Broadbent endorses Tabuns, Kormos endorses Horwath, how will it affect 2nd choices?
Ed Broadbent Endorses Peter Tabuns for Ontario NDP Leadership
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Feb. 10, 2009) - Ed Broadbent, former leader of Canada's New Democrats, announced that he is supporting Peter Tabuns for the Ontario NDP leadership.
"Peter Tabuns has exactly the qualities of leadership the party and Ontario need. He is very intelligent, has a comprehensive view of social democracy and has the capacity to persuade new people to come with us," said Broadbent.
Ed Broadbent was first elected as the MP for Oshawa in 1968. He served as Leader of the federal party from 1975 to 1989. He returned to the House of Commons, sitting as the MP for Ottawa Centre from 2004-2005.
"I am thrilled to have Ed's support. It really means a lot to me personally because I think Ed is one of our country's greatest leaders," said Tabuns. "Ed gives politics a good name in Canada and I am proud to have him in my corner."
Peter Tabuns has received the public endorsement of over 1000 individual New Democrats, organized labour, the Ontario NDP youth wing, MPs Irene Mathyssen and Paul Dewar and fellow MPP Cheri DiNovo.
Please see www.tabuns09.ca for a full list.
The successor to NDP leader Howard Hampton will be elected at the Ontario NDP Convention March 6-8 at the Hamilton Convention Centre.
NDP vet Kormos backs Horvath for leadership
Updated: Fri Feb. 06 2009 2:22:41 PM
var byString = ""; var sourceString = "The Canadian Press"; if ((sourceString != "") && (byString != "")) { document.write(byString + ", "); } else { document.write(byString); } The Canadian Press
TORONTO — A veteran Ontario New Democrat is endorsing Andrea Horwath's bid for the party's top job.
Peter Kormos says his Hamilton colleague has his support to replace departing leader Howard Hampton.
He says Horwath is the leader the party needs to take the NDP into the next decade.
Horwath is the only woman among the four candidates who are running to replace Hampton.
Peter Tabuns, Michael Prue and Gilles Bisson have also thrown their hats into the ring.
The party will select its new leader in Hamilton on March 6.
Unionist, I'm shocked. What about his staunch opposition to unifying school boards?
I'm curious what the Socialist Caucus makes of Kormos' endorsement. The Socialist Caucus was campaigning for Kormos to run and then endorsed Prue when it became obvious Kormos wasn't a candidate.
The Kormos endorsment may influence some lefties to give Horwath another look. Those left NDPers who are supporting Prue may make Horwath their second choice (to be clear, there are "left NDPers" in various camps as none of the candidates is solidly on the "left" of the party. At best some are on the left on some issues and on the "right" (or centrist) on others.
I think you may have misunderstood my meaning when I said, "that would be enough for me."
Does anyone know the method of eliminating candidates at the bottom of the ladder after the first count? Do they take off just the last or all below a certain threshold?
So as each candidate is removed from the ballot, the 2nd place votes will be distributed and when someone gets to 50% they are the winner?
I wonder if the people at the convention have to make all their votes at once or if they vote after each elimination.....if it is the former, they will just announce a winner right?
That would lack dramatic tension
He's the antithesis of everything they claim to stand for.
Floyd Laughren.... didn't know he was still active in the Party. I thought he checked out like Bob Rae.
Don't mean to be disrespectful -if you check my previous comments you'll see that I quite admire Peter Kormos- but can you even compare the two endorsements? I personally think this is a pretty huge endorsement. Ed Broadbent has served the party for over 40 years, was our federal leader through some of our best times, his list of accomplishments long, and his popularity unquestionable. The last time I was truly proud of an NDP leader was when Ed Broadment was our federal leader. He commanded respect from all corners, was thoughtful and deliberate, and well liked. Frankly, I see many of these qualities in Peter Tabuns. Slightly less charisma admittedly, but given the spotlight, Tabuns could shine.
Notwithstanding that Unionist obviously isn't a fan of Broadbent's, in response to the opening post, it seems to me that Broadbent may have a more universal appeal and influence than Peter Kormos. Not only do some of the membership likely not even know who Kormos is, but also of those who do, some are not at all impressed by him. Opinions of Kormos aren't usually half measures.
Never mind second choices, this could impact the first choice on the ballots. Believe it or not many ONDP'ers don't even realize that a leadership race is on, or many who do, don't really know the candidates. So this endorsement could affect people who aren't leaning in any particular direction.
I got that endorsement by email today too.
For crying in the sink, it arrived in ENGLISH ONLY! We just finished going through with all those candidates in Ottawa the other weekend, the embarrassment of our party only communicating in one language and trying to get elected in Eastern Ontario and the North. They ALL promised to do better, and yet we still get these emails in one language.
Do people in Toronto still not get it!?!?!
[ok, sorry about the rank; I've got it out of my system now]
Oops,
That is my fault that the posting is here. My apologies. What should/can I do? Can I move it over to the other spot?
Hey, Michelle, I'm just havin' some fun here! It's not my province, so I don't really have a say in picking leaders. I do agree with you about Kormos.
However:
1. You know how I feel about Dewar, I believe.
2. Broadbent downplayed opposition to Free Trade in the 1988 election, helped Mulroney win a second majority, and was rewarded by being appointed head of that newly-created Human Rights organization. I once had a little debate with him when I suggested that basic economic rights should be entrenched in the constitution like others (right to a job, right to a roof over your head, right to education, etc.), and he got livid saying I didn't understand constitutional law. In December 2005, he gave a seminal interview where he condemned the "demonization" of Stephen Harper, thus giving his blessing to what came after in the NDP campaign (including failure to condemn Harper's anti-women policies such as the anti-childcare monthly subsidy, teaming up with the Conservatives to create a phoney scandal about Ralph Goodale, etc.).
3. Di Novo - don't know.
So, I know nothing about Tabuns (or Horwath), but if people are promoting them based on who is endorsing them, then I have something to say about that.
I'm just having fun too - I don't have a say in picking the NDP leader either since I don't belong to the party. :)
Interesting experiences you've had. I don't know how you feel about Dewar, but I'm assuming from the posts in this thread that "not a big fan" might be a way of putting it?
"In December 2005, he gave a seminal interview where he condemned the "demonization" of Stephen Harper, thus giving his blessing to what came after in the NDP campaign (including failure to condemn Harper's anti-women policies such as the anti-childcare monthly subsidy, teaming up with the Conservatives to create a phoney scandal about Ralph Goodale, etc.)."
How can you of all post people such a load of crap. Have you been cutting and pasting from Liberal bloggers like Jason Cherniack and Warren Kinsella - because they are the only ones that still believe that Liberal fantasy.
Malcolm Allen, MP for Welland, endorsed Andrea Horwath today. This leaves Jack Layton, Toronto-Danforth; Olivia Chow, Trinity—Spadina; Joe Comartin, Windsor—Tecumseh; Wayne Marston, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and Brian Masse, Windsor West as the Ontario NDP MPs yet to declare. Marston is a curious holdout given that he's in Horwath's backyard.
As for MPPs, Hampton and Marchese are left to declare. Hampton will likely remain officially neutral but I understand he's informally supporting one of the candidates.
I read somewhere that the unions get 25% of the vote but I also read that it is one member one vote.
Which is it?
Stockholm, I'm just being honest about my feelings. If there is something in the above that is not factual, let me know. But I'm glad you didn't (yet) challenge the rest of what I said about Broadbent.
In this thread, I mentioned Dewar's threat to the OC Transpo drivers that the NDP would support back to work legislation if the drivers didn't agree to his terms on binding arbitration - a position never adopted by the NDP caucus.
I also mentioned his shameless written applause of Stephen Harper's decision that Canada would be the first country to announce a boycott of the U.N. Human Rights meeting in Geneva (Durban II) based on pro-Israeli smears of Durban I - another position which was never adopted by the NDP caucus, leading to the removal of Dewar's statement from the NDP website.
As foreign affairs critic, his comment on Harper's criminal response to the Gaza slaughter was to critique it as "muted" and to demand that Canada play a more "robust" role in aid delivery and monitoring an eventual ceasefire.
He's not a moral person.
ETA: Oh, I guess I shouldn't forget to mention his latest act of moral cowardice, yesterday.
I don't even know where to begin to repudiate your tripe about what Brfoadbent had to say. First of all, the NDP condemned Harper's child care policies in the 2006 election over and over and over and over again - but they also criticized the Liberals for breaking promises to take action on child care for 13 consecutive years. Good for them. The idea that the NDP teamed up with the Tories to create a phony scandal about Goodale is so ridiculous that you might as well start telling us that the world is flat. Guess what parties call for investigations of possible corruption among their opponents all the time and this was no exception. There was evidence that some weird stuff was happening on the stock markerts just before the income trust announcement and any responsible opposition party would raise questions. Its not the NDP's job to refrain from demanding answers when there is reason to believe that a Liberal government did something unethical - just because we don't want to make the Liberals look bad. Its also not up to the NDP when the RCMP decides to publicize the fact that its looking into the matter.
Let's face, the Liberals try to demonize Harper - not because they actually disagree with anything that he stands for - but because its a convenient tactic for them to try to get New Democrats to vote Liberal. When you heard Paul Martin sanctimoniously intoning about how 2006 was the MOST IMPORTANT election in Canadian history and about how people had TWO STARK CHOICES etc... he knew full well this this was not to get a single solitary person to switch from Conservative to Liberal - it was all about hoodwinking New Democrats into voting for him under the false premise that he as PM would be some progressive's wet dream.
As for the other stuff. Broadbent is probably rightn and you DON'T understand constitutional law. I suspect that he probably knows vastly more about the topic than you do.
The fact that the NDP didn't choose to put a major emphasis on free trade at the start of the 1988 election campaign didn't help Mulroney win that election - the Tories were going to scoop up 100% of the pro-free trade vote no matter what. It hurt the NDP in the end because it allowed the Liberals to win over anti-free votes that might otherwise have gone NDP - so MAYBE if the NDP had built its whole campaign around opposition to free trade - ther NDP might have won a couple more seats and the Liberals a couple less - MAYBE - but the Tories would have still won the election. In fact the emergence of free trade as the main issue in that campaign actually HELPED the Tories because it was a wedge issue that worked well for them against a divided issue. They would have had a harder time winning if free trade had NOT been the main issue because then people would have cast their ballots based on which leader they liked best (Broadbent hand down) and on the vast amount of Tory corruption that was in the headlines in the mid-80s.
Well, Stock, you like Broadbent, I don't. It has a lot to do with what you and I like and don't like about the NDP. And the world. Thanks for explaining your view.
By the way, when I spoke of the NDP teaming up with the Conservatives to create a phoney scandal about Goodale (which, by the way, turned the tide of the campaign, as everyone who followed the polls and media knows), I meant Judy Wasylycia-Leis teaming up with Paul Summerville.
Again, its not the NDP job to cover-up Liberal scandal and unethical practices. The Liberals are quite capable of doing that themselves. Are you seriously suggesting that if an NDP MP found evidence that Michael Ignatieff had done something flagrantly or even possibly illegal - they should sit on the info so as not to cause the Liberals to lose votes.
Should the NDP have also turned a blind eye to the sponsorship scandal because it might make the "darling Liberals" look bad
It was a political ploy in the middle of an election campaign. I don't have time for those Liberal apologists who blame the NDP for "defeating" the government in November. But to defend the crass opportunistic antics of Wasylycia-Leis and Paul Summerville is a bit much.
Of course not. But they should have condemned Harper's cynical daycare "subsidy" as being designed to divert and destroy the fragile accord on real child care that emerged from a minority government where the NDP held significant influence. But they had no confidence that the Canadian electorate would understand the difference between a bribe (and a measly and meaningless one at that) and building a new historic social program. So, with Olivia Chow in the lead, all they did was complain about the taxability of the $100. Anyway, it's just bad memories of an incompetent and unprincipled campaign - Afghanistan, so-con positions on crime, Clarity Act, tax cuts, the whole list of horrors.
Blame Zaccardelli then.
WOW, a political ploy in the middle of an election campaign - well knock me over with a feather - who ever heard of such a thing!!!
I am not familiar with the concept of a weighting system for 25% of the votes for labour. Does that mean that individual members of certain unions vote ofr whoever or that certain unions will cast x amount of votes for one candidate or another. is their a list of which unions get how many votes? Is this all written down somewhere? It seems hugely important to me but nobody else seems to be paying attention to it in these threads. Have I missed something?