babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I think he was referring to me
For Immediate Release
February 5, 2009
Andrea Horwath launches "30 stops in 20 days" tour
TORONTO - Andrea Horwath, Ontario NDP leadership candidate, will be meeting residents in 30 communities across Ontario during the next 20 days.
"The next 20 days are about listening to people across the province, from Thunder Bay to Windsor and from London to Sudbury, because promises made from the halls of the legislature just won't cut it. Our solutions will come from the ground. They will come from Ontarians," Horwath said.
Horwath said as NDP Leader she will spend half the year outside the legislature in ridings and communities across the province building up the party base.
"We need to get back to our roots, back to our communities, back to our neighbourhoods and our workplaces. We cannot wait for boardroom solutions because there are none.
My campaign is about Ontarians who know it's time to work together for change that will work for us," Horwath said.
Horwath's own political experience was forged on the ground as a community organizer whose work involved training workers, fighting for decent and affordable housing and making sure people who needed legal representation, got it.
The Hamilton Centre MPP said the current government has become used to making empty promises leaving out too many people in Ontario at a time of crisis.
"Millions of Ontarians need help now and are looking for solid plan for the future," Horwath said, "the economic situation for Ontarians is urgent and requires urgent action.
My leadership is about changing the way the provincial government operates. Ontarians cannot afford to wait for meetings in the legislature, so we're taking the legislature to Ontarians.
It's time Ontarians started making decisions about the direction of the party and the province."
-30-
For more information contact: Ramiro Mora, 647 966 8646
For what it's worth, CBC Radio's John McGrath just indicated that he thinks Tabuns is in first, Horwath in second, Bisson in third and Prue in fourth.
He also said that support (including labour support) is "split all over the place" and that it will come down to who the supporters of the third and fourth place candidates prefer as their second choice.
aka MyCroft - I too wouldn't be surprised if Gilles was elected leader or a close second. But numbers speak loudest and right now the race remains very close. The northern vote is completely solid with Gilles and the southern vote is fractured between Tabuns, Prue and Horwath. Tabuns support seems to be concentrated in the GTA. Prue's support seems to be in pockets around the province and Horwath's support seems to be concentrated in Hamilton.
While I'm pretty certain that Horwath has collected the least support in southern Ont., you cannot discount her labour support and labour will account for 25% of the vote. Labour is pretty fractured too. Andrea has OFL, Hamilton Labour Council and some Hamilton based OPSEU support. I suspect CUPE Ontario will throw Andera their vote as the president has worked on her campaigns. Tabuns has the support of CUPE local 1, T.O. area steelworkers, and Unite Here local 75. Prue has the support of COPE 343. Gilles has no union endorsements to date.
If Northwestern_lad is correct and the north has 25% of the membership, once you factor in labour's vote (25%), Gilles only has a 16% to 20% of the vote. If the rest of the vote is divided evenly among the southern candidates, they each have about 26.6% of the vote give or take - assuming that what Andrea lacks in membership support she makes up with labour support.
That said, Gilles could win if he can make some significant gains in the south - I'm not sure if he is capable of gaining significant support from labour. For a southern candidate to win, I think it will be on the second ballot, and I think they will need to appeal to northern voters as the second choice and/or pick up the labour vote as either first or second choice. I think Andrea and Prue are in a good position to appeal to labour's vote and as the second choice of the north. I'm not sure if Tabuns will be able to pick up more labour and I'm not sure if his platform appeals to the north - but hey - I've be wrong before
There is one issue that I would take with these figures, and that is that it assumes that Mr. Bisson has Zero labour support and Zero support outside of Northern Ontario. What I would say is that Mr. Bisson has that Northern block as a base of support, making that support not the ceiling but the only floor of his numbers, with plenty of opportunites to grow. The fact is that a lot of labour support is just starting to announce itself. For example, last week UFCW announced that it is endorsing Mr. Bisson, and they bring a big number of labour delegates with them. There are still many other unions to announce what they are going to do, so when more of that vote gets behind a Mr. Bisson, that percentage rises fast. As I have said elsewhere, this race is going to be exciting right down to the end because it's completely wide open.
I'm sure that Bisson has more than zero% support in the south and that he also has less than 100% support in the north.
If in fact the race is wide open and it will come down to who people dislike the least - i think Horvath will win because no one seems to object to her - she seems to be everyone's second choice and isn't divisive the way the other candidates seem to be. (Mind you that is how the Liberals got stuck with Dion!)
I think Tabuns will get support in lots of places outside the GTA, he has been endorsed by Paul Dewar of Ottawa and Irene Mathyssen of London and that is a sign that he has some elevel of support in both of those cities as well.
Does anyone have a list of which unions are actually affiliated to the NDP (OSSTF and the ECTFO are not - I don't think OPSEU is either though a few locals may be) and, moreover, is there a list or at least an educated guess of how labour representation breaks down ie what percentage (or what number of delegates) does Steel have, how many delegates is CUPE entitled to etc? Do labour councils send delegates? How many?
This should be public information but like a lot of things (eg the NDP policy book) it's not on the ONDP website.
I would flip second and third in John McGrath's handicapping, but don't otherwise disagree. What makes that interesting is that Gilles and Andrea have similar connections in labour, concentrated differently, and they are fairly close philosophically.
I was at the London all-candidates meeting and did a rough head count of who gravitated where after the speakers were done. Gilles Bisson was not the most lonely contender. Anyone who thinks he has no appeal in the south doesn't know how many riding association meetings he has addressed over the years. At one point he was the only MPP who could be counted on to speak outside his own riding with any frequency. Many, many old-timers remember that.
As I have said elsewhere, there is no superstar in this field, and no real dud either. Any of the four would be serviceable and they all have flaws or weaknesses.
I do not discount the importance of a clear vision in appealling to voters. If we have no vision we have no business in asking for a vote from anyone.
However, the most serious problems with the ONDP are organizational. We are, to be frank, a mess. I will not vote for any candidate that does not have a clear, believeable agenda for dealing with that.
How do I see the candidates in this regard? Like this (alphabetically by first name):
As a member of the party executive, Andrea has the closest personal connection to the existing order. She says many of the right things, but many members were not happy with very much about how the last campaign rolled out, and she will wear that, fairly or not. She understands the local nature of politics and ground organizing. She has some good people around her.
Gilles made the clearest and earliest identification of the problem, and he has the most cred as an organizational guy within his own riding. He is well kown in many ridings far from home because of his commitment to helping with AGMs and the like. I give him the advantage in this regard. He has certainly done a very good job organizing his campaign and has some serious talent on board. I think some people who counted him out early as a regional phenomenon didn't take a close enough look at his organizing team.
Michael has also spoken very clearly to the problem, but I think his $10k solution comes across as simplistic. Money matters, but in complicated ways. I sense that he has connected with this message just the same. I don't think it will be enough to overcome his organizational difficulties.
Peter has the largest number of party heavies on side, but a rundown shows many of them to be the people who were at the helm as we slammed from one shoal to the next over the last decade and a bit, and people who are angry have noticed. On the other hand, he also has some serious outside-the-box talent backing him as well. I think most of his support is premised on policy appeal, his urban appeal and a sense that he would be well known and accepted right out of the blocks, not organizational considerations. His widely-publicized union issues don't seem to be hurting him much.
I think that the membership's concerns have figured largely enough in this campaign that whoever wins will get the message.
At this point I'm down to two options, barring unforseen developments.
Having the party establishment on your side is a bit of a two edged sword. Granted they have helped get us where we are today, but let's face it with them at the helm we have been a chronic underachiever for how many decades now?
If we want new members we might want to shake the tree.
Yes alpha, the party establishment has done fabulous work getting us where we are today--a 10-member rump with a mid-seven figure debt.
Chronic underachiever is a chronic understatement. The state of the party these days is enough to make anyone reach for the chronic.
You have to wonder if the rank-and-file, who are finally out from under the thumb of a delegated convention, don't consider an endorsement from the party establishment to be the electoral equivalent to the kiss of death.
Make no mistake about it. The farther away you get from Richmond Street, the more palpable the sense of alienation and in some cases, anger.
Howard could have done more, but he was faced with a near impossible mess. In my opinion his main failing was too much loyalty to people who meant well but couldn't lift the freight. We could have had worse in charge.
The executive has performed poorly, frankly, with some exceptions (whose presence on line are invariably a source of enlightenment).
We could have cleared away many of the problems by chucking the Buzzard and some of his cronies in 1995 when he should have been chucked. The stupidity visited on the party in the 1995 campaign lingered far too long (in hope of a spontaneous healing that was never going to happen), and it continues to spread poison; too many problems were left unaddressed by the party apparatus.
Gilles should not be taking a knock for the failings of a party in which he has shown singular good sense.
Anyway, we need to move on and we need to have a leader who can move us on. I think we have options.
Here's how I see it at this point,
Gilles is the clear winner of the new membership drive, 1500+ new members, with some of the best organizers in the field. The other three leadership candidates singed up around 1,000 new member each , and are doing OK, not great, not a disaster, organizationally. While the race wlil not be decided by the 5,000 or so new members but mainly by the 20,000 or so regular members and the labour carve out, organizationally I would give the lead to Giles.
Donations over $100 has Gilles, Michael and Petrer all relatiely equal, over $30,000 with Andrea definitely fourth below $20,000..Yes, the figures are from December, yes they do not count donations under $100, yes candidates will raise money in the next month and go into debt, but financially I see it now ais a three way race between Gilles, Michael and Peter.
Endorsements/power brokers are hard to call, depening on how much weight you atack to them l. Personally I have great repect for Michael Lewis and Janet Solber and tend to think whoever they back, in this case Peter, will be on the final ballot. I also beleive that with Socalist Caucus and HESC backing, Michaell will win the floor fight.
I agree with Peter3 that Gilles should not be taking a knock for the fact that he has been around so long. The fact is that he's built up his own riding and won re-election not because of, but inspite of, the current party structure. That's why he's been running on party reform as one of his major planks. He realizes that if we are going to be successful as a party in every riding across the province, that's going to involve changing how we do our own business internally.
What is HESC? Also, what floor fight? The rules are set and Canadian conventions don't have floor fights over things like accepting delegate credentials. Finally, I'm not convinced that having the Socialist Caucus fighting for you on the floor is a benefit - sadly, a lot of delegates roll their eyes when they see an SC person at the mic and vote against whatever they're for (and vice versa).
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF
Last Updated: 6th February 2009, 5:09am
Ontario NDP leadership candidate Peter Tabuns has been accused of violating the union agreement covering his party's staff.
Tabuns' decision to lay off his executive assistant at Queen's Park last year has sparked a grievance from unionized NDP caucus staff, who are upset he hired another worker at his constituency office, which is represented by another union.
Tabuns has been endorsed by several unions in his bid as one of four candidates to replace Howard Hampton as leader of the Ontario NDP at the March 6-8 convention in Hamilton.
Randy Robinson, a spokesman for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, said OPSEU had been hoping to settle the grievance, but the issue appears headed to arbitration.
"It sounds like obscure, crazy, inside-union baseball but bargaining unit integrity really is the foundation of whether ... you can have a union in a workplace or not," Robinson said. "If you can't define the work that belongs in the bargaining unit, then you can't negotiate."
Tabuns noted that fellow New Democrat MPPs Peter Kormos and Gilles Bisson did not have executive assistants and the union did not file grievances in those cases.
"I've been in a situation where in order to contain my costs within my budget, I reduced my staff at Queen's Park," Tabuns said. "And the union wants me to increase my staff at Queen's Park ... I do my work; I open my own mail; I advise myself."
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/06/8287426-sun.html
Meanwhile in other news
"Endorsements for Peter Tabuns continue to pour in.
CEP Ontario Region Officers
IBEW Local 353
MP Paul Dewar, Ottawa Centre
and many more...
This morning CEP Ontario Regional Officers, including, CEP Ontario Regional Vice-President Bob Huget, and Administrative Vice-Presidents Barb Dolan and Kim Ginter endorsed Peter Tabuns.
As well, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 353, an affiliate of the Ontario NDP, also endorsed Peter, recalling the work Peter did on the Better Buildings Partnership, Toronto’s energy retrofit program for commercial businesses.
Late last week, Ottawa Centre MP Paul Dewar threw his support behind Peter Tabuns."
What I'd really like to know is how many grievances each candidate has had lodged against them by the various bargaining units...anyone got the skinny on that?
It might also be nice to know if the shuffling out of one QP staffer in exchange for more bodies at the constituency office allows PT to conduct more campaign work.
It may indeed be as Mycroft suggests, but the optics of such a thing taking place while gearing up for a leadership race are dreadful. Like I said, it may be nothing, but to a casual observer, it probably looks pretty shady.
you make the mistake of confusing 'casual observers' with 'most ontarians'.
casual observers are the 24,900 or so people eligible to vote. i'm guessing there are about 100 or so people who are actually taking an active role in the various campaigns.
most ontarians would probably find it either trivial or incomprehensible. pretty much the same way they view just about anything the party does these days.
something from that article really stuck out in my mind...
SNIP
Tabuns noted that fellow New Democrat MPPs Peter Kormos and Gilles Bisson did not have executive assistants and the union did not file grievances in those cases.
UNSNIP
Red Herring. The issue is whether he laid someone off from one unit, then hired someone for another unit. Classic Palin-esque....ooops, sorry, Tabuns-esque truthiness and misdirection.
SNIP
"I've been in a situation where in order to contain my costs within my budget, I reduced my staff at Queen's Park," Tabuns said. "And the union wants me to increase my staff at Queen's Park ... I do my work; I open my own mail; I advise myself."
UNSNIP
Where in God's name does he find the time to open his own mail, advise himself AND single-handedly draft an environment policy. Is he hiding extra arms, a la Vishnu?
"Where in God's name does he find the time to open his own mail, advise himself AND single-handedly draft an environment policy. Is he hiding extra arms, a la Vishnu?"
You could ask Bisson the same question since he apparently doesn't have an EA.
The bargaining unit stuff is a lot older than Peter Tabuns. I can't pretend to be an expert on it, but the QP caucus staff have had a beef for quite a while, and not with any one MPP. It comes down to why Tabuns made the change, and what the new constit person is doing. If they are doing work that belongs in the other unit, the grievance is reasonable. If not, it is not.
Part of it is undoubtedly budget, but it isn't always the whole story. There are lots of good reasons for wanting more consit staff. In Gilles' case, he has a riding bigger than many countries. He needs staff in his constituency more than he needs staff in Toronto. Frankly, if I were an elected official, I would rather have feet on the ground than someone to hold my coat.
I think people need to let this one work its way through the system.
i could, but i don't think bisson laid an EA off to put someone to work on his cam...at his constituency office.
and i also don't think bisson goes around telling people he single-handedly drafted policy, either.
and i doubt he goes around telling people he does his own work, as if that's somehow different from every other person on the planet who has a job.
Here we go again. Give it a rest - lets discuss their policies and not what has happened in the past - especially when it comes from a media source like the Toronto Sun.
BTW, congrats to all the campaigns on a job well done signing up new members.
Very simple really. Mr. Bisson has never had an EA at Queen's Park. He has always used the extra staff in his geographically large riding, where he has multiple constituency offices. The reason why there probably isn't any grievance against Mr. Bisson is that he has never had that staff position filled at Queen's Park.
just for the record, i want to say the tactic of shooting the messenger every time some leftie gets called out on their bs is completely lame, and something i sincerely think needs much more of a rest.
it's lazy and makes us look like we think our poos don't smell.
i should also note that the sun newsroom happens to be represented by CEP, so running down the source is like running down your brothers and sisters.
This just in:
Kormos endorses Horwath
It has nothing to do with the Union that represents them, it has to do with the Sun being the source of constant NDP bashing.
Edited