent a quarter of a million dollars in attack ads against us.  Our response?  Silence.  We sat back as the Liberals went to town defining the actions of the government.  By the time we did respond, we did it in such a poor way and far too late.  I still shake my head at that. 

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Gary is an old school socialist running on eliminating poverty for example.  Worthy goal and should always be something a government works toward.  But does that win elections?

One of the main reasons that the NDP has a hard time winning on the issue of poverty reduction is that the Manitoba and Saskatchewan provincial sections permitted their citizens to have among the highest poverty rates in the country for a long time.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Stockholm, this was the platform the Dexter NDP ran on in 2009 and won on... 

Create the secure jobs Nova Scotia’s economy needs

Keep emergency rooms open and reduce health care waits

Ensure more young people stay and build a life in Nova Scotia

Take the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) off home energy

Fix rural roads and keep communities strong

Give seniors options to stay in their homes and communities longer

Live within the province’s means

Why don't i see "increase the HST by two points" in that list?? It seems to me that they never recovered from that move.

Also, the NDP often falls for this CRAZY idea that your election platform has to be a responsible plan for government. NO! Election platforms are about winning elections. They are to be discarded afterwards. The Liberals are often god at winning elections because they don't make mistake an election platfomr for good public policy. They just say ANYTHING they need to say to win the election and they worry about the consequences afterwards - as a result they are in power and the NDP is not. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Gary is an old school socialist running on eliminating poverty for example.  Worthy goal and should always be something a government works toward.  But does that win elections?

One of the main reasons that the NDP has a hard time winning on the issue of poverty reduction is that the Manitoba and Saskatchewan provincial sections permitted their citizens to have among the highest poverty rates in the country for a long time.

No because most elections are won on pocketbook issues that appeal to the broadest electorate.  Like Trudeau's middle income tax cut.  And even then, it appealed to people who weren't middle class because most working class and poorer people don't necessarily think themselves as living in poverty.

It's like our national childcare program.  Great program and truly needed.  But it spoke mostly to parents with kids under five with certain incomes no one else.  And it didn't speak to anyone in QC.  Why?  Didn't have any impact on them personally in their eyes.  And that's how most voters cast their ballots when it comes to election platforms.  What's in it for me and my family.  That said there are lots of factors that go into what party wins an election but for the most part, thinking most voters vote for the common good is naive.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

We also didn't know the $200 million deficit was $1.3 billion.

"The deficit is larger than we expected" is just politician-speak for "we need an excuse to not carry out the platform on which we were elected so we can focus on enriching the elite special interest groups that we like."

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Gary is an old school socialist running on eliminating poverty for example.  Worthy goal and should always be something a government works toward.  But does that win elections?

One of the main reasons that the NDP has a hard time winning on the issue of poverty reduction is that the Manitoba and Saskatchewan provincial sections permitted their citizens to have among the highest poverty rates in the country for a long time.

No because most elections are won on pocketbook issues that appeal to the broadest electorate.  Like Trudeau's middle income tax cut.  And even then, it appealed to people who weren't middle class because most working class and poorer people don't necessarily think themselves as living in poverty.

Poverty is not a marginal issue here in Manitoba. Most people in Winnipeg and Brandon, if they don't live in poverty outright, they are damn close, and they know it. You try talking about politics with these people, they will roll their eyes at you and share their (well-founded) perception that nothing changes regardless of which party is in power. That is why there is a near direct correlation between your likelihood to vote in an election and your income.

Stockholm wrote:

Sometimes, outgoing parties really do leave massive deficits and debt that was hidden that make it impossible for the party that succeeds them to do anything.

True, however what I said points to widespread distrust about politicians and the promises they make. I'll also ask, if the Opposition is doing its job, how can it legitimately claim to be surprised upon finding out what the actual numbers are upon taking office? Remember when Harper claimed that there was a balanced budget? Nova Scotia Liberal MP Scott Brison called them out for using the same tactics that Mike Harris and Ernie Eves used to hide the deficit in Ontario. This is why Trudeau has the political wiggle room he needs to run a bigger deficit to get the economy going. The question this raises is, if Brison caught onto this, why didn't Mulcair and the then-official Opposition led by the NDP?

I finished Steele's book and liked it.  But yes, a tad cynical.  I plan to get Howard Epstein's book next.

Congratulations on the Roberts win!  Good news.

Christopher Majka here at Rabble on the significance of the Roberts victory in Halifax Needham. 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/christophermajka/2016/09/nova-scotias-nd...

... Although the balance of political power and legislative calculus are unaffected by this by-election, its real impact will be in having such an eloquent activist voice, not only in the legislature, but in her community and across the province. It's a clear marker of where the NDP is going as a political force under the leadership of Gary Burrill, a party that is firmly engaged in building social capital, in addressing economic and social injustice, in dealing with environmental issues, and in becoming a force for progressive social and political change in the province. Where this will lead is anyone's guess but the flags of change have been hoisted on the political ramparts of Nova Scotia. Who will heed the call in the coming days, weeks, months, and years remains not only to be seen, but to be forged. Roberts will clearly fly that banner and be a force for such change.

Marian Mancini is out as Leader in the House under Gary Burrill (who doesn't have a seat). She was an excellent replacement for Maureen MacDonald in the Legislature, but didn't back Burrill for leadership, and will be taking time this fall to decide if she will run again. MLA Lenore Zann was publicly lobbying for the job after her leadership loss in Feburuary, and will likely get the title and the pay bump.

Since Gary Burrill became leader, he has faced one big public test - the Halifax Needham by-election, which the NDP won. Now, with at least one NDP MLA musing about retirement, he faces a second public test - can he unify the Caucus before any more MLAs step down.

The timeline to fix the unity problem is short - Dartmouth South MLA Marian Mancini has stated she will make her decision on whether she will run for Burrill after the next sitting of the Legislature, which begins next week and is likely to rise in late November. Mancini is a former Party President, under Robert Chisholm; her roots in the Party are deep, and she was the most thoughtful and well-researched MLA in the last session.

Mellencamp wrote:

The communications staff strongly disagreed with the results of the focus group, which showed the new platform and focus was on the wrong track. The focus group felt that the NDP was the “party of health care” - an issue of lower priority under Burrill.

I'm really getting tired of this focus of "health care, health care, health care." To me, what "health care" means is spending a whole bunch of money so that middle class people will have access to their machines and emergency rooms. Why can't we have an honest discussion about health care in this country where we realize that there are so many issues around poverty and housing that cause people to need hospital care in the first place, and that if we spent a fraction of what we spent on health care dealing with those issues, that would create more spaces in ERs and reduced waiting lists and better outcomes for everyone?

Besides, everyone has known for decades that the NDP everywhere is the party of health care, and yet that hasn't helped the NDP's political fortunes even as our health care system comes under attack.

Marian Mancini of Dartmouth South makes it official: 

https://nsndp.ca/ns/statement-from-mla-for-dartmouth-south-marian-mancini

"I thought at a certain age decision making would get easier. I have proven myself to be wrong. I have, however, finally decided that I will not be re-offering as the MLA candidate for Dartmouth South in the next election...."

Here in Nova Scotia the biggest issue right now is an impending teachers' strike. The topic dominated the very short fall session. The next poll from Corporate Research Associates is scheduled to come out in the first week of December. Perhaps we will see a bump in the polls for the NDP then.

.